Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Honarkar v. The Picerne Group, Inc.", Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
A) Discovery Referee
Mohammad Honarkar’s (“Honarkar”) Motion for Order Appointing Referee (“MOAR”) and the related Joinders are GRANTED.
Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 639, the court finds the appointment of a discovery referee is necessary in this action. The court has reviewed the arguments in this case and compared them with the elements supporting appointment of a referee as presented in Taggares v. Superior Ct. (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 94, 105-06, and determined the factors support this case will unduly impact the court’s time and limited resources.
This case involves at least 10 different named parties and well over half-a-dozen third parties that have been identified in The Picerne Group, Inc.’s (“TPG”) Second Amended Complaint. The former have received discovery requests they claim have multiple issues, and many of the latter have had deposition and/or records subpoenas served on them by TPG. In reviewing the discovery that has been propounded upon the parties, it appears there are numerous issues that will need to review and ruling on related to privacy of parties and non-parties, overbreadth of requests, and confidential/privileged proprietary business records among other things. This case is also very complicated in that it involves multiple contracts and allegations of a significant conspiracy by multiple entities against TPG’s alleged interest in purchasing and developing real property.
To date, there have been 13 prior motions to quash deposition subpoenas (ROA ## 19, 22, 26, 31, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 178, 179, 180, 181) and there are currently 12 additional discovery motions pending, including the Motion to Compel being heard today. (ROA ## 557, 570, 574, 578, 583, 587, 591, 634, 635, 636, 637.) Of the future motions, seven are additional motions to quash deposition subpoenas and six are motions to compel production of documents. Though no specific number of documents has been identified, based on the discovery requests, it is easily in excess of thousands of pages of documents per party. TPG alone has indicated it has already, “produced thousands of pages of documents responsive to Honarkar’s requests.” (Dellefave Decl. ¶ 18.) Those “thousands of pages” were in response to only one party’s document request and there are currently 10 parties in this matter. Based on above and the contentions made by the parties, the court anticipates there will be numerous additional motions in the future that will unduly impact a large amount of the court’s time and resources.
The MOAR is GRANTED. Parties are to meet and confer to attempt to agree to a discovery referee within five days of the hearing. If parties are unable to agree, parties are to submit a list of three names each from the court will select; the list of names are to be submitted no later than ten court days following the hearing. The selected referee will have the authority to review and make a determination as to all discovery matters moving forward. Costs of the referee will be split evenly between the parties whose discovery is at issue (i.e. the party propounding the discovery and the party objecting to the discovery), with the referee having authority to reallocate between those particular parties.
B) Motion to Compel
TPG’s Motion to Compel (“MTC”) Andrew Stupin’s (“Stupin”) further responses to document categories in the deposition subpoena is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
TPG initially brought the MTC to compel Stupin’s further responses to 58 categories of documents. Since that time, parties have met and conferred and come to an agreement as to all but category No. 54. That category and monetary sanctions are the only things left for this court to rule on in the MTC.
As for category No. 54, the court finds the request is overbroad in what it seeks, and violates Stupin’s rights to privacy. The MTC is therefore DENIED as to this category.
As for monetary sanctions, the court finds sanctions are permissible given Stupin did not provide substantive responses to the other 57 categories until after the MTC was filed. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1987.2 and 2023.030.) TPG seeks $21,310 in attorney fees. (Pugh Decl. ¶ 32.) The court finds this amount grossly excessive for the type of motion. The court therefore cuts both the number of hours allegedly billed and the hourly billing rate pursuant to the lodestar method. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272.) The court has determined the reasonable number of hours for this motion and reply should be no more than 15 hours. The court will also lower the hourly billing rate to $500 per hour. The total monetary sanctions against Stupin and in favor of TPG is therefore $7,500, to be paid within 15 days of the hearing.
TPG to give notice of the court’s rulings.