Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 19STCV32737, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 19STCV32737    Hearing Date: May 3, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Hearing date:   05/03/2024

Moving Party:   Defendant Forever Oceans Corporation

Responding Party:   Plaintiff Frank Bachinsky

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and to Produce Responsive Documents; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,822.50 

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. 

The motion is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Requests Nos. 13, 15-18, and 21-22, and to produce responsive documents thereto within 30 days.

Plaintiff and his counsel of record are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,822.50 to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days. 

Background 

            On September 12, 2019, Frank Bachinsky and Avalor Capital LLC filed their Complaint against Forever Oceans Corporation, Forever Oceans Corporation, BV Advisory Partners, LLC, V3M Ventures, LLC, Jason Heckathorn, David Voyticky, and Keith Barksdale, asserting nine causes of action for (1) Failure to Pay Wages Owed; (2) Violation of Labor Code section 226; (3) Breach of Employment Contract; (4) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Breach of Fee Sharing Contract; (6) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (7) Intentional Interference with contractual Relations; (8) Waiting Time Penalties; and (9) Accounting.

            On December 27, 2023, Defendant Forever Oceans Corporation (“Defendant”) filed this motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, and to produce responsive documents.  Plaintiff Frank Bachinsky (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition on April 22, 2024.  Defendant replied on April 26, 2024.

Legal Standard 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

On receipt of a response to a Request for Production of Documents, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).)    

Motions to compel further responses to RPDs must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the request.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)  To establish good cause, a discovery proponent must identify a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and explain how the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.  (Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 224, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531; see also Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [characterizing good cause as “a fact-specific showing of relevance”].)  If good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to disclosure of the documents.  (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.)   

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)   

Here, on March 9, July 18, and October 2, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding Plaintiff’s deficient discovery responses.  (Menges Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8-9; Ex. “5,” “7,” and “9.”)  The parties were not able to resolve the discovery disputes informally. (Id. ¶ 11.)  Therefore, Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. 

Discussion 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents

            Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 13, 15-18, and 21-22.  The requests at issue are as follows:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO all sources of income YOU received from August 2015 to September 2017.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO all W-2 forms issued for YOU from August 2015 to September 2017.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO all 1099 forms issued for YOU from August 2015 to September 2017.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR tax returns from August 2015 to September 2017.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All DOCUMENTS showing money YOU received from August 2015 to September 2017.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All YOUR bank statements from August 2015 to September 2017.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All Avalor Capital LLC’s bank statements from August 2015 to September 2017.

In response to these requests, Plaintiff made boilerplate objections, including on the

following grounds: vague and ambiguous, overly broad and burdensome, the requests seeks privileged information, the requests invades the right to financial privacy.

            Here, the requested documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and alleged damages, as well as Defendant’s defenses because Plaintiff claims that he was Defendant’s employee Defendant from 2015 to 2017, but Defendant argues that Plaintiff was a consultant for other entities during that time and was receiving commissions or other forms of compensation from them. Thus, the Court finds good cause exists for the discovery sought.

            Further, the Court does not find the need to otherwise discuss Plaintiff’s boilerplate objections in excessive detail.  Regarding Plaintiff’s vague and overbroad objections, Plaintiff fails to identify how the requests are such.  The requests are clear, concise, and limited to the time period from August 2015 to September 2017.  Regarding Plaintiff’s privilege and privacy objections, Plaintiff fails provide a privilege log to evaluate his claims, and Plaintiff fails to show a protective order cannot protect against any privacy concerns—a protective order is already in place.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)  Also, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s discovery requests thus waiving all objection, including claims of privilege and work product protection.  (Menges Decl. ¶¶ 2-4; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

            Lastly, where Plaintiff responded to the requests, the Court finds they are mostly nonresponsive or evasive.  For example, as to Requests Nos. 15 and 16, Plaintiff stated that he did not have any documents “relating to” W-2 forms and 1099 forms issued for him from the time period requested.  It is unclear why Plaintiff emphasized “relating to” in his responses.  Further, as to Requests Nos. 18, 21, and 22, Plaintiff stated that he previously produced “all relevant documents concerning all monies received from any defendant in this action,” however, the requests are not limited to money received from defendants.

            Therefore, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Requests Nos. 13, 15-18, and 21-22, and to produce responsive documents thereto within 30 days.

            Sanctions

            Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,822.50 representing 3.5 hours preparing this motion, 5 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition, drafting a reply, and appearing at the hearing of this matter, all at the hourly rate of $325.00, plus $60.00 filing fee. (Menges Decl. ¶ 12.)

            The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the amount of $2,822.50. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).)

Plaintiff and his counsel of record are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,822.50 to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated:  May 3, 2024

_______________________ 

MEL RED RECANA