SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
GAVIN ALDRICH,
Plaintiff,
v.
AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.,
Defendant and Cross-Complainant.
Case No.: 22STCV41087
Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. Catherine Villanueva, Dept. 52
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF GAVIN ALDRICH TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 8, 11, 12, 13, AND 14
Date: To be set by the Court Time: To be set by the Court Dept.: 52
Filed concurrently herewith: Declaration of Nadia Petrov in Support of Motion to Compel (with Exhibits A–D); [Proposed] Order
Devon Archer (SBN 301462) Renata Vasquez (SBN 224578) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201
Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant Aurelius Media Americas Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant and Cross-Complainant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA") respectfully moves this Court for an order compelling Plaintiff Gavin Aldrich ("Aldrich") to serve further, code-compliant responses to AMA's Requests for Production Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14, and to produce all documents responsive thereto. This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 and is supported by the concurrently filed Declaration of Nadia Petrov and Exhibits A through D attached thereto.
AMA is both a defendant and a cross-complainant in this individual employment dispute arising from the termination of Aldrich, AMA's former Senior Vice President of Original Content and Executive Producer. In his Complaint, Aldrich alleges that AMA wrongfully terminated his employment and that the "for cause" designation was pretextual. AMA denies those allegations and, on January 20, 2023, filed its Cross-Complaint asserting four causes of action against Aldrich: (1) Breach of Employment Agreement, specifically the confidentiality provisions set forth in Section 9.4 of the Employment Agreement; (2) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA"), California Civil Code section 3426 et seq.; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (4) Conversion.
Central to each of AMA's cross-claims is Aldrich's unauthorized transmission of proprietary materials — including show format bibles, pilot sizzle reels, audience analytics, and a detailed revenue model — to Halcyon Creek Productions LLC ("Halcyon Creek"), a California-based production company in the unscripted and reality television space. As detailed below, AMA's internal forensic investigation has identified at least seven separate email transmissions from Aldrich's AMA email account to Halcyon Creek, as well as approximately 340 additional email forwards from his AMA account to his personal Northgate Software address, all containing proprietary and confidential AMA information. These transmissions occurred while Aldrich was a senior officer of AMA and was bound by both the confidentiality provisions of his Employment Agreement and AMA's Acceptable Use and Confidentiality Policy.
AMA served its First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1–28) on Aldrich on February 20, 2023. Aldrich served his responses and objections on March 30, 2023, following a ten-day extension agreed to by stipulation of the parties. With respect to RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 — each of which targets documents and communications directly relevant to AMA's cross-claims — Aldrich's responses were substantively deficient. For RFP No. 8, Aldrich produced only three emails despite AMA's forensic evidence identifying at least seven. For RFP Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 14, Aldrich produced nothing at all, relying instead on boilerplate objections asserting privacy, irrelevance, and overbreadth.
Despite AMA's diligent and good-faith meet-and-confer efforts — including a telephonic conference on April 5, 2023 and a detailed follow-up letter dated April 7, 2023 — Aldrich has refused to supplement his deficient responses. AMA therefore has no alternative but to seek relief from this Court.
The documents sought in RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are not peripheral to this case. They are the case. They constitute the very evidence of the conduct underlying AMA's cross-claims and Aldrich's termination. Aldrich's objections are meritless, and his refusal to produce is prejudicing AMA's ability to prosecute its cross-claims and defend against Aldrich's affirmative claims. AMA respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion in its entirety.
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
A. Background — Aldrich's Employment and Termination
Aldrich was employed by AMA from September 5, 2017 through October 14, 2022, serving as Senior Vice President of Original Content and Executive Producer. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 3.) In that role, Aldrich was responsible for overseeing the development and production of AMA's slate of unscripted and reality television programming, a line of business that represents a significant and growing share of AMA's overall revenue. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 3.)
Aldrich's employment was governed by a written Employment Agreement dated September 5, 2017, which was subsequently amended on August 1, 2020 (the "Employment Agreement"). (Petrov Decl. ¶ 4.) At the time of his termination, Aldrich's annual base salary was $485,000. His most recent annual bonus, for fiscal year 2021, was $225,000. In addition, Aldrich held 42,500 restricted stock units ("RSUs") of Aurelius Global Media Group Inc. ("AGMG"), AMA's publicly traded parent company, of which 15,300 remained unvested at the time of his termination. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 4.)
On October 14, 2022, AMA terminated Aldrich's employment "for cause" pursuant to Section 7.2(b) of the Employment Agreement. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 5.) The "for cause" determination was based on AMA's conclusion, following a forensic investigation described below, that Aldrich had engaged in unauthorized disclosure of AMA's confidential and proprietary information in violation of the Employment Agreement and company policy. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 5.)
Aldrich filed the instant action on November 14, 2022, alleging, inter alia, that the "for cause" designation was pretextual and that AMA terminated his employment in retaliation for his exercise of certain rights. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 6.) AMA denies those allegations and stands by the "for cause" determination. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 6.)
B. The Confidential Information Transmissions
In August 2022, AMA's Information Technology Security team conducted a routine data loss prevention ("DLP") audit of outbound email traffic from AMA's corporate email system. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 7.) The DLP audit flagged anomalous email forwarding activity originating from Aldrich's AMA email account (galdrich@aureliusmedia.com). (Petrov Decl. ¶ 7.) AMA promptly retained an outside forensic examiner, Stratum Digital Forensics LLC, to conduct a more detailed forensic review of Aldrich's email activity. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 8.)
The forensic review revealed two distinct categories of unauthorized transmissions from Aldrich's AMA email account:
First, personal email forwarding. Between approximately July 12, 2021 and September 29, 2022, Aldrich forwarded approximately 340 emails from his AMA corporate email account to his personal email account at galdrich.private@Northgate Software.com. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 9.) These forwarded emails contained a wide range of proprietary and confidential AMA information, including but not limited to proprietary show concepts and development materials, audience analytics reports and viewership data, revenue projections and profit-and-loss summaries for AMA's unscripted programming portfolio, and talent deal terms and compensation structures. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 9.) Many of the forwarded emails bore the header designation "AMA CONFIDENTIAL — INTERNAL USE ONLY," a designation that Aldrich, as a senior officer, would have understood to indicate restricted distribution. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 9.)
Second, third-party transmissions to Halcyon Creek Productions LLC. Between March 3, 2022 and August 18, 2022, Aldrich sent at least seven emails from his AMA corporate email account to the email address info@halcyoncreekprod.com, which is the general contact address for Halcyon Creek Productions LLC. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10.) These seven emails collectively contained the following proprietary AMA materials:
(a) Three unscripted show format bibles — comprehensive development documents setting forth the creative concept, casting parameters, production methodology, format structure, and episode arcs — for show concepts titled "Apex Endurance," "The Remix," and "Untamed West." (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10(a).) Each of these format bibles was the product of months of creative development by AMA's development team and represents substantial investment by AMA.
(b) Two pilot sizzle reels — short-form promotional video presentations used to pitch show concepts to networks and platforms — for "Apex Endurance" and "The Remix." (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10(b).) These sizzle reels were not attached directly to the emails but were transmitted via shared Larkspur Technologies links originating from Aldrich's personal Larkspur Technologies account (gavinaldrich@Larkspur Technologies.com), indicating that Aldrich had previously downloaded the sizzle reels from AMA's systems and uploaded them to his personal cloud storage. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10(b).)
(c) A detailed revenue model for AMA's top-performing unscripted franchise, "Summit Challenge," which generates approximately $42 million in annual revenue across domestic and international markets. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10(c).) The revenue model included per-episode production cost breakdowns, advertising revenue allocations, international licensing fee schedules, and multi-year revenue projections — information that is among AMA's most closely guarded financial data. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10(c).)
These transmissions form the factual predicate for AMA's cross-claims and were the primary basis for the "for cause" termination.
C. Halcyon Creek Productions LLC
Halcyon Creek Productions LLC is a California limited liability company that was formed on February 14, 2022, approximately two weeks before Aldrich's first identified transmission to its email address on March 3, 2022. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 11.) The sole identified organizer and managing member of Halcyon Creek is Nina Castellanos. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 11.)
Castellanos is a former AMA employee who served as Director of Development from 2018 through January 2022. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 12.) During her tenure at AMA, Castellanos worked directly under Aldrich's supervision and was involved in the development of several of the same unscripted show concepts that Aldrich later transmitted to Halcyon Creek, including "Apex Endurance." (Petrov Decl. ¶ 12.) Castellanos departed AMA in January 2022, and Halcyon Creek was formed approximately three weeks later. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 12.)
Halcyon Creek operates as a competitor to AMA in the unscripted and reality television space. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 13.) Since its formation, Halcyon Creek has publicly announced development deals for at least two unscripted projects that bear substantial similarity to AMA show concepts, a fact that is the subject of separate investigation and potential future claims by AMA. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 13.)
D. Aldrich's Employment Agreement — Relevant Provisions
Section 9.4 of the Employment Agreement, titled "Confidentiality," imposes an indefinite obligation on Aldrich prohibiting the disclosure, use, or transmission of Confidential Information to any person or entity other than in furtherance of his duties as an AMA employee. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 14; Petrov Decl., Ex. A [RFP Set referencing Employment Agreement provisions].) The Employment Agreement defines "Confidential Information" broadly to include proprietary content and creative materials, show formats and format bibles, revenue data and financial projections, talent agreements and deal terms, audience analytics and viewership data, and all information designated as confidential by AMA. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 14.) Section 9.4 expressly survives the termination of Aldrich's employment. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 14.)
In addition to his obligations under the Employment Agreement, Aldrich signed an acknowledgment of AMA's Acceptable Use and Confidentiality Policy on April 12, 2021. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 15.) That policy expressly prohibits employees from transmitting Company proprietary information to personal email accounts, personal cloud storage services, or non-Company-approved third-party recipients without prior written authorization from AMA's General Counsel or Chief Information Officer. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 15.) Aldrich never sought or received any such authorization. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 15.)
The Employment Agreement also contains a choice-of-law provision in Section 14.3 designating New York law as governing the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 16.) The applicability of that provision to certain claims is the subject of separate briefing in this litigation, and AMA does not address it further here except to note that it does not affect the discovery obligations at issue in this motion, which are governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure.
E. AMA's Cross-Claims
AMA's Cross-Complaint, filed on January 20, 2023, asserts four causes of action, each of which is predicated on Aldrich's unauthorized transmissions of proprietary materials in violation of his contractual and fiduciary obligations. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 17.)
The First Cause of Action, for Breach of Employment Agreement, alleges that Aldrich breached Section 9.4 of the Employment Agreement by disclosing, transmitting, and using AMA's Confidential Information for purposes other than the furtherance of his duties as an AMA employee, including by transmitting AMA's proprietary show format bibles, sizzle reels, and revenue models to Halcyon Creek. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 17.)
The Second Cause of Action, for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets under CUTSA, alleges that the show format bibles, pilot sizzle reels, audience analytics, revenue models, and related materials transmitted by Aldrich to Halcyon Creek constitute trade secrets within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3426.1(d), and that Aldrich misappropriated those trade secrets by disclosing them to a competitor without AMA's consent. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 17.)
The Third Cause of Action, for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, alleges that Aldrich, as a senior officer of AMA holding the title of Senior Vice President, owed fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to AMA, and that he breached those duties by disclosing AMA's confidential information to a competitor to advance his own personal interests and the interests of a former subordinate. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 17.)
The Fourth Cause of Action, for Conversion, alleges that Aldrich's appropriation of AMA's proprietary digital files — including format bibles, sizzle reels, and revenue models — and his unauthorized transmission of those files to his personal email account, his personal Larkspur Technologies account, and to Halcyon Creek constitutes conversion of AMA's property. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 17.)
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
A. AMA's Requests for Production (February 20, 2023)
On February 20, 2023, AMA served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 1–28) on Aldrich, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 et seq. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 18; Petrov Decl., Ex. A.) The requests were served by electronic transmission to Aldrich's counsel of record, Whitfield & Associates. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 18.) The requests at issue in this motion — RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 — are set forth verbatim in Section IV below.
B. Aldrich's Responses (March 30, 2023)
Aldrich served his responses and objections to AMA's First Set of Requests for Production on March 30, 2023. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 19; Petrov Decl., Ex. B.) This was within the time permitted under the parties' stipulation extending Aldrich's deadline by ten days beyond the statutory thirty-day period. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 19.)
With respect to the five requests at issue in this motion, Aldrich's responses were substantively deficient. As detailed in Section IV below, Aldrich produced only three documents in response to RFP No. 8 (despite AMA's forensic evidence identifying at least seven responsive emails), and produced no documents whatsoever in response to RFP Nos. 11, 12, 13, or 14. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 20.) In each instance, Aldrich's responses consisted primarily of boilerplate objections asserting invasion of privacy, irrelevance, and overbreadth, with no substantive engagement with the specific requests or the facts of this case. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 20.)
C. Meet-and-Confer Efforts
AMA has fully complied with the meet-and-confer requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. The meet-and-confer efforts are detailed in the concurrently filed Declaration of Nadia Petrov and may be summarized as follows:
On April 5, 2023, AMA's counsel, Nadia Petrov (an associate at Calderwood & Harkness LLP), participated in a telephonic meet-and-confer conference with Aldrich's counsel, Julia Nazarian (an associate at Whitfield & Associates, 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 320, Beverly Hills, California 90212). (Petrov Decl. ¶ 21.) During the conference, which lasted approximately forty-five minutes, Ms. Petrov identified the specific deficiencies in Aldrich's responses to RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 and requested supplemental responses and production. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 21.)
During the call, Ms. Nazarian stated Aldrich's positions as follows: first, that communications in Aldrich's personal email accounts are "private" and are not subject to discovery; second, that Aldrich has already produced all documents he considers responsive to the requests; and third, that documents relating to Aldrich's relationship with Halcyon Creek are "irrelevant" to AMA's cross-claims. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 22.) Ms. Petrov responded that each of these positions was without merit and explained AMA's contrary view in detail. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 22.)
On April 7, 2023, Ms. Petrov sent a detailed follow-up meet-and-confer letter to Ms. Nazarian, memorializing the positions discussed during the telephonic conference and setting forth AMA's legal and factual bases for compelling supplemental responses. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 23; Petrov Decl., Ex. C.) The letter requested that Aldrich serve supplemental responses and produce all responsive documents by April 12, 2023. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 23.)
On April 11, 2023, Ms. Nazarian responded by email, declining to supplement Aldrich's responses on any of the five requests at issue. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 24; Petrov Decl., Ex. D.) Ms. Nazarian's email reiterated the positions stated during the telephonic conference and did not provide any additional legal authority or factual support for Aldrich's objections. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 24.)
Having exhausted all reasonable meet-and-confer efforts, AMA now brings this motion.
IV. THE REQUESTS AT ISSUE AND ALDRICH'S DEFICIENT RESPONSES
A. RFP No. 8 — All Communications Between Aldrich and Halcyon Creek Productions LLC, Nina Castellanos, or Any Agent Thereof
The Request. AMA's RFP No. 8 requests:
"All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and HALCYON CREEK PRODUCTIONS LLC, NINA CASTELLANOS, or any agent, representative, or employee of HALCYON CREEK PRODUCTIONS LLC or NINA CASTELLANOS, from January 1, 2022 through the present."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. A at 6.)
Aldrich's Response. Aldrich responded as follows:
"Objection: This request invades Plaintiff's privacy rights, seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense, and is overbroad as to time and scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff has produced three (3) emails responsive to this request."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. B at 5.)
Deficiency. Aldrich's response is deficient in multiple respects.
First, the production is incomplete on its face. AMA's own forensic evidence, derived from the DLP audit and the subsequent forensic review conducted by Stratum Digital Forensics LLC, identifies at least seven emails transmitted from Aldrich's AMA corporate email account (galdrich@aureliusmedia.com) to Halcyon Creek's email address (info@halcyoncreekprod.com) between March 3, 2022 and August 18, 2022. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10.) Aldrich produced only three of these seven emails. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 25.) There is a discrepancy of at least four documents, and Aldrich has offered no explanation for this gap — no privilege log, no statement of inability to comply, and no identification of the missing documents. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 25.) This unexplained shortfall alone warrants an order compelling further production.
Second, Aldrich has produced zero communications from his personal email accounts — including but not limited to galdrich.private@Northgate Software.com — to Halcyon Creek or Nina Castellanos. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 26.) Given that Aldrich forwarded approximately 340 AMA emails to his personal Northgate Software account during the same general period, and that the forensic evidence shows Aldrich used his personal Larkspur Technologies account to transmit AMA's sizzle reels to Halcyon Creek, there is every reason to believe that additional responsive communications exist in Aldrich's personal email accounts. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 26.)
Third, Aldrich's counsel has acknowledged through meet-and-confer discussions that Aldrich communicated with Castellanos through "various channels," a statement that strongly implies the existence of responsive communications beyond the three emails that Aldrich has chosen to produce. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 27.) Yet Aldrich has made no effort to search for or produce communications from any channel other than his AMA corporate email account.
Fourth, Aldrich's privacy objection is unavailing. The Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action on February 15, 2023 provides a comprehensive framework for protecting genuinely sensitive information, including two tiers of confidentiality designation: "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." (Petrov Decl. ¶ 28.) This protective order adequately addresses any legitimate privacy concerns. Aldrich's blanket assertion of privacy, without more, does not justify withholding documents that are directly relevant to AMA's cross-claims.
B. RFP No. 11 — All Documents Transmitted by Aldrich from AMA Systems to Personal Email Accounts
The Request. AMA's RFP No. 11 requests:
"All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS transmitted, forwarded, or copied by YOU from any AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS email account, server, or information system to any personal email account, personal cloud storage account, or non-AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS device, from January 1, 2021 through the present."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. A at 8.)
Aldrich's Response. Aldrich responded as follows:
"Objection: This request invades Plaintiff's privacy rights and is unduly burdensome. No documents produced."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. B at 7.)
Deficiency. Aldrich's response is wholly non-compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. He has produced no documents and has not provided a code-compliant statement of inability to comply under Section 2031.230. His response consists of nothing more than two boilerplate objections and a flat refusal.
The deficiency is particularly egregious in light of the undisputed forensic evidence. AMA's DLP audit and forensic review establish that Aldrich forwarded approximately 340 emails from his AMA corporate email account to his personal Northgate Software account (galdrich.private@Northgate Software.com) between approximately July 12, 2021 and September 29, 2022. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 9.) These 340 emails contained some of AMA's most sensitive proprietary information, including show concepts in active development, audience analytics reports containing detailed viewership data, revenue projections and profit-and-loss summaries for AMA's entire unscripted programming portfolio, and talent deal terms reflecting the compensation structures negotiated with on-air talent and production partners. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 9.) This information is directly relevant — indeed, essential — to AMA's breach of contract (Section 9.4), CUTSA, and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Aldrich's blanket refusal to produce any documents in response to this request is not a legitimate exercise of objection rights. It is a categorical stonewalling of discovery into the central conduct at issue in this litigation. AMA's forensic evidence tells AMA what left AMA's systems. What AMA does not know — and what Aldrich's personal email account would reveal — is what Aldrich did with those materials after he received them. Did he forward them to additional third parties? Did he use them to prepare competing proposals? Did he share them with Halcyon Creek through channels other than the seven identified AMA-to-Halcyon Creek emails? These are critical questions that only Aldrich's personal email account can answer.
The privacy objection is meritless in this context. Aldrich used his personal email account as a vehicle to transmit his employer's confidential business information out of the company's information systems, in alleged violation of his contractual obligations, his fiduciary duties, and company policy. An employee who uses personal accounts to misappropriate his employer's trade secrets cannot then invoke personal privacy to shield evidence of that very misappropriation. The Stipulated Protective Order provides more than adequate protection for any genuinely private information that may be intermingled with responsive documents.
The burden objection is equally unfounded. Aldrich has a single personal Northgate Software account at issue. A search of that account using reasonable search terms — terms that could be negotiated between the parties or specified by the Court — would not impose an undue burden. AMA has offered to work with Aldrich's counsel to develop mutually agreeable search terms and protocols, but Aldrich has refused to engage on any aspect of this request. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 29.)
C. RFP No. 12 — All Documents Transmitted by Aldrich from AMA Systems to Any Third Party Outside AMA
The Request. AMA's RFP No. 12 requests:
"All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS transmitted, forwarded, or copied by YOU from any AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS email account, server, or information system to any person or entity other than AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS employees acting in the ordinary course of AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS business, from January 1, 2021 through the present."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. A at 9.)
Aldrich's Response. Aldrich responded as follows:
"Objection: This request invades Plaintiff's privacy, is overbroad, and seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense. No documents produced."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. B at 8.)
Deficiency. The same analysis applicable to RFP No. 11 applies with equal force to RFP No. 12. This request is broader than RFP No. 11 in that it captures transmissions to any non-AMA recipient, rather than only transmissions to personal accounts. This broader scope is appropriate and necessary because AMA must establish the full universe of recipients of its confidential information in order to assess the scope of the misappropriation, to determine whether injunctive relief is warranted against additional parties, and to calculate damages.
The request is directly and indisputably relevant to AMA's CUTSA and breach of contract claims. Under CUTSA, AMA bears the burden of proving that its trade secrets were "misappropriated" — a term that includes disclosure to third parties without consent. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(b)(2)(B)(ii).) AMA cannot meet this burden without discovering the full extent of Aldrich's unauthorized disclosures. If Aldrich transmitted AMA's proprietary materials to recipients beyond Halcyon Creek, AMA is entitled to know.
The relevance objection is frivolous in light of the posture of this case. Aldrich himself has placed the "for cause" termination basis squarely at issue by alleging in his Complaint that the termination was pretextual and not supported by legitimate cause. AMA is entitled discover the full scope of Aldrich's unauthorized transmissions in order to establish the factual basis for the "for cause" determination. Aldrich cannot simultaneously challenge the legitimacy of the "for cause" termination while obstructing AMA's ability to prove the underlying conduct.
The overbreadth objection is similarly without merit. The request is limited to transmissions from AMA systems to non-AMA recipients — a category that, by definition, should not encompass routine business communications. The temporal scope (January 1, 2021 through the present) is reasonable and proportional to the scope of the alleged misconduct, which the forensic evidence shows began as early as July 2021.
D. RFP No. 13 — All Agreements, Communications, or Proposals Between Aldrich and Halcyon Creek Relating to Any Co-Production, Joint Venture, or Business Arrangement
The Request. AMA's RFP No. 13 requests:
"All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS relating to any actual, proposed, or contemplated co-production agreement, joint venture, partnership, consulting arrangement, employment arrangement, or other business relationship between YOU and HALCYON CREEK PRODUCTIONS LLC, NINA CASTELLANOS, or any entity in which NINA CASTELLANOS holds an ownership interest, from January 1, 2021 through the present."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. A at 9–10.)
Aldrich's Response. Aldrich responded as follows:
"Objection: This request seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense and invades Plaintiff's privacy and proprietary business interests. No documents produced."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. B at 8.)
Deficiency. This request goes directly to the heart of AMA's cross-claims and to Aldrich's anticipated defense.
During the telephonic meet-and-confer on April 5, 2023, Aldrich's counsel, Ms. Nazarian, indicated that one of Aldrich's anticipated defenses to the cross-claims is that the transmissions to Halcyon Creek were made in the context of a "potential co-production opportunity" that Aldrich was exploring on behalf of AMA. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 22.) If Aldrich intends to assert this defense — that his transmissions of AMA's proprietary materials to a competitor were authorized or justified by a legitimate business purpose — then the documents relating to that purported co-production opportunity are not merely relevant; they are indispensable. AMA is entitled to examine the contemporaneous documents to determine whether any such co-production opportunity actually existed, whether it was authorized by AMA, what its terms were, and whether Aldrich's transmissions were consistent with or exceeded the scope of any such arrangement.
Aldrich cannot have it both ways. He cannot simultaneously rely on the "co-production opportunity" defense while withholding the very documents that would confirm or refute it. If Aldrich possesses a term sheet, a draft agreement, an email chain discussing deal terms, or any other document reflecting an actual or contemplated co-production arrangement with Halcyon Creek, he must produce it. If no such documents exist — if there is no proposal, no term sheet, and no contemporaneous email chain discussing a co-production — then that absence is itself powerful evidence supporting AMA's claim that the transmissions were unauthorized and were not made for any legitimate business purpose.
Aldrich's assertion of "proprietary business interests" as a basis for withholding these documents is ironic, if not perverse. Aldrich is asserting proprietary interests in documents relating to an arrangement that, on AMA's allegations, involves AMA's own misappropriated proprietary materials. If Aldrich and Halcyon Creek were indeed discussing a co-production arrangement that contemplated the use of AMA's show format bibles and revenue data, the documents reflecting that arrangement are evidence of the misappropriation, not Aldrich's privileged business secrets.
E. RFP No. 14 — All Documents Reflecting Aldrich's Financial Interest in Halcyon Creek Productions LLC
The Request. AMA's RFP No. 14 requests:
"All DOCUMENTS reflecting any ownership interest, equity stake, profit-sharing arrangement, financial investment, loan, or other financial interest held by YOU in HALCYON CREEK PRODUCTIONS LLC or any entity in which NINA CASTELLANOS holds an ownership interest."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. A at 10.)
Aldrich's Response. Aldrich responded as follows:
"Objection: This request seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense and invades Plaintiff's privacy. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states that he has no financial interest in Halcyon Creek Productions LLC."
(Petrov Decl., Ex. B at 9.)
Deficiency. AMA does not at this time challenge the truthfulness of Aldrich's denial that he holds a financial interest in Halcyon Creek. However, a bare denial in an objection-laden discovery response is not a substitute for the production of documents that would substantiate or refute that denial.
AMA is entitled to documents that would either confirm or contradict Aldrich's statement. Specifically, AMA requests production of the Halcyon Creek operating agreement (which, if Aldrich's denial is truthful, would simply show that he is not listed as a member or interest-holder); any correspondence between Aldrich and Castellanos or Halcyon Creek reflecting discussions about a potential investment, equity stake, or profit-sharing arrangement; and any financial records showing payments, loans, or transfers of funds between Aldrich and Halcyon Creek or Castellanos. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 30.)
If Aldrich truly has no financial interest in Halcyon Creek, production of these documents — or even just the operating agreement — would resolve the issue quickly and efficiently. If, on the other hand, Aldrich does hold a financial interest in Halcyon Creek that he has not disclosed, the documents are directly relevant to AMA's breach of fiduciary duty and CUTSA claims, as they would demonstrate that Aldrich transmitted AMA's trade secrets to benefit an entity in which he had a personal financial stake. Such a financial interest would also be relevant to establishing the element of willful and malicious misappropriation under Civil Code section 3426.3(c), which would entitle AMA to exemplary damages of up to twice the amount of any compensatory damages award.
Aldrich's relevance objection to this request is particularly untenable. The question whether Aldrich stood to benefit financially from the transmission of AMA's trade secrets to Halcyon Creek is among the most relevant factual questions in this case. It bears directly on Aldrich's motive, on the willfulness of his conduct, on the scope of his breach of fiduciary duty, and on the appropriate measure of damages. AMA should not be required to accept Aldrich's self-serving denial at face value without the opportunity to verify it through document production.
V. LEGAL STANDARD
A. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 — Motion to Compel Further Responses
A party demanding inspection of documents may move for an order compelling further responses to a request for production if: (1) the responding party's statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) the responding party's representation of inability to comply is inadequate; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) The motion must also be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)
Once the moving party has demonstrated good cause, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objection or demonstrate why the requested documents should not be produced. (Velmoran v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) A responding party who fails to timely assert a specific objection waives that objection. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) General and boilerplate objections that are not tailored to the specific request at issue are disfavored and may be overruled. (Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.)
B. Relevance — Liberal discovery Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in such action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. California courts construe the relevance standard broadly at the discovery stage, recognizing that the purpose of discovery is to assist a party in preparing its case for trial and that the scope of permissible discovery is broader than the scope of admissible evidence at trial. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 ["The purpose of the discovery rules is to enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and eliminate the 'sporting' theory of litigation"].)
For purposes of discovery, information is "relevant to the subject matter" if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1546.) Even information that is not directly admissible may be discoverable if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.)
C. Privacy Objections — Balancing Test
The California Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) However, this right is not absolute and does not create an impenetrable shield against all discovery. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 34–35.) Where a party asserts a privacy objection to a discovery request, the court must balance the right to privacy against the compelling need for the discovery. (Id. at pp. 35–37.)
In conducting this balancing, courts consider: (1) the nature and seriousness of the invasion of privacy; (2) the strength of the countervailing interest in obtaining the information; (3) whether less intrusive means of obtaining the information are available; and (4) whether the information sought is directly relevant to the claims and defenses in the action. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)
Where the information sought is directly relevant to the claims and defenses in the action, and where a protective order is in place to prevent unnecessary dissemination, the privacy objection must yield. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859 [privacy rights must "bend" to accommodate compelling discovery needs]; see also Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657 [party who places information at issue in litigation may not simultaneously claim a right of privacy to preclude discovery of that information].)
A party asserting a privacy objection bears the burden of establishing a legally protected privacy interest and demonstrating that the requested disclosure would constitute a serious invasion of that interest. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.) General assertions of privacy, without specific identification of the nature and scope of the privacy interest at stake, are insufficient. (Id.)
VI. ARGUMENT
A. The Documents Are Directly Relevant to AMA's Cross-Claims and to Aldrich's Own Claims
The documents and communications sought in RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are not marginally relevant or tangentially related to this litigation. They are the central evidence in the case. AMA's cross-claims for breach of the Employment Agreement (Section 9.4), misappropriation of trade secrets (CUTSA), breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion are each predicated on a single core set of facts: Aldrich's unauthorized transmission of AMA's proprietary materials to his personal email account and to Halcyon Creek Productions LLC. The documents sought in the five requests at issue go directly to the core factual questions that must be resolved to adjudicate these claims:
What materials did Aldrich transmit? RFP Nos. 8, 11, and 12 seek the actual documents and communications that Aldrich transmitted from AMA's systems to personal accounts and to third parties, including Halcyon Creek. Without these documents, AMA cannot establish the full scope of the alleged misappropriation or the precise nature of the trade secrets that were disclosed.
To whom were those materials transmitted? RFP Nos. 8 and 12 seek to identify all recipients of AMA's proprietary information. AMA's forensic evidence reveals transmissions to Halcyon Creek and to Aldrich's personal Northgate Software account, but AMA cannot be certain that it has identified every recipient. Aldrich's personal email accounts may reveal additional transmissions to other competitors, potential investors, or industry contacts.
For what purpose were the materials transmitted? RFP No. 13 seeks documents relating to any co-production, joint venture, or business arrangement between Aldrich and Halcyon Creek. As discussed above, Aldrich has indicated through counsel that he may defend against the cross-claims by asserting that the transmissions were made in the context of a "potential co-production opportunity." The documents sought in RFP No. 13 will either support or refute this defense.
What was Aldrich's relationship with and financial interest in the recipient? RFP Nos. 13 and 14 seek to establish the nature and extent of Aldrich's relationship with Halcyon Creek and Nina Castellanos. Whether Aldrich held a financial interest in the entity to which he transmitted AMA's trade secrets is directly relevant to his motive, the willfulness of his conduct, and the appropriate measure of damages.
These documents are also relevant to Aldrich's own claims. Aldrich's Complaint alleges that the "for cause" designation under Section 7.2(b) of the Employment Agreement was pretextual. By placing the factual basis for the termination squarely at issue, Aldrich has opened the door to discovery of the full scope of the conduct that AMA relied upon in making the "for cause" determination. AMA is entitled discover whether the unauthorized transmissions identified by its forensic review represent the entirety of Aldrich's misconduct or merely the tip of the iceberg.
The good cause requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1) is amply satisfied. AMA has presented specific, detailed forensic evidence demonstrating that Aldrich transmitted at least seven emails containing AMA's proprietary materials to Halcyon Creek and forwarded approximately 340 emails containing confidential information to his personal Northgate Software account. AMA has identified specific deficiencies in Aldrich's production — most notably, the unexplained four-document gap in the RFP No. 8 production and the complete absence of any production from personal email accounts. These facts constitute good cause for compelling further responses.
B. Aldrich Has Placed These Documents at Issue
The principle that a party who places information at issue in litigation may not simultaneously claim a right to withhold that information from discovery is well established. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 657; Britt v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 859.) That principle applies with particular force here.
By contesting the "for cause" termination and alleging pretext, Aldrich has affirmatively placed his conduct during employment at issue. He cannot argue that AMA lacked legitimate cause for termination while simultaneously withholding the very documents that would establish the factual basis for that determination. Aldrich's position amounts to an assertion that AMA must disprove the pretext allegation without access to the evidence of Aldrich's misconduct — an untenable position under any standard.
Moreover, through his counsel during the April 5, 2023 meet-and-confer conference, Aldrich has indicated his anticipated defense that the Halcyon Creek transmissions were made in the context of a "potential co-production opportunity." (Petrov Decl. ¶ 22.) This representation places the nature and purpose of the transmissions directly at issue. A party cannot simultaneously rely on a factual defense — "I transmitted these materials for a legitimate co-production purpose" — while withholding the documents that would prove or disprove the existence and legitimacy of that purpose. This is precisely the type of discovery abuse that Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 is designed to address, and it is precisely the type of conduct that justifies a court order compelling production.
C. Aldrich's Privacy Objections Are Without Merit
Aldrich's principal objection to each of the five requests at issue is that the requests "invade Plaintiff's privacy rights." This objection is without merit for several independent reasons.
First, Aldrich has not established a legally cognizable privacy interest in the documents at issue. The documents sought are not personal diaries, medical records, or private correspondence unrelated to this litigation. They are business communications and documents relating to Aldrich's transmission of his employer's confidential information to a competitor. To the extent that Aldrich's personal email accounts contain such communications, the privacy interest in those communications is, at best, minimal. An employee who uses personal accounts or devices to misappropriate his employer's trade secrets cannot shield evidence of the misappropriation behind a personal privacy claim. The law does not permit a party to use personal email as a safe harbor for evidence of wrongdoing.
Second, even assuming arguendo that Aldrich has a cognizable privacy interest in his personal email communications, that interest is far outweighed by the compelling need for the evidence. AMA's cross-claims allege that Aldrich misappropriated trade secrets worth millions of dollars and transmitted them to a competitor. The documents in Aldrich's personal email accounts are the primary — and in some cases the only — source of evidence regarding the full scope of the misappropriation. AMA's need for this evidence is not speculative or tangential; it is urgent, concrete, and directly tied to the claims and defenses in this action. Under the balancing test articulated in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pages 34–37, and Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at page 552, Aldrich's privacy interest must yield.
Third, the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action on February 15, 2023 provides a comprehensive framework for protecting genuinely private information. The protective order establishes two tiers of confidentiality designation: "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." Documents designated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" may be viewed only by outside counsel, their staff, and retained experts, and may not be disclosed to the parties themselves without prior court approval. This framework provides more than adequate protection for any genuinely private information that may appear in Aldrich's personal email accounts. Aldrich's privacy objection should not be sustained when a less restrictive alternative — production subject to the protective order — is available. (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552 [courts should consider whether less intrusive means of obtaining the information are available].)
Fourth, Aldrich has not offered any specific identification of the privacy interest at stake. His objections consist of boilerplate assertions of "privacy" without any explanation of what specific privacy interest would be invaded or how the requested production would cause serious harm. Under Williams, a party asserting a privacy objection bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested disclosure would constitute a "serious invasion" of a legally protected privacy interest. (Id. at p. 552.) Aldrich has made no such showing.
D. Aldrich's Relevance Objections Are Frivolous
Aldrich's assertion that the documents sought in RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are "not relevant to any claim or defense" is difficult to credit and, in the context of this litigation, borders on sanctionable.
The communications and documents sought relate to the very conduct that forms the basis of AMA's cross-claims. AMA alleges that Aldrich transmitted proprietary materials to Halcyon Creek in violation of his Employment Agreement, his fiduciary duties, and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The requests at issue seek (a) the very communications through which the alleged misappropriation was accomplished (RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12); (b) documents reflecting the purpose of the transmissions (RFP No. 13); and (c) documents reflecting Aldrich's financial interest in the recipient of the stolen materials (RFP No. 14).
There is no plausible basis for arguing that communications between Aldrich and the alleged recipient of AMA's stolen trade secrets are "irrelevant" to AMA's trade secret misappropriation claim. There is no plausible basis for arguing that documents reflecting the business arrangement, if any, between Aldrich and the competitor to which he allegedly funneled proprietary materials are "irrelevant" to AMA's breach of fiduciary duty claim. And there is no plausible basis for arguing that documents reflecting Aldrich's financial interest in the recipient entity are "irrelevant" to the question of motive and willfulness.
Aldrich's counsel's assertion during the April 5, 2023 meet-and-confer conference that "documents relating to Aldrich's relationship with Halcyon Creek are irrelevant to AMA's cross-claims" is flatly inconsistent with the pleadings in this case and with basic principles of relevance at the discovery stage. AMA reserves the right to seek sanctions for discovery abuse if Aldrich continues to maintain this frivolous position.
E. The Discrepancy Between AMA's Forensic Evidence and Aldrich's Production Requires Explanation and Supplementation
The discrepancy between AMA's forensic evidence and Aldrich's production in response to RFP No. 8 is particularly troubling and independently warrants an order compelling further responses.
AMA's DLP audit and forensic review identified at least seven emails transmitted from Aldrich's AMA corporate email account (galdrich@aureliusmedia.com) to Halcyon Creek's email address (info@halcyoncreekprod.com) between March 3, 2022 and August 18, 2022. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 10.) Aldrich produced only three of these seven emails. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 25.)
Aldrich has offered no explanation for this four-document gap. He has not asserted that the four missing emails are privileged. He has not asserted that he lacks possession, custody, or control of them. He has not included them on a privilege log. He has simply failed to produce them, without explanation.
This four-document gap, combined with the complete absence of any production from Aldrich's personal email accounts, demonstrates that Aldrich's response to RFP No. 8 is materially incomplete. The Code of Civil Procedure requires a responding party to provide a complete statement of compliance, including the production of all responsive documents in the party's possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.) A response that produces only a fraction of the known responsive documents, without explanation, does not satisfy this requirement.
AMA is entitled to an order compelling Aldrich to explain the discrepancy, to produce the missing documents, and to confirm under oath that his supplemental production is complete.
F. Aldrich Must Search His Personal Email Accounts
AMA specifically requests that the Court order Aldrich to search his personal email accounts, including galdrich.private@Northgate Software.com, for documents responsive to RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 13.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, if a party to whom a demand for inspection of documents has been directed lacks the possession, custody, or control of the documents demanded, the party must make a statement to that effect, specifying whether the inability to comply is because the document has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost or misplaced, or has never been in the party's possession. Aldrich has not made any such statement with respect to any of the requests at issue. He has not claimed that he lacks possession or control of documents in his personal email accounts. He has not claimed that responsive documents were destroyed or lost. He has simply refused to produce, based on boilerplate objections that do not address the fundamental question of whether responsive documents exist in his personal accounts.
There is no dispute that Aldrich has possession and control of his own personal email account. The forensic evidence establishes that Aldrich actively used this account to receive forwarded AMA proprietary information during the relevant period. Aldrich is obligated under the Code of Civil Procedure to search this account for responsive documents and to produce all responsive, non-privileged documents. His refusal to do so is a violation of his discovery obligations and justifies a court order compelling compliance.
AMA recognizes that a search of personal email accounts should be conducted in a manner that is reasonable and proportional. AMA has offered, through meet-and-confer discussions, to work collaboratively with Aldrich's counsel to develop search terms and a search protocol that would capture responsive documents while minimizing the burden on Aldrich. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 29.) Aldrich's counsel has refused to engage on this topic. (Petrov Decl. ¶ 29.) AMA remains willing to negotiate a reasonable search protocol, but Aldrich's blanket refusal to search at all cannot be permitted to stand.
VII. RELIEF REQUESTED
For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. respectfully requests that this Court issue an order:
1. Compelling Aldrich to serve further, verified, code-compliant responses to Requests for Production Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 within fifteen (15) days of the date of the Court's Order, without objections except as to privilege, accompanied by a privilege log compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240(c)(1) for any documents withheld on the basis of privilege;
2. Requiring Aldrich to search his personal email accounts — including but not limited to the account at galdrich.private@Northgate Software.com — for documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 13, and to produce all responsive, non-privileged documents. AMA requests that the Court either approve a search protocol proposed by the parties or, if the parties cannot agree on a protocol, specify reasonable search terms and parameters;
3. Requiring Aldrich to produce all documents responsive to Request for Production No. 14, including but not limited to the Halcyon Creek Productions LLC operating agreement, any correspondence reflecting discussions about a potential investment or equity interest, and any financial records showing payments or transfers between Aldrich and Halcyon Creek or Nina Castellanos. In the alternative, if Aldrich maintains that no responsive documents exist beyond his denial of a financial interest, AMA requests that the Court require Aldrich to provide a verified statement under oath confirming that he has conducted a reasonable and diligent search and that no responsive documents exist;
4. Awarding AMA its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (h). Section 2031.310(h) provides that, except as specified, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand for inspection, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Here, Aldrich's objections lack substantial justification, as demonstrated by the analysis set forth above, and no circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. AMA has been forced to incur substantial fees and costs to obtain discovery of documents that are plainly relevant and to which it is clearly entitled. AMA will submit a declaration of fees and costs in accordance with the Court's scheduling order for the hearing on this motion.
VIII. MEET-AND-CONFER DECLARATION
This motion is accompanied by the concurrently filed Declaration of Nadia Petrov (SBN 318945), which establishes AMA's compliance with the meet-and-confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. Ms. Petrov's declaration sets forth in detail the parties' meet-and-confer efforts, including the telephonic conference on April 5, 2023 and the subsequent written correspondence, and authenticates the following exhibits:
Exhibit A: AMA's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 1–28), served on Aldrich on February 20, 2023;
Exhibit B: Aldrich's Responses and Objections to AMA's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Nos. 1–28), served on March 30, 2023;
Exhibit C: Meet-and-confer letter from Nadia Petrov (Calderwood & Harkness LLP) to Julia Nazarian (Whitfield & Associates), dated April 7, 2023, setting forth AMA's position on each of the five requests at issue and requesting supplemental responses by April 12, 2023;
Exhibit D: Email from Julia Nazarian (Whitfield & Associates) to Nadia Petrov (Calderwood & Harkness LLP), dated April 11, 2023, declining to supplement Aldrich's responses to any of the five requests at issue.
IX. CONCLUSION
The documents sought in Requests for Production Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are at the heart of this case. They are directly and indisputably relevant to AMA's cross-claims for breach of the Employment Agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. They are also relevant to Aldrich's own claims, as Aldrich has placed the factual basis for his "for cause" termination squarely at issue by alleging pretext.
Aldrich's objections are meritless. His privacy claims cannot shield evidence of the alleged misappropriation of his employer's trade secrets — particularly where a comprehensive Stipulated Protective Order is already in place. His relevance objections are contradicted by the plain scope of the litigation and the explicit terms of the pleadings. His overbreadth and burden objections are unsupported by any specific showing of hardship or disproportionality.
The record demonstrates a stark and troubling pattern: Aldrich produced only three of the at least seven emails that AMA's forensic evidence identifies as having been transmitted from his AMA account to Halcyon Creek, with no explanation for the discrepancy. He produced nothing from his personal email accounts, despite forensic evidence that he forwarded approximately 340 emails containing AMA's confidential information to those accounts. He produced nothing relating to his relation