Fernandez v. Li

Opinion

•

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ and MARIE A. FERNANDEZ, CIVIL CASE NO. CV0970-13

Plaintiffs, 10 DECI SI O N AND O RDER vs.

12 LI, XIU YAN, WANG, JUN RONG, and YUN SHING GUAM, INC., 13

14 Defendants.

15 INTRODUCTION 16 Thi s matter ca me before the Honorable James L. Cant o II o n Plaintiffs Victor C. 17 Fernandez and Marie A. Fernandez's motion to compel discovery, filed on April 21, 2014. 18 Briefing concluded on May 30, 2014 and, on June 18, 2014, the Court issued notice that oral 19 argument was not necessary. Having considered the parties' briefs and the applicable law, the 20 Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On Augus t 14, 2013, Plaintiffs Victor C. Fernandez and Maria A. Fernandez fi l ed a 23 veri fi ed co mpl ai nt agai nst Defendant s Xi u Yan Li , Ju n Ro ng Wang, and Yu ri Shi ng Gu am, Inc. 24 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached a lease agreement between them, committed fraud in 25 the inducement, committed actual fraud in failing to renovate the leased premises, and caused 26 property damage to the leased premises. (Verified Compl., 2-4, Aug. 14, 2013). 27

(91\11GI Page 1 of 9 On September 11, 2013, Defendants jointly and individually filed a motion to dismiss. De fe nda nt Xiu Ya n Li move d to dis mis s the c ompla int against her on the grounds that the

complaint failed to state a contract claim against her upon which relief can be granted. (Mo t.

Dismiss, 1, Sept. 11, 2013). Defendants Jun Rong Wang and Yung Shing Guam, Inc. moved to

dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a cla im against them. Id. Last l y,

Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the case against all of them on the grounds that Plaintiffs

did not have a business license during the times relevant to the action. Id.

On Feb ruary 11, 2014, the Court issued a Decision and Order granting Defendant s'

9 motion to dismiss with respect to all claims related to the lease agreement and denying

10 Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claim for property damage. (Dec . &

11 Order, 5-9, Feb. 11, 2014). This Court held that, because Plaintiffs did not have a business

12 license throughout the time of the lease, any and all claims related to the lease could not be

13 maintained by P laintiffs. Id. at 8. Howe ver, P laintiffs' cla im for property damage was

14 independent of the lease and withstood the motion to dismiss. Id. at 8-9.

15 On November 26, 2013, Plaintiffs served Defendants Xiu Yan Li and Jun Rong Wang

16 each with the First Set of Interrogatories. (Mot. Compel, Exhibits 2a-2b, Apr. 21, 2014). On

17 Janu ary 2, 2014, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline for discovery responses from

18 December 2 6 , 2 0 1 3 t o F ebru ary 7 , 2 0 1 4 . (Stipulation and Order, 1, Jan. 2, 2014). On Ma rc h

19 12, 2014, Defendant s Li and Wang each provided answers to Plaintiffs' First Set o f

20 Interrogatories. (Mot. Compel, Exhibits 3a-3b, Apr. 21, 2014).

21 On April 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiffs allege that 22 Defendants collectively failed to provide initial disclosures , Defendants Li and Wang failed to

23 properly respond to multiple interrogatory questions, and Defendant Yun S hing Gua m, Inc.

24 co mpl et el y fai led to answer the request for production. (Mo t . Co mpel , 2, Apr. 21, 2014).

25 Plaintiffs assert that the interrogatories at a minimum would tend to lead to relevant discovery,

26 which is all that the requesting party needs to show. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue

27 that Defendants cannot object based on their belief that the questions are irrelevant , as their

28 qu est i o ns are "cl e arl y permi ssi bl e." Id. at 2-3. Thus Plaintiffs request that the Court compel

DR G1NA' Page 2 of 9 Defendant s t o su bmi t pro per respo nses t o i nt erro gat o ri es and pro du ce requ est ed di sco very and

sanction Defendant s fo r t hei r failure to co m pl y with discovery, in the fo rm of reasonable

attorney's fees and costs. Id . at 6.

On May 19, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition. Defendants first note that this Court

5 di smi ssed Plaintiffs' fraud cla im and all cl ai ms related to the purported lease agreement .

6 (Opp'n Mot., 1-2, May 19, 2014). Defendant Yun Shing Guam, Inc. claims that it submitted its

7 response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents, wherein it either informed

8 Plaintiffs that it did not have the requested document or provided the specific basis for not

9 providing th e document. Id. at 2. Defendant s Li and Wang assert that their objections to

10 interrogatories were made with sufficient specificity on the basis of relevance. Id. at 3 . Th ey

11 claim that Plaintiffs' interrogatories included several questions related to Plaintiffs' fraud claim

12 as well as claims related to the purported lease agreement. Id. Defendants Li and Wang argue

13 tha t, because the Cou rt dismissed Plaintiffs' fraud cla im and those cl ai ms related to the

14 purported lease agreement, Defendants need not answer the interrogatories relating to those

15 claims. Id . Defendants Li and Wang contend that Plaintiffs "should have been well aware of

16 the specific basis for Defendants' objections." Id.

17 On May 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a reply, arguing that Defendants failed to comply with

18 the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam when they did not provide timely responses to

19 interrogatories. (Reply, 2, May 30, 2014). Plaintiffs assert that the interrogatories were the

20 kind of questions that could lead to admissible discovery. Id.

21 D IS C U S S IO N

22 I. Interrogatories and Production of Documents

23 Under Ru l e 3 3 o f t he Gu am Ru l es o f Ci vi l P ro cedu re (herei naft er "GRCP "), "any part y

24 may serve upon any other party written interrogatories ... to be answered by the party served."

25 Gu am R. Ci v. P . 3 3 (a) (2 0 1 0 ). The sco pe o f permi ssi bl e i nt erro gat o ri es are go verned by Ru l e

26 26(b)(1), which provides:

27 [p]arties ma y obtain discovery regarding an y matter, not privileged, that is 28 relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

Page 3 of 9 discovery of admissible evidence. Guam R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2010) (emphasis added).

The party upon who m interrogatories are served is required to serve answ ers and

objections within 30 days of the date the interrogatories were served, or at a different time agreed upon in writing by the parties. Guam R. Civ. P. 33(b) (3) (2010). Rule 33 also mandates

that any objections to interrogatories "shall be stated with specificity." Gu am R. Ci v . P . 3 3 (b)

(4) (2010). When answering an interrogatory, "[a]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer,

or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond." Guam R. Civ. P. 37(a)

(3) (2010).

Similar to the rules regarding written interrogatories, Rule 34 of the GRCP governs the 10 production of documents. Guam R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (2010). Under Rule 34, "[a]ny party may I1 serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request any 12 desi gnat ed do cu ment s." Id. When a party receives a request to produce a document, that party 13 is required to provide the requesting party with a written response within 30 days of service, or 14 at a time agreed upon in writing by the parties. Guam R. Civ. P. 34(b) (2010). 15 In this case, Plaintiffs served their First Request for Interrogatories on Defendants Xiu 16 Yan Li and Jung Rong Wang on November 26, 2013. (Mot. Compel, Ex. 2a-2b, Apr. 21, 2014). 17 As permitted by Rule 33, the parties agreed in writing to move the deadline for answers to the 18 interrogatories from December 26, 2013 to February 7, 2014. (Stipulation and Order, 1, Jan. 2, 19 2014). Plaintiffs also served Defendant Yu n Shing Gu am, Inc. wi th a First Requ est for 20 Production of Documents o n November 26, 2013. (Mo t . Co mpel , E x. 1, Apr. 21 , 2014). 21 Defendants Li and Wang each returned answers to the interrogatories to Plaintiffs on March 12, 22 2014, about five weeks after the agreed upon deadline. Id. at E x. 3 a-3 b. The Court was not 23 provided with evidence of Def endant Yun Shing Gu am Inc.' s submission of a response to 24 Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents. 25 II. Mo tio n to C ompe l : Interrogatories 26 Citing GRCP Rule 37, Plaintiffs move this Court to compel Defendants Li and Wang to 27 answer the interrogatories. (Mot. Compel, 6, Apr. 21, 2014). 28

Page 4 of 9 I Under Guam law, Rule 37 of the GRCP governs actions a discovering party may take 2 due to the respondent party's failure to disclose or to cooperate in the discovery process. "[A]n

3 evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose,

answer, or respond." Gua m R. C iv. P. 37(a)(3) (2010). Rule 37 of the GRCP provides, in

pertinent part, as follows:

if a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspe ction will be permitted as requested or fails to permit an inspe ction as requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request. Th e motion mu st include a certification that the movant has i n good fai th 10 conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to ma ke the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action. 11 Guam R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B) (2010). 12 Furthermore, the moving party must inform the Court "which discovery requests are the 13 su bj ect o f [t he] mo t i o n t o co mpel , and, fo r each di spu t ed respo nse, i nfo rm t he [c]o u rt why t he 14 information sought is relevant and why [the opposing party's] objections are not justified." 15 United States v. Baisden, 881 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1205 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted).1 Thi s 16 is in line with the Supreme Court of Guam's vi ew t hat in orde r for a c ourt to c onduc t a 17 meaningful review, "the parties must articulate their arguments in a way that allows a court to 18 appl y t he reco gni zed ru l es o f l aw." Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2 ¶ 35. "It is not sufficient 19 for a party ` simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to 20 discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, 21 and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position . " Id. (citations omitted). 22 Thus the Court shall first consider whether Plaintiffs have met their burden to: (1) confer 23 or attempt to confer in good faith with Defendants in an effort to secure the information or 24 material without court action; and (2) inform the Court why the information sought is relevant 25 and why t he o ppo si ng part y' s o bj ect i o ns are no t j u st i fi ed fo r each di spu t ed respo nse. Baisden, 26

27 ' Because Rule 37 (a)(2)(B) of the G RCP i s nearl y i denti cal to Rul e 37(a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rul e of Ci vi l Procedure, Pl ai nti ffs' moti on w i l l be anal yzed w i th reference to perti nent federal case l aw , whi ch i s consi dered 28 instructi ve i n thi s context. See Sananap v. Cyfred , Ltd., 2011 Guam 21 ¶ 24 n. 13; Pelow ski v. Taitano , 2000 G uam 34 ¶ 12.

Page 5 of 9 I 881 F .Su pp.2 d at 1205; Guam R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B) (2010). If the Plaintiffs have met their

2 burden, the Court shall co nsi d er t he adeq u acy of Defendants' objections and the merit o f

3 Plaintiffs' motion.

4 In t hi s case, Defendant s Li and Wang each o bj ect ed t o fi ft een (1 5 ) o f P l ai nt i ffs' t hi rt y-

5 seven (3 7) interrogatories o n the basis of relevance by answeri ng as foll ows: "Objection:

6 Irrelevant." (Op p'n Mot., 3, Ma y 19, 2014); (Mot. Co mpel , Ex. 3a-3b, Apr. 21 , 2014).

7 Plaintiffs have satisfied the first prong of their burden by attempting to resolve the issue without

8 the Court's intervention by writing to Defendants regarding the outstanding discovery requests.

9 (Mot. Compel, Ex. 4, Apr. 21, 2014). 10 In regard to the second prong of Plaintiffs' bu rden, P l ai nt i ffs ass ert t hat t he o bj ect ed 11 interrogatories will help t hem with their case, but fail to expl ai n why a majority of the

12 information sought is relevant. (Mo t . Compel, 2-3, Apr. 21, 2014). Plaintiffs attempt to 13 e xpla in the relevance o f Int erro gat o ry No . 9, which asks: "Di d yo u charge or did a nyone

14 whether real or legal charge anyone who was allowed to stay, use, or otherwise occupy the 15 P remi ses? " Id . at 3 -4 . Although part of Plaintiffs' explanation of this question's relevance 16 pertains to a previously dismissed fraud claim, Plaintiffs also posit that the question will help 17 sho w whet her t he Defendant s are respo nsi bl e fo r t he behavi o r o f t he t enant s, whi ch may rel at e

18 to the alleged property damage claim. Id.

19 The Court finds that Defendant's answer to this interrogatory and interrogatories related

20 to this question (#9, 9a, 10, and 11) are incomplete and are a failure to respond, because

21 Plaintiff has sufficiently explained the relevance of those questions. Therefore, the Court grants

22 Plaintiffs' request as to these four interrogatories and co mpel s Defendant s to answer

23 Interrogatories No. 9, 9a, 10, and 11. With respect to the remaining objected interrogatories, the

24 Court notes that Defendants Li and Wang's objections lack sufficient detail. More importantly

25 though, Plaintiffs have not met their burden for the remaining objected interrogatories to inform

26 the Court why the information sought is relevant and why the opposing party's objections are 27 not justified. Baisden, 881 F.Supp.2d at 1205. Thus, the Court will not grant Plaintiffs' motion

28 to compel as to the other interrogatories.

Page 6 of 9 I III. Mo tio n to Compel: Production of Documents

2 Citing GRCP Rule 37, Plaintiffs also move this Court to compel Defendant Yun Shing 3 Guam, Inc. to produce requested documents. (Mot. Compel, 6, Apr. 21, 2014). Plaintiffs assert

4 that Defendant Yun Shing Guam, Inc. completely ignored their request. Id. at 2. Defendant s 5 claim that Defendant Yun Shing Guam, Inc. submitted its response to Plaintiffs' First Request

6 for Production of Documents on March 12, 2014. (Opp'n Mot., 2, May 19, 2014). 7 As recited above, when a party receives a request to produce a document, that party is 8 required to serve the requesting party with a written response within 30 days of service, or at a

9 time agreed upon in writing by the parties. Guam R. Civ. P. 34(b) (2010).

10 In this case, Defendant Yun Shing Guam, Inc. failed to adequately demonstrate that they

11 met t hei r bu rden by servi ng P l ai nt i ffs wi t h a wri t t en respo nse. Thus the Court hereby orders

12 Defendant Yun Shing Guam, Inc. to serve Plaintiffs with a written response to Plaintiffs' First

13 Request for Production of Documents within 10 days of the issuance of this Decision and Order.

14 IV. Sanctions

15 Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendants for failing to co mpl y with discovery

16 requests. (Mot. Compel, 6, Apr. 21, 2014). Rule 37 of the GRCP provides as follows:

17 If the motion [to compel] is granted or if the disclosure or requested discovery is 18 provided after the motion is filed, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or 19 attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in ma king the motion, including attorney's fees, 20 unless the court finds that the motion was filed without the movant's first making 21 a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action, or that the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially 22 justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 23 Guam R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A) (2010). 24 The "substantially justified" factor has been satisfied when there is a "genuine dispute or 25 if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action." S ee L ee v. 26 Wa l t ers, 1 7 2 F .R.D. 4 2 1 , 4 2 5 (D. Or. 1997) (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565

27 (1988)).

28 In this case, prior to filing their motion to compel, Plaintiffs attempted to resolve their

Page 7 of 9 discovery issues with all Defendants without this Court's involvement. (Mot. Compel, Ex. 4, Apr. 21, 2014). The Cou rt finds that Defendant Li and Wa ng's objections to Plaintiffs'

i nt erro gat o ri es are o u t si de o f t he sco pe o f sanct i o ns mandat ed by GRCP Ru l e 3 7 becau se t hei r

objections, within the scope of relevance, were related to cl ai ms dismissed in the Co u rt ' s

Decision and Order issued on February 11, 2014. The Court reasons that their objections were

substantially justified because a reasonable person could find that interrogatories that solicit 7 answers relating to already dismissed claims are irrelevant. Lee v. Walters, 172 F.R.D. at 425.

8 The Co u rt fi nds no j u st i fi cat i o n fo r Defend ant Yu n Shi ng Gu am, Inc.' s fai l u re t o serve

9 Plaintiffs a response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents. Therefore,

10 Defendant Yun Shing Guam, Inc. and its attorney must both pay Plaintiffs, in equal shares, the

11 reasonable expenses incurred in making this motion, including attorney's fees. Gu am R. Ci v. P .

12 37(a)(4)(A) (2010). Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court an itemization of its expenses, including

13 at t o r ney' s fees, incurred in maki ng the present motion, and the Cou rt shall apportion the

14 reasonable expe nses incurred i n relation to the motion in a jus t manner pursuant to Rule

15 37(a)(4)(C).

16 V. Le a ve to Ame nd

17 Under Guam law, leave to amend a party's pleadings shall be freely given when justice

18 so requires. Guam R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2010). It is the moving party's burden to inform the court

19 of the grounds that justify leave to amend. Williams v. Thornton, 2 0 1 0 WL 2 6 0 5 2 1 0 , *2 (E .D.

20 Cal . 2010). Furthermore, "the C ourt will not gra nt le a ve to a me nd in the a bs e nc e of s ome

21 demonstration that `justice so requires' that the Court grant leave to amend." Id.

22 In this case, Plaintiffs request that the period to amend the complaint be continued for

23 thirty days after the requested discovery is provided to them. (Reply, 3-4, May 30, 2014). They

24 assert that "discovery facilitates the need to amend pleadings, file motions, or provide a proper

25 prosecution of a case." Id. at 3 . The Court agrees that the discovery process is an essential 26 component of the adversarial syst em. However, it finds that this gene ral assertion fails to

27 demonstrate why justice so requires that the Court grant leave to amend to Plaintiffs in this case.

28 Williams, 2010 WL 2605210, *2 . F o r t hi s reaso n, Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is

Page 8 of 9 deni ed.

CONCLUSION Based o n t he fo rego i ng, P l ai nt i ffs' mo t i o n t o co mpel di sco very i s hereby GRANTE D i n

7 part. The Court orders Defendants Xiu Yan Li and Jung Rong Wang to answer Plaintiffs' 8 interrogatories No. 9, 9a, 10, and 11. The Court also orders Defendant Yuri Shing Guam, Inc. to

9 serve Plaintiffs with a response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents within

10 10 days of the issuance of this Decision and Order. Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court an 11 itemization of its expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in making the present motion by

12 August 21, 2014.

13 This matter is set for further proceedings on August 27, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

16 SO ORDE RE D t hi s day o f Au g u st , 2 0 1 4 . 17

20 HON. JAMES L. CANTO II 21 Judge, S upe rio r Court of Guam

Z7ERVICE VIA COURT BOX 27 I acknowle dge that a copy of the origina l hereto was placed in the 28

Clerk