Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV34476, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34476 Hearing Date: January 23, 2025 Dept: 55
Defendant Ardeshir Sarbaz’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
and Production for RFP Set One, Sanctions of $11,756.25
Requests for Production
4- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU
received for legal services outside of SMS and Torero Law LLP since 2015.
Objections in Supplemental Response:
Vague and ambiguous-overruled
Overbroad- In the IDC the parties agreed that the end point
for the production is April 2024. During the meet and confer process they
further agreed to limit the scope of the documents sought in this RFP, as
reflected in Plaintiff’s supplemental response. The parties’ agreement on the
scope of the RFP addresses this objection.
Privacy-The parties have a stipulated protective order, which
addresses this objection.
Cumulative/Duplicative-overruled
Relevancy- overruled
Attorney-Client/Work Product Privileges- overruled unless Plaintiff
provides a privilege log pursuant to CCP Section 2031.240(c)(1).
Plaintiff’s response is not code compliant. Plaintiff shall
serve a verified supplemental response that complies with Section 2031.220,
i.e., stating that the production will be “allowed either in whole or in
part, and that all documents or things” in his possession, custody,
or control with be produced (emphasis added). To the extent Plaintiff is unable to comply
with the request in whole then he must provide a supplemental response
compliant with Section 2031.230.
The supplemental response shall also comply with Section
2031.280, i.e., include the Bates range of documents produced that correspond
to the request.
Thus far, Plaintiff has produced “responsive” documents to
this request but has not yet clarified if he is producing all responsive
documents in his possession, custody, or control, or whether he is unable to
comply with the request in whole and the reasons why (2031.230). Of course, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled or have been dealt with by the parties in the IDC/meet
and confer process and thus Plaintiff cannot withhold any documents from the
production based on any objection under 2031.240. Once Plaintiff provides a code-compliant
verified supplemental written response as described above, Defendant can assess
the production against the code compliant response(s) to determine whether Plaintiff
indeed produced documents for RFPs for which he stated he would produce all
responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request
for an order of compliance without prejudice.
5- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any referral fees YOU
received for any legal matters outside of SMS and Torero Law LLP since 2015.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
6- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU
received from Navab Law.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
7- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU
received from Kaveh Navab.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
8 – All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU
received from Atousa Saei.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
9- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU
received from Law Offices of Atousa Saei, APLC.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
10- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU received
from Ardalan & Associates.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
11- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU
received from Tina Abdolhosseini.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
14- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any compensation YOU
received from West Coast Trial attorneys.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
20- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any partnerships YOU
entered into RELATING TO the practice of law.
Objections in Further Supplemental Response:
Vague and ambiguous-overruled
Overbroad- In the IDC the parties agreed that the end point
for the production is April 2024. During the meet and confer process they
further agreed to limit the scope of the documents sought in this RFP, as
reflected in Plaintiff’s supplemental response. The parties’ agreement on the
scope of the RFP addresses this objection.
Privacy-The parties have a stipulated protective order, which
addresses this objection.
Cumulative/Duplicative-overruled
Relevancy- overruled
Attorney-Client/Work Product Privileges- overruled unless Plaintiff
provides a privilege log pursuant to CCP Section 2031.240(c)(1).
Plaintiff’s further supplemental response is not code
compliant. Plaintiff shall serve a verified supplemental response that complies
with Section 2031.230, i.e., stating whether the documents have never existed
or whether they did exist at some point, in which case Plaintiff needs to
provide further explanation.
21- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any referral agreements YOU
entered into RELATING TO the practice of law.
Objections in Supplemental Response:
Vague and ambiguous-overruled
Overbroad- In the IDC the parties agreed that the end point
for the production is April 2024, which addresses this objection.
Privacy-The parties have a stipulated protective order, which
addresses this objection.
Cumulative/Duplicative-overruled
Relevancy- overruled
Attorney-Client/Work Product Privileges- overruled unless Plaintiff
provides a privilege log pursuant to CCP Section 2031.240(c)(1).
Plaintiff’s response is not code compliant. Plaintiff shall
serve a verified supplemental response that complies with Section 2031.220,
i.e., stating that the production will be “allowed either in whole or in
part, and that all documents or things” in his possession, custody,
or control with be produced (emphasis added). To the extent Plaintiff is unable to comply
with the request in whole then he must provide a supplemental response
compliant with Section 2031.230.
The supplemental response shall also comply with Section
2031.280, i.e., include the Bates range of documents produced that correspond
to the request.
Thus far, Plaintiff has produced “responsive” documents to
this request but has not yet clarified if he is producing all responsive
documents in his possession, custody, or control, or whether he is unable to
comply with the request in whole and the reasons why (2031.230). Of course, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled or have been dealt with by the parties in the IDC and
thus Plaintiff cannot withhold any documents from the production based on any
objection under 2031.240. Once Plaintiff
provides a code-compliant verified supplemental written response as described
above, Defendant can assess the production against the code compliant
response(s) to determine whether Plaintiff indeed produced documents for RFPs
for which he stated he would produce all responsive documents in his
possession, custody, or control. The Court
therefore denies Defendant’s request for an order of compliance without prejudice.
22- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any association-of-counsel
agreements YOU entered into RELATING TO the practice of law.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
23- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any employment agreements
YOU entered into RELATING TO the practice of law.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
24 -All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of-counsel agreements
YOU entered into RELATING TO the practice of law.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
25- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any pay stub YOU received
RELATING TO the practice of law.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
26- All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any 1099 forms YOU received
RELATING TO the practice of law since 2015 outside of SMS and Torero Law LLP.
Same ruling as for RFP 4.
27 – All DOCUMENTS RELAING TO any checks YOU received
RELATING TO the practice of law since 2015 outside of SMS and Torero Law LLP
Same ruling as for RFP 21.
30- All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Kaveh Navab
RELATING TO the representation of any client outside of SMS and Torero Law LLP
Objections in Supplemental Response:
Vague and ambiguous-overruled
Overbroad- In the IDC the parties agreed that the end point
for the production is April 2024, which addresses this objection.
Privacy-The parties have a stipulated protective order, which
addresses this objection.
Cumulative/Duplicative-overruled
Relevancy- overruled
Attorney-Client/Work Product Privileges- overruled unless Plaintiff
provides a privilege log pursuant to CCP Section 2031.240(c)(1).
Plaintiff’s response is not code compliant. Plaintiff shall
serve a verified supplemental response that complies with Section 2031.220,
i.e., stating that the production will be “allowed either in whole or in
part, and that all documents or things” in his possession, custody,
or control with be produced (emphasis added). To the extent Plaintiff is unable to comply
with the request in whole then he must provide a supplemental response
compliant with Section 2031.230.
The supplemental response shall also comply with Section
2031.280, i.e., include the Bates range of documents produced that correspond
to the request.
Thus far, Plaintiff has produced “responsive” documents to
this request but has not yet clarified if he is producing all responsive
documents in his possession, custody, or control, or whether he is unable to
comply with the request in whole and the reasons why (2031.230). Of course, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled or have been dealt with by the parties in the IDC and
thus Plaintiff cannot withhold any documents from the production based on any
objection under 2031.240. Once Plaintiff
provides a code-compliant verified supplemental written response as described
above, Defendant can assess the production against the code compliant
response(s) to determine whether Plaintiff indeed produced documents for RFPs
for which he stated he would produce all responsive documents in his
possession, custody, or control. The Court
therefore denies Defendant’s request for an order of compliance without prejudice.
31- All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Rahi Azizi
RELATING TO the representation of any client outside of SMS and Torero Law LLP.
Same ruling as for RFP 30.
32- All COMMUNCIATIONS between YOU and Rahi Azizi regarding
SARBAZ.
Same ruling as for RFP 30.
33 – All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Kaveh Navab
RELATING TO SARBAZ.
Same ruling as for RFP 30.
39 – ALL retainer agreements YOU entered into RELATING TO
the practice of law outside of SMS and Torero Law LLP
Objections in Supplemental Response:
Vague and ambiguous-overruled
Overbroad- In the IDC the parties agreed that the end point
for the production is April 2024. During the meet and confer process they
further agreed to limit the scope of the documents sought in this RFP, as
reflected in Plaintiff’s supplemental response. The parties’ agreement on the
scope of the RFP addresses this objection.
Privacy-The parties have a stipulated protective order, which
addresses this objection.
Cumulative/Duplicative-overruled
Relevancy- overruled
Attorney-Client/Work Product Privileges- overruled unless Plaintiff
provides a privilege log pursuant to CCP Section 2031.240(c)(1).
Plaintiff’s response is not code compliant. Plaintiff shall
serve a verified supplemental response that complies with Section 2031.220,
i.e., stating that the production will be “allowed either in whole or in
part, and that all documents or things” in his possession, custody,
or control with be produced (emphasis added). To the extent Plaintiff is unable to comply
with the request in whole then he must provide a supplemental response
compliant with Section 2031.230.
The supplemental response shall also comply with Section
2031.280, i.e., include the Bates range of documents produced that correspond
to the request.
Thus far, Plaintiff has produced “responsive” documents to
this request but has not yet clarified if he is producing all responsive
documents in his possession, custody, or control, or whether he is unable to
comply with the request in whole and the reasons why (2031.230). Of course, Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled or have been dealt with by the parties in the IDC/meet
and confer process and thus Plaintiff cannot withhold any documents from the
production based on any objection under 2031.240. Once Plaintiff provides a code-compliant
verified supplemental written response as described above, Defendant can assess
the production against the code compliant response(s) to determine whether Plaintiff
indeed produced documents for RFPs for which he stated he would produce all
responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request
for an order of compliance without prejudice.
40- ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any law firm YOU were
employed at since 2015.
Same ruling as for RFP 39.
Sanctions
Plaintiff has unsuccessfully opposed the motion to compel
further responses (though he is successful in opposing the motion for compliance).
The Court does not find that he acted with substantial justification. The
parties engaged in a long and thorough meet and confer process but ultimately,
Plaintiff’s responses to the RFPs were not code compliant. During the meet and
confer process, Plaintiff repeatedly stated that the documents requested in the
RFPs were in the hands of third parties and he did not have many of the documents
requested. Yet he provided supplemental responses that he would produce “responsive”
documents without, as the Code requires, specifying if he is producing all
responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, and/or if he is
unable to produce all responsive documents and why. Nor do his responses
include the Bates range for the production. These are important issues because,
under the Code, Defendant is entitled to understand exactly what Plaintiff is
producing, what Plaintiff does not have and where those documents are, and
where Defendant can find the responsive documents in the production. Plaintiff and/or
his attorney therefore must pay a monetary sanction to Defendant under 2031.310(h)
in the amount of $4,875.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is denied.