Olivia Villalovos vs James Balster et al

Case Number

24CV00259

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 03/28/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to document demands and production of documents, from Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP, is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. The motion is granted as to requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 28, and 29.

            a. Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP shall provide further code-compliant responses, without objections except those based on privilege, no later than April 11, 2025.

            b. To the extent documents are withheld based on a claim of privilege, Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP shall provide a privilege log that fully complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1). The privilege log is also to be served no later than April 11, 2025.

2. The motion is denied as to requests Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27.

3. No sanctions are imposed.

Background: 

The operative complaint filed by plaintiff Olivia Villalovos in this matter on January 18, 2024, alleges one cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 3439 et seq. (Uniform Voidable Transactions Act) against defendants James Balster (James) and Jodi Lee Balster (Jodi). (Note: Due to common surnames, the court will refer to some defendants by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff was the victim of childhood sexual assault and other misconduct by James and Cecilia Balster (Cecilia). (Compl., ¶ 8.) James is plaintiff’s step-grandfather and Cecilia is plaintiff’s grandmother. (Ibid.) Jodi is the daughter of Cecilia. (Ibid.)

As alleged in the complaint:

Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against James and Cecilia on December 18, 2022, arising from the childhood sexual abuse by James (the Abuse Action). (Compl., ¶ 10.) After plaintiff served James and Cecilia with the summons and complaint in the Abuse Action, and after the default of James was entered in the Abuse Action, James conveyed to Jodi property owned by James and located at 5047 San Vicente Drive in Santa Barbara, California (the San Vicente Property). (Id. at ¶¶ 10-13 & Exh. 1.)

Judgment was entered against James in the Abuse Action on January 8, 2024. (Compl., ¶ 14 & Exh. 2.) No amount of the judgment has been paid by James. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that the San Vicente Property is the only asset available to pay the judgment entered against James in the Abuse Action, and that the transfer of the San Vicente Property to Jodi was made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 15, 16.)

On January 22, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of related case identifying the Abuse Action as related to the present action. On February 23, 2024, the court ordered the Abuse Action related to the present action.

On February 8, 2024, plaintiff filed a verified petition for an order under Civil Code section 1714.10 allowing plaintiff to file a first amended complaint alleging a cause of action for civil conspiracy against the law firm of Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP (the Law Firm). On May 10, 2024, although the court found that the claims alleged fell withing the initial scope of Civil Code section 1714.10, the petition was denied, without prejudice, because, among other things, the first proposed first amended complaint alleged facts which were based solely on the Law Firm’s conduct in its capacity as attorneys for its purported clients Jodi, James, and Cecilia, and that agent’s immunity applied as a bar to the claims alleged in the proposed first amended complaint. The petition was also denied on the grounds that plaintiff alleged no facts demonstrating that the claims alleged in the proposed first amended complaint fell within any exception to section 1714.10, or that plaintiffs set forth any express or implied allegations showing that the Law Firm had an independent legal duty to plaintiff.

On May 29, 2024, plaintiff filed second petition for order under Civil Code section 1714.10.

On August 23, 2024, the petition was granted, and, on the same day, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (“FAC”) adding the Law Firm as a defendant alleging that it aided and abetted the fraudulent transfer of the San Vicente property.

On October 4, 2024, the Law Firm filed its answer to the FAC asserting a general denial and 22 affirmative defenses.

On October 4, 2024, plaintiff served the Law Firm with a demand for inspection and production of documents, set one (“the requests”). (Woosley Decl., ¶ 12 & Exh. 10.)

On November 4, 2024, the Law Firm served its original responses to the requests.

Deeming the Law Firms responses to the requests inadequate, on November 14, 2024, plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to the Law Firm. (Woosley Decl., ¶ 13 & Exh. 11.)

On November 21, 2024, the Law Firm served verified further responses to the requests. (Woosley Decl., ¶ 14 & Exh. 12.)

Following further attempts to meet and confer, on January 6, 2025, plaintiff filed the present motion.

The Law Firm filed its opposition on March 10, 2025.

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“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 by 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

A motion to compel further responses to a request for production of documents “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to make a “fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) (“Glenfed”) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) 

There are 29 requests in dispute. Plaintiff’s argument is essentially that the Law Firm does have some of the requested documents and that they are required to provide a privilege log.

As to each of the requests, the Law Firm responded with objections such as:

“Objection. This request may call for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or the duty of confidentiality. Additionally, this request assumes facts. Notwithstanding and subject to these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, it has identified no responsive documents in its custody, possession, or control. On information and belief, no such documents ever existed.” Or:

“Objection. This request may call for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, third party’s right to financial privacy, and/or the duty of confidentiality. Additionally, this request assumes facts and is not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is also overly burdensome and harassing. Notwithstanding and subject to these objections, Responding Party responds that, following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, it has identified no responsive documents in its custody, possession, or control. On information and belief, no such documents ever existed.”

Some of the requests are valid on their face and pertain to documents and actions that relate to the potential transfer of the subject property.

However, many of the requests do not, on their face, appear relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Those requests are Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. As to each of the requests, plaintiff’s separate statement, as well as the motion itself, fails to provide a fact-specific showing of relevance as required. Thus, she has failed to meet her burden.

As to the other requests, they are so linked to the action against the Law Firm that the relevance is obvious. And, as to those requests, none of the Law Firms objections, other than those based on privilege, are valid objections to the requests. The objections, including the improper boilerplate “general objections,” other than those based on privilege, are overruled. The Law Firm will be ordered to provide complete, code-compliant, responses, absent objections other than those based on privilege, to requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 28, and 29.

Privilege Log

“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)

“The purpose of a ‘ “privilege log” ’ is to provide a specific factual description of documents in aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production. [Citation.] The purpose of providing a specific factual description of documents is to permit a judicial evaluation of the claim of privilege. [Citations.]’ ” [Citation.]” (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189.)

The Law Firm is correct that no privilege log was required to be produced concurrently with the written responses to the requests. However, the court will now deem a privilege log necessary, and will order the Law Firm to provide a privilege log for any documents withheld based on a claim of privilege.

By way of the opposition, the Law Firm states: “Because of the confidentiality owed . . . a privilege log would be limited to stating “ ‘documents related to the representation of a client who has not waived confidentiality.’ ” Otherwise, additional details could reveal information relating to the representation.” (Opp., p. 11, ll. 3-6.)

The Law Firm is cautioned that such a description would be wholly inadequate and could subject it to sanctions. (see Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127-1128.) “[T]he existence of a document containing privileged information is not privileged. [Citations.]” (Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1190.) The Law Firm will be expected to fully comply with the Code of Civil Procedure by providing sufficient factual information for other parties, and the court, to evaluate the merits of any privilege claim.

As the motion will be only partially granted, and the court has not made any determination that there are discoverable documents not protected by a privilege, no sanctions will be imposed at this time.