Case Number:?BC652311????Hearing Date:?January 14, 2019????Dept:?56
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
| INFUSIO LIFE, LLC,
Plaintiff, vs.
TARA HAVEN, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants. |
??????CASE NO.: BC652311
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
8:30 a.m. January 14, 2019 Dept. 56 |
This is an action arising from an alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement.??On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for declaratory relief.
Defendant seeks a protective order allowing her not to respond to Plaintiff?s requests for admissions, set two, (request nos. 36-302) and requests for admissions, set three (request nos. 303-536.)??Defendant argues she should not have to provide a response because (1) Plaintiff failed to provide a declaration as to additional discovery for its requests for admissions, set two, (2) the discovery is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, and burdensome, and (3) Plaintiff?s single cause of action does not warrant the number of discovery requests at issue.
Plaintiff concedes that it failed to provide a declaration for additional discovery in connection with its requests for admissions, set two, and states that this is why it served its substantially identical requests for admissions, set three, which were accompanied by a proper declaration.??Thus, the issue is whether Plaintiff ought to provide responses as to Plaintiff?s requests for admissions, set three.
Plaintiff argues Defendant should provide responses to its requests for admissions, set three, because the information sought is relevant and Defendant has failed to otherwise provide the information through previous discovery.??Plaintiff also argues that to the extent Defendant provided late responses to Plaintiff?s requests for admissions, set three, all objections have been waived and the Motion for Protective Order is likewise untimely.
Timeliness aside, the Court believes Plaintiff?s requests for admissions, set three, are warranted and not over-burdensome.??For one thing, there a large number of requests only because Plaintiff requests the same admissions as to nineteen different individuals.??The communications as to which the requests for admissions are directed are relevant to whether Defendant breached the non-disclosure agreement in this action.??Further, it appears a quick response could be given to many of the requests at issue.
Defendant argues that the requests for admission are duplicative to the extent she provided the majority of the information sought through prior discovery, including her deposition.??While this could be true, there is no evidence for this assertion.??Plaintiff simply points to her deposition testimony as to one individual.??(Supp. Gill Decl., Exhibit N.)??It is not at all apparent that the information sought has already been provided.??Further, although Plaintiff argues that she could provide the responses through a second deposition, this does not detract from Plaintiff?s right to propound written discovery.
Thus, the Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART?specifically, only as to Plaintiff?s requests for admissions, set two, as to which no declaration of additional discovery was provided.??The Motion is otherwise denied.
Plaintiff requests $4,500 in sanctions.??The Court awards reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,350 (3 hours at $450 per hour (Kernan Decl. ? 30)).
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.??If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 14th?day of January 2019
| Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court
|