Windy Bise vs. Quick Bridge Funding, LLC

Reply to Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.September 28, 2016

© O e N N Wh BA W N em N O N N N N N N N N mm e m e m e m p e e d e d e d pe me d 0 ~~ NN hh R W =, O L N N l a m e AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 FAWN F. BEKAM, State Bar No. 307312 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, Irvine, California 92618 ) County of Orange Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 04/13/2018 at 04:13:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court Attorneys for Plaintiff By e Clerk Deputy Clerk WINDY BISE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - COMPLEX WINDY BISE., an individual, CASE NO.: 30-2016-00877913-CU-OE-CJC Plaintiff. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO ’ HON. WILLIAM D. CLASTER, DEPT. CX102 Vs. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF WINDY QUICK BRIDGE FUNDING, LLC, BISE’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER formerly known as BLACKROCK RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR LENDING GROUP, LLC, a California PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Hearing Date: April 20, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Defendants. Dept: ) CX-102 Reservation No.: 72768473 Action Filed: September 28, 2016 Trial Date: None Set -1- REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP (SET TWO) Oo 00 NN AN Wn BR W N ea N O N N N ND DN DN N N = =m mE e m m e e m e m e m pe d p m «ww N A N Rs W N = D Y e N N N n l , W N D = o MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES This is the ultimate case of hypocrisy. Quick Bridge Funding, LLC (“Defendant™) is withholding requested documents that specifically relate to its own contentions in this matter, using its boilerplate claims of privilege as both a shield and a sword. In its Opposition to Plaintiff] Windy Bise’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel, Defendant does not dispute that it has provided inadequate responses and has not provided a privilege log. What makes Defendant’s actions even more egregious is that it has transformed the requirement to meet and confer into a filibuster in order to grant itself more than eight months to avoid discovery. Defendant’s outright refusal to provide adequate responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, and to identify with specificity what documents its unjustified objections apply to and why, forced Plaintiff to file this motion. Without Code-compliant responses and a privilege log, Plaintiff has no way of determining if Defendant is withholding documents, what those documents are, and on what basis they have been withheld, granting Defendant carte blanche to sandbag Plaintiff at trial. LL DEFENDANT’S SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES ARE INADEQUATE Defendant acknowledges that it is in possession of documents responsive to each and every one of Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. Yet Defendant has also avoided (three times) stating that it is complying with each Request either in whole or in part. Specifically, Defendant “believes” it is partly complying with each and every Request, because it believes each and every Request is objectionable. Therefore, the only adequate response Defendant can give in these circumstances is outlined by Section 2031.240(a)': If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category. A statement of compliance “shall state the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part” Cal. Civ. Code § 2031.220. Defendant points to no authority exempting it from the requirements of Section 2031.010 ef seq., nor any authority permitting it to hide the ball from ! Because Defendant does not identify a single Request it is unable to comply with, it remains unclear why it insists on detailing its search and inquiry. DL REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP (SET TWO) No e e 1 Sy 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff due to the burdens of substantiating the allegations Defendant itself made in response to Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery. II. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS ARE NOT VALID PURSUANT TO CODE Further, Defendant’s counsel’s explanation of its search for documents and sweeping generalizations of its privilege objections are not sufficient grounds to avoid giving Code- compliant responses and a privilege log. Defendant is required, pursuant to Section 2031.240(b), to: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within the category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. Yet Defendant has not identified a single document to which it makes an objection and refused to produce a privilege log altogether.” Defendant’s insistence that its objections based on confidential/trade secret information and consumer/employee records allow it to withhold information without identifying the documents they allegedly apply to and without providing sufficient factual information for Plaintiff and the Court to evaluate the merits of that claim are completely unfounded. Defendant cannot force Plaintiff to guess which of the thousands of redactions Defendants have made were done pursuant to a claim of third party privacy rights, particularly when Defendant has taken the liberty of rendering scores of documents unintelligible by blacking them out in their entirety. Moreover, a claim that information is protected as a trade secret is unquestionably a claim of privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code § 1060. I I ? Strangely, Defendant has submitted a proposed order ordering it to produce a privilege log as to the redactions it has made pursuant to claims of attorney-client/attorney work product, though it refused to provide a privilege log altogether when Plaintiff requested it. Re REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP (SET TWO) © © N N N WL RA W O N N N N N N N N N N = mm mm e k em e d p d e m m a p m Co N N N hh B R A W N O R , O O N N R W em III. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO COMPEL IS IMPROPER Defendant’s [Proposed] Order requests that the Court order the parties to “execute the Protective Order proposed by defense counsel.” Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff has previously offered compromises that would protect any confidentiality concerns had Defendant been willing to comply with its obligations above, Defendant’s request for a protective order is procedurally improper. A party who seeks the entry of a protective order must promptly move via a noticed motion and show good cause for the issuance of a protective order. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2031.060(a); Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1130, 1145. Defendant has not done that, nor has it presented the Court with any good cause as to why its request should be granted. Indeed, this case has been pending for more than eighteen months without a protective order in place. At no point has Defendant moved this Court for a protective order, and no information has been disseminated to the public regarding this matter by Plaintiff or her counsel. IV. PLAINTIFF ENGAGED IN SEVERAL GENUINE ATTEMPTS TO MEET AND CONFER WITH DEFENDANT Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff did not fulfill her meet and confer requirements is untenable. As exhaustively detailed in Plaintiff's moving papers, she met and conferred with Defendant countless times in order to avoid burdening this Court, and only did so when Defendant unequivocally refused to provide adequate responses. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that her Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, be granted in its entirety, and that the Court order Defendant to provide verified, Code-compliant, supplemental responses with a corresponding production of unredacted documents and/or a privilege log within 10 days. Plaintiff further requests that the Court order Defendant and/or its attorney of record to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,925.00 for its deliberate misuse of the discovery process. -4- REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP (SET TWO) NO 0 N N BR W N N N N ND N N N N O N = mm e d e a e e md p m p m e d em 0 N N N R W R O O ” N N N R W = o Dated: April 13,2018 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC yw LA SS Samuel A. Wong Fawn F. Bekam Attorneys for Plaintiff WINDY BISE -5- REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP (SET TWQ) © o o 1 ON Lh BRA W N em RN DN N O N N N N N N m mm r m m m e m e m Em m em Re ad o o ~~ O N Dn R W N e O N 0 O N Dn R W N = © CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; am employed with Aegis Law Firm PC and my business address is 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. On April 13, 2018, I served the foregoing document entitled: e REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF WINDY BISE’S MOTION TO COMPEL Spe RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, T TWO on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing [ | the original [X a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Marie Burke Kenny marie. kenny@procopio.com Annie Macaleer annie.macaleer@procopio.com Lauren N. Vega lauren. vega@procopio.com Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP 525 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, CA 92101 Attorneys for Defendant: Quick Bridge Funding, LLC ] (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing this affidavit. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) X (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Aegis Law Firm PC for collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(c); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) [] (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) to be served via electronic transmission to the addressee(s) listed above on the date below. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(6); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)2)(E); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(3).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 13, 2018, at Irvine, California. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE