Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV26356 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Hooman Nissani (“Hooman”) and NBA Automotive, Inc. (“NBA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) [1]

Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendants’ further responses to its Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set 2 (respectively, the “Hooman Motion” and the “NBA Motion,” and collectively, the “Motions”).

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010, unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, 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 that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2031.310, subd. (c).) A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See CCP § 2031.310 subd. (b)(1).) The good cause requirement is met if the proponent shows that there exists “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” (Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.020, subd. (a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the objecting party to produce evidence of: (1) the propounding party’s subjective intent to create burden; or (2) the amount of time and effort it would take to actually respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) Where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face, no such evidence is necessary. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) Trial courts are vested with “wide discretion” to allow or prohibit discovery. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Plaintiff propounded RFP, Set 2 on October 21, 2022, after Defendants asserted that the signatures on the contracts at issue in the Complaint were forged. (Declaration of Kyle S. Case (“Case Decl.”) ¶ 6, Exhibit A.) Hooman’s responses to the RFPs, provided on November 22, 2022, consist solely of objections. (Hooman Case Decl. ¶ 8.) NBA also submitted its responses to the RFPs on November 22, 2022, except that NBA did not provide responses to RFPs numbers 12-19. (NBA Case Decl. ¶ 8, Exhibit B.) NBA’s responses to RFPs numbers 20-25 consist of objections. (Id.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that good cause exists for the document requests identified in RFP, Set 2. The requests are not overly broad, as each RFP identifies a category of documents. Defendants have not demonstrated that any potential intrusion on their privacy rights is outweighed by Plaintiff’s right to examine documents that contain their signatures, particularly since Defendants belatedly asserted that the signatures on the documents at issue in this case are not authentic. To the extent that Defendants believe that responsive documents contain confidential information, they may produce redacted copies along with a code-compliant redaction log. In addition, as a result of NBA’s failure to provide any responses to RFPs numbers 12-19, it has waived any objections to those requests.[2]

The Court therefore GRANTS the Motions. Defendants are ordered to provide responses within 20 days of this order.

Plaintiff seeks $1,519 in sanctions in connection the Hooman Motion, which represents: (1) 3.4 hours preparing the moving papers; and (2) an anticipated 1.5 hours drafting the reply papers and attending the hearing at an hourly rate of $310 per hour. (Hooman Case Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff seeks $1,705 in connection to the NBA Motion, which represents: (1) four hours preparing the moving papers; and (2) 1.5 hours drafting the reply papers and attending the hearing at an hourly rate of $310 per hour. (NBA Case Decl. ¶ 14.)

The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $910, which represents a total of three hours working on the Motions collectively at a rate of $310 per hour. (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) Defendants are jointly responsible to pay this amount within 20 days of this order.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Court uses first names to distinguish persons with the same last name and intends no disrespect in so doing.

[2] Where a party is served a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling and fails to serve a timely response to that demand, the party to whom the demand is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (CCP § 2031.300, subd. (a).)