Space Exploration Technologies Corp. vs. Enteshari

Further, Plaintiff’s licenses and registrations would not reveal any information regarding its operations that would be relevant here, such as its policies and procedures regarding credit card purchases, shipping and chargebacks. Nor would they bear on Plaintiff’s credibility. Therefore, the information sought in No. 3.7 is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

No. 9.1 Defendant argues that further response to No. 9.1 is warranted because the response fails to provide the specific information requested regarding the nature, date, and amount of damages claimed and the recipient of each claimed item of damage. Plaintiff argues no further response is warranted because Defendant’s use of the generic definition of the term “incident” renders the request unintelligible and, moreover, there is no further information to provide because a comprehensive explanation of Plaintiff’s damages has been provided in a detailed spreadsheet.

The term “incident” is defined as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” By asking for all damages Plaintiff attributes to the incident, Defendant is plainly asking Plaintiff to provide information regarding all damages at issue in Plaintiff’s own pleading. Plaintiff’s argument that the interrogatory is unintelligible due to the defined term is rejected.

Further, Plaintiff’s arguments establish that there is additional information that Plaintiff

could and should provide in response. While Plaintiff argues that all information available to it has been provided in a spreadsheet, as Defendant points out, the response itself makes no reference to any spreadsheet or other document. Thus, the Court finds a further response to be warranted.

No. 9.2 This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to describe each document that supports the damages it claims. In response, Plaintiff listed several categories of documents: “documents showing that the payment information used to fund the purchase of goods that were shipped to Defendants were charged back by the credit card issue and the reasons therefor; shipping and delivery records; order history records; documents showing the share of Starlink kits that are sold directly by Responding Party; documents showing the amounts charged by the investigators, attorneys, and court system for investigating and pursuing Responding Party’s claims against Defendants; and sheriffs’ incident reports and property receipts.”

Defendant argues that further response is required because a generic reference to broad classes of documents is insufficient. The Court disagrees. The interrogatory asked Plaintiff to describe each relevant document and by providing the general categories of documents, Plaintiff has adequately identified all documents upon which it relies in support of its claim for damages. Plaintiff is not required to identify each individual document by name.

Defendant also argues that the response is insufficient because it does not identify each person who has custody of the documents. However, Plaintiff represents that it has already produced its shipping and delivery records, Sheriff incident reports, property receipts, a spreadsheet with shipping, delivery, and chargeback information, and documents related to investigator fees. Thus, clearly, the identified documents are in the custody of Plaintiff. The Court does not find that compelling a further response to require Plaintiff to state that those documents are

within its custody, a statement that would provide no probative value, to be warranted.

No. 12.1 Defendant argues that a further response to No. 12.1 is warranted because Plaintiff’s objection to the term “incident” is without merit. While the Court agrees that the objection is without merit, Plaintiff provided a full and complete response to the interrogatory despite its objection. Thus, the Court finds no further response to be warranted.

Nos. 12.2, 12.3, and 12.6 Interrogatory No. 12.2 asks Plaintiff whether anyone on its behalf interviewed any individual concerning the incident and, if so, for the name, address, and telephone number of both the interviewer and the interviewee and the date of the interview. No. 12.3 asks for the same information regarding any written or recorded statement obtained by Plaintiff. No. 12.6 asks for information regarding reports made by any person concerning the incident. In response to Nos. 12.2 and 12.3, Plaintiff stated it would produce the Orange County Sheriff’s Incident Report and Plaintiff’s internal investigation records, and in response to No. 12.6, Plaintiff stated it would produce nonprivileged writings, all pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.

Defendant argues further responses are required because the documents produced do not “easily reveal all the information requested.” However, the Court finds Plaintiff’s reliance on section 2030.230, which allows for production of documents from which an answer to an interrogatory may be found if the burden of preparing a summary of the documents would be substantially the same for the propounding and responding parties, to be proper.

No. 12.7 In response to this interrogatory regarding whether anyone has inspected the scene of the incident, Plaintiff stated that the interrogatory is inappropriate for the allegations at issue here. As Plaintiff points out, this is not a case where there was one

single incident. Therefore, there is not one single “scene of the incident” to be inspected. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection has merit and no further response is warranted.

Nos 13.1 and 13.2 These interrogatories concern whether any surveillance was conducted by Plaintiff or anyone acting on its behalf. Plaintiff’s response states that Plaintiff retained an investigator who conducted surveillance of Defendants Ali Enteshari and Amin Enteshari in late 2023 near the Rockrose Way address in Irvine, California and Plaintiff will produce the surveillance videos, which reflect the names and contact information of the investigators and the custodians of any surveillance photographs, along with any nonprivileged written reports.

Defendant again argues that Plaintiff’s reliance on section 2030.230 is improper. However, the burden of ascertaining the names and contact information of the investigators from the produced surveillance videos and written reports would be substantially the same for both Plaintiff and Defendant. The Court finds that Defendant’s arguments against section 2030.230 lack merit and no further responses are warranted.

In light of all the above, the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED as to No. 9.1 and DENIED as to all other disputed interrogatories. Plaintiff shall serve a further response within 15 days.

No sanctions.

Moving party to give notice. 102 James Bay Resources Limited vs. Lockett & Horwitz, 23-01313001

Plaintiffs, James Bay Resources Limited and Stephen Shefsky (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an order compelling Defendant John Robert Armstrong (“Armstrong”) to serve initial, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiffs also seek an order that the matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One be