Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Pateadores IER v. Mission Viejo Pateadores, Inc.", Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Pateadores IER’s Motion to Compel Further Responses
Plaintiff Pateadores IER moves to compel further responses and document production from defendant Mission Viejo Pateadores, Inc. (MVPI) in response to plaintiff’s Requests for Production (Set One) Nos. 1, 7, 9 and 10. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted.
Plaintiff alleges it is an unincorporated association comprised of parents and guardians of youth soccer parents of the former Redlands chapter of the Pateadores Soccer Club. Second Amended Complaint (SAC) ¶ 1. Defendant MVPI operates as the Pateadores Soccer Club, which consists of various geographical chapters. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant Brosnan is the Vice President of Operations and the Secretary of the Board of Directors of MVPI. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant Briggs has served as the Chief Executive Officer of MVPI, the Chief Financial Officer of MVPI, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of MVPI. Id. ¶ 4.
Plaintiff alleges that in 2022 it notified MVPI that it was severing its relationship with MVPI at the end of the 2021-22 season to partner with an organization with higher level soccer training closer to plaintiff’s geographic location. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that in response to its severance notice, MVPI retaliated against plaintiff by, inter alia, withdrawing necessary permits and terminating soccer coaches. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff further alleges that plaintiff overpaid MVPI certain fees and dues and that MVPI has not repaid the overpaid sums. Id. ¶¶ 12-22. Plaintiff alleges MVPI will not provide plaintiff backup documentation regarding the fees because Brosnan misappropriated funds generated by MVPI from its local chapters, including plaintiff. Id. ¶ 18; see also id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges Riggs and the MVPI Board of Directors know about Brosnan’s conduct, and condoned and ratified her conduct. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges causes of action for (i) money had and received and (ii) conversion of $71,294.
Request Nos. 1, 9 and 10: Granted. The requests seek relevant information and/or information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MVPI has produced copies of its redacted bank statements in response to Request Nos. 1, 9 and 10. Plaintiff asserts the court should compel MVPI to produce unredacted copies of the bank statements because the produced copies are so heavily redacted plaintiff cannot decipher them. The court has reviewed the redacted copies attached as Exhibit 4 to the Zemming Declaration. The redactions render the documents difficult, if not impossible, to understand. MVPI has not presented any persuasive argument it should not produce unredacted copies of these documents subject to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case on January 30, 2023. The Stipulated Protective Order also addresses any confidentiality concerns. MVPI’s relevance objections are overruled.
Request No. 7: Granted. The request seeks relevant information and/or information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. MVPI asserts it need not produce any responsive records because APS is a separate entity and MVPI does not have custody of or control over that entity’s books and records. The request does not ask MVPI to obtain APS’s books and records. The request seeks documents pertaining to APS in MVPI’s possession, custody or control. The Stipulated Protective Order addresses any confidentiality concerns. MVPI’s relevance objection is overruled. MVPI has not substantiated its burden, oppression and overbreadth objections with evidence, and thus those objections are overruled.
MVPI shall provide further, complete, verified, Code-compliant responses to Request Nos. 1, 7, 9 and 10 by August 28, 2023, and MVPI shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request Nos. 1, 7, 9 and 10 by August 28, 2023. If MVPI has no responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, MVPI shall serve a further, verified response so stating. Should MVPI withhold any responsive documents based on any privilege, MVPI shall also serve by August 28, 2023 a privilege log identifying all documents defendant has withheld from production on the basis of a privilege(s). The log shall identify the privilege and set forth sufficient information for plaintiff and the court, if necessary, to evaluate the privilege claims.
Plaintiff’s and MVPI’s requests for sanctions are denied.
Plaintiff to give notice.