Judge Mel Red Recana, Case Number: 22STCV25707, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

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

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Motion: Defendant Big Block Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Request for Production, Set 1

The Court considered the moving papers, opposition. Defendant Big Block Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Request for Production, Set 1 and Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide full, complete, and verified responses and pay the imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $661.65 10 days from the date of this order.

Yevgeny Ostrovskiy (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint on August 9, 2023 against Mikhail Siretskiy; the Siretskiy Organization, LLC, Siretskiy Real Estate INC.; and Big Block Realty, Inc. (BBR). The Complaint was followed by the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) which alleged the following four causes of action:

The FAC alleges that Defendant Mikhail Siretskiy misrepresented an investment opportunity to Plaintiff, and that when Plaintiff provided $100,000.00 to Defendant Mikhail Siretskiy to invest in a real estate opportunity where Plaintiff was promised hefty returns, Plaintiff only received $60,000.00 back. (FAC, ¶22.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mikhail Siretskiy conducted this fraudulent transaction as a licensed real estate agent with BBR. (Id.) After several demands to receive his money back went unheeded, Plaintiff filed suit.

The motion now before the Court is Defendant Big Block Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Request for Production, Set 1 and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the Motion). Plaintiff opposes the Motion; no reply was filed.

The propounding party may bring motions to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production if it believes (1) the responses received are evasive, or (2) incomplete, or (3) if the objections raised are meritless or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a).) A respondent has the burden to justify objections in response to a motion filed to compel further responses. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

BBR provides the Declaration of Shadae S. Bell (Bell Decl.) which states that the Request for Production of Documents, Set 1 (RPDs) was served via e-mail on Plaintiff on July 28, 2023. (Bell Decl., ¶3.) After the deadline passed and BBR received no responses, Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter, subsequently, responses were received on September 14, 2023. (Bell Decl., ¶¶4-5.) However, upon review, Defense counsel contends that the responses were evasive and insufficient. The Court agrees.

The RPDs contained eight requests, and Plaintiff’s response to each was “Not Applicable”. The requests are relatively routine for this matter and request documents like communications supporting Plaintiff’s contentions that BBR was involved with Defendant Mikhail Siretskiy’s alleged fraud throughout the relevant time period. (See Moving Papers, Exh. B.) However, upon opposing the Motion, Plaintiff argues that the response “Not Applicable” is sufficient because the relevant investment agreement that is the subject of the RPDs “was executed on August 18, 2018 and not in August of 2019.” (Opposition Papers, 3:7-8.)

It is unclear whether BBR simply made a typographical error when drafting the RPDs, or whether Plaintiff is continuing to be evasive. It is also unclear as to how the parties could not resolve this issue upon meeting and conferring.[1] Regardless, Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230 provides that “[a] representation of inability to comply with a particular demand for inspection shall affirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.”

Plaintiff’s responses fail to comply with Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230, and the opposition papers fail to justify any objections therein. Therefore, the Motion is granted, and sanctions are warranted.

As sanctions are warranted, Defense counsel provides the following calculations:

· Counsel anticipates spending 1 hour preparing and appearing for the hearing on this Motion

Considering that no reply was filed, the Court will award sanctions in favor of Defendant Big Block Realty Inc. and impose them against Plaintiff Yevgeny Ostrovskiy in the amount of $661.65.

Defendant Big Block Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Request for Production, Set 1 and Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide full, complete, and verified responses and pay the imposed monetary sanctions in the amount of $661.65 10 days from the date of this order.

[1] Defense counsel informs the Court through the attached Declaration of Shadae S. Bell that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer attempts after the insufficient responses were received. (Bell Decl., ¶ 6.)

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Case No.: 22STCV25707