Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV15352 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV15352, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV15352 Hearing Date: February 9, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Seal

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rochelle Sterling

Resp. Party: Defendant Mohammad Fawaz

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Set One Special Interrogatories

Moving Party: Plaintiff Rochelle Sterling

Resp. Party: Defendant Mohammad Fawaz

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s SROGs Motion is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and his Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,685.00. Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Rochelle Sterling, as Trustee of the Sterling Family Trust, filed her Complaint against Mohammad M. Fawaz, a.k.a. Mohammad Moet Fawaz, a.k.a. Moet Fawaz.

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint.

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Seal. Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Notice of Lodging Records [Video] Conditionally under Seal; and (2) Proposed Order.

On January 9, 2023, pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, the Court issued a Protective Order.

On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Set One Special Interrogatories (“SROGs Motion”). Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Notice of Lodging; (2) Declaration of Linda Toutant; (3) Declaration of Darren Schield; (4) Separate Statement; and (5) Proposed Order.

On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed his Opposition to Motion to Seal.

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Reply Supporting Motion to Seal.

On January 26, 2023, Defendant filed his Opposition to SROGs Motion.

On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Reply Supporting SROGs Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I. Motion to Seal

A. Legal Standard

“Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).)

“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) “There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) “The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

(3) “A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) “The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) “No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to issue an order sealing a proposed video exhibit. (Motion to Seal, p. 5:8–9.) Plaintiff alleges that the proposed exhibit depicts Defendant stealing bundles of cash from private areas associated with Plaintiff and from Plaintiff’s security devices. (Id. at p. 3:22–24.) Plaintiff also alleges that the proposed exhibit further depicts private areas of Plaintiff’s family home, private materials held in that location, and the use of confidential codes and combinations that are discernable from the record. (Id. at pp. 3:11–14, 4:2–5.) Plaintiff’s argument for why the proposed exhibit should be sealed is that public disclosure of it will jeopardize Plaintiff’s privacy and physical safety, jeopardize the physical safety of others, invite criminal activity, and provide information that will encourage and support criminal acts. (Id. at p. 4:5–10, 4:17–26.)

Defendant opposes the Motion to Seal, arguing that the video itself has not been produced and that Defendant does not dispute the facts of what occurred at Plaintiff’s home on the day in question. (Opposition to Motion to Seal, p. 2:10–12, 2:26–27.) Rather, Defendant argues that “the dispute is about why and what happened to the money at issue.” (Opposition to Motion to Seal, p. 2:12-13.)

Plaintiff reiterates her arguments in her Reply.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s arguments. Upon viewing the video in question (which the Court notes may be three videos that were edited to appear sequentially), the Court finds:

(1) That Plaintiff’s privacy and security interests are overriding interests that overcome the right of public access to this record;

(2) That Plaintiff’s overriding interests support sealing the record;

(3) That a substantial probability exists that the overriding interests will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) That the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) That no less restrict means exist to achieve the overriding interests.

Defendant’s argument that the video shows undisputed evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand. Further, since there is no prejudice to defendant from the sealing order, the Court wonders why defendant is even opposing this motion.

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses to SROGs

A. Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)

B. Special Interrogatories Propounded

Plaintiff has propounded the following special interrogatories upon Defendant:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the address of any real property in which YOU (meaning Defendant Fawaz, in any name or capacity) have held an interest on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the address of any real property in which YOUR wife has held an interest on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State the address of any real property in which YOUR child/children, or any of them, have held an interest on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State the name and address of any business (of any format, including corporation, partnership, limited liability company, dba or otherwise) in which YOU have held an interest on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the name and address of any business in which YOUR wife has held an interest on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify by name and address and description the source of any income to YOU on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify by name and address and description the source of any income to YOUR wife on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify by name and address and description the source of any income to YOUR child/children, or any of them, on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify by make, model and license number every motor vehicle (car, motorcycle, RV, etc.) in which you have held an interest on or after January 1, 2010.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify by make, model and license number every watercraft (boat, jet ski, etc.) in which you have held an interest on or after January 1, 2010.

(See Separate Statement, filed 1/10/2023.)

C. Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant to provide supplemental responses to the aforementioned special interrogatories (“SROGs”). (SROGs Motion, p. 4:1–3.) Plaintiff argues that this discovery will assist Plaintiff in tracing the money and identifying doe defendants and doe alter egos. (Id. at p. 4:9–15.) Among other things, Plaintiff notes that Defendant has been seen in Beverly Hills in a new Rolls Royce. (Id. at 16:13; Decl. Toutant, Ex. R.)

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing: (1) that there is no dispute that Defendant took money from Plaintiff’s safe; (2) that Plaintiff is using discovery and discovery motions in bad faith; (3) that the evidence demonstrates discovery is inappropriate; (4) that there is no basis to compel further as to SROG Nos. 2, 5, and 8 because Defendant has not been married; (5) that there is no basis to compel further responses to SROGs that seek financial information unrelated to the disputed issues in the action; and (6) that privacy protects the information at issue. (Opposition, pp. 1:18–19, 2:1, 4:12, 5:16–17, 6:7–8, 6:17, 7:14.) The Court notes that, among other things, Defense Counsel’s declares: (1) that Defendant did not have a Rolls Royce in 2022; and (2) that Defendant has two children and is not married to the children’s mother. (Opposition, Decl. Kurtz, ¶¶ 2, 3.)

Plaintiff reiterates her arguments in her Reply. In addition, she alleges: (1) that Defendant has two children with his ex-wife; and (2) that Defendant is playing word games, as he has leased a Rolls Royce and that information is covered by the SROGs propounded. (Reply, pp. 3:13–22, 4:13–25, Ex. A p. 16:1–11.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s arguments and disagrees with Defendant’s arguments. Plaintiff has indicated that she is only seeking information from February 1, 2021 to the present (not from 2010 to the present). (See Separate Statement, p. 2:21-23.) Given this limitation, the SROGs request information that is relevant to this litigation, and the Court does not have any evidence before it that would indicate Plaintiff is pursuing this discovery in bad faith. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments as to why he should not be compelled to provide the requested information regarding the mother of his children or his financial assets. Defendant’s privacy interest, if any, is trumped by Plaintiff’s need to discover information that is reasonably and narrowly tailored toward uncovering what has happened to Plaintiff’s allegedly stolen assets.

Further, the Court is not convinced of the sincerity of Defendant’s response the SROGs Nos. 2 and 5, which ask for information concerning Defendant’s “wife.” Defendant states that he was not married during the relevant time periods. (See Separate Statement, p. 8:6-7.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant was only married once, and the term “wife” refers to the mother of his children. If there is any ambiguity in this term, defense counsel can inform the court during oral argument. If not, the Court will interpret this term to mean defendant’s ex-wife and the mother of his children.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s SROGs Motion.

D. Sanctions

1. Legal Standard

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)

2. Discussion

Both Parties have requested sanctions here. (SROGs Motion, p. 16:26; Opposition, p. 8:25.) The Court has granted the SROGs Motion in favor of Plaintiff. The Court does not have any evidence before it that indicates Defendant acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions against Defendant unjust. Thus, the Court must impose monetary sanctions against Defendant. The Court denies Defendant’s Request for Sanctions.

Plaintiff requests $1,685.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and his Counsel. (SROGs Motion, p. 17:2–3.) Plaintiff’s Counsel declares that her hourly rate is $325 per hour, that she spent five hours regarding this motion, and that the filing fee was $60.00.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hourly rate, hours spent, and costs incurred are reasonable here. The Court also notes that defendant has requested $3,250.00 – almost twice as much – in sanctions for his opposing this motion. Clearly, even defendant would agree that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is reasonable.

The Court awards monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and his Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,685.00.

E. Conclusion