Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV06484, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: December 5, 2023

Case Name: Spinning Gold, LLC v. Habrich, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV47375

Matter: Motions to Compel (2x)

Moving Party: Cross-Complainants Alexander Habrich, 3761444 Canada, Inc., Dunn 

Consulting, and Lawrence Mortorff

Responding Party: Cross-Defendants Spinning Gold, LLC and Timothy Bogart

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions to Compel are granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On February 22, 2022, Alexander Habrich, 3761444 Canada, Inc., Dunn Consulting, and Lawrence Mortorff filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) against Cross-Defendants Spinning Gold, LLC (“SG”), Timothy Bogart, Gary Randall, Jessica Martins, Hero Artists, Hero Entertainment, Inc., and 9388-3132 Quebec, Inc. for (1) breach of contract, (2) declaratory relief, (3) common counts, (4) fraud, (5) securities fraud, (6) breach of contract, and (7) declaratory relief.  

The SACC relates to “the rushed investment of over $2.8 Million towards the production of a [film, Spinning Gold], based upon false representations to the investor regarding the existence of financing for the Picture to cover a more than $22 Million total budget. When the promised financing did not appear, production was stopped, never to resume, resulting in total losses for the investor and others. [ ] Habrich and the Habrich Company seek compensatory damages for breach of their agreement to invest more than $2 Million in the Picture. In addition, they seek to enforce their rights to foreclose upon collateral consisting of the Picture and related rights.”  (SACC ¶¶ 1-2.)

Cross-Complainants now seek to compel the depositions of Cross-Defendants Spinning Gold, LLC and Timothy Bogart and the production of accompanying documents. 

Cross-Defendants do not seem to oppose depositions in principle, but have had issues with scheduling dates and have objected to the documents requested.  

The Court will require that the depositions be completed within 30 days.

Cross-Defendants have objected to the documents at issue, but also acknowledge that the notice seeks the same documents that were at issue for Cross-Complainants’ requests for production.

Here, the Court will rule as it did with respect to the requests for production:  “The discovery at issue primarily relates to financing and communications pertaining to the subject film.  Cross-Defendants objected on the basis of privilege, vagueness, confidentiality, and burden.  With respect to the privilege objections, a privilege log should be produced.  The remaining objections lack merit.”  

In sum, the Motions to Compel are granted.  

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.