Case Number: 19BBCV00181 Hearing Date: December 13, 2019 Dept: A

Weiner v Jianxiang

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Calendar:

05

Case No.:

19BBCV00181

Hearing Date:

December 13, 2019

Action Filed:

February 27, 2019

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Defendants Moregain Pictures, Inc.; Morgain Capital Group; Jian-Xiang Shi; Jaguar Entertainment Group, Inc.

RP:

Plaintiff Jesse Weiner; Cross-Defendant Maioxin Yu

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from the alleged breach of contract/wrongful termination of Plaintiff Jesse Weiner (“Plaintiff”) by Defendants Jian-Xiang Shi (“Shi”); Qinghua Chen (“Chen”); Fukang Wan (“Wan”); Moregain Pictures, Inc. (“MPI”); Morgain Capital Group (“MCG”) U.S.-China Motion Picture Association (“UCMPA”); Sunland Entertainment, LLC (“Sunland”); and Jaguar Entertainment Group, Inc. (“Jaguar” and collectively the “Defendants”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants waited until Plaintiff was visiting his ailing mother in Arizona in February 2019, before locking him out of the company, and refusing to pay the compensation owed to him under the terms of his employment contract.

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on February 27, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 12, 2019, alleging seven causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Quantum Meruit, (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (4) Unfair Business Practices, (5) Wrongful Termination Against Public Policy, (6) Defamation, and (7) Alter-Ego Doctrine.

Shi, MPI, and MCG (the “Cross-Complainants”) filed a Cross Complaint (“XC”) on June 03, 2019, against Plaintiff Jesse Weiner (“Weiner”) and Maioxin Yu (“Yu” and together the “Cross-Defendants”). In the XC, Cross-Complainants allege nine cause of action sounding in (1) Fraud, (2) Negligent Misrepresentation, (3) Breach of Written Contract, (4) Legal Malpractice, (5) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, (6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, (7) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, (8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Duty of Loyalty, and (9) Declaratory Relief.

PRESENTATION:

Moving Defendants MPI, MCG, Shi, and Jaguar (the “Moving Defendants”) filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Request for Production on November 01, 2019. Plaintiff and Yu filed opposition on December 02, 2019, and reply brief was filed on December 06, 2019.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Moving Defendants move for an order compelling further responses to Request for Production Nos. 42, 43, 46, and 47, together with $5,902.00 in sanctions.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel further to Requests for Production where the responding party provides inadequate, incomplete, or evasive responses, or the objections are too general or without merit. The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve all issues raised by the motion. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(2). A motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production must further specifically identify facts showing good cause for the discovery. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1). The motion must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses or supplemental responses. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(c). Sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h).

Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)(1) requires the movant to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document described in the request for production or deposition notice. In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence). In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production. Subsequently, in Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 216 at 224, the Court identified the manner for establishing good cause under Calcor: “To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”

The same issue identified in Calcor exists here. The declaration of the moving party’s attorney does not include any specific facts showing good cause for the inspection of the documents sought in each of the requests for production at issue. Counsel does not offer any sufficient specific facts regarding the documents sought, the requests for production, or the disputed facts that are of consequence in the action to explain how the discovery sought will tend to prove or disprove the disputed fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact. This does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1) as set forth in Calcor and Digital Music.

In addition to the deficiencies in establishing the relevance of the discovery sought, the Court has reviewed of the four requests for production at issue and finds that RFP Nos. 42 and 43 are overbroad on their face, as they do not comply with Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.030(c)(1)’s requirement to designate documents “either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” So too are RFP Nos. 46 and 47, although they are slightly more particularized in time and content, they do not particularize the category or categories of information sought.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the instant motion to compel further responses to requests for production.

Sanctions – As sanctions are mandatory under Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h), the Court will award Plaintiff and Yu sanctions. The declaration of Nathan Behnam attests to his hourly rate of $250/hr and the time spent on the opposition of 12 hours (12 x 250 = 3,000). And yet, the applicable case law “Calcor and Digital” cited above controls the resolution of this matter, and papers setting forth the same could have been completed in an hour and allowing two hours for the court appearance, the total reasonable time is three hours, not twelve. Sanctions will be awarded in the amount of $750.00.

—

RULING: THE MOTION IS DENIED; AND

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED TO Plaintiff Jesse Weiner AND Cross-Defendant Maioxin Yu IN THE AMOUNT OF $750.00.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants Moregain Pictures, Inc.; Morgain Capital Group; Jian-Xiang Shi; and Jaguar Entertainment Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production came on regularly for hearing on December 13, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED; AND

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED TO Plaintiff Jesse Weiner AND Cross-Defendant Maioxin Yu IN THE AMOUNT OF $750.00.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE