Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/20/2020 at 02:59:02 (UTC).

JIAYIN LI VS IEG GLOBAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/21/2019 JIAYIN LI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against IEG GLOBAL CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5956

  • Filing Date:

    06/21/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LI JIAYIN

Defendants

IEG GLOBAL CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION

SHIH PAUL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MA RICK X.

Defendant Attorney

LOPEZ RANDY

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 06/17/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/07/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jiayin Li on 06/21/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Jiayin Li as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 06/17/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/24/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 07/27/2020 to 07/27/2020; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses) of 07/07/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for 07/07/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 07/07/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Jiayin Li (Plaintiff); As to: Paul Shih (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Jiayin Li (Plaintiff); As to: IEG Global Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Jiayin Li (Plaintiff); As to: IEG Global Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Paul Shih (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jiayin Li (Plaintiff); As to: IEG Global Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Paul Shih (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jiayin Li (Plaintiff); As to: IEG Global Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Defendant); Paul Shih (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05956    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: 26

Li v. IEG Global Corp., et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jiayin Li’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IEG GLOBAL CORP. IS ORDERED TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, NOS. 6 AND 7 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANT IEG GLOBAL CORP. AND COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $860.00 AND ARE TO BE PAID TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jiayin Li (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of agreement to pay referral fees and related claims against Defendant IEG Global Corporation (“Defendants”) on June 21, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions on February 14, 2020. Defendant filed an opposition on June 23, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on June 29, 2020.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides that “[o]n receipt of a response to demand for inspection . . ., the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response if the demanding party deems that (1) [a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) [a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; [or] (3) [a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (b).)

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that all motions for responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(3)). A separate statement is not required “[w]hen a court has allowed the moving party to submit--in place of a separate statement--a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.310, subd. (b)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(2).)

Discussion

The Motion complies with the procedural requirements. Defendant ITG served initial responses to the discovery on November 30, 2019. (Motion, Ma Decl., ¶¶4-5 and Exhs. A-B.) Following Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts, Defendant agreed to extend the deadline to file the instant Motion to February 14, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶7-10 and Exhs. C-H.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses and production of documents with respect to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 6 and 7. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a), a response to a request for production must either be a statement of compliance by the production date, a statement that the party lacks the ability to comply, or a valid objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).)

This action is brought by Plaintiff with respect to an agreement with Defendant whereby Plaintiff was to be compensated for referring potential sales leads to Defendant’s education program. Plaintiff allegedly referred 50 students of Beifang University to Defendant’s program, for which Beifang University paid Defendant a non-refundable $55,000.00 deposit. When Beifang University had to stop sending students to Defendant’s program after a few months, Defendant retained the deposit. Plaintiff then asked for her $10,000.00 referral fee, which Defendant allegedly refused.

RFP No. 6

Request No. 6 asks for production of “All Documents Relating to the payment of the deposit to Columbia Business School for the initiation of classroom reservations under paragraph 4 of the Service Agreement, including but not limited to any receipts or invoices.” Defendant’s initial response contained boilerplate objections. Defendant’s supplemental response contained boilerplate objections and the statement that “no payment of the $55,000 deposit paid by Beifang University has been made to Columbia Business School” so no responsive documents exist.

Defendant’s objections that the request is irrelevant, overbroad or ambiguous are without merit. The request pertains to Defendant’s disposal of the $55,000.00 deposit, which is the basis of Plaintiff action. Nor does the request appear overbroad or ambiguous. It seeks information about payment of any part of the deposit to a specific school program. Finally, any objections on the basis of confidentiality, propriety or financial privacy are overcome by Plaintiff’s right to access information in this action. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 756.) The corporate right of privacy is not derived from the State Constitution and therefore, is a lesser right of privacy than an individual’s fundamental right of privacy. (Ibid.) Defendant offers no explanation as to it would be harmed by allowing discovery of the documents sought or other means by which Plaintiff can obtain this information.

Defendant’s first argument is that Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort did not address the main basis of the Motion, namely that Defendant’s responses fail to affirm it conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. The main basis for the Motion, however, is not Defendant’s failure to affirm it conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry. Rather, Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s boilerplate and privacy objections. Plaintiff also disputes that no responsive documents exist.

As explained above, Defendant’s objections are without merit. Regarding Defendant’s contention that no relevant documents exist, the Court is not persuaded. To the extent Defendant admits it has come to an agreement with Columbia Business School regarding the timing of payment of the deposit, this suggests that responsive documents do exist. Therefore, further responses to Request No. 6 are granted.

RFP No. 7

Request No. 7 asks for “All Documents Relating to any payments made by IEG under the Service Agreement including but not limited to any receipts or invoices to Columbia Business School.” Defendant asserts the same generic objections as to Request No. 6. The Court notes that this request is phrased more broadly than Request No. 6 insofar as it does not pertain solely to documents related to payment made to Columbia Business School. However, even “all documents relating to any payments made by [Defendant] under the Service Agreement is sufficiently specific as it pertains to payments made pursuant to a single contract. As with the objections based on propriety, confidential and private information to Request No. 6, the balance weighs in favor of allowing Plaintiff’s investigation. Therefore, further responses to Request No. 7 are granted.

Sanctions

Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of sanctions, which are properly noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Based on a lodestar calculation, Plaintiff is awarded sanctions of $1,660.00 based on four hours of attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 motion filing fee. (Motion, Ma Decl., ¶13.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jiayin Li’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IEG GLOBAL CORP. IS ORDERED TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, NOS. 6 AND 7 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANT IEG GLOBAL CORP. AND COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,660.00 AND ARE TO BE PAID TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MA RICK X.