Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 20STCV44683 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV44683, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44683 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Baraness Investments LLC vs. Alanic International Corporation, et. al., Case No. 20STCV44683

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff/Cross-defendants’ Motion to Compel further Discovery Responses; Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants Baraness Investments, LLC, and Sean Baraness (collectively, Baraness) move to compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant Alanic International Corporation’s (Alanic) further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Nos. 7, 9, 11, and 13-18. The motion is granted. The Court orders monetary sanctions against Alanic in the amount of $3,150.

A party may move for an order compelling further response to a request for production of documents if the demanding party deems that responses are incomplete, evasive, or contain meritless objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Baraness served the Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on Alanic on July 30, 2021. (Esfandi Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Alanic served initial responses on October 27, 2021, and served supplemental responses on April 4, 2022. (Esfandi Decl. ¶ 4-6, Ex. B, Ex. D.) Following the filing of this motion, Alanic served further supplemental responses on March 28 and March 29, 2023. (Opposition, Exs. 1, 2.)

Request Nos. 7 and 11 seek all documents showing the QuickBooks data for 5-ply and 4-ply masks ordered by Baraness. Request Nos. 9 and 13-18 seek all documents related to Baraness’ various orders of masks from Alanic between March 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020.

Both Alanic’s PMQ and its bookkeeper have testified that Alanic keeps its bookkeeping data in QuickBooks. (Szkopek Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3-7.) While Alanic produced a number of invoices in its recent supplemental responses, Alanic did not produce any QuickBooks data files, and Baraness’ counsel states that the invoices produced fail to reflect the complete data available from QuickBooks (e.g., the dates of transactions). (Id. ¶¶ 9-15, 21-23.) In addition, many invoices produced by Alanic have been redacted, despite the lack of any applicable protective order. (Id. ¶ 18, Ex. 3.) Baraness also presents evidence that data in some invoices recently produced by Alanic have been altered from prior versions. (Id. ¶ 16; Reply p. 3.)

Given the above, the Court agrees with Baraness that this motion is not mooted by Alanic’s service of supplemental responses. Alanic has provided no substantive explanation for its failure to produce QuickBooks data or for its redactions to the invoices. While Alanic argues that QuickBooks data sought by Baraness falls outside of the temporal scope of the Requests, Alanic has failed to provide this data for any time period, including the specified period from March to September 2020. (Szkopek Reply Decl. ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Request Nos. 7, 9, 11, and 13-18 is granted. Alanic is ordered to produce responsive documents within ten (10) days of today’s date.

“[T]he 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, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions against Alanic are warranted based on its evasive responses and unsuccessful opposition. Baraness requests sanctions in the amount of $5,400, based on an hourly rate of $450, for 6 hours to prepare the motion, 3 hours to review the opposition and draft a reply, and 3 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing on the motion. (Esfandi Decl. ¶ 10.) The Court finds this somewhat excessive so will reduce the sanctions to $3,150. Alanic is ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $3150 within thirty (30) days of today’s date.