Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV05681, Date: 2025-06-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Naser Rabizadeh and Sharon Rabizadeh (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against defendants Provident, Commerce Escrow Company and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”). The operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) breach of contract as third-party beneficiary; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) negligence; (6) slander of title; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On September 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel further responses to requests for production (“RFPs”) (the “Motion”). On December 31, 2024, Provident filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a reply (the “Reply”).

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 2031.310, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

A court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

A motion to compel further responses to RFPs must be served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (CCP, § 2031.310 subd. (c).)¿The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to RFPs Nos. 1-20 on the grounds that Provident’s objections are meritless, Provident does not identify the documents falling within the category to which the objections are being made or identify the documents to which privilege is being invoked, Provident has not searched for documents responsive to RFP Nos. 5, 8-11, 13 and 16-19, Provident narrowed the search parameters in response to RFP Nos. 4 and 15, Provident has not produced certain email communications in their native format as requested and the responses do not identify which documents are responsive to each request. (Mot., pp. 6:27-7:20.)

In the Opposition, Provident asserts that Plaintiffs did not raise the identification of documents issue or request a privilege log during their meet and confer process. (Opp., p. 11:18-12:15.) Provident also asserts that its objections to RFPs Nos. 5, 8-11, 13 and 16-19 are proper because they seek information that is beyond the scope of the allegations remaining against Provident in this action. (Opp., 14:15-16:2.) Provident also asserts that it has provided all the information contained in the native versions of the emails requested. (Opp., pp. 13:17-14:13.)

Upon review, Provident has provided sufficient Code-compliant responses to RFPs Nos, 1-6, 12, 14 and 20 (Response to Sep. Statement., pp. 2:5-29:4, 54:24-60:11, 65:3-69:5, 95:16-100:3.) RFP No. 7 is duplicative of RFP Nos. 2 and 6. (Response to Sep. Statement., pp. 29:5-35:4.) Thus, no further response is warranted and the Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 1-7, 12, 14 and 20.

RFP No. 8 seeks: “All non-privileged DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any transfer of funds between YOU and COMMERCE in the last 6 years, including but not limited to any sort of payments, commissions, referral fees, kickbacks, fee sharing or money transfers.” (Response to Sep. Statement., p. 35:5-8.)

RFP No. 15 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the policy terms of any liability insurance policies held by YOU between January 2020 and the present.” (Response to Sep. Statement., p. 69:6-8.)

These requests are not vague or ambiguous. RFP No. 8 is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RFP No. 15 is addressed to discoverable evidence to show the contents of an agreement under which an insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy a judgment. (CCP, § 2017.210.) The Court agrees, however, with Provident’s objections that the requests are overly broad.

Thus, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs’ request to seek further production to RFP No. 8, but will limit the request only to those documents related to transfers of funds related to the 2021 sale of Plaintiffs’ property at issue in this action.

Similarly, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs’ request to seek further production to RFP No. 15 but will limit the request only to the policy terms of the insurance policy or policies relevant to liability related to the 2021 sale of Plaintiffs’ properties.

RFP No. 9 seeks: “All COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO payments of any kind made to YOU RELATED TO YOUR work on the 2021 HOME SALE.” (Response to Sep. Statement, p. 40:1-3.)

RFP No. 16 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any research YOU conducted regarding the legal description attached to the 2021 Grant Deed used in the 2021 HOME SALE.” (Response to Sep. Statement, p. 84:22-24.)

RFP No. 19 seeks: “All non-privileged DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO YOUR refusal to reimburse PLAINTIFFS for their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to remedy the wrongs committed by YOU RELATING TO the 2021 HOME SALE, as alleged in the COMPLAINT.” (Response to Sep. Statement, p. 102:14-18.)

Upon review, the Court finds that there is good cause for justifying the discovery sought in RFP Nos. 9, 16 and 19. The RFPs are within the scope of permissible discovery requests and directly related to the issues central to this litigation. Provident’s objections are without merit. The requests are not uncertain, vague, ambiguous or overly broad. Thus, the Motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 9, 16 and 19.

RFP No. 10 seeks: “All YOUR COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO tendering any claim to an insurance carrier RELATING TO the 2021 HOME SALE, including but not limited to.” (Response to Sep. Statement., p. 44:17-19.)

RFP No. 17 seeks: “All non-privileged DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the name of each and every attorney or representative who has worked on YOUR behalf in connection with this ACTION.” (Response to Sep. Statement., p. 80:10-13.)

RFP No. 18 seeks: “All non-privileged DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the dates on which YOU retained each and every attorney or representative who had worked on YOUR behalf in connection with the 2022 remediation of the wrongful legal description of 5815 TOPEKA used in the 2021 HOME SALE.” (Response to Sep. Statement., p. 85:11-15.)

Provident has already produced documents reflecting that it had an insurance policy in effect at the time of the 2021 home sale and the Court has granted Plaintiffs’ request to compel further documents showing the contents of the policy. There are no allegations in the SAC related to Provident’s attorneys. Thus, these requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are not relevant to any of the claims alleged against Provident in this action. The Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 10, 17 and 18.

RFP No. 11 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO YOUR general course of dealing with COMMERCE on business transactions, including but not limited to property sale and purchase transactions.” (Response to Sep. Statement., p. 49:24-27.)

RFP No. 13 seeks: “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO every task YOU attempted or completed for the 2021 HOME SALE.” (Response to Sep. Statement., p. 60:12-14.)

The Court agrees that these requests as written are unmanageably vague and overbroad. In this context, the phrase “general course of dealings” is vague and the vagueness is compounded by reference to “business transactions.” In addition, “every task” Provident “attempted or completed” is vague and overbroad. Provident’s objections to RFPs Nos. 11 and 13 are thus sustained on these grounds. The Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 11 and 13.

The court must 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. (CCP, § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

Plaintiffs’ request sanctions against Provident and its counsel in the amount of $12,645.50 based upon: (1) counsel Sheila Rabizadeh’s rate of $590/hour for 9.5 hours meeting and conferring and preparing the Motion and accompanying documents; (2) counsel Marie-Sophie Revault’s rate of $465/hour for 8.5 hours working on the Motion; (3) paralegal Melissa Moore’s rate of $185/hour for 4.0 hours working on the Motion; (4) 3.5 hours anticipated to review the Opposition, draft the Reply and attend the hearing; (5) $60 filing fee; (6) $70 eFiling fee; (7) $35 anticipated for the eFile fee for the Reply; and (8) $118 to courier courtesy copies to the Court.

As the Court granted the Motion only to 5 of the 20 RFPs, and 2 of the 5 were only granted in part, a reduction is appropriate. Further, the Court only grants the $60 filing fee for costs. Thus, the Court will grant the request for sanctions in the amount of $2,532.50, representing 20% of the $12,362.50 sought for attorneys’ fees, plus $60 in filing fees.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $2,532.50.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED, in part, as follows: The Motion is GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 9, 16 and 19 and GRANTED, pursuant to the limitations outlined above, as to RFP Nos. 8 and 15. The Motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 1-7, 10-14, 17-18 and 20.

Provident is ordered to provide full, Code-compliant, verified responses, without objection to RFPs Nos. 8-9, 15-16 and 19 within 30 days of this order. To the extent Provident claims that the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine is implicated by a document described in the RFP, such documents are ordered to be described by Bates number on a complete privilege log. All other documents are ordered to be produced at the time of the supplemental written response and Bates stamped, and in each RFP the responsive documents to such RFP must be set forth by Bates number.

Provident and its counsel of record are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,532.50 to Plaintiffs within 30 days of this Order.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court