On May 20, 2021 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Fenchem, Inc.,
and
Does 1-25,
Sdc Nutrition, Inc.,
for Other Contract Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Aijun Zhang, SBN 222326
Law Offices of Aijun Zhang
17.9.90
City ofIndustry,
626—9641830
626-9641981 (fax)
.
Castleton Street, Sunte 304
CA 91748
F LKa
W
“‘Eam COURT 6
om" o: 5m
cm
'
mm:
Beaumomo
AUG 2 5
WTRE r
2023
'
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY
OWQQUIAWN—
Fenchem, Inc mmNYr ‘lez.
‘
TY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FENCHEM, INC., a California corporation, Case No. CIV SB 21 14881
Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO SDC NUTRITION, INC.’S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
vs. RESPONSES TO SDC’S SECOND SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SECOND
SDC NUTRITION, INC, a Delaware SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND
DOES through 25,
corporation; and 1 THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR
inclusive, ADMISSION; DECLARATION OF AIJUN
ZHANG
Defendants.
Hearing Date: 08/31/2023
NNNNNNNNNflfl—fl—H——w—
WNOMAwN-‘Ooooflamwa—IO
Time: 8:30 a.m.
i
Dept.: S32
Plaintiff Fenchem, Inc. (“Fenchem”) opposes to defendant SDC Nutrition, Inc. (“SDC”)’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to SDC ’s Second Set of Request for Production, Second Set of
Request for Admission, and Third Set of Request for Admission as follows:
I. SDC WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND SET OF
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND THIRD SET OF SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES
Fenchem has already provided supplemental responses to SDC ’s Second Set of
Request for Admission and Third Set of Special Interrogatories. See Declaration of Aijun Zhang
(“Zhang Decl.). The motion relating to the request for admission and special interrogatories is now
moot. On August 17, 2023, SDC agreed to withdraw this motion with respect to the request for
admission and special interrogatories. See Exhibit D to Zhang Decl, The remaining portion of the
omflomb
motion is for compelling further responses to SDC’S Second Set of Request for Production.
II. THE MEET AND CONFER DOESN’T COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF
CCP SECTION 2016.040
Pursuant to C.C.P. §2016.040, “A meet and confer declaration in support 0f a motion shall state
O
facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution 0f each issue presented by
11
the motion.” Here, SDC moves to compel further responses to 40 requests for production. However, in
12
13
the meet and confer, SDC never addressed the request one or one, or addressing each issue separately.
l4 See Exhibits G, H, and I to Declaration of Jarrad L. Wood in Support of Defendant SDC Nutrition,
15 Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to SDC’s Second Set of Requests for Admission, and Thid
l6
Set of Requests for Admission (“Wood Decl.”). In the meet and confer processing, SDC never state?
l7
the reasons and grounds for seeking the information for each request separately. Therefore, the meet
18
land confer didn‘t meet the requirement ofC.C.P. §2016.040.
19
In addition, most of the requests for production are overbroad and seeks information not relevant
20
21
ito the claims or defenses in this action. Plaintiff requested SDC to narrow down the scope ofthe requests:
22 in the meet and confer. However, SDC failed to address this request.
23 This motion shall be denied on this basis that the meet and confer is insufficient.
24 49 and 50“
On August 16, 2023, Plaintiffservcd thc supplemental responses to Request Nos. 15.
25
III. ARQUMENT
26
27 A. The Documents and/or Information Sought in Requfits Are Irrelevant or Not
Material to the Claims and Defensgs in this Action, Overbroad. and, the Objections
Raised by PlaintiffArc Valid
k)
Document Filed Date
August 25, 2023
Case Filing Date
May 20, 2021
Category
Other Contract Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Aijun Zhang, SBN 222326 Law Offices of Aijun Zhang 17.9.90 City ofIndustry, 626—9641830 626-9641981 (fax) . Castleton Street, Sunte 304 CA 91748 F LKa W “‘Eam COURT 6 om" o: 5m cm ' mm: Beaumomo AUG 2 5 WTRE r 2023 ' Attorneys for Plaintiff BY OWQQUIAWN— Fenchem, Inc mmNYr ‘lez. ‘ TY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FENCHEM, INC., a California corporation, Case No. CIV SB 21 14881 Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO SDC NUTRITION, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER vs. RESPONSES TO SDC’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SECOND SDC NUTRITION, INC, a Delaware SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND DOES through 25, corporation; and 1 THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR inclusive, ADMISSION; DECLARATION OF AIJUN ZHANG Defendants. Hearing Date: 08/31/2023 NNNNNNNNNflfl—fl—H——w— WNOMAwN-‘Ooooflamwa—IO Time: 8:30 a.m. i Dept.: S32 Plaintiff Fenchem, Inc. (“Fenchem”) opposes to defendant SDC Nutrition, Inc. (“SDC”)’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to SDC ’s Second Set of Request for Production, Second Set of Request for Admission, and Third Set of Request for Admission as follows: I. SDC WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND THIRD SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Fenchem has already provided supplemental responses to SDC ’s Second Set of Request for Admission and Third Set of Special Interrogatories. See Declaration of Aijun Zhang (“Zhang Decl.). The motion relating to the request for admission and special interrogatories is now moot. On August 17, 2023, SDC agreed to withdraw this motion with respect to the request for admission and special interrogatories. See Exhibit D to Zhang Decl, The remaining portion of the omflomb motion is for compelling further responses to SDC’S Second Set of Request for Production. II. THE MEET AND CONFER DOESN’T COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF CCP SECTION 2016.040 Pursuant to C.C.P. §2016.040, “A meet and confer declaration in support 0f a motion shall state O facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution 0f each issue presented by 11 the motion.” Here, SDC moves to compel further responses to 40 requests for production. However, in 12 13 the meet and confer, SDC never addressed the request one or one, or addressing each issue separately. l4 See Exhibits G, H, and I to Declaration of Jarrad L. Wood in Support of Defendant SDC Nutrition, 15 Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to SDC’s Second Set of Requests for Admission, and Thid l6 Set of Requests for Admission (“Wood Decl.”). In the meet and confer processing, SDC never state? l7 the reasons and grounds for seeking the information for each request separately. Therefore, the meet 18 land confer didn‘t meet the requirement ofC.C.P. §2016.040. 19 In addition, most of the requests for production are overbroad and seeks information not relevant 20 21 ito the claims or defenses in this action. Plaintiff requested SDC to narrow down the scope ofthe requests: 22 in the meet and confer. However, SDC failed to address this request. 23 This motion shall be denied on this basis that the meet and confer is insufficient. 24 49 and 50“ On August 16, 2023, Plaintiffservcd thc supplemental responses to Request Nos. 15. 25 III. ARQUMENT 26 27 A. The Documents and/or Information Sought in Requfits Are Irrelevant or Not Material to the Claims and Defensgs in this Action, Overbroad. and, the Objections Raised by PlaintiffArc Valid k)