Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Gonzalez v. Phillips, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jaime Gonzalez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production

Plaintiff Jaime Gonzalez moves to compel defendant Cardflex, Inc. to provide further responses to plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set Three) Nos. 52 and 53.  For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Request No. 52 seeks “[a]ll documents relating to all pending asserted and unasserted claims and potential lawsuits against [defendant] existing at any point within the last year.”  Defendant responded with objections and did not agree to produce any responsive documents.

Request No. 53 seeks “[a]ll documents relating to any outstanding tax deficiency notices directed to [defendant] from 2009 to the present.”  Defendant responded with objections and did not agree to produce any responsive documents.

Plaintiff asserts “the documents at issue [in Request Nos. 52 and 53] are documents plaintiff needs for his damages case” (Brief at 4:26-27) because plaintiff “seeks to recover his ownership interest, or the value of it, in [defendant] and amounts due and owing him based on [defendant’s] performance over the years.”  Brief at 4:27-28.

Plaintiff has not persuasively demonstrated Request Nos. 52 and 53 seek relevant documents or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Plaintiff’s sole relevance argument is that Request Nos. 52 and 53 seek documents relevant to his damages claim(s), but plaintiff has not described his damages claim(s) or theory(ies) in sufficient detail for the court to credit that argument.  Furthermore, plaintiff does not deny defendant already produced a list of every pending lawsuit of which defendant is aware.  In addition, Request No. 53 is overbroad.  Plaintiff provides no explanation for the almost 15-year period that request embraces.   

Plaintiff’s and defendant’s requests for sanctions are denied.

Defendant to give notice.