Sheridan Pacific LLC vs. Ronnie Pritchett

Motion to Compel Discovery

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 9, 2018

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Malcolm B. Roberts (242431) mroberts@landayroberts.com John K. Landay, Esq. (257573) jlanday@landayroberts.com LANDAY ROBERTS LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-5712 Attorney for Defendants Ronnie Pritchett and Nancy Pritchett SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIDAN PACIFIC, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; Plaintiff, Vs. RONNIE PRITCHETT, an individual; NANCY PRITCHETT, an individual; ASHDON GOLF LLC, a California limited liability corporation; TRIPLELITE LLC, a California limited liability corporation, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 37-2018-00001017-CU-FR-CTL DEFENDANT NANCY PRITCHETT’S MOTION TO COMPEL (A)FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF SHERIDAN PACIFIC, (B) FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF SHERIDAN PACIFIC, (CO)FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF SHERIDAN PACIFIC, AND (D)FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF SHERIDAN PACIFIC, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NANCY PRITCHETT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF SHERIDAN PACIFIC; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NANCY PRITCHETT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF SHERIDAN PACIFIC; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NANCY PRITCHETT’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON PLAINTIFF SHERIDAN PACIFIC; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN K. LANDAY; PROPOSED ORDER Hearing Date: February 8, 2019 Time: 10:30 a.m. Department: C-68 Judge: Hon. Judith F. Hayes Trial Date: April 26, 2019 TO PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on that on February 8, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in Department C-68 ofthis Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, Defendant Nancy Pritchett will and does move this Court 1. For an order compelling Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific to provide further responses to Nancy Pritchett’s Requests for Admissions, Set One; 2. For an order compelling Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific to provide further responses to Nancy Pritchett’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory 17.1; 3. For an order compelling Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific to provide further responses to 2 Notice ofMotion and Motion to Compel 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Nancy Pritchett’s Special Interrogatories, Set One; 4. For an order compelling Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific to produce the documents requested Nancy Pritchett’s Requests for the Production of Documents, Set One; and 5. For an order of sanctions as against Sheridan Pacific in the amount of $9000.00 forits refusal to adequately respond to Defendant Nancy Pritchett’s discovery requests. This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2033.090 on the grounds that Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s objections to the specified discovery requests are too general and/or without merit. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Separate Statements, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of John K. Landay in support thereof, and all pleadings, papers, and records on file in this action, and any further arguments or evidence which may be presented at the hearing of this motion. DATED: October 24, 2018 By: /s/JohwK. Landay Malcom B. Roberts, Esq. John K. Landay, Esq. LANDAY ROBERTS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronnie Pritchett and Nancy Pritchett. 3 Notice ofMotion and Motion to Compel 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE L. INTRODUCTION ......uiitiiiiestiieeticesteset ee ete ete eb esse este se este ns ene essennenbessens 1 IL. STATEMENT OF FACTS...esteseteeeeesetene2 A. The Second Amended Complaint ............cceeeiieiiiniieeiiieiieeeeeeeeeeeeee2 B. ISSUES 11 DASPULE....eeuvieiieciiieiieeieieeteeteeteeteeteestteeeteete et e eet ee eet aesbae esse ensaessae ees 3 C. Defendant’s Nancy Pritchett’s Discovery Requests. ........ccvevierieeiieeniieniieneeceeeieene 5 III. DISCUSSIONwoooetersteeth tetas e states besten be stabs ete ss eae ebeeneeneeneaneas 7 A. Nancy Pritchett’s is entitled to the discovery she seeks. .......coccevveererieniviiniencnne. 7 I. Nancy Pritchett’s Requests for Admissions, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific. .......couiiiiiiiiiiicecce 8 2. Nancy Pritchett’s Special Interrogatories, Set One propounded on Sheridan PacifiC........coouiiiiiiiiiiiiicece eeee10 3. Nancy Pritchett’s Requests for the Production ofDocuments, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific ...........cccceevviiiniiiiiiiiiiiee en11 B. Nancy Pritchett’s Motion to Compel is Timely .........ccoecivviieniiiiiiiiiiecree14 C. Sheridan Pacific should be sanctioned for its willful refusal to provide the information and/or documents request in Nancy Pritchett’s discovery TRGUESES. .vteeeteeeetieeeetie este teste e settee estes sabe eset bees etbe ee nbe ee sabe ee ntbe ee ebbe esate ee esbe ee nabe entree nabeens 14 IV. CONCLUSIONooosheeteaeteeens t ene sb estan be eben se ese ene ene eneane 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE Cases Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173ooteeeeeeeeeeae 14 Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423 .......ccviiiiie eesees 8 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785......ccccccvveeeeenennne. 7 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.APP.3A 771 evoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 8 Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101 .......ccceeiiiiiiiniiiiiiiieieee eee, 7 Flagship Theaters ofPalm Des., LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th ; Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355 .....ccoovieiiiiiiieececepassim Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 165 ......cccvviiiiiiiiieieceeeeeee 14 Sav-On Drugs v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1 ...ooooiiiiiiieee eeeee 7 SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741 ..c.oooviiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee 8 Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 ..ccuiiiiiieieeeeee7,8 Other Authorities Code of Civil Procedure, SECtion 201 7.010 .......oeiiiiiiiiiieiieiieieee ee eeeessere esas essen 2 Code of Civil Procedure, SECtion 2023.010 ......oiiiiiiiiiiieiiiieiee eect eee eecteee esseee esas sane 14 Code of Civil Procedure, SECtion 2023.030 .......ciiiiiiiiiieiieieieeeeee eecteee essere esse esses 14 Code of Civil Procedure, SECtion 2030.300 ........ccciiiiiiieiiiieiee ieee cece eects esse eertaee esse essen 14 ii 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION On January 9, 2018, Sheridan Pacific, LLC brought an action against, among others, Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett, asserting causes of action for fraud, breach of a contract, as well as statutory and derivative claims arising from Sheridan Pacific’s membership interest in TripleLite, LLC. By August 7, 2018, all causes of action against Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett were dismissed, except for the cause of action for fraud, once this Court found the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement upon which Sheridan Pacific’s membership interest in TripleLite arose, had been rescinded. Sheridan Pacific’s long cause of action for fraud alleges misrepresentations and material omissions by Ronnie Pritchett and/or Nancy Pritchett intended to induce Sheridan Pacific to enter into the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement and alleges further that Sheridan Pacific has suffered damages therefrom. Since that time, Sheridan Pacific has also asserted in subsequent motions that, based on this Court’s ruling on August 7, 2018,it is entitled to all of the benefits it conferred upon TripleLite based on the non-rescinded Membership Interest Purchase Agreement. It is anticipated that, by the time this motion is heard, Sheridan Pacific will have amended its complaint to seek such relief. In May 2018, Nancy Pritchett propounded discovery on Sheridan Pacific, including Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Admissions, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for the Production of Documents, Set One. Sheridan Pacific initially objected to almost ofNancy Pritchett Pritchett’s discovery requests, even very basic requests such as the managers, members, and business address of itself, its affiliates, and other related entities. Sheridan Pacific has since agreed to supplementits original discovery responses. However, there are a few topics to which Sheridan Pacific continues to assert general objections and refuses to provide the requested information. For the reasons set forth hereinbelow and in Nancy Pritchett’s separate statements, Nancy Pritchett moves for this Court to compel further answers from Sheridan Pacific 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 as the information sought is non-privileged, relevant, and is eitheritself admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378; Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Second Amended Complaint In 2012, Defendant Ronnie Pritchett formed TripleLite, LLC, a California limited liability company (hereinafter, the “Company”). (Sheridan Pacific’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on June 20, 2018 [hereinafter, the “Second Amended Complaint], 4 10.) TripleLite manufactures and sells unique flashlights based on a design patented by Ronnie Pritchett and licensed to the TripleLite. (Second Amended Complaint, § 10; Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit 1, Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (hereinafter, the “Purchase Agreement”), § 7.15.) In July 2016, pursuant to the now-rescinded Purchase Agreement, Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific was to purchase a forty-five (45) percent membership interest in TripleLite. (Second Amended Complaint, § 11; Purchase Agreement, § 3.01; Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit 2, TripleLite LLC Operating Agreement (hereinafter the “Operating Agreement”), p. 1.) On January 9, 2018, Sheridan Pacific brought an action against, among others, Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett, asserting causes of action for fraud, breach of the Purchase Agreement, breach of the Operating Agreement, as well as statutory and derivative claims arising from Sheridan Pacific’s membership interest in the Company. (Sheridan Pacific’s Complaint, filed on January 9, 2018 [hereinafter, the “Initial Complaint], generally.) In the Initial Complaint, Sheridan Pacific sought rescission of the Purchase Agreement and Operating Agreement (hereinafter, the “Rescinded Agreements”). (Initial Complaint, q 30). On February 20, 2018, without admitting to any ofthe allegations of fraud in the complaint, Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett accepted Sheridan Pacific’s offer of rescission, leaving Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett as the sole members of the Company. (Minute Order,filed August 7, 2018 [hereinafter “Demurrer Minute Order™], p. 2.) On or about July 8, 2018, Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett demurred to Sheridan Pacific’s Second Amended Complaint, challenging Sheridan Pacific’s standing to bring derivative causes 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of actions on behalf of a company in which they had no membership interest and challenging direct causes of action that relied on the Rescinded Agreements. (Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s Demurrer to Sheridan Pacific’s Complaint, filed on March 27, 2018, generally.) On August 7, 2018, this Court found that the Purchase Agreement and Operating Agreement had been rescinded and, as a result, Sheridan Pacific did not have standing to assert derivative claims on behalf of TripleLite or any direct claims that relied on the Rescinded Agreements, and accordingly, sustained Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s demurrerto all such direct and derivative causes of action. (Demurrer Minute Order, p. 2.) On or about August 8, 2018, Sheridan Pacific’s representatives resigned as managers of TripleLite. (Declaration of Jon Fleming, dated September 19, 2018, filed concurrently with Defendants Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s Opposition to Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s Application for Right to Attach and Writ of Attachment on September 21, 2018, § 10.) B. Issues in Dispute Thus, as ofAugust 7, 2018, Sheridan Pacific’s pleadings alleged a single cause of action for fraud against Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett in which Sheridan Pacific asserts that certain misrepresentations and material omissions were made by Ronnie Pritchett and/or Nancy Pritchett to induce Sheridan Pacific to enter into the Purchase Agreement and that it has suffered damages therefrom. (Second Amended Complaint, pp. 6:1 - 7:12.) Sheridan Pacific has also asserted in subsequent motions that, based on this Court’s ruling on August 7, 2018,it is entitled to all of the benefits it conferred upon TripleLite based on the non-rescinded Purchase Agreement. (See, e.g., Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Application for Right to Attach and Writ of Attachment, filed on September 8, 2018, pp. 5:4-6:9.) It is expected that, by the time this motion is heard, Sheridan Pacific will have amended its complaint to seek such relief. Further, in Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s answer, Nancy Pritchet has asserted, among others, affirmative defenses of “unclean hands” and “offsets.” (Defendants Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett's Answer to Second Amended Complaint, filed on August 22, 2018, 99 3,7.) Based on the above summary of the pleadings to date, among the issues that may be relevant to 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 these proceedings, are the questions: I. Whether Ronnie and Nancy Prichett made any misrepresentations or material omissions in order to induce Sheridan Pacific into entering into the Purchase Agreement and Operating Agreement(i.e., relevant to Sheridan Pacific’s cause of action for fraud); 2. Whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire made any misrepresentations or material omissions in order to induce Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett into entering into the Purchase Agreement (i.e., relevant to Ronnie and Nancy Prichett’s affirmative defense of “unclean hands”); and 3. Whether the activities of Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire contributed to the success of TripleLite or whethertheir presence was actually detrimental to the success of TripleLite that would entitle Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett to offset any purported benefit conferred upon Ronnie and Nancy Prichett or upon TripleLite (i.e., relevant to Ronnie and Nancy Prichett’s affirmative defense of “offsets”). Particular questions that have already come before this Court through various declarations and moving papers include: I. Whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented the experience of Roger and Gina Blaemire in order to create the appearance of seasoned business veterans that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite (see e.g., Declaration of Ronnie Pritchett, dated September 20, 2018 [hereinafter “R. Pritchett Decl.”], filed concurrently with Defendants Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s Opposition to Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s Application for Right to Attach and Writ of Attachment on September 21, 2018, 9 17); 2. Whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented the size and experience of Reed Marketing or the relationship between Reed Marketing, Sheridan Pacific, Roger Blarmire, and Gina Blaemire, in order to create the ! The veracity of these questionsis not at issue here, only that the questions are relevant to the current proceedings. 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 appearance of seasoned business partner that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite (see, e.g., R. Pritchett Decl., § 24, Exhibit 4); 3. Whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented its size and structure in order to create the appearance of a larger and more experienced entity that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite (see, e.g., R. Pritchett Decl., 9] 16, 28. 29); 4. Whether the activities of Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire provided any benefit at all to TripleLite (see, e.g., Declaration ofNancy Pritchett, dated September 20, 2018 [hereinafter “N. Pritchett Decl.”], filed concurrently with Defendants Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s Opposition to Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s Application for Right to Attach and Writ of Attachment on September 21, 2018, 99 21-29); 5. Whether the activities of Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire provided any benefit at all to TripleLite (see, e.g., Declaration ofNancy Pritchett, dated September 20, 2018 [hereinafter “N. Pritchett Decl.”], filed concurrently with Defendants Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s Opposition to Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s Application for Right to Attach and Writ of Attachment on September 21, 2018, 9 21-29); and 6. Whether the activities of Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, caused TripleLite to incurliabilities that it would have not otherwise incurred (see,e.g., Declaration of Jamie LeClair, dated September 20, 2018 [hereinafter “J. LeClair Decl.”], filed concurrently with Defendants Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s Opposition to Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s Application for Right to Attach and Writ of Attachment on September 21, 2018, 9 17,20; Declaration of Jon Fleming, dated September 20, 2018 [hereinafter “N. Pritchett Decl.”], filed concurrently with Defendants Ronnie and Nancy Pritchett’s Opposition to Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific’s Application for Right to Attach and Writ of Attachment on September 21, 2018, 9 7,14). C. Defendant’s Nancy Pritchett’s Discovery Requests Defendant Nancy Pritchett propounded discovery on Plaintiff Sheridan Pacific on or about 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 May 24, 2018, including her Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Admissions, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for the Production of Documents, Set One. (Declaration of John K. Landy, filed concurrent herewith [hereinafter, “J. Landay Decl.”], q 4.) On or about June 28, 2018, Sheridan Pacific served its initial response to these discovery requests. Most of Sheridan Pacific’s responses were general objections including objections of relevancy, privacy, and vagueness. (J. Landay Decl., § 5.) For example, ofthe thirty (30) requests for admissions, Sheridan Pacific initial responses denied eighteen (18) of these requests because, among other objections, that they were not relevant. (J. Landay Decl., 6.) Of the of the twenty- six (26) special interrogatories, Sheridan Pacific initial responses provided no substantive answers for at least nineteen (19) of these requests because, among other objections, that they were not relevant. (J. Landay Decl., q 7.) Of the ofthe forty-nine (49) ofthe requests for the production of documents, Sheridan Pacific refused to provide documents for at least thirty (30) requests because, among other objections, that they were not relevant. (J. Landay Decl., 9 8.) Because of the then-upcoming demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint and subsequent other motions heard by this Court, the parties extended Nancy Pritchett’s deadline to file her motion to compel in writing on multiple occasions, the current deadline to file such a motion being October 24, 2018. (J. Landay Decl., 49.) On or about October 2, 2018, Nancy Pritchett, through counsel, sent a meet and confer letter to Sheridan Pacific, through counsel, identifying discovery requests in which Nancy Pritchett disagreed with Sheridan Pacific’s objections and/or limitations to the discovery requests. (J. Landay Decl., 4 10, Exhibit 1.) On or about, October 18, 2018, Sheridan Pacific responded, agreeing to supplement their response for some requests butstill objecting to several other requests. (J. Landay Decl., q 11, Exhibit 2.) In response, on or about October 19, 2018, Nancy Pritchett, through counsel, send a second letter, further clarifying why she believes the material sought was relevant and discoverable. (J. Landay Decl., § 12, Exhibit 3.) As of the date of this filing, Nancy Pritchett has received no response to the second letter. (J. Landay Decl., § 13.) 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. DISCUSSION A. Nancy Pritchett’s is entitled to the discovery she seeks. First, discovery is “a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Greyhound Corp., supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 378.) The intention of the discovery statutes is to make discovery a “simple, convenient, and inexpensive” means of revealing the truth and exposing false claims. (/d. at p. 376.) Another purpose of the discovery is to “educate the parties concerning their claims and defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate trial.” (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107 [citing Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal,2d at p. 376].) Any information, not privileged, relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, is discoverable so long as it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal.2d at p. 370.) California courts have consistently held that the discovery statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. (Flagship Theaters ofPalm Des., LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1383 [noting that absent a showing that substantial interests will be impaired, liberal policies of discovery rules will generally militate in favor of overturning a trial court’s decision to deny discovery]; Emerson Elec. Co., 16 Cal.4™ at p. 1107 [stating that discovery statutes “must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure.”].) Second, with respect to an objection based on relevancy, an order granting discovery is proper unless there is no reasonable possibility that the responses will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or be helpful in preparing fortrial (see Sav-On Drugs v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 7) and any doubts concerning relevancy should usually be resolved in favor of permitting discovery (Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790). Third, with respect to the assertion ofthe right to privacy, the California Constitution expressly grants individuals a right to privacy. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Notably, these constitutional privacy provisions apply to individuals but not to businesses. 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (See, e.g., SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755.)* Further, a propounding party is presumptively entitled to discovery responses and the responding party asserting a privacy right has the burden to show the existence and extent of any the invasion of privacy. (Williams, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.) The court then must weigh the countervailing interests of the party seeking discovery. (/d.) Thus, general assertions of a right to privacy alone are insufficient. (See id.) Fourth, with respect to an objection based on vagueness, such an objection is only valid if the propounded discovery is totally unintelligible. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) A responding party has a duty to answerif the nature of the information sought is apparent. (Id.) Further, rather than sustaining an objection, the court should ask the propounding to rephrase the discovery request rather than denying a party its right to discovery. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 430.) Finally, with respect to an undue burden, a trial court “shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness ofthat discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a).) Again however, the responding party has the burden to supply a basis for the determination that there is an undue burden. (Williams, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549-50.). Upon such a showing,the trial court can determine whether the responsive burden is undue or excessive, relative to the likelihood of admissible evidence being discovered. (/d.) 1. Nancy Pritchett’s Requests for Admissions, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific With this framework in mind, and as discussed in more detail in Nancy Pritchett’s separate statement, Nancy Pritchett seeks to compel further responses for her Requests for Admissions, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific: 2 Although the Court ofAppeals there did acknowledge that there wasa lesser non-constitution right to privacy for business entities. (See SCC Acquisitions, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 755.) 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ° Request for Admission No. 3. Admit that REED MARKETING is owned by Shelly Blaemire. ° Request for Admission No. 4. Admit that REED MARKETING's only employee is Shelly Blaemire. ° Request for Admission No. 16. Admit that SHERIDAN BRANDS' offices are located at 890 North Sheridan Road, Lake Forest, IL 60045. ° Request for Admission No. 17. Admit that SHERIDAN BRANDS is YOUR manager. ° Request for Admission No. 18. Admitthat the president of SHERIDAN BRANDS is GINA BLAEMIRE. ° Request for Admission No. 19. Admit that REED MARKETING’s office are [sic] located at 890 North Sheridan Road, Lake Forest, IL 60045. ° Request for Admission No. 21. Admit that Shelly Blaemire lives 890 North Sheridan Road, Lake Forest, IL 60045. These interrogatories are relevant to the questions above on (1) whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented the size and experience of Reed Marketing, or the relationship between Reed Marketing, Sheridan Pacific, Roger Blarmire, and Gina Blaemire, in order to create the appearance of seasoned business partner that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite; and (2) whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented its size and structure in orderto create the appearance of a larger and more experienced entity that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite. Accordingly, as the information sought is non-privileged, relevant, and is eitheritself admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (see Greyhound Corp., supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 278.) Further, as Form Interrogatory 17.1 addresses the denial of admissions, changes to Sheridan Pacific’s responses to these Requests for Admissions will necessitate changes to the Form Interrogatories also. 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Nancy Pritchett’s Special Interrogatories, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific As discussed in more detail in Nancy Pritchett’s separate statement, Nancy Pritchett seeks to compel further responses for her Special Interrogatories, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific: ° Special Interrogatory No. 11. Please identify the business experience of SHELLY BLAEMIRE asit is presently known to YOU. ° Special Interrogatory No. 12. Please state ALL facts RELATED to REED MARKETING's staff as it is presently known to YOU. ° Special Interrogatory No. 13. Please identify ALL current customers ofREED MARKETING as they are presently known to YOU. ° Special Interrogatory No. 21. Please identify ALL members of SHERIDAN PACIFIC. ° Special Interrogatory No. 22. Please identify ALL managers of SHERIDAN PACIFIC. ° Special Interrogatory No. 23. Please identify ALL managers of SHERIDAN BRANDS. ° Special Interrogatory No. 24. Please identify ALL former members of SHERIDAN PACIFIC. ° Special Interrogatory No. 25. Please identify ALL former managers of SHERIDAN BRANDS. Again, these interrogatories are relevant to the questions above on (1) whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented the size and experience of Reed Marketing, or the relationship between Reed Marketing, Sheridan Pacific, Roger Blarmire, and Gina Blaemire, in order to create the appearance of seasoned business partner that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite; and (2) whether Sheridan Pacific, through its 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented its size and structure in orderto create the appearance of a larger and more experienced entity that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite. Accordingly, as the information sought is non-privileged, relevant, and is eitheritself admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (Greyhound Corp., supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 278.) 3. Nancy Pritchett’s Requests for the Production of Documents, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific As discussed in more detail in Nancy Pritchett’s separate statement, Nancy Pritchett seeks to compel further responses for her Requests for the Production of Documents, Set One propounded on Sheridan Pacific: ° Request for Production No. 4. ALL DOCUMENTS,including COMMUNICATIONS, RELATING TO any and ALL money paid by YOU to TRIPLELITE, including but not limited to canceled checks, invoices, and/or bank statements. ° Request for Production No. 6. ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and REED MARKETING from January 2015 to present, including but not limited to any and ALL services provided and/or contemplated to be provided by REED MARKETING to TRIPLELITE. ° Request for Production No. 7. ALL DOCUMENTS,including COMMUNICATIONS, RELATED TO any monies or payments YOU, SHERIDAN BRANDS, GINA BLAEMIRE and/or ROGER BLAEMIRE received from REED MARKETING between January 2015 and present, including but not limited to salary, hourly, or any other form of payment. ° Request for Production No. 8. ALL DOCUMENTS,including COMMUNICATIONS, RELATING TO YOURrelationship with REED MARKETING from 2012 to present, including but not limited to GINA BLAEMIRE'Srelationship, role, job, responsibilities to, work for, salary, wages, payments from and/ortitle with REED MARKETING 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from 2012 to present. ° Request for Production No. 9. ALL COMMUNICATIONSsent or received by YOU at the email address gcollins@reedmktg.com RELATING TO TRIPLELITE, NANCY PRICHETT, RONNIE PRITCHETT, ROGER BLAEMIRE, GINA BLAEMIRE, SHELLY BLAEMIRE, David Brown, THE GROMMET, QVC, TRIO DISTRIBUTION, WILL IT LAUNCH,the University of Southern California and/or DAVISON PRODUCT GROUP between January 2016 and present. ° Request for Production No. 10. ALL COMMUNICATIONSsent or received by YOU at the email address, rogerblaemir@att.net RELATING TO TRIPLELITE, NANCY PRICHETT, RONNIE PRITCHETT, ROGER BLAEMIRE, GINA BLAEMIRE, SHELLY BLAEMIRE, David Brown, THE GROMMET, QVC, TRIO DISTRIBUTION, WILL IT LAUNCH,the University of Southern California and/or DAVISON PRODUCT GROUP between January 2016 and present. ° Request for Production No. 12. ALL DOCUMENTS,including COMMUNICATIONS, RELATING TO any and ALL services provided and/or contemplated to be provided by DAVISON PRODUCT GROUP for TRIPLELITE and/or YOU are including but not limited to licensing and /or licensing agreements from January 1, 2016 to present. ° Request for Production No. 13. ALL DOCUMENTS,including COMMUNICATIONS, RELATING TO any and ALL services provided and/or contemplated to be provided by DAVISON PRODUCT GROUPto any and ALL persons and/or entities other than TRIPLELITE including but not limited to licensing and/or licensing agreements from January 1, 2016 to present. ° Request for Production No. 15. ALL DOCUMENTS,including COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any and ALL services provided and/or contemplated to be provided by TRIO DISTRIBUTION to any and ALL persons and/or entities other than TRIPLELITE from January 1, 2016 to present. ° Request for Production No. 19. ALL DOCUMENT,including 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMMUNICATIONS, RELATING TO any and ALL services provided and/or contemplated to be provided by WILL IT LAUNCH to any and ALL persons and/or entities other than TRIPLELITE in the marketing of TRIPLELITE' s products form [sic] January 1, 2016 to present. ° Request for Production No. 44. ALL DOCUMENTSidentifying SHERIDAN PACIFIC’S managers, members, interest holders, directors, shareholders, stockholders, officers, directors, and/or employees. Here, Request for Production No. 4 is relevant to the question ofwhat benefits Sheridan Pacific may have conferred upon TripleLite, Ronnie Pritchett, and Nancy Pritchett. Here, Request for Production Nos. 6, 7, 8 are relevant to the question above of whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented the size and experience of Reed Marketing, or the relationship between Reed Marketing, Sheridan Pacific, Roger Blarmire, and Gina Blaemire, in order to create the appearance of seasoned business partner that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite. Requests for Production No. 44 is relevant to the question above of whether Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire, misrepresented its size and structure in order to create the appearance of a larger and more experienced entity that could contribute significantly to the success of TripleLite. Requests for Production Nos. 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, are relevant to the question above of whether the activities of Sheridan Pacific, through its agents, Roger and Gina Blaemire provided any benefit at all to TripleLite. Requests for Production Nos. 7, 8, 15, 19 are relevant to the question of whether the activities of TripleLite provided any indirect benefit to Sheridan Pacific. Accordingly, as the information sought is non-privileged, relevant, and is eitheritself admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (Greyhound Corp., supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 278.) 13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Nancy Pritchett’s Motion to Compel is Timely Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2030.300, provides in part, “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response. . . or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” Here, the propounding party and the responding party did agree in writing to extend this deadline until October 24, 2018. (J. Landay Decl., 9 9, Exhibit 4.) Thus, this motion to compel is timely. C. Sheridan Pacific should be sanctioned for its willful refusal to provide the information and/or documents request in Nancy Pritchett’s discovery requests. Code of Civil Procedure, Section, 2023.010 provides, in part: “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following . . . (d) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(d).) A court may impose monetary sanctions for the misuse of the discovery process, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by a party as a result of that misuse. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) “Monetary sanctions encourage voluntary compliance with discovery procedures by assessing the costs of compelling compliance against the defaulting party." (Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 165, 183 (citing Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179). Here, at least two separate letters were sent to Sheridan Pacific’s counsel detailing why the information sought was relevant to these proceedings, but Sheridan Pacific refuse to provide the information sought. For many ofthe requests, Sheridan Pacific refused to even provide basic information, such as the business addresses and the list of managers, for itself, its affiliates, and/or related entities. As a result of the need for this motion to compel, Waddy Stephenson and John K. Landay spentat least twelve (12) hours researching, assembling, drafting, proofreading, and finalizing the motion, including the preparation of the separate statements accompanying this motion. (J. 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Landay Decl., q 14.) Defendants are billed $450 per hour for attorney services. (J. Landay Decl., 9 14.) Counsel for Defendants estimates thatit will take a further four (4) hours to prepare for, prepare a reply, and appear and argue the instant. (J. Landay Decl., § 14.) Accordingly, the Court is urged to grant sanctions in the amount of $7200.00 against Sheridan Pacific for its willful failure to produce the documents and information requested in. Nancy Pritchett’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Admissions, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for the Production of Documents, Set One. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Nancy Pritchett requests that this Court grant its motion compelling further discovery responses from Sheridan Pacific and to make an order of sanctions as requested herein. DATED: October 24, 2018 By: /s/Johwv K. Lando Malcom B. Roberts, Esq. John K. Landay, Esq. LANDAY ROBERTS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronnie Pritchett and Nancy Pritchett. 15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL