Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03574, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03574 Hearing Date: March 12, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Jesse Hirezi, et al. v. Hannah Bishara Hirezi, et al.
Plaintiff Jesse Hirezi’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Propounded to Defendant Hanna Hirezi
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jesse’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production Numbers 17, 18, 19, 36, 45 and 46. Hanna must produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody or control responsive to Request Nos. 17, 18, 19, 36, 43 and 45 within 15 calendar days and indicate which documents are being produced in response to each request. To the extent Hanna has no additional responsive documents, within 15 calendar days, He must serve verified supplemental responses indicating that he has produced all documents in his possession, custody and control responsive to that particular request and that he has no additional documents.
The Court DENIES the motion as to Request Nos. 44, 47 and 48.
The Court DENIES the parties’ requests for sanctions.
Defendant Hanna Hirezi is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a family business dispute. On November 15, 2023, plaintiffs Jesse Hirezi (Jesse), an individual and as Trustee of the J & R Hirezi Family Trust of April 20, 2015, Randa Hirezi (Randa), an individual and as Trustee of the J & R Hirezi Family Trust of April 20, 2015 (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Hanna Bishara Hirezi a/k/a Hanna Hirezi a/k/ John Hirezi (Hanna or John), Mona Qumsieh Hirezi a/k/a Mona Hirezi a/k/a Mona J. Herzi, Bethlehem Star, Inc. (Bethlehem), Golden Springs, LLC (Golden Springs), Arrow Beverage, Inc. (Arrow) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 20. On May 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, dissolution of partnership/corporation, accounting, quasi contract and constructive trust, money had and received, declaratory relief, and partition.
On September 13, 2024, Defendants Jon, Golden Springs, and Bethlehem filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs and Roes 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for contribution, quantum meruit, and declaratory relief.
On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff Jesse moved to compel further responses from Defendant Hanna to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On February 27, 2025, Hanna opposed the motion. On March 5, 2025, Jesse replied.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that on receipt of a response to a request for production of documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses if:
(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) further provides that “the court shall 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
The Court notes that Plaintiff Jesse provided new evidence and arguments with his reply papers. Generally, new evidence is not permitted on reply unless it fills in gaps in the evidence created by the opposing party’s opposition and is not raising new substantive issues for the first time; otherwise, a further hearing would be required to permit the opposing party to respond. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.) To the extent Plaintiff’s new evidence and arguments do not respond to issues raised in the opposition, the Court declines to consider them. Additionally, the Court notes that no foundation was provided for any of the exhibits attached to the reply. (Reply, pp. 9-35; Evid. Code, § 702.)
The Court further declines to consider Hanna’s separate statement and Jesse’s reply separate statement, as separate statements are for moving papers. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subds. (a), (c).)
DISCUSSION
Meet and Confer
The Court finds Plaintiff Jesse’s efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Lee Decl., Ex. E.)
Summary of Arguments
Plaintiff Jesse moves to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, against Defendant Hanna, following Hanna’s production of documents on January 13, 2025. Jesse contends Hanna has not produced all responsive documents, such as business tax returns, business bank statements, business credit card statements, ABC licensing documents, or California Secretary of State documents, and that the Court should compel the production of such documents. Jesse contends these documents are central to the case.
In opposition, Hanna contends the motion should be denied since it was brought as a motion to compel further responses, but the focus of the motion is on the documents produced or not produced. Hanna contends Jesse and his counsel purposefully omitted documents that were already provided, such as balance sheets, profit and loss statements, corporate minutes and records, corporate records, and 11 boxes of sales and invoice records. Hanna also contends that Jesse is improperly attempting to expand the scope of discovery under these requests and in contravention of the Court’s order on Jesse’s motion to compel further responses to these discovery requests. Hanna contends Jesse is demanding documents never discussed in the meet-and-confer process or which do not exist. Hanna contends he has provided all responsive documents in his possession and control.
Analysis
The Court exercises its discretion to hear this motion on the merits. While it is technically correct that this is really a motion to compel compliance rather than a motion to compel further responses, Hanna clearly understood the purpose of the motion was the latter. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, 2031.320.)
As for the merits of Jesse’s motion, the Court disagrees with Jesse’s contention regarding the lack of verifications provided with the documents recently produced, as the verification requirement applies to the responses, not to the documents produced. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250.) Hanna also correctly notes that the Court previously denied Jesse’s requests with respect to his bank records, tax returns, and financial documents. (See Order re Tentative ruling (10/7/24).) Given the Court’s denial with respect to those documents, Jesse may not obtain production of those same documents via the other requests.
Jesse is correct that to the extent that Hanna produced responsive documents, He was required to identify which documents are responsive to each request. However, during the IDC, Jesse agreed to the production of the 11 boxes and that Jesse would handle the copying of the contents of those boxes. Jesse did not request any particular itemization of the contents of the production. It would be impracticable for Hanna to go back now and try to categorize the contents of the 11 boxes to each specific document request.
With respect to Request Nos. 17, 18, 19, 43 and 45, to the extent that Hanna has in his possession, custody or control financial documents showing that BSI was not profitable, purchase invoices, sales invoices during the defined period, and corporate records, books and minutes of BSI and Golden Springs, respectively, such documents must be produced. Hanna must produce all additional responsive documents in his possession, custody or control responsive to Request Nos. 17, 18, 19, 43 and 45 within 15 calendar days and indicate which documents are being produced in response to each request. To the extent Hanna has no additional responsive documents, He must serve verified supplemental responses indicating that he has produced all documents in his possession, custody and control responsive to that particular request and that he has no additional documents.
With respect to Request No. 36, to the extent that Hanna has in his possession, custody or control additional documents showing the sales of alcoholic beverages under the ABC license of BSI during the defined period, such documents must be produced. It appears that Hanna has the ability to retrieve printouts for the CDTFA filings. The printout attached to Hanna’s opposition declaration indicates it was submitted to the CDTFA on July 17, 2023, i.e., four months before Jesse filed this lawsuit. (See John Hirezi Decl., Ex. 1.) The Court also notes Jesse’s argument that this document was not previously produced. (Reply, 6:8-10.) Further, to the extent Hanna has in his possession, custody or control, the underlying documents used to calculate the fees, such documents must be produced. Hanna must produce all documents in his possession, custody or control responsive to Request No. 36 within 15 calendar days and indicate which documents are being produced in response to this request.
With respect to Request Nos. 44, 47, 48, , Defendant Hanna provided code-compliant responses indicating that a reasonable and diligent search was conducted and Defendant Hanna does not have and has never had any responsive documents in his possession, custody or control.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jesse’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production Number 17, 18, 19, 36, 45 and 46. The Court DENIES the motion as to Request Nos. 44, 47 and 48.
The Court also DENIES Jesse’s corresponding requests for sanctions, finding that Hanna had substantial justification for opposing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).)
The Court DENIES Hanna’s request for monetary sanctions, finding that Jesse had substantial justification for bringing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).)
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion as to Request Nos. 44, 47 and 48.
The Court DENIES the parties’ requests for sanctions.
Defendant Hanna Hirezi is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.