Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV03943, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV03943    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 40

22STCV03943 Shiny River, Ltd. v. Emmet Furla Oasis Films, LLC

Friday, June 6, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTIES’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS (RES. NO. 0748)

I.                    BACKGROUND

       The first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s assignee provided 10 individual loans to Defendants for the development and production of independent motion pictures. The aggregate amount of the loans was $3,487,100. Defendants failed to repay. Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract and related claims, fraud, common count, and for foreclosure of copyright mortgages.

II.                  ARGUMENTS

A.      Motion filed May 2, 2025.

       Plaintiff argues that on March 4, 2025, Plaintiff issued deposition subpoenas to produce business records of third parties, SMC Specialty Finance, LLC (“SMC”) and Raskin Gorham, Anderson Law, LLP (“Raskin Law”) (collectively “Third Parties.”) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Randall Emmett and George Furla, received producer fees that should have gone to Plaintiff based on personal guarantees and various agreements.

       A Deposition taken by Plaintiff reveal that there are documents showing that the Defendants were personally paid on various film projects in breach of their personal guarantees.  

       Third Parties responded to the subpoenas on March 21, 2025 with “boilerplate” responses noting that Third Parties would work with Plaintiff to tailor the requests. The parties met and conferred at which time Third Parties agreed to provide responsive documents. Plaintiff agreed to pay for the cost of producing the records and met with Third Parties multiple times to assist. Third Parties, however, did not provide a “hard date” for production.

       Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Third Parties to respond to the subpoenas and to pay sanctions.

B.      Opposition filed May 29, 2025

       SMC argues it produced 1,400 pages of non-privileged documents in response to a September 2024 subpoena.  Plaintiff served a further subpoena on SMC and RGA. Third Parties filed timely objections as the requests were largely duplicative of past subpoenas. The requests were overbroad and vague.

       Third Parties have reviewed their records and found no documents in their possession, custody or control that were responsive to the subpoenas for the applicable time period. Any wire reports received from Defendants’ bank (City National Bank) does not describe the sender of the wire. Third Parties are not able to provide a “hard date” to produce documents since Third Parties are reaching out to the bank for direct evidence of transfers. Plaintiff is abusing the court process.

       The Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is defective and should be denied.

C.      Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

III.    DISCUSSION

       The court can compel a witness’ compliance with a subpoena to produce documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1). The court has discretion to award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the opposition was made without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2.)

       During the March 26, 2025 meet and confer, SMC’s counsel, Gary Gorham, acknowledged the existence of documents Plaintiff requested. (Alec Pierce Schulman Decl., ¶ 7.) According to Plaintiff, production of the documents required Mr. Gorham to speak to Raskin Law, which did not occur through April 28, 2025. (Id. at 10-11.) Mr. Gorham agreed to retrieve documents “from the bank” but refused to give Plaintiff a timeline for production. (Id. at ¶13-14.)  Mr. Gorham acknowledges that he agreed to seek the documents from City National Bank. (Gorham decl., ¶ 8.) To date, none of the requested documents have been provided. The parties now appear to be at a stalemate.

       The only responses provided by Third Parties asserted objections and invited Plaintiff to meet and confer. (See Separate Statement.) Those efforts have been futile.

       Contrary to Third Parties’ argument, Plaintiff has shown good cause for the documents identified in the subpoenas which seek 14 categories of documents evidencing payments made to Defendants. The requests are not vague or overbroad, and Third Parties have not shown with evidence that production will result in “undue burden or expense”. An objection based on burden requires evidence showing the quantum of work needed. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) An objection based on oppression requires a showing of either an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the “ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (Id.)  Third Parties have not met their burden.

       If Third Parties now contend that they do not have responsive documents, they must so state and provide the required affidavit. (Evid. Code, § 1561.) The custodian must aver that the custodian has authority to certify the records; the custodian must state that the copies are true copies of the records described in the subpoena; and the custodian shall state the identity of the records. (Evid. Code, § 1561 subd.(a).) If the witness has only a part or none of the records described, the custodian must state that in the affidavit. (Id.)

       Since Third Parties agreed to obtain records in their control held by City National Bank, then they must produce documents within a reasonable time which Third Parties refuse to do.

       While the court has discretion to award attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s notice is defective as it seeks sanctions from “Defendants” while the motion is directed at Third Parties. (Mot.  p. ii, l. 7-8.) Requesting party must name in the notice, the person, party and attorney against whom the sanction is sought as well as the type of sanction sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

IV.    CONCLUSION

       Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Third Parties are ordered to comply with the subpoenas issued by Plaintiff and provide the required affidavit and production of responsive documents without objection within 20 days. (Evid. Code, § 1561 subd (a).) Plaintiff’s request for imposition of monetary sanctions is DENIED.