19-CIV-01007 MONTANA CAPITAL, LLC VS. PETER PAU, ET AL.

MONTANA CAPITAL, LLC PETER PAU
JUSTIN G. REDEN STEVEN P. BRACCINI

PLAINTIFF MONTANA CAPITAL, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL TENTATIVE RULING:

On 8-30-19, Plaintiff Montana Capital LLC filed a motion seeking to compel Defendant Los Altos-El Camino Associates, LLC to provide additional information in response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 15 (Set One). Although the motion is not captioned as a motion to compel a further response per Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, that is the motion’s clear intent, and both parties treat the motion as such, and thus the Court deems the motion as seeking to compel a further response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 15.

The motion is GRANTED. The only objections argued in the Opposition brief relate to relevance and privacy rights. Neither has merit.

The requested information is discoverable

A civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. Under the Legislature’s “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 542; Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. The discoverability of the requested information here does not appear to be a close question. The Complaint centers on an alleged fraudulent transfer of third party Daniel Kelleher’s interest in Defendant LLC to Defendant Pau for $1 million. The fair market value of Kelleher’s interest in the LLC appears to be relevant to the case. In response to a subpoena served on Defendant LLC, Mr. Pau, the LLC’s managing member, responded to the subpoena, stating: “In 2013, Mr. Kelleher wanted to liquidate his interest, and per the LLC Operating Agreement, he had to offer to all other members, but there was no interest for two years. Finally, I agreed to buy him out based on a fair market valuation.” Based on the foregoing, at a minimum, the LLC members appear to be relevant witnesses with potentially relevant information. Parties serving discovery are entitled to learn “the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 541; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2017.010, 2030.010.

The privacy objection lacks merit

Defendants’ Opposition brief recites well-known case law/authority providing that individuals have limited privacy rights with respect to personal financial information. See, generally, Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656-658. None of it applies here. Importantly, the interrogatory does not seek any information other than the LLC members’ names and contact information. To the extent it impacts privacy rights at all, which is

questionable, that concern can be adequately addressed through use of the Protective Order issued in the case. See Stipulated Protective Order, filed 8-6-19.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant LLC and its counsel, the Sheppard, Mullin firm, jointly and severally, is GRANTED-IN-PART in the amount of $1,500, to be paid to Plaintiff within 20 days of this Order. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d) mandates sanctions where the party opposing the motion has not acted with “substantial justification,” or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. For the reasons stated above, the issue here is not a close question. Defendant LLC should have provided this basic information without the need for Court intervention.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.