Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/25/2021 at 00:36:46 (UTC).

XIAOFAN SUN VS CHERRY SONG

Case Summary

On 09/19/2019 XIAOFAN SUN filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against CHERRY SONG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0852

  • Filing Date:

    09/19/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

SUN XIAOFAN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

SONG CHERRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

WONG FRED A

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

KING TOM F.Y.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE;)

4/23/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE;)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/31/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

RETURNED MAIL

7/13/2020: RETURNED MAIL

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 05/29/2020

5/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER;) OF 05/29/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER;)

4/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER;)

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

3/13/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TOM KING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL

2/19/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TOM KING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

2/19/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

2/19/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Separate Statement

2/19/2020: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER) OF 12/18/2019

12/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER) OF 12/18/2019

Notice of Related Case

12/11/2019: Notice of Related Case

Answer

11/13/2019: Answer

Amended Complaint

10/17/2019: Amended Complaint

Notice of Case Management Conference

9/24/2019: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

9/19/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/19/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

9/19/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/15/2022
  • Hearing04/15/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2022
  • Hearing04/01/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Jury Trial ((time estimate3 days)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Cherry Song (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Case Management Conference); Filed by Xiaofan Sun (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Xiaofan Sun (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2019
  • DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by Xiaofan Sun (Plaintiff); Xiaofan Sun (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Xiaofan Sun (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Xiaofan Sun (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Xiaofan Sun (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19PSCV00852    Hearing Date: June 19, 2020    Dept: O

Defendant Cherry Song’s motion to compel further responses to request for production is GRANTED.

Judicial Notice is taken of Defendant Cherry Song’s Exhibit A. (Evid. Code § 452.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2031.310(b).)

Defendant Cherry Song (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff XiaoFan Sun (“Plaintiff”) her first set of Requests for Production of Documents on November 13, 2019. (King Decl., ¶ 2.) On December 26, 2019, Defendant received Plaintiff’s initial responses, consisting of mostly of blanket objections. (Id. at ¶ 3.) After a meet and confer letter, Plaintiff served amended responses to Defendant’s Requests on January 14, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) The responses still refused to produce documents. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendant again attempted to meet and confer in good faith with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff refused to serve code compliant responses to Defendant’s Requests. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant even offered to stipulate to a protective order to address Plaintiff’s concerns about privacy and confidentiality. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel instead stood by her objections. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendant not only failed to provide evidence showing good cause, but also seeks documents that would unreasonably intrude on her right of privacy.

Evidence of Good Cause

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff and finds that the requests are not only relevant, but that Defendant properly provided evidence of good cause by way of the Declaration of Tom F.Y. King, who is counsel for Defendant. Plaintiff’s contention that Mr. King’s declaration does not provide evidence of good cause is nonsensical because the declaration incorporates Mr. King’s meet and confer letters, which explain Defendant’s good cause for requesting further responses. (See King Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. E.) Particularly, Mr. King states in his January 14, 2020 meet and confer letter that mere identification of responsive documents without production of such documents is not a code compliant response. (Id.) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item with any of the following: (1) a statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing or sampling; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item; or (3) an objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. (CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Objections must be specific. A motion to compel lies where objections are “too general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a)(3).) If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the requests. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category of item, the response shall, if necessary, include a privilege log that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim. (CCP § 2031.240.)

Plaintiff’s responses do not state that she will comply, lacks the ability to comply, or objects to the demand. Instead, she ambiguously objects to the requests while “identifying” documents pertaining to Defendant’s requests. (See King Decl. ¶ , Ex. D.) The Court cannot make sense of Plcaintiff’s responses: Is she attempting to comply or objecting to the requests? Even if one were to assume Plaintiff objected to the requests, her objections are not specific. Plaintiff did not include a privilege log with her responses nor did she provide any factual information to evaluate the merits of her privilege/confidentiality claim. Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts also demonstrate a lack of any basis to object to the Requests.

Privacy

The Court is also unconvinced of Plaintiff’s contention regarding privacy. The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest. Inquiry into one’s private affairs will not be constitutionally justified simply because the inadmissible and irrelevant matter sought might lead to other relevant evidence. The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a “careful balancing” of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. If an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the “least intrusive means” to satisfy the interest. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.)

Here, this information is relevant to Defendant’s claim because she has filed a cross-complaint alleging fraud. Particularly, the Requests at issue here ask for information regarding Plaintiff’s divorce to third-party Yang Yang, which acts as the basis for Defendant’s cross-complaint for fraud. (See Cross-Complaint.) Defendant alleged in the cross-complaint that she transferred to Plaintiff about $165,000 to help Plaintiff pay for legal fees relating to the divorce. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 9-11.) Over the course of their relationship, Defendant transferred no less than $340,000 to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-14, 21.) Thus, the information is not only relevant, but can lead to the discovery of relevant information to Defendant’s fraud claims.

Furthermore, Defendant offered a less intrusive means to satisfy her interest in the information through a protective order. Plaintiff, without any explanation, refused to stipulate to a protective order. It also seems that the parties still have not signed any protective order that would address the supposed issues of privacy and confidentiality.

Thus, the Court orders that the parties are to meet and confer about the protective order and submit to the Court a proposed stipulated protective order within 10 days of this hearing. Defendant’s motion shall be granted pursuant to the protective order.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer WONG FRED A