112 Space Exploration Technologies Corp. vs. Enteshari

If good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made

to document disclosure. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98].)

In this instance, the remaining RPD at issue is No.

76.

RPD No. 76: The accounting software file for VSAT PLUS, produced in native format (e.g., .QBW, .SAJ., .SCV).

Defendant objected on several grounds: privileged tax information; overly broad, vague, and ambiguous; protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine; and “accounting software file” is vague and ambiguous.

Defendant also responded: “Discovery is continuing and Responding party reserves the right to amend/supplement this response once new documentation, if any, is ascertained.”

Plaintiff sets forth good cause, explaining that the native accounting file for Defendant Ali Enteshari’s wholly-owned business, Defendant VSATplus International, Inc., is relevant to show Defendants’ profits from reselling Plaintiff’s stolen property, including any connection to the Dubai-based entity that supposedly bought most of the kits for unreasonably low prices. Plaintiff also establishes specific facts justifying discovery because Plaintiff asked for Defendant’s profit information in straightforward interrogatories asking how much Defendant paid for each kit and how much they resold it for, but Defendant omitted a large number of purchases that Plaintiff knows exist because they show up in other documents Defendants produced. (See 4/10/26 Haj Decl. ¶ 4.)

Therefore, the burden shifted to Defendant to justify his many objections.

Defendant’s sole position is that he has agreed to produce responsive documents within their possession, custody, or control.

However, it remains unclear whether Defendant will produce the documents as a whole, or whether they will withhold some on the basis of the aforementioned objections. As such, Defendants have not sustained their burden and the Motion is GRANTED as to No.

76.

Defendant to provided further responses within 15 days.

Defendants’ Requests for Production, Set One (ROAs 169, 181)

RPD No. 5: Produce the “company policy” referenced by YOU in Paragraph 9 of YOUR FAC.

Plaintiff objected RPS is unreasonably vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff also responded: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds that it is common knowledge that Plaintiff is the exclusive manufacturer of Starlink kits.

As to good cause, Defendants seem to argue that a further response is necessary because SpaceX placed the “company policy” at issue in its own pleading.

Indeed, in the FAC, Plaintiff pleads:

“9. As part of its company policy, and to control access to its technology, Plaintiff maintains exclusive control over the manufacture of the Starlink kits that are used to connect to the satellite network. Plaintiff also directs most kit sales, and the vast majority of retail purchases of new and refurbished Starlink kits are completed directly through Plaintiff’s website.”

(ROA 61.)

However, simply referring to a company policy does not make it “at issue”. Defendants fail to establish any cause of action (or defense) is based on or relevant to the company policy or why evidence relating to the policy is necessary herein.

As such, Defendants have not set forth good cause, and the Motion is DENIED as to RPD No.

5.

RPD 6: Produce all DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, which evidence, reference, mention, reflect, record, and/or otherwise concern the “company policy” referenced by YOU in Paragraph 9 of YOUR FAC.

DENIED for same reason.

RPD 7: Produce all DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, which evidence, reference, mention, reflect, record, and/or otherwise concern how YOU “control access to [YOUR] technology” as referenced by YOU in Paragraph 9 of YOUR FAC.

DENIED for same reason.

RPD 16: Produce all DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, which evidence, reference, mention,

reflect, record, and/or otherwise concern company policies and procedures in place in July 2023, to prevent fraudulent transactions such as those YOU allege against ALI in this matter.

Plaintiff’s Objections: calls for information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; unreasonably overbroad; vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; protected by the attorneyclient privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, or both.

As to good cause, Defendants seem to argue that the policies and procedures SpaceX had in place for detecting, reviewing, rejecting, or processing the transactions at issue are directly relevant to SpaceX’s allegations, Defendants’ defenses, and the reliability of SpaceX’s investigation and conclusions.

However, Defendants have not actually established how fraud prevention policies are relevant to the Plaintiff’s causes of action. Indeed, it would seem that fraud-prevention measures are irrelevant to whether Defendants knew they were buying Plaintiff’s stolen property.

As such, Defendants fail to establish good cause for the above information and as such, the Motion is DENIED as to RPD 16.

RPD 17: Produce all DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, which IDENTIFY all PERSONS responsible for enforcing YOUR company policies and procedures in July 2023, to prevent fraudulent transactions such as those YOU allege against ALI in this matter.

Motion as to RPD No. 17 is DENIED for same reason.

Defendants Special Interrogatories, Set One (ROA 185, 189)

Code Civ. Proc.§ 2030.300(a) provides, “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete...(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

Notably, if a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. [Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 C2d 210, 220-221, 23 CR 393, 398; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 C4th 245, 255.]

No. 5 DESCRIBE IN DETAIL the “company policy” referenced by YOU in Paragraph 9 of YOUR FAC.

Plaintiff’s Response is summarized as: interrogatory is not full and complete in itself and refers to other documents and information not contained in the interrogatory; vague and ambiguous; calls for information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party further responds that Plaintiff provides a high speed, low latency internet service through a constellation of satellites to its customers around the world, called Starlink. To access internet through Starlink, a customer must purchase a Starlink kit, which are manufactured exclusively by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff explains the “policy” referenced in requests 5 and 6 is Plaintiff’s policy of controlling access to its technology— which policy has no relevance here because Defendants are not accused of infringing Plaintiff’s patents or other intellectual property rights. Defendants are instead accused of buying internet receiver kits they knew or should have known had been stolen from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s policy of controlling its own technology has nothing to do with those claims.

Plaintiff, who has the burden, has not established the law relating to relevancy—but does argue the information is not relevant.

The Court interposes here to note that Courts have construed the discovery statutes broadly so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. [Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378.] Although very broad, the right to discovery is not absolute. The information sought must be (1) not privileged, (2) be relevant to the subject matter of the action, and (3) either itself admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CCP § 2017.010.

Arguably, if the company policy was relevant enough to be referred to in the FAC (and SAC), it may be relevant enough to be described as requested by Defendants.

Plaintiff’s response that it provides a high speed, low latency internet service, does not explain its company policy. Rather, it explains Plaintiff’s product/service.

As such, Motion is GRANTED as to Special Rog No.

5.

Special Rog No. 6: DESCRIBE IN DETAIL how YOU “control access to [YOUR] technology” as referenced by YOU in Paragraph 9 of YOUR FAC.

Motion is GRANTED as to No. 6 for the same reason as No.

5.

Special Interrogatory No. 10 IDENTIFY all PERSONS who made “reported [purchases] as fraudulent by the card holder” as alleged by YOU in Paragraph 13 of YOUR FAC.

FAC¶13 is set forth below:

“13. Plaintiff eventually learned that the purchases made in Ali’s name were completed using third-party credit card information without the card holder’s authorization. After the Entesharis received the kits, the purchases were reported as fraudulent by the card holder. The card issuers eventually reversed the payments to Plaintiff, but only after Plaintiff had shipped the goods and the Entesharis had received them. Plaintiff was left with nothing in exchange for its valuable products.”

Plaintiff summarized response was as follows: Premature. Discovery is still ongoing, and Defendants have not yet responded to Plaintiff’s recent discovery requests or appeared for deposition; vague and ambiguous; violates third-party privacy rights. Responding Party further responds that the accounts opened in Ali’s name, variations of Ali’s name, Miesel Castillo’s name, or the names of others, but with shipping addresses that resulted in Defendants obtaining possession of the kits, starting in or around the summer of 2023, used different credit card information and different contact information in connection with each purchase.

The credit-card issuer for those transactions notified Plaintiff’s credit-card processor that the card holders had not authorized those transactions, which resulted in the issuer and processor reversing the charge. Plaintiff’s understanding and belief, based on its experience with standard business practices, is that the credit-card issuer’s account holder is the person who would have reported the charges as fraudulent or unauthorized. Plaintiff is not aware of the names of those persons at this time.

It appears Plaintiff’s response provides all the information it has on the requested topic. Further information may need to come from other sources.

Motion is DENIED as to Special Rog No.

10.

Special Interrogatory No. 11: STATE ALL FACTS supporting YOUR allegation that “new accounts were opened (in Ali’s name, variations of Ali’s name including misspellings and changed middle initials, and in the name of others) and used to place orders for shipment to various addresses in the Southern California area that appeared linked to the Entesharis, including their Rockrose Way residential address

and a warehouse they had contracted to receive shipments” as alleged by YOU in Paragraph 14 of YOUR FAC.

Motion is DENIED as to Special Rog No. 11 for the same reason as No.

10.

Special Interrogatory No. 14: DESCRIBE IN DETAIL all company policies and procedures in place in July 2023, to prevent fraudulent transactions such as those YOU allege against ALI in this matter.

Plaintiff’s summarized response: calls for information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; burdensome and harassing; attorneyclient privilege or the attorney work-product; seeks confidential business information.

In the meet and confer efforts, Defendants agreed to narrow this interrogatory to the period July 2023 through April 2024, and to fraud prevention/access-control policies and personnel actually involved in detecting, rejecting, reviewing, or processing the transactions attributed to Defendants.

In terms of relevance, Plaintiff argues that the procedures make no difference to whether the kits were stolen in the first instance or any disputed issue.

Plaintiff does not address relevancy law, or really establish why this information couldn’t lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff also argues anti-fraud measures are commercially sensitive because they would provide a blueprint for other potential thieves who want to realize outsized profits from reselling stolen goods.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to understand the factual procedures SpaceX contends were in place to prevent or detect those transactions, at least as applied to the transactions at issue.

They also assert that they do not seek unrelated confidential business information. But what about “related” confidential business information.

To the extent Plaintiff has anti-fraud measures (policies and procedures) that are commercially sensitive and disclosing those measures could jeopardize the safety of Plaintiff, it would seem they are not sufficiently relevant to compel disclosure.

Motion is DENIED as to No.

14.

Special Interrogatory No. 15 IDENTIFY all PERSONS charged with enforcing YOUR company policies and procedures in July 2023, to prevent fraudulent transactions such as those YOU allege against ALI in this matter.

Motion is DENIED as to No. 15 for the same reasons.

SANCTIONS:

Plaintiff’s requests sanctions for Defendants’ clear abuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues its motions to compel and compel further were almost entirely successful, and would have been avoided entirely if Defendants had made themselves available to meet and confer in response to Plaintiff’s outreach on February 10, 12, 17, 20, 26, and March 4, 2026. (See 4/10/26 Haj Decls. ISO Motions to Compel at Ex. 1.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendants’ four motions, were almost entirely abandoned— they moved on 128 unique requests, but did not even try to defend 114 of them after this Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer. If Defendants had limited their motions to the 14 [sic] requests listed above, the parties and this Court would have conserved an immense amount of resources.

Defendants argue that the substantial narrowing of the parties’ disputes is not evidence of discovery abuse—it is the direct result of the process this Court ordered the parties to undertake. Following the Court’s Tentative Ruling, the parties engaged in extensive additional meet and confer efforts, exchanged information, clarified their respective positions, and resolved the overwhelming majority of the disputed requests.

Given that counsel took this Court’s order to meet and confer seriously, and narrowed the discovery issues from hundreds of requests to just twelve [12], the Court will not impose sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice. 200 CRLA Southern California vs. Saddleback Valley Unified School District, 26-01556345

Parties should contact clerk for tentative ruling. 201 Loera vs. United Parcel Services Inc, 24-01420618 Plaintiff Natalie Victoria Loera moves to compel Defendant Abraham Cruz to provide further responses and a production in response to Requests for Production, Set Two, Nos. 53-56.

The requests at issue seek any sub-rosa Defendant has of Plaintiff; any investigation videos of Plaintiff; any written

report regarding any surveillance of Plaintiff; and any investigation reports of Plaintiff. (Goncuian Decl., Exh. 1.) Defendant objected to each of these requests on various grounds, including on the grounds that the requested items are protected by the work product doctrine. Plaintiff also attached a privilege log which indicates that Plaintiff withheld “Surveillance of Plaintiff Natalie Loera at or near 3212 West Ravenswood Dr., Anaheim, CA 92804, on April 14-15, 2024.” (Goncuian Decl., Exh. 2.)

In Defendant’s opposition, counsel explains that “the surveillance was conducted specifically at the direction of defense counsel, with counsel’s guidance, at the expense of Defendants, and the strategies and information used to capture the surveillance resulted from the impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories of defense counsel. The corresponding written reports reflect counsel’s ‘Impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories’ and are therefore considered absolute work product.” (Oppn at 7:9- 14.)

In Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, the Supreme Court held that surveillance video of a plaintiff in a personal injury action fell within the “qualified” work product protection. The court did not hold that surveillance footage is as a matter of law subject to discovery. (Id., at p. 178.) Rather, the court remanded the case to the trial court to exercise its discretion in determining whether or not such footage should be produced. (See id., at pp. 178-79.)

Attorney work product protection is now governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018.030. Under the statute, “[a] writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).) Further, “[t]he work product of an attorney, other than a writing described [above], is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b).)

Surveillance footage of Plaintiff, taken at the direction of defense counsel and with defense counsel’s guidance is subject to qualified work product protection.

Plaintiff contends that denial of an order compelling the footage will unfairly prejudice her because the footage may be enhanced, edited or distorted and not having the opportunity to examine the video prior to trial will preclude Plaintiff’s counsel from having adequate time to prepare a proper cross examination. (Mtn. at 10:10-16.) Plaintiff further contends that written surveillance reports created by