Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 2STCP02029, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 2STCP02029    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to enforce the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Action Pending Outside California against Defendant Reichman & Associates, P.C. is GRANTED. Compliance is ordered within 20 days.  Reichman is sanctioned $700 payable within 30 days.

On 6/21/2024, Petitioner Jordan Alaimo, individually and derivatively on behalf of APEX Gaming, LLC and Atlas World Trading, LLC, (Petitioner) filed suit against Reichman & Associates, P.C. (Reichman or Respondent), seeking enforcement of nonparty subpoena for the production of business records.

On 7/12/2024, Petitioner moved to enforce the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Action Pending Outside California against Defendant Reichman & Associates, P.C (Reichman).

Discussion

            Petitioner argues that an order is necessary to compel Reichman to produce responses to the Records Subpoena.

            In opposition, Petitioner argues that he has submitted all responsive documents. However, notably, he did not respond to Petitioner’s Separate Statement, and the Exhibits attached to his declaration do not establish that all responsive production has been provided.

            Moreover, despite Reichman’s contention that Petitioner has refused to clearly set forth what production remains outstanding, Petitioner’s motion was accompanied by a Separate Statement which sets forth these contentions, as does the Meet and Confer letter sent on May 1, 2024. (See Beg Decl., Exh. 3.) Petitioner sent a follow up letter on May 3, 2024. Petitioner then sent another email on May 14, writing:

To allow us to evaluate the completeness of Reichman & Associates' document production, we would like to schedule a call to discuss the following topics:

1. From where did Reichman collect the documents that it produced on April 25?

2. What protocols were followed to ensure that all responsive documents were produced?

3. Did Reichman conduct a search of Reichman email accounts for responsive communications and documents? If so, describe this search process.

4. Has Avi Reichman, or any employee or other accountant associated with Reichman, ever communicated via text message or through any messaging service with Jim Khuri and/or Patti Walsh?

5. Does Reichman keep or maintain any of documents, including workpapers, on a server, or in any other storage, that was not searched for purposes of collecting an dproducting documents responsive to the subpoena?

Can you let us know.your availability to discuss the above this week?

            (Beg Decl. Exh. 5.)

In response, Plaintiff received an email from Reichman’s principal, Avi Reichman “Please stop harassing me and my office. I have given you my files which I was told was what you wanted in lieu of a deposition. There is nothing more to discuss.” Beg Decl., ¶ 12, Exhs. 6-7.)

As such, the Court finds adequate attempts to meet and confer by Petitioner. Moreover, the Court finds no basis for concluding that Reichman’s production has been sufficient or consists of all responsive documents.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to enforce the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Action Pending Outside California against Defendant Reichman & Associates, P.C. is granted. Reichman is sanctioned $700.00. ($350/hr x 2 hr.)

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner’s motion to compel Reichman to produce a PMQ is GRANTED. Compliance is ordered within 20 days.  Reichman is sanctioned $700 payable within 30 days.

            On 6/21/2024, Petitioner Jordan Alaimo, individually and derivatively on behalf of APEX Gaming, LLC and Atlas World Trading, LLC, (Petitioner) filed suit against Reichman & Associates, P.C. (Reichman or Respondent), seeking enforcement of nonparty subpoena for the production of business records.

            On 7/12/2024, Petitioner moved to enforce the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance in Action Pending Outside California against Defendant Reichman & Associates, P.C (Reichman).

Discussion

            Petitioner argues that Reichman must be compelled to respond because it refuses to produce its PMQ for deposition:

Reichman provided no objection to the Depo Subpoena. Instead, it has taken the position that because it produced some documents pursuant to Petitioner’s Subpoena for Production of Business Records in Action Pending Outside California (“Records Subpoena”) that is excused from having to produce it’s person most qualified (“PMQ”) to testify at a deposition. Despite Petitioner’s multiple attempts to meet and confer regarding same, Reichman vehemently refuses to produce its PMQ for his deposition.

            (Motion, 3: 10-15.)

            In opposition, Reichman argues that this motion is deficient and untimely, and contends that he was told that if he provided the production requested nothing further would be required.

            As for the first contention, Reichman does not cite any authority to show that this motion is untimely. Rather, Reichman argues that “Ms. Beg filed the motion after her own stated deadline to do so.” (Opp., 4: 2.) Clearly, an informally set deadline, even accepted as true, does not provide the grounds for denial of a motion as untimely.

            As for the second contention, Reichman’s arguments regarding production ignore the underlying relief sought in Petitioner’s motion—i.e., the production of a PMQ for deposition. Reichman’s motion fails to address this issue in any way, and thus is considered to have conceded to the merits of this argument.

            Based on the forgoing, Petitioner’s motion to compel Reichman to produce a PMQ is granted. Reichman is sanctioned $700.00. ($350/hr x 2 hr.) 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.