Judge: Michael Small, Case: 21STCV38518, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 21STCV38518    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: 57

Pending before the Court are the motions of Defendant Albert Otero to compel Plaintiffs Arthur Otero and Otero Family Partnership (“OFP”) to provide further responses to Albert’s request for production of documents , set one, and to produce responsive documents.  The motions are essentially identical.  So too are the objections of Arthur and Otero to the document requests and their oppositions to the motions.  The motions are granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is denied as to request numbers 16, 17, and 26-29.   Contrary to Albert’s argument, it is not inconsistent for Arthur and OFP to assert objections to these requests and then to assert that responsive documents never existed and that therefore they cannot produce responsive documents.

The motion is granted as to request number 10 along the following lines.   Arthur and OFP must provide the name and contact information of OFP’s accountant to whom responsive documents were sent and who may still be retaining those documents.

The motion is granted as to requests 11, 12, 23-25, and 30-33.  In the Court’s view, (a) Albert has established the requisite good cause to obtain from Arthur and OFP the responses and documents that are the subject of those requests, and (b) the taxpayer privilege, privacy, and overbreadth objections to the requests that Arthur and OFP have asserted do not overcome Albert’s interest in obtaining the information in question.   Other than the objection based on relevance, the Court finds that Arthur and OFP’s objections to the requests and their oppositions to the motions were substantially justified.  Therefore, the Court is denying Albert’s request in the motions that sanctions, in the form of attorney’s fees that Albert is said to have incurred in connection with the motions, be imposed on Arthur and OFP.   The Court notes that Albert’s claimed attorney’s fees of nearly $18,000, split between the  two motions, seems excessive.  Again, the Court is not awarding sanctions anyway. But counsel for Albert should be mindful that judges do notice inflated fee requests.

Within 45 days of today's hearing, Arthur and OFP must the provide further responses and responsive documents in connection with the portions of the motions that the Court is granting.