18-CIV-04230 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. BKD VENTURES, LLC, ET AL.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BKD VENTURES, LLC
JOEL MCCOMB DAVID S. HENSHAW

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE PEOPLE’S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES, FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING:

A. Form Interrogatories

1.1 (Kelly Dinger, Bruce Dinger, and BKD). Granted. Defendants failed to answer.

2.6 (Kelly Dinger). Granted. The supplemental response shall indicate all titles and lines of work.

2.7 (Kelly Dinger). Granted. Even if Kelly Dinger did not attend high school or other American educational institutions, she must respond as to any “other academic or vocational institutions,” as stated in the interrogatory.

3.7 (Kelly Dinger, Bruce Dinger, and BKD). Denied as to Kelly Dinger, who responded fully and unambiguously, “No.” Denied as to Bruce Dinger and BKD. Moving party argues that Bruce Dinger’s response does not specify the business to which his response pertains, but the interrogatory does not ask for that information. Moving party also argues that Bruce Dinger has not identified any business registrations in California, but no evidence suggests that Bruce Dinger has any business in California. Moving party argues that Bruce Dinger and Kelly Dinger have identified themselves as an owner of K&K Beauty” (Separate Statement at 6:18-22), but the motion presents no evidence of that contention.

17.1 (Kelly Dinger). Denied as to requesting identification of “3rd parties” to whom Kelly Dinger referred customers. The RFAs ask for admissions that Kelly Dinger posted photos, advertised, sold Groupons, operated a body art facility, performed body art, failed to perform various mandatory acts relating to operation of a body art service. The identity of third parties to whom Kelly Dinger referred customers is not within the reasonable scope of facts explaining her failing to admit the RFAs.

a. Grant as to RFA 3. The RFA asks about sales of Groupons, but the response describes only advertising activity.

b. Denied as to RFA 10. The RFA asks for an admission that Kelly Dinger “failed to keep records…” The response states that Kelly Dinger attempted and tried to comply, which impliedly admits that she did not comply. Moving party does not suggest what further facts can be provided. c. Granted as to RFAs 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. The responses do not relate to the RFAs.

B. Special Interrogatories

4.2 (Bruce Dinger). Granted. The interrogatory asks for “other” sources of revenue, without identifying “other than what?” Regardless, the motion is granted to compel Bruce Dinger to identify all sources of revenue, if any, other than Kennsei Trading, Inc. 4.8 (BKD). Granted. BKD responds that it is “unaware of its total yearly income for the past four years.” If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, “it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2030.220, subd. (b).) BKD must provide its best estimate of yearly income for years other than 2017. BKD states that its tax returns are being prepared, which implies that BKD provided income information to the person preparing those returns. BKD must supply the information.

4.9 (Kelly Dinger, Bruce Dinger). Granted. Defendants state that their CPA is preparing their tax returns. Presumably, Defendants supplied the CPA with information that is responsive to this interrogatory. That information must be provided.

4.12 (Kelly Dinger, Bruce Dinger). Granted. Defendants responded with “none.” It is highly unlikely that Defendants reside in a property that they neither own nor lease. Defendants shall supplement their response to state specifically the manner in which they hold a right to hold possession in their residence. (i. e., ownership, rental, lease, boarders.) 4.20 (Kelly Dinger). Denied. The response identifies equipment. Although the response does not expressly state that the equipment was supplied to K&K, the interrogatory makes that specification. Therefore, the answer is presumed to relate to equipment supplied to K&K. The interrogatory asks for a description and identification of equipment. The Court is unable to determine whether “describe” or “identify” asks for dates or quantities, because Plaintiff does not define those terms. (See CRC Rule 3.1345(c)(4) (separate statement must include definitions or instructions, if necessary).)

4.24 (Kelly Dinger and Bruce Dinger). Grant. Defendants shall supplement their responses to specifically identify the “documents” referenced in their responses.

C. Request for Documents. 1, 4, 6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 (All defendants). Granted. Defendants shall produce the documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.”

13 (Kelly Dinger). Denied. The Separate Statement fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1345(c)(5) (requiring text of other discovery request and answer, when response is dependent on other discovery request).

5 & 20 (Kelly Dinger). Granted. Defendant shall supplement her responses as they relate to Defendant’s supplemental responses to Interrogatories 4.9 and 4.24, as ordered above.

8 (Kelly Dinger and Bruce Dinger). Granted. Defendants shall supplement their responses as they relate to Defendants’ supplemental responses to Interrogatory 4.12, as ordered above.

18, 20 (BKD). Granted. Defendant shall produce the documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.”

D. Sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in the amount of $2,500.00, jointly and severally against Defendants Kelly Dinger and Bruce Dinger.

E. Ruling.

Defendants Kelly Dinger, Bruce Dinger, and BKD Ventures, LLC shall serve verified supplemental responses no later than June 21, 2019, or two weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever date is later.

Defendants Kelly Dinger and Bruce Dinger shall jointly and severally pay a sanction of $2,500.00 to Plaintiff, People of the State of California, no later than June 14, 2019, or one week after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever date is later.

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.