Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV30887, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $460.00 against Defendant Edward Tham aka Edward Wai-Keung Tham. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $460.00 against Defendant Red Vault Investments LLC. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s unopposed motion to compel pro per Defendant Milkhouse Investors, LLC to provide further responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted. Responses are due within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $460.00 against Defendant Milkhouse Investors, LLC. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s unopposed motion to compel pro per Defendant Rene Carmen Jaime to provide further responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted. Responses are due within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $460.00 against Defendant Rene Carmen Jaime. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s unopposed motion to compel pro per Defendant Remi I. Jaime to provide further responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted. Responses are due within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $460.00 against Defendant Remi I. Jaime. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s unopposed motion to compel pro per Defendant Investored LLC to provide further responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted. Responses are due within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau’s request for monetary sanctions on the motion to compel responses to her Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in the reduced amount of $460.00 against Defendant Investored LLC. Sanctions are payable within 20 days.

Plaintiff Elaine Lau (“Lau”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed to compel pro per Defendant Edward Tham aka Edward Wai-Keung Tham (“Tham”) (“Defendant”) to provide further verified, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33. (Notice of MTCF Tham, pgs. 2-3; C.C.P. §§2016.010 et seq., 2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq., 2031.310, 2031.320.) Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Tham in the amount of $1,1065.00. (Notice of MTCF Tham, pg. 3.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel pro per Defendant Red Vault Investments LLC (“Red Vault”) (“Defendant”) to provide further verified, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33. (Notice of MTCF Red Vault, pgs. 2-3; C.C.P. §§2016.010 et seq., 2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq., 2031.310, 2031.320.) Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Red Vault in the amount of $1,1065.00. (Notice of MTCF Red Vault, pg. 3.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel pro per Defendant Milkhouse Investors, LLC (“Milkhouse”) (“Defendant”) to provide further verified, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33. (Notice of MTCF Milkhouse, pgs. 2-3; C.C.P. §§2016.010 et seq., 2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq., 2031.310, 2031.320.) Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Milkhouse in the amount of $1,1065.00. (Notice of MTCF Milkhouse, pg. 3.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel pro per Defendant Rene Carmen Jaime (“Rene”) (“Defendant”) to provide further verified, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33. (Notice of MTCF Rene, pgs. 2-3; C.C.P. §§2016.010 et seq., 2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq., 2031.310, 2031.320.) Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Rene in the amount of $1,1065.00. (Notice of MTCF Rene, pg. 3.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel pro per Defendant Remi I. Jaime (“Remi”) (“Defendant”) to provide further verified, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33. (Notice of MTCF Remi, pgs. 2-3; C.C.P. §§2016.010 et seq., 2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq., 2031.310, 2031.320.) Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Remi in the amount of $1,1065.00. (Notice of MTCF Remi, pg. 3.)

Plaintiff moves unopposed to compel pro per Defendant Investored LLC (“Investored”) (“Defendant”) to provide further verified, Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (“RFP”) Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33. (Notice of MTCF Investored, pgs. 2-3; C.C.P. §§2016.010 et seq., 2023.010 et seq., 2031.010 et seq., 2031.310, 2031.320.) Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Investored in the amount of $1,1065.00. (Notice of MTCF Investored, pg. 3.)

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Tham to Plaintiff’s RFP, the Court rules as follows:

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff served the RFP on Defendant’s counsel (at the time), and responses were due by April 16, 2024. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶2, Exh. 1.) In response to Defendant’s counsel’s requests, Plaintiff’s counsel gave Defendant an extension to respond to April 30, and then to May 10, and then to May 15, 2024. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶¶3-4, Exhs. 2-3.) On May 15, 2024, Defendant served responses to the RFP and produced documents, and responses and production were not Code-compliant. (See Decl. of Weinberg ¶5, Exh. 4.)

On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶6, Exh. 5.) The letter requested a response by May 30, 2024. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶6, Exh. 5.) On May 30, the parties agreed to extend the deadline for Defendant to respond until June 14, and the parties extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file Motions(s) to Compel until July 19, 2024. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶7, Exh. 13.)

On June 18, and then on June 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel asked Defendant’s counsel when he would be available for an IDC regarding his client’s discovery responses / document production. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶7, Exh. 13.) On June 25, 2024, Defendant’s counsel advised he was “no longer the attorney for the defendants in this case” and forwarded substitution of attorney forms. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶8, Ex. 14.) On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant to contact him so an IDC could be scheduled. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶9, Ex. 15.) Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to schedule an IDC with this Court, but Defendant did not cooperate in Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts, necessitating the filing of the instant motion, and no supplemental discovery responses have been provided to date. (See Decl. of Weinberg ¶12.) Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Many of Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete because they are not actually Code-compliant and not all documents have been produced. (C.C.P. §§2031.210-2031.220.)

Defendant’s responses to RFP Request Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, and 30 that “Responding Party provides no documents at present time but will supplement his responses with additional documents” are evasive and incomplete. Defendant is obligated to produce all responsive documents, and Defendant does not advise when the production will take place.

Defendant’s responses to RFP Request Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, and 33 are evasive and incomplete because Defendant is obligated to produce all responsive documents, and Defendant does not advise when all responsive documents will be produced.

Defendant’s “Preliminary Statement” to the RFP include a series of purported objections including “all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, admissibility, privilege, privacy, proprietary information, trade secrets and the like, and any and all other objections . . ..” (Decl. of Weinberg ¶4, Exh. 5.) Most of the other objections are asserted “to the extent” a particular ground for objection might apply. (Decl. of Weinberg ¶4, Exh. 5.) Defendant’s boilerplate objections are without merit and are too general. Defendant is ordered to provide further responses without objections (except for attorney-client communications and attorney work-product if applicable).

Defendant is also compelled to produce all responsive documents wherein Defendant agreed to produce documents. If Defendant is unable to comply with a particular request, Defendant must provide a verified statement of inability to