Lawzilla Update: Lawzilla believes the court’s final order was different and no sanctions were imposed.

18-CIV-00405 NICHOLAS PIERCE VS. GARRY GEORGE LOSK, ET AL.

NICHOLAS PIERCE GARRY GEORGE LOSK
DAVID Y. CHUN JOHN A. BURKE

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY NICOLAS PIERCE TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff NICHOLAS PIERCE’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents is DENIED.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION’s corporate books and records are necessary to prove his one-line allegation that “at all relevant times, LOSK and HDC were alter egos of each other.” (Complaint ¶7.) Under California law, to invoke the alter ego doctrine, a plaintiff must show (1) that there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities no longer exist, and (2) if a separate corporate existence is acknowledged, an “inequitable result” will follow. Automotriz v. Resnick (1957) 47 Cal.2d 792, 796.

Significant to the determination of an “inequitable” result is undercapitalization of the corporation relative to its business. Automotriz, supra. In this case, Plaintiff is unable to show such undercapitalization, or that an “inequitable result” will follow from acknowledging HDC’s separate corporate existence. While Plaintiff insists that HDC’s insurance policy excludes bodily injury claims arising from residential construction, HDC has served verified discovery responses confirming that there is no reservation of rights with respect to its own insurance carrier (on a $1 million policy), and that HDC is named as an additional insured under several subcontractors’ policies, resulting in insurance coverage of $2 million aggregate. (Decl. Sommer ¶¶ 22, 34.) Thus, should Plaintiff manage to prevail on his claims, there are ample sources of recovery available to him.
Plaintiff’s insistence that he has the right to go after LOSK personally, in spite of these assurances of ample insurance coverage, demonstrates that the purpose of this discovery is to oppress and harass. While Plaintiff certainly has a general right to discovery, there are limits on “fishing expeditions.” The Court can and should intervene to control discovery requests that place more burden on the responding party than the value of the information warrants. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 225. Moreover, the Court is authorized to limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the “burden, expense or intrusiveness clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a). Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $3,160.00.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant 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.