Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: BC706996, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC706996    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 2, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Inspection of Electronic Devices

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Standard General L.P., et al.

Responding Party: None

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR INSPECTION WITHIN 5 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Standard General L.P., Standard General Master Fund, L.P., and P Standard General LTD filed the operative first amended complaint. Plaintiffs assert six causes of action for actual and constructive fraudulent transfer and seek a permanent injunction. Plaintiffs are Defendant Charney’s judgment creditors. Plaintiffs allege that Charney has fraudulently transferred title and interests in his residence to other Defendants to avoid paying his judgment creditors.

ANALYSIS

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for inspection must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the inspection, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.)

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant Charney to produce electronic devices for inspection. Plaintiffs assert Defendant has continually refused to produce electronic documents, such as emails, in discovery. Plaintiffs represent that relevant electronic documents exist, as shown by third-party document productions. Defendant does not oppose this motion to justify any objection.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.