Preview
19CV355056
Santa Clara — Civil
Y. Chavez
Electronically Filed
James L. Dawson, Bar No. 73521
Marc A. Eisenhart, Bar No. 188518 by Superior Court of CA,
Steven D. McLellan, Bar No. 311395 County of Santa Clara,
GATES EISENHART DAWSON on 4/29/2020 4:03 PM
125 South Market Street, Suite 1200 Reviewed By: Y. Chavez
San Jose, CA 95113-2288 Case #19CV355056
Telephone: (408) 288-8100; Fax: (408) 288-9409
Envelope: 4296325
E-mail: jld@gedlaw.com; mae@gedlaw.com; sdm@gedlaw:
Attorney for Defendants: Victoria Creative Designer, Inc.; Ha M. Do; Victoria Van Do; and
Ryan Do
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
THUY VAN, Case No. 19CV355056
11
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT VICTORIA CREATIVE
DESIGNER, INC.’S SEPARATE
13 VS. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
14 RESPONSES AND PRODUCE
VICTORIA CREATIVE DESIGNER, INC.;
DOCUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF THUY
HA M. DO; VICTORIA VAN DO AKA VAN VAN AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY
15
DO; RYAN DO; and DOES 1-20; SANCTIONS
16
Defendants. Date: TBD
17 Time: TBD
Dept: 8
18 Judge: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni
19
20
21
Defendant Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., pursuant to CRC 3.1345, submits the
22
following separate statement in support of its motion to compel further responses for form
23
interrogatories, set one, numbers 7.1 and 50.1, special interrogatories, set one, numbers 7 and 10,
24
and requests for inspection, set one, number 10, and request for discovery sanctions.
25
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1
26
Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If
27
so, for each item of property:
28
a) describe the property;
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
1
b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
°) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and
how the amount was calculated; and
d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of
the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1
Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and
unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to
time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this
10 interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is
11 unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
12 that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff
13 may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its
14 investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested
tS; information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections,
Plaintiff responds as follows:
16
17 584.5 grams of gold diamond jewelry, value $34,000; 37.5 grams 24k one-hundred year-
old antique gold collar necklace, value $5,000,000; Diamond 1.05 carat GIA 13429939, Diamond
18
1.02 carat GIA 14722115, value $34,900 in year 2006; In addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the
19
option to produce records in lieu of identifying, summarizing, and interpreting documents which
20
were previously produced to Defendants. Plaintiff identifies Plaintiff's Production of Documents ,
21
Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing.
22
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1
23
Ms. Van does not fully answer subpart (c) because she does not identify how she valued
24
the 584.5 grams of gold diamond jewelry and the antique collar necklace. She simply provided a
25
value for those two items. Nor do the documents she produced touch on any valuation of these
26
two items. (see McLellan Decl. Ex. 7.) Her answer is incomplete for those two items of jewelry,
27
and she must state “how the amount was calculated.”
28
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
2,
Defendant has good cause to seek this information because understanding how the
amounts were calculated would tend to prove or disprove the value of the jewelry, and hence any
damages associated thereto with the claims alleged. (see Digital Music News LLC v. Superior
Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 (“Digital Music News, LLC”), disapproved on other
grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 531 [good cause exists when proponent
identifies “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery
sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to
prove or disprove the fact.”].) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a further
response to form interrogatory 7.1.
10
Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome.
11
Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the causes of action
12
Ms. Van brought, and she is claiming damage to property by responding to this interrogatory.
13
Third, her objection that she should not have to respond because the request would require her to
14
produce information she needs to prove her claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see
tS;
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the
16
Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of order to civil discovery and to eliminate some
17
of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial system, including the ‘sporting theory of|
18
litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation] Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element
19
out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial itself’.”].) Fourth, her
20
equally available objection is inapplicable because it is only available when she states that she
21
does not have sufficient information to respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., §
22
2030.220, subd. (c).)
23
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1
24
For each agreement alleged in the pleadings:
25
a) identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state the
26
name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT;
27
28
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
3
b) state each part of the agreement not in writing; the name, ADDRESS, and
telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date that part of the
agreement was made;
¢) identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing
and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERDSON who has the
DOCUMENT;
d) identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement, and
for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the
DOCUMENT;
10
e) state each modification not in writing, the date, and the name , ADDRESS, and
11
telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and the date the modification
12
was made;
13
f) identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement not in
14
writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has
tS;
the DOCUMENT.
16
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1
17
Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and
18
unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to
19
time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this
20
interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is
21
unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
22
that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff’
23
may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its
24
investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested
25
information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections,
26
Plaintiff responds as follows:
27
584.5 grams of diamond gold jewelry; 37.5 grams 24karat antique collar necklace:
28
Diamond GIA 13429939 GIA 14722115; Receipt#9703 $4,000; Receipt #9617 $ 2,500; Receipt
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
4
#9609 $1,000; Receipt #9616 $1,000; Receipt #9615 $500; Diamond Bates Stamped 0006, 0007,
0040; Collar necklace Bates stamped 0011, 0012; In addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the
option to produce records in lieu of identifying, summarizing, and interpreting documents which
were previously produced to Defendants. Plaintiff identifies Plaintiffs Production of Documents,
Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., Victoria Van Do, Ryan Do, Ha Do,
Agents of Victoria Creative Designer, Inc. 1818 Tully Road, Suite 166, San Jose, CA 95122,
(408) 274-9581; Thuy Van, 1037 N. Abbott Ave. Milpitas CA 95035 (408) 262-3163.
Defendants made untrue and misleading statements about the annual percentage rate
charged on its loans, including statements that falsely suggest that low interest rate were given to
10
Plaintiff. Defendants made untrue, misleading statements about its holding practices that falsely
11
stated that the antique collar necklace and diamond gold jewelry will be returned to Plaintiff upon
12
request. On May 26, 2019. Defendants declined to return the antique collar necklace and diamond
13
gold jewelry to Plaintiff.
14
Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., Victoria Van Do, Ryan Do, Ha Do, Agents of Victoria
tS;
Creative Designer, Inc. 1818 Tully Road, Suite 166, San Jose, CA 95122, (408) 274-9581.
16
Plaintiff did not agree to any modification. Plaintiff s investigation and discovery are
17
continuing.
18
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO.
19
50.1
20
Ms. Van does not fully answer subparts (a)-(c). Instead, she references all of the receipts
21
and pictures of the jewelry she produced, and incorporates all of the documents she produced.
22
First, CCP section 2030.230 does not apply because the interrogatory does not require preparing a
23
compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of documents. Second, even if it did, Ms. Van’s answer
24
is evasive because she is including documents that are clearly not part of the contracts by
25
referencing pictures of the jewelry and a letter she wrote in 2019 (McLellan Decl. Ex. 8 at Bates
26
Stamp 0016) when the agreements at issue were made in 2011. (RJN Ex. A at {| 25.) Third, Ms.
27
Van’s response does not address whether any part of the agreements were not in writing as
28
required by FROG 50.1, subpart (b).
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
5
Defendant has good cause to seek this information because Defendant needs to know what
Plaintiff asserts it the contract to determine if Defendant is in breach or if there is a contract. (see
Digital Music News LLC, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 224.) Therefore, the Court should compel
Ms. Van to provide a further response to form interrogatory 50.1.
Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome.
Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the breach of
contract causes of action Ms. Van brought. Third, her objection that she should not have to
respond because the request would require her to produce information she needs to prove her
claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55
10
Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of|
11
order to civil discovery and to eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial
12
system, including the ‘sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation]
13
Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the
14
adversary nature of the trial itself’.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable
tS;
because it is only available when she states that she does not have sufficient information to
16
respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)
17
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7
18
State all payments YOU made to Defendants.
19
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7
20
Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and
21
unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to
22
time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this
23
interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is
24
unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
25
that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff
26
may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its
27 investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested
28 information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections,
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
6
Plaintiff responds as follows:
Receipt#9703 $4,000; Receipt #9617 $2,500; Receipt #9609 $1,000; Receipt #9616
$1,000; Receipt #9615 $500; Diamond Bates Stamped 0006, 0007, 0040; Diamond 0008, 0009,
0010; Collar necklace Bates stamped 0011, 0012; In addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the
option to produce records in lieu of identifying, summarizing, and interpreting documents which
were previously produced to Defendants. Plaintiff identifies Plaintiffs Production of Documents,
Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.
7
a
10 The special interrogatory sought Ms. Van to state all payments that she made to the
11 Defendants.' Her response does not do that. Instead, she identified the agreements and the
12 amount of the loan, and her response is identical to special interrogatory number | requiring her to
13 specify each contract she had with the Defendants. Her answer is incomplete.
14 Nor does her identifying of documents help her. CCP section 2030.230 does not apply
tS; because the interrogatory does not require preparing a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of|
16 documents—it simply requests the payments made. Even if this provision applied, the documents
17 produced do not provide receipts or other records to calculate the amounts paid. (see McLellan
18 Decl. Ex. 8.)
19 Defendant has good cause to seek this information because Plaintiff has asserted that she
20 has paid over $23,000 in interest (see RJN Ex. A {J 2, 15) and she has to show that she has
21 complied with the contract to assert a breach of contract claim. (see Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2
22 Cal.App.Sth 384, 391 [breach of contract claim requires showing “plaintiff's performance or
23 excuse for nonperformance”’].) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a further
24 response to special interrogatory number 7.
25
26
27 ' Ms. Van objected that the scope of this request was too broad and not limited in scope.
(McLellan Decl. Ex. 6.) In Defendant’s meet and confer, Defendant agree to narrow the request
28 “to any payments you made to Defendants related to the contracts that you have sued upon.”
(McLellan Decl. Ex. 9 at p. 3.) Defendant is willing to narrow the scope of this request as detailed
in its meet and confer.
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
7
Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome.
Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the breach of
contract causes of action Ms. Van brought. Third, her objection that she should not have to
respond because the request would require her to produce information she needs to prove her
claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55
Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of|
order to civil discovery and to eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial
system, including the ‘sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation]
Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the
10
adversary nature of the trial itself”.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable
11
because it is only available when she states that she does not have sufficient information to
12
respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)
13
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10
14
For each payment YOU made to DEFENDANTS, state the date that payment was made.
tS;
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10
16
Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and
17
unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to
18
time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this
19
interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is
20
unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
21
that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff
22
may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its
23 investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested
24 information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections,
25 Plaintiff responds as follows:
26 Cash payments to Victoria Van Do. Receipt#9703 $4,000; Receipt #9617 $2,500; Receipt
27 #9609 $1,000; Receipt #9616 $1,000; Receipt #9615 $500; Diamond Bates Stamped 0006, 0007,
28 0040; Diamond Bates Stamped 0008, 0009, 0010; Collar necklace Bates stamped 0011, 0012; In
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
8
addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the option to produce records in lieu of identifying,
summarizing, and interpreting documents which were previously produced to Defendants.
Plaintiff identifies Plaintiffs Production of Documents, Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Plaintiffs
investigation and discovery are continuing.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESOPNSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.
10
The special interrogatory sought Ms. Van to state the date each payment she made to
Defendants.” Her response provides no dates. (/bid.) Nor do the documents produced have any
dates for payments. (see McLellan Decl. Ex. 8.) Her answer is incomplete.
10 Defendant has good cause to seek this information because Plaintiff has asserted that she
11 has paid over $23,000 in interest (see RJN Ex. A {J 2, 15) and she has to show that she has
12 complied with the contract to assert a breach of contract claim. Further, the time of payments is
13 relevant to Defendant’s statute of limitations and laches defense. (see RJN Ex. B [affirmative
14 defense numbers two and three].) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a
tS; further response to special interrogatory number 10.
16 Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome.
17 Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the breach of
18 contract causes of action Ms. Van brought. Third, her objection that she should not have to
19 respond because the request would require her to produce information she needs to prove her
20 claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55
21 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of|
22 order to civil discovery and to eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial
23 system, including the ‘sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation]
24 Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the
25 adversary nature of the trial itself’.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable
26
27 ? Similar to the prior special interrogatory, Ms. Van objected that the scope of this request was too
broad and not limited in scope. (McLellan Decl. Ex. 6.) Just as Defendant agreed to do in its meet
28 and confer, the scope of this request is narrowed to “any payments you made to Defendants
telated to the contracts that you have sued upon.” (McLellan Decl. Ex. 9 at p. 3.)
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
9
because it is only available when she states that she does not have sufficient information to
respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)
REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 10
All DOCUMENTS reflecting any valuation of any JEWELRY? YOU provided to
DEFENDANTS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 10
Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous and
unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad as to
scope, is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and unduly
10
burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff also objects on grounds that the request is not
11
reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff further objects to this request to the extent it is
12
cumulative or duplicative of any other request, and as such is unduly burdensome and
13
oppressive. Plaintiff objects on grounds that Defendant's request for "all documents"
14
provides an inadequate description and embraces too many subcategories to have much
tS;
meaning. To the extent that Defendant requests documents prepared in anticipation of
16
litigation, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the request seeks information prepared in
17
anticipation of litigation. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the
18
requested documents are equally available to Defendants, and as such are unduly
19
burdensome and oppressive. Without waiving the foregoing objections and subject
20
thereto, Plaintiff responds as follows: Previously produced documents, Bates No. 0001
21
To 0040. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing.
22
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO.
23
10
24
Ms. Van did not comply with the requirements under the Discovery Act in responding to
25
request for inspection number 10. A party must state that it either “will comply with the particular
26
demand,” “lacks the ability to comply,” or object. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) While
27
28
3 JEWELRY refers to the jewelry referenced in the COMPLAINT.
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
10
Ms. Van objected, she still responded by referring to documents she produced. That answer is
insufficient because it does not state she will comply with the demand.
Further, the documents produced do not adequately relate with the category sought. The
only document touching on this issue is Bates Stamp 0040, which relates to two diamonds Ms.
Van does not allege were provided in her complaint. (/d. Ex. 8.) She produced no documents
reflecting any valuation of the jewelry alleged in her complaint, the 584.5 grams of gold diamond
jewelry or the antique collar necklace. (Zbid.) In essence, Ms. Van refuses to comply fully with
this request.
Defendant has good cause to seek this information because understanding how the
10
amounts were calculated would tend to prove or disprove the value of the jewelry, and hence any
11
damages associated thereto with the claims alleged. (see Digital Music News LLC, supra, 226
12
Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a further response
13
stating that she will comply in full with the request, and produce documents reflecting valuations
14
of the 584.5 grams of gold diamond jewelry and the antique collar necklace and any other jewelry
tS;
Ms. Van provided to Defendants.*
16
Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome.
17
Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the damages Ms.
18
Van seeks. Third, her objection that she should not have to respond because the request would
19
require her to produce information she needs to prove her claims defeats the purpose of discovery.
20
(see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is
21
undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of order to civil discovery and to
22
eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial system, including the
23
“sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation] Discovery simply tries to ‘take
24
the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial
25
itself.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable because it is only available when
26
27
28 + Ms. Van objected to this discovery request as not limited in scope. (Ex. 6.) Though Defendant
disputes that, Defendant is willing to limit the scope to the jewelry Ms. Van provided to
Defendants in connection with any loan or contract at issue in this case.
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
11
she states that she does not have sufficient information to respond fully, which she did not do.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)
4 Dated: April 29, 2020 GATES EISENHART DAWSON
Steven McLellan, Attorneys for Defendants,
Victoria Creative Designer, Inc.; Ha M. Do;
Victoria Van Do; and Ryan Do
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056
Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al.
12
Preview
19CV355056 Santa Clara — Civil Y. Chavez Electronically Filed James L. Dawson, Bar No. 73521 Marc A. Eisenhart, Bar No. 188518 by Superior Court of CA, Steven D. McLellan, Bar No. 311395 County of Santa Clara, GATES EISENHART DAWSON on 4/29/2020 4:03 PM 125 South Market Street, Suite 1200 Reviewed By: Y. Chavez San Jose, CA 95113-2288 Case #19CV355056 Telephone: (408) 288-8100; Fax: (408) 288-9409 Envelope: 4296325 E-mail: jld@gedlaw.com; mae@gedlaw.com; sdm@gedlaw: Attorney for Defendants: Victoria Creative Designer, Inc.; Ha M. Do; Victoria Van Do; and Ryan Do SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 THUY VAN, Case No. 19CV355056 11 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT VICTORIA CREATIVE DESIGNER, INC.’S SEPARATE 13 VS. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY 14 RESPONSES AND PRODUCE VICTORIA CREATIVE DESIGNER, INC.; DOCUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF THUY HA M. DO; VICTORIA VAN DO AKA VAN VAN AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY 15 DO; RYAN DO; and DOES 1-20; SANCTIONS 16 Defendants. Date: TBD 17 Time: TBD Dept: 8 18 Judge: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni 19 20 21 Defendant Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., pursuant to CRC 3.1345, submits the 22 following separate statement in support of its motion to compel further responses for form 23 interrogatories, set one, numbers 7.1 and 50.1, special interrogatories, set one, numbers 7 and 10, 24 and requests for inspection, set one, number 10, and request for discovery sanctions. 25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1 26 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If 27 so, for each item of property: 28 a) describe the property; Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 1 b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; °) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1 Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this 10 interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is 11 unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 12 that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff 13 may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its 14 investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested tS; information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: 16 17 584.5 grams of gold diamond jewelry, value $34,000; 37.5 grams 24k one-hundred year- old antique gold collar necklace, value $5,000,000; Diamond 1.05 carat GIA 13429939, Diamond 18 1.02 carat GIA 14722115, value $34,900 in year 2006; In addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the 19 option to produce records in lieu of identifying, summarizing, and interpreting documents which 20 were previously produced to Defendants. Plaintiff identifies Plaintiff's Production of Documents , 21 Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing. 22 REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1 23 Ms. Van does not fully answer subpart (c) because she does not identify how she valued 24 the 584.5 grams of gold diamond jewelry and the antique collar necklace. She simply provided a 25 value for those two items. Nor do the documents she produced touch on any valuation of these 26 two items. (see McLellan Decl. Ex. 7.) Her answer is incomplete for those two items of jewelry, 27 and she must state “how the amount was calculated.” 28 Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 2, Defendant has good cause to seek this information because understanding how the amounts were calculated would tend to prove or disprove the value of the jewelry, and hence any damages associated thereto with the claims alleged. (see Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 (“Digital Music News, LLC”), disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 531 [good cause exists when proponent identifies “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”].) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a further response to form interrogatory 7.1. 10 Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome. 11 Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the causes of action 12 Ms. Van brought, and she is claiming damage to property by responding to this interrogatory. 13 Third, her objection that she should not have to respond because the request would require her to 14 produce information she needs to prove her claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see tS; Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the 16 Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of order to civil discovery and to eliminate some 17 of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial system, including the ‘sporting theory of| 18 litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation] Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element 19 out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial itself’.”].) Fourth, her 20 equally available objection is inapplicable because it is only available when she states that she 21 does not have sufficient information to respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 22 2030.220, subd. (c).) 23 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1 24 For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: 25 a) identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state the 26 name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; 27 28 Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 3 b) state each part of the agreement not in writing; the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date that part of the agreement was made; ¢) identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERDSON who has the DOCUMENT; d) identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; 10 e) state each modification not in writing, the date, and the name , ADDRESS, and 11 telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and the date the modification 12 was made; 13 f) identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement not in 14 writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has tS; the DOCUMENT. 16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1 17 Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and 18 unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to 19 time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this 20 interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is 21 unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 22 that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff’ 23 may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its 24 investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested 25 information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections, 26 Plaintiff responds as follows: 27 584.5 grams of diamond gold jewelry; 37.5 grams 24karat antique collar necklace: 28 Diamond GIA 13429939 GIA 14722115; Receipt#9703 $4,000; Receipt #9617 $ 2,500; Receipt Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 4 #9609 $1,000; Receipt #9616 $1,000; Receipt #9615 $500; Diamond Bates Stamped 0006, 0007, 0040; Collar necklace Bates stamped 0011, 0012; In addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the option to produce records in lieu of identifying, summarizing, and interpreting documents which were previously produced to Defendants. Plaintiff identifies Plaintiffs Production of Documents, Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., Victoria Van Do, Ryan Do, Ha Do, Agents of Victoria Creative Designer, Inc. 1818 Tully Road, Suite 166, San Jose, CA 95122, (408) 274-9581; Thuy Van, 1037 N. Abbott Ave. Milpitas CA 95035 (408) 262-3163. Defendants made untrue and misleading statements about the annual percentage rate charged on its loans, including statements that falsely suggest that low interest rate were given to 10 Plaintiff. Defendants made untrue, misleading statements about its holding practices that falsely 11 stated that the antique collar necklace and diamond gold jewelry will be returned to Plaintiff upon 12 request. On May 26, 2019. Defendants declined to return the antique collar necklace and diamond 13 gold jewelry to Plaintiff. 14 Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., Victoria Van Do, Ryan Do, Ha Do, Agents of Victoria tS; Creative Designer, Inc. 1818 Tully Road, Suite 166, San Jose, CA 95122, (408) 274-9581. 16 Plaintiff did not agree to any modification. Plaintiff s investigation and discovery are 17 continuing. 18 REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 19 50.1 20 Ms. Van does not fully answer subparts (a)-(c). Instead, she references all of the receipts 21 and pictures of the jewelry she produced, and incorporates all of the documents she produced. 22 First, CCP section 2030.230 does not apply because the interrogatory does not require preparing a 23 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of documents. Second, even if it did, Ms. Van’s answer 24 is evasive because she is including documents that are clearly not part of the contracts by 25 referencing pictures of the jewelry and a letter she wrote in 2019 (McLellan Decl. Ex. 8 at Bates 26 Stamp 0016) when the agreements at issue were made in 2011. (RJN Ex. A at {| 25.) Third, Ms. 27 Van’s response does not address whether any part of the agreements were not in writing as 28 required by FROG 50.1, subpart (b). Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 5 Defendant has good cause to seek this information because Defendant needs to know what Plaintiff asserts it the contract to determine if Defendant is in breach or if there is a contract. (see Digital Music News LLC, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 224.) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a further response to form interrogatory 50.1. Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome. Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the breach of contract causes of action Ms. Van brought. Third, her objection that she should not have to respond because the request would require her to produce information she needs to prove her claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 10 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of| 11 order to civil discovery and to eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial 12 system, including the ‘sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation] 13 Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the 14 adversary nature of the trial itself’.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable tS; because it is only available when she states that she does not have sufficient information to 16 respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 18 State all payments YOU made to Defendants. 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 20 Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and 21 unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to 22 time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this 23 interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is 24 unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 25 that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff 26 may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its 27 investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested 28 information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections, Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 6 Plaintiff responds as follows: Receipt#9703 $4,000; Receipt #9617 $2,500; Receipt #9609 $1,000; Receipt #9616 $1,000; Receipt #9615 $500; Diamond Bates Stamped 0006, 0007, 0040; Diamond 0008, 0009, 0010; Collar necklace Bates stamped 0011, 0012; In addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the option to produce records in lieu of identifying, summarizing, and interpreting documents which were previously produced to Defendants. Plaintiff identifies Plaintiffs Production of Documents, Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 a 10 The special interrogatory sought Ms. Van to state all payments that she made to the 11 Defendants.' Her response does not do that. Instead, she identified the agreements and the 12 amount of the loan, and her response is identical to special interrogatory number | requiring her to 13 specify each contract she had with the Defendants. Her answer is incomplete. 14 Nor does her identifying of documents help her. CCP section 2030.230 does not apply tS; because the interrogatory does not require preparing a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of| 16 documents—it simply requests the payments made. Even if this provision applied, the documents 17 produced do not provide receipts or other records to calculate the amounts paid. (see McLellan 18 Decl. Ex. 8.) 19 Defendant has good cause to seek this information because Plaintiff has asserted that she 20 has paid over $23,000 in interest (see RJN Ex. A {J 2, 15) and she has to show that she has 21 complied with the contract to assert a breach of contract claim. (see Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 22 Cal.App.Sth 384, 391 [breach of contract claim requires showing “plaintiff's performance or 23 excuse for nonperformance”’].) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a further 24 response to special interrogatory number 7. 25 26 27 ' Ms. Van objected that the scope of this request was too broad and not limited in scope. (McLellan Decl. Ex. 6.) In Defendant’s meet and confer, Defendant agree to narrow the request 28 “to any payments you made to Defendants related to the contracts that you have sued upon.” (McLellan Decl. Ex. 9 at p. 3.) Defendant is willing to narrow the scope of this request as detailed in its meet and confer. Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 7 Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome. Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the breach of contract causes of action Ms. Van brought. Third, her objection that she should not have to respond because the request would require her to produce information she needs to prove her claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of| order to civil discovery and to eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial system, including the ‘sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation] Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the 10 adversary nature of the trial itself”.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable 11 because it is only available when she states that she does not have sufficient information to 12 respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10 14 For each payment YOU made to DEFENDANTS, state the date that payment was made. tS; RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10 16 Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, and 17 unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad as to 18 time and scope, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this 19 interrogatory to the extent it is cumulative or duplicative of any other interrogatory, and as such is 20 unduly burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 21 that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive in that it seeks the disclosure of all evidence Plaintiff 22 may eventually seek to prove her claims, before Plaintiff has had an adequate time to conclude its 23 investigation and discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the requested 24 information is equally available to Defendants. Without waiving and subject to these objections, 25 Plaintiff responds as follows: 26 Cash payments to Victoria Van Do. Receipt#9703 $4,000; Receipt #9617 $2,500; Receipt 27 #9609 $1,000; Receipt #9616 $1,000; Receipt #9615 $500; Diamond Bates Stamped 0006, 0007, 28 0040; Diamond Bates Stamped 0008, 0009, 0010; Collar necklace Bates stamped 0011, 0012; In Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 8 addition, Plaintiff hereby exercises the option to produce records in lieu of identifying, summarizing, and interpreting documents which were previously produced to Defendants. Plaintiff identifies Plaintiffs Production of Documents, Bates Stamped 0001-0040. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESOPNSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10 The special interrogatory sought Ms. Van to state the date each payment she made to Defendants.” Her response provides no dates. (/bid.) Nor do the documents produced have any dates for payments. (see McLellan Decl. Ex. 8.) Her answer is incomplete. 10 Defendant has good cause to seek this information because Plaintiff has asserted that she 11 has paid over $23,000 in interest (see RJN Ex. A {J 2, 15) and she has to show that she has 12 complied with the contract to assert a breach of contract claim. Further, the time of payments is 13 relevant to Defendant’s statute of limitations and laches defense. (see RJN Ex. B [affirmative 14 defense numbers two and three].) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a tS; further response to special interrogatory number 10. 16 Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome. 17 Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the breach of 18 contract causes of action Ms. Van brought. Third, her objection that she should not have to 19 respond because the request would require her to produce information she needs to prove her 20 claims defeats the purpose of discovery. (see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 21 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of| 22 order to civil discovery and to eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial 23 system, including the ‘sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation] 24 Discovery simply tries to ‘take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the 25 adversary nature of the trial itself’.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable 26 27 ? Similar to the prior special interrogatory, Ms. Van objected that the scope of this request was too broad and not limited in scope. (McLellan Decl. Ex. 6.) Just as Defendant agreed to do in its meet 28 and confer, the scope of this request is narrowed to “any payments you made to Defendants telated to the contracts that you have sued upon.” (McLellan Decl. Ex. 9 at p. 3.) Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 9 because it is only available when she states that she does not have sufficient information to respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 10 All DOCUMENTS reflecting any valuation of any JEWELRY? YOU provided to DEFENDANTS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 10 Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds it is overbroad as to scope, is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and unduly 10 burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff also objects on grounds that the request is not 11 reasonably limited in time or scope. Plaintiff further objects to this request to the extent it is 12 cumulative or duplicative of any other request, and as such is unduly burdensome and 13 oppressive. Plaintiff objects on grounds that Defendant's request for "all documents" 14 provides an inadequate description and embraces too many subcategories to have much tS; meaning. To the extent that Defendant requests documents prepared in anticipation of 16 litigation, Plaintiff objects on grounds that the request seeks information prepared in 17 anticipation of litigation. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds the 18 requested documents are equally available to Defendants, and as such are unduly 19 burdensome and oppressive. Without waiving the foregoing objections and subject 20 thereto, Plaintiff responds as follows: Previously produced documents, Bates No. 0001 21 To 0040. Plaintiffs investigation and discovery are continuing. 22 REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION NO. 23 10 24 Ms. Van did not comply with the requirements under the Discovery Act in responding to 25 request for inspection number 10. A party must state that it either “will comply with the particular 26 demand,” “lacks the ability to comply,” or object. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) While 27 28 3 JEWELRY refers to the jewelry referenced in the COMPLAINT. Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 10 Ms. Van objected, she still responded by referring to documents she produced. That answer is insufficient because it does not state she will comply with the demand. Further, the documents produced do not adequately relate with the category sought. The only document touching on this issue is Bates Stamp 0040, which relates to two diamonds Ms. Van does not allege were provided in her complaint. (/d. Ex. 8.) She produced no documents reflecting any valuation of the jewelry alleged in her complaint, the 584.5 grams of gold diamond jewelry or the antique collar necklace. (Zbid.) In essence, Ms. Van refuses to comply fully with this request. Defendant has good cause to seek this information because understanding how the 10 amounts were calculated would tend to prove or disprove the value of the jewelry, and hence any 11 damages associated thereto with the claims alleged. (see Digital Music News LLC, supra, 226 12 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Therefore, the Court should compel Ms. Van to provide a further response 13 stating that she will comply in full with the request, and produce documents reflecting valuations 14 of the 584.5 grams of gold diamond jewelry and the antique collar necklace and any other jewelry tS; Ms. Van provided to Defendants.* 16 Ms. Van’s objections have no merit. First, the request is not ambiguous or burdensome. 17 Second, the information sought is within the scope of discovery. It relates to the damages Ms. 18 Van seeks. Third, her objection that she should not have to respond because the request would 19 require her to produce information she needs to prove her claims defeats the purpose of discovery. 20 (see Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288 [“It is 21 undeniable the Discovery Act was intended to bring a new form of order to civil discovery and to 22 eliminate some of the more undesirable elements of the adversarial system, including the 23 “sporting theory of litigation—namely surprise at trial.’ [Citation] Discovery simply tries to ‘take 24 the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of the trial 25 itself.”].) Fourth, her equally available objection is inapplicable because it is only available when 26 27 28 + Ms. Van objected to this discovery request as not limited in scope. (Ex. 6.) Though Defendant disputes that, Defendant is willing to limit the scope to the jewelry Ms. Van provided to Defendants in connection with any loan or contract at issue in this case. Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 11 she states that she does not have sufficient information to respond fully, which she did not do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).) 4 Dated: April 29, 2020 GATES EISENHART DAWSON Steven McLellan, Attorneys for Defendants, Victoria Creative Designer, Inc.; Ha M. Do; Victoria Van Do; and Ryan Do 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Separate Statement ISO Mot. to Compel Further Discovery Responses Case No. 19CV355056 Van v. Victoria Creative Designer, Inc., et al. 12