Response Reply

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 30, 2020

Phillip G. Vermont, SBN 132035 RANDICK O'DEA TOOLIATOS VERMONT 4 SARGKNT, LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, California 94588 Telephone: (925) 460-3700 Facsimile: (925) 460-0969 Email: nvermont@randicklaw.corn Attorneys for Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 First Point Oakmead LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. MiaSole, a California corporation, MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 25, Defendants. Case No.: 20CV362450 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ASSETS, AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO ASSET NTERROGATORIKS, AND A REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT, MIASOLE Hl-TECH CORP. UNLAWFUL DETAINER 19 Date: Time: Dept: November 24, 2021 9:15 a.m. Commissioner Erik Johnson - Dept. 4 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Action Filed: January 30, 2020 Entry of Judgment: August 19, 2020 I. INTRODUCTION Defendant MIASOLE HI-TECH CORP. has opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories, based, generally, on discovery rules during the case. None of the legal authority cited by Defendant' counsel applies to post judgment asset discovery. REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; CASE NO.: 20CV362450 537020 docx Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/19/2021 9:09 AM Reviewed By: R. Tien Case #20CV362450 Envelope: 7701498 In addition, Defendant has waived all objections to the discovery by failing to raise any objection except relevancy, it has filed no motion for protective order, nor has it submitted any factual declaration in support of the opposition. For the reasons stated in the moving papers and this reply brief, Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to the Order requiring Defendant to produce substantive responses to the asset discovery. II. LAW A. WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS. 10 Where a timely response is made, the responding party cannot later add objections without a court order granting relief from the waiver. Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Superior Court ($/iyglass Homeowners Assn.) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4'" 263, 273. In addition, California Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.290(a), states that omitting a claim of privilege in the 12 13 14 original discovery response waives the objection. Scottsdaie Insurance Company, supra, at 273. Here, of course, responding party has only raised one single objection, and by code, asset discovery is allowed and relevant, contrary to the objection. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 B. POST JUDGEMENT, THERE IS NO PRIVACY RIGHT FOR ASSET INFORMATION. The case of Lee v. Swansbota Country Property Owners Association (2007) 151 Cal.App.4'" 575, is dispositive and clearly allows discovery of full asset information. "In order to determine a debtor's assets, a judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories and/or demand the production of documents in the manner provided by the general discovery statutes, and the judgment debtor's response must likewise follow the same discovery provisions. ()II 708.020, 708.030) By propounding interrogatories and demanding the production of documents, a creditor may obtain needed information by relatively simple and inexpensive means. As one practice guide notes, "An inspection demand may provide the judgment creditor with documents disclosing the debtor's assets or earnings (e.g., tax returns, financial statements, payroll stubs, real property deeds, stock certificates, passbooks, deposit account statements, bonds, trust deeds, automobile owner certificates (pink slips), promissory notes, etc.)'*" Lee v. Swansboro, supra, at 580 through 581. 28 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; CASE NO.: 20CV362450 537020 00 III. CONCLUSION Because Defendant has waived all objections except relevancy, it may not raise new objections at this time. There should be no limitation of what is provided, including providing 4 trade secrets, because those may have value as an asset. Defendant simply has no legal authority to further object at this time, nor can it withhold any of the asset information sought by the 6 Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant has filed no protective order, nor has it provided any declaration 7 in support of the opposition. 8 While Plaintiff would be willing to agree to a simply stipulated protective order, the 9 scope of what Defendant was seeking is simply too broad and would eliminate several of the categories of asset information. Plaintiff doe 11 Date: November 19, 2021 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES'I CASE NO.: 20CV362450 537020 0 PROOF OF SERVICE 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I, Sue Betti, declare: I am employed in Alameda County, State of California, am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225, Pleasanton, California 94588. I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and/or other overnight delivery. Under overnight delivery practice, all mailings are deposited in an authorized area for pick-up by an authorized express service courier the same day it is collected and processed in the ordinary course of business. On the date set forth below, I served the within: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ASSETS, AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO ASSET NTKRROGATORIES) AND A REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT, MIASOLE HI-TECH CORP. on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, and each envelope addressed as follows: Mark W. Hostetter, Esq. Law Office of Mark W. Hostetter 181 Devine St. San Jose, CA 95110 mwhleual@umail.corn [X ] (By U.S. Mail) I caused each such envelope to be served by depositing same, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course ofbusiness at Pleasanton, California. [X ] (By Electronic Service) The above-referenced document was served by electronically mailing a true and correct copy through Randick O'Dea & Tooliatos LLP's electronic mail system, to the email addresses set forth as listed above„and in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(b). I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 19, 2021, at Pleasanton, California. 21 22 Sue petti 23 24 26 PROOF OF SERVICE n7020.4* «