Judge Mark A. Young, Case 21SMCV00856 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV00856, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00856 Hearing Date: April 21, 2023 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 21SMCV00856

MOTION: Motion to Compel Further Responses

HEARING DATE: 4/21/2023

Legal Standard

In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending 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; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.)

CCP section 2030.220(a) requires that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Pursuant to CCP section 2030.300, a party may move to compel further responses to a form interrogatory if the other party’s answer is “evasive or incomplete.” The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form and special interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Analysis

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Eliyahu Cohen (“JC”) moves to compel further responses from Defendant-Judgment Debtor Eymun Talasazan (“JD”) as to the following post-judgment discovery requests:

1) Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROGs) Numbers 3, 8, 14, 15, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 43 and 45;

2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (FROGs) Numbers 2.5 and 2.6; and

3) Requests for Production, Set One (RFPs) Numbers 1, 2, 7, 11, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44.

JC also requests sanctions in the amounts of $10,553.15, $10,310.65, and $12,209.65 against JD. JD has filed no opposition.

SROGs

As to SROGs nos. 3 and 8, JD only provides objections as a response. JD did not oppose the instant motion, and therefore did offer any justification for his objections. Accordingly, further responses are required as to the above SROGs.

As to SROGs nos. 14, 15, and 27, JD responds with some information regarding his creditors (Ben Saul and Elena Knenvic; Fouad Said, Steven Traube, VCA Hospital, “Parents”). However, JD does not provide their respective contact information, which is required by the SROGs at issue. JD objects based on third-party privacy. However, JD does not oppose, and therefore does not justify this objection. Accordingly, JD must provide a further response to the above SROGs.

Similarly, as to SROG nos. 30, 34, 36, 37, 43, and 45, JD again declined to provide contact information on the basis of the third party privacy as stated above. As discussed, JD fails to justify such an objection. JD also failed to mention his attorneys as creditors where applicable. JD must provide a complete response.

As to SROG no. 32, JD references his Wells Fargo bank statements, but does not respond to the call of the SROG. For example, JD does not state his expenses through the referenced Wells Fargo account. JC also notes that there are no payments to his attorneys. Thus, the answer is evasive and a further response is required.

As to SROG no. 33, JD’s response that he paid in “cash” is evasive, as it does not explain how he paid the debts, and does not identify each person who he paid an identified expense. Thus, the answer is evasive, and a further response is required.

Accordingly, JC’s motion to compel further responses to the SROGs is GRANTED.

FIs

As to FI no. 2.5, JD does not state his address from June 2017- Dec. 2017, which was within the past 5 years of the 5/31/22 discovery request. Defendant must provide a code-compliant response without objections.

As to FI no. 2.6, JD fails to state his employment status for the past 5 years and where each place of his stated self-employment was located. The Defendant must provide a code-compliant response without objections.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to the FIs is GRANTED.

RPDs

As to RPD no. 1, JC notes that JD provided the requested copy of his driver’s license on May 31, 2022. JC contends that he should have produced a copy of his prior license from May 2021. (JC asserts that JD applied for a new driver’s license four days before responding to this RFP and then submitted a copy of his new license. (See Joint IDC Stmt, file 1/9/23.) However, it appears that JD has given a code compliant response, and provided his current Cal. Driver’s license, as requested. Thus, a further response (or further compliance) will not be required.

As to RPDs nos. 2, 30, 36, and 43, JD provides pure objections. As he failed to oppose, JD must provide complete responses to these RPDs.

As to no. 7, JD has not precisely identified any responsive document to such requests. Instead, JD simply produced a batch of documents without categorizing, labeling, or otherwise explaining which documents are responsive to which requests. JD must provide this code-required information.

As to no. 11, JD responds that no responsive phone bills, cable bills, or utilities with his name ever existed. This is suspect, since there is evidence on the record that he has an iPhone and used cell service to contact JC. Thus, the answer is evasive and a further response is required.

As to no. 24, JD provides the qualified response that he will produce promissory notes in favor of Fouad Said and Steven Traub, when they can be located. JD otherwise does not provide that all responsive documents will be produced, or another code-compliant response (that he performed a diligent search, etc.). As such, a further response is warranted.

As to no. 25, JD responds that no responsive insurance documents existed. The initial response stated that JD will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents, in his possession, custody and control. Later responses show an insurance ID card. This shows that JD likely does have responsive documents. JD must justify his about-face as to this response. As JD failed to oppose, the Court will require a further response.

Likewise, as to no. 26, the response is evasive. JD initially promised to produce responsive document, but now says “they have never existed”. These contradictory responses require an explanation. As JD failed to oppose, a further response is required.

As to no. 28, JD’s response is evasive. This request sought documents showing the location of any of JD’s assets. JC provides reason to believe that JD has assets in possession of his counsel (including his out-of-state counsel, Michael Smith). Any security deposit being held by his attorneys (e.g., in an IOLTA account) belong to JD, and documentation regarding such deposits are responsive to this RPD. Notably, when this was brought to the attention of his former counsel, counsel withdrew from the case. Further, JD has had four different law firms representing him. It is unlikely that JD has no responsive documents. Therefore, JD needs to disclose any assets being held by his attorneys, including any out-of-state attorneys. JD otherwise does not justify any attendant objections.

As to no. 33, JD’s response is incomplete. JD applied for a replacement driver’s license four days before responding to the post-judgment discovery requests. (See Bates ## 15- 16).) JD failed to provide any of the documentation that would necessarily have come along with that request. Thus, a further response is required.

As to no. 37, JD’s response is also incomplete. Defendant provided a copy of an insurance card (Bates # ET0093), which appeared to be cutoff, partial, manipulated, or otherwise incomplete. Further, JD failed to provide the actual a copy of the insurance policies. Therefore, a further response is required.

As to no. 38, JD again provides contradictory responses. Notably, JD claims in response to SROG no. 27 that he received $500,000 in loans from two people. JD has not produced copies of any checks. Initially he agreed to produce them, but JD now claims “they have never existed.” Therefore, a further response is required.

As to no. 39, JD again provides contradictory responses. JD first agreed to provide receipts he received for any payment greater than $500 between January 1, 2020 and the present, but later states that no such documents exist. This is highly unlikely, since JD would at least have invoices for legal services.

As to no. 40, JD agreed to produce documents, but did not provide any documents in response to this request. In part, this may be remedied by JD categorizing, labeling, or otherwise explaining the produced documents. To the extent that JD failed to produce responsive documents, JD must now produce such documents.

As to no. 41, JD’s response is incomplete. In his other responses, JD claimed to use two business addresses: 269 S. Beverly Dr. #469 and 9454 Wilshire Blvd. However, JD has not provided any leases for either location. JD must produce those responsive documents.

As to no. 42, JD responded with a qualified answer, promising to produce all lease agreements he executed. But the request was not limited to “lease agreements”. The qualified response is improper. JD must a Code-compliant further response.

As to no. 44, JD’s response is evasive. JD initially he promised to produce all responsive documents, but now claims “they have never existed”. However, some documents likely exist. For example, in response to SROGs 27, 35, 36, the Defendant said he received $500,000 in loans from two people. Unless he received half a million dollars in cash and without any paperwork, he must have a paper trail for these loans. Thus, further responses are required.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to the above RPDs, except RPD no. 1, which is DENIED. As to any of the above categories where further production was required, JD is ordered to marshal all responsive items to these requests within his possession, custody and control, and produce them to JC within 30 days.

SANCTIONS

Sanctions are mandatory. The Court must sanction any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, “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.” (See, e.g., CCP, § 2030.300(d).)

Across the three motions, JC requests sanctions in the amounts of $10,553.15, $10,310.65, and $12,209.65 against JD, totaling $33,048.45. The multiple sanctions requests appear excessive and duplicative of each other. For instance, each request includes time spent attempting to resolve the interrelated discovery disputes. The record shows that the parties met and conferred about all the disputes at once. Thus, the requested sanctions are necessarily duplicative. The Court is therefore inclined to grant sanctions in the reduced, reasonable amount of $9,880.00.

Accordingly, sanctions are GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $9,880.00, in favor of JC Eliyahu Cohen, and against JD Eymun Talasazan. Sanctions are to be paid to JC’s counsel within 30 days.