Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03239, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV03239 Hearing Date: October 17, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 10/17/24
TRIAL DATE: 12/15/25
Case #23CHCV03239
MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Requests for
Production, Set 1)
Motion filed on 7/29/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Roy Paras
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Franklin Robinson
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion, is granted, in part, and
denied, in part, as set forth below.
Both parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a business dispute between Roy
Paras and Franklin Robinson and various related entities. On 10/24/24, Plaintiff Roy Gherome Paras
(Paras), individually, on his own behalf and derivatively on behalf of EPX
Elite Performance, LLC and The DSTRKT, LLC filed this action against Defendant
Franklin Robinson (Robinson), DSTRKT Fieldhouse, LLC and Layercake Group, Inc.
for: (1) Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation, (2) Fraud – Concealment, (3)
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Breach of Contract, (5) Breach of Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (6) Rescission , (7) Conversion, (8)
Accounting and (9) Declaratory Relief. EPX
Elite Performance, LLC and The DSTRKT are also named as nominal
defendants.
On 3/5/24, Paras served Robinson with Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1, by email.
(Hyam Decl., Ex.1). On 4/8/24,
Robinson served responses. (Id,
Ex.2). On 4/23/24, Paras sent a meet and
confer letter regarding responses he deemed to be deficient. (Id., Ex.3). On 5/31/24, Robinson served supplemental
responses. (Id., Ex.4). The parties continued to meet and confer regarding
responses Paras still found to be inadequate with the parties extending the
deadline to bring a motion to compel further responses to 7/29/24. (Id., Ex.5).
On 7/29/24, Paras filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Robinson to: (1) further respond to Requests for
Production of Documents, Set 1, Nos.1-13; (2) produce documents in response to
Requests Nos.1-13 and (3) pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of
$7,285.00. Robinson has opposed the
motion and Paras has filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
The scope of discovery is broad allowing parties to obtain
discovery on any non-privileged matter, that is relevant, if the matter is
admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See CCP
2017.01. The purpose behind this
expansive scope of discovery is to take the “game element” out of trial
preparation. Puerto (2008) 158
CA4th 1242, 1249.
A party who has propounded document requests may move to
compel further responses if the party finds that the responding party’s statement
of compliance is incomplete; representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete or evasive; and/or that an objection is without merit or
too general. See CCP 2031.310(a).
Requests 1 and 2 seek all communications and documents Robinson
exchanged with Paras from 2015 to the present.
Relying on Bunnell (1967) 254 CA2d 720, Robinson objects to these
requests on the ground that the information is equally available to Paras
because he was either the sender/provider of the communications or documents or
recipient of same. The instant case is
distinguishable from Bunnell which involved responses to
interrogatories, not requests for production of documents. In Bunnell, the propounding party
asked the responding party to identify witnesses which could be identified from
transcripts available to both parties. Here,
Robinson is the only party who can produce the communications in his possession,
custody or control. CCP 2031.010(a).
It cannot be determined that Paras has equal access to
the documents. The fact that Paras was the sender/provider or recipient of the
documents responsive to these requests does not mean that he still has all of
the same documents Robinson has in his possession, custody or control. Paras may not have all of the documents and
he may not know which documents he does not have in order to “clarify” the
requests as Robinson argues is necessary.
For example, Paras could have deleted, or otherwise lost access to,
responsive documents and not remember/realize same. The only way for Paras to know he has the
same evidence as Robinson is for Robinson to provide the documents requested in
Requests 1 and 2.
As such, Paras is entitled to further responses and
production with regard to Requests 1 and 2.
Requests 3-14 seek Robinson’s communications and
documents exchanged with unspecified third parties which relate to Paras and
the business entities at issue in this action.
Robinson objects to these requests on various grounds including that
they are burdensome, overbroad, vague and ambiguous. In his supplemental response, Robinson notes
that Paras propounded numerous requests (numbers 14-53) which seek
communications with specified individuals and entities to which Robinson
responded. As such, Robinson contends
that he has properly provided all responsive documents.
As worded, Requests 3-14 seek, at least some of, the same
documents requested in Requests 14-53.
Paras has not limited Requests 3-14 to Robinson’s communications with
and documents exchanged with third parties other than those third parties identified
in Requests 14-53. As such, Robinson’s
objections that the requests are burdensome, overbroad, vague and ambiguous
have merit. While Paras may not know who
else Robinson may have communicated and/or exchanged documents with regarding
Paras and/or the business entities at issue in this action, Paras must still properly
limit his requests so that they do not overlap requiring Robinson to provide
the same information/responsive documents multiple times. Based on Robinson’s supplemental response to
these requests, it appears that he may not have any other responsive documents
than those identified in response to Requests 14-53.
Since neither party was entirely successful on this
motion, the Court finds that imposing sanctions on either party would be unjust
under the circumstances. See CCP
2031.310(h). The Court notes that while
Robinson requests that if the Court grants the motion, in part, and denies, the
motion, in part, that sanctions be apportioned accordingly between Paras and
Robinson, Robinson never indicates an amount of sanctions he seeks and leaves
such to be proven at the hearing. (See
Opposition, generally and p.12:16-20; McDonough Decl.).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted as to Requests 1 and 2. Further responses and production with regard
to Requests 1 and 2 are due within 30 days.
The motion is denied as to Request 3-13.
Both Paras’ and Robinson’s requests for sanctions are denied.