Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV11404, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 19STCV11404    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 71

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

 

BIG BALLER BRAND, et al.

 

         vs.

 

GREGORY ALAN FOSTER

 Case No.:  19STCV11404

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  January 25, 2023

 

 

Defendant Gregory Alan Foster’s motion for an order for adverse inferences, issue sanctions, terminating sanctions, and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Ball Cross-Defendants for their failure to comply with the Court’s April 11, 2022, Order is continued to February 16, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. 

 

The parties are ordered to substantively meet and confer regarding the discovery requests at issue.  The parties shall file a joint separate statement five court days before the continued hearing.  The joint separate statement shall identify the issues that remain in dispute specified as to each party, specifying the documents produced by Plaintiff and Ball Cross-Defendants responsive to each request including each document’s Bates Stamp Number.

Defendant is directed to file a separate motion fee for each party subject to its motion. The Court requires proof of payment of a motion fee for each discovery device directed to each specific, single defendant, i.e., for each motion.  (See Gov. Code §70677(d).)

 

          Defendant and Cross-Complainant Gregory Alan Foster (“Foster”) moves to (1) set an order to show cause re contempt against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Big Baller Brand, LLC (“BBB”), and Cross-Defendants Lavar Anderson Ball (“Lavar”), Ball Sports Group, Inc. (“BSG”), and Big Baller Brand, Inc. (“BBB Inc.”) (collectively, “Plaintiff and Ball Cross-Defendants”) for their willful failure to comply with this Court’s April 11, 2022 Order (“Order”); (2) (i) request terminating sanctions against Ball Cross-Defendants dismissing BBB’s Complaint and dismissing Ball Cross-Defendants’ answer to Defendant’s Cross-Complaint, (ii) or in the alternative evidentiary sanctions, (iii) and evidentiary sanctions excluding Ball Cross-Defendants from being able to present any of the documents as part of its case in chief and preventing Ball Cross-Defendants from presenting any of the documents; (3) a negative inference for Ball Cross-Defendants’ refusal to produce the corporate and financial documents pursuant to the Court’s Order that the documents support Defendant’s claims and do not support BBB’s claims or the Ball Cross-Defendants’ defenses; (4) a court order for monetary sanctions against Ball Cross-Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally in the amount of $7,261.00; and (5) issue and order for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00.  (Motion, pgs. 5-6; C.C.P. §§177.5, 1212, 2023.030(a), (b), (d), (e); Evid. Code §413.)

 

Background

 

          On April 11, 2022, the parties appeared at an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”), and the Court issued an Order reflecting the parties’ agreement as follows: (1) documents responsive to requests for production (“RFP”), as listed in Foster’s 4/6/22 IDC Statement, will be produced by April 30, 2022; and (2) by April 30, 2022, Plaintiff and Ball Cross-Defendants’ counsel will agree to deposition dates for Plaintiff and Ball Cross-Defendants. (4/11/22 Minute Order.) The Order notes the parties’ agreement has the force and effect of a Court order.  Ball Cross-Defendants failed to produce any documents and failed to provide a deposition date by April 30, 2022, in violation of the Order.  (Decl. of Turnauer ¶5.)  On May 9, 2022, Ball Cross-Defendants produced a few documents in response to RFP categories 4 and 12, and failed to produce documents responsive to the remaining fourteen (14) categories.  (Decl. of Turnauer ¶6.)  On May 11, 2022, counsel for Foster sent an email outlining the deficiencies in the production.  (Decl. of Turnauer ¶7, Exh. 3.)  On July 5, 2022, Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Sanctions was heard, where Ball Cross-Defendants were ordered to pay $1,861.65 within 10 days.  (7/5/22 Ruling.)  Ball Cross-Defendants were again ordered to comply with the April 11, 2022 Order.  (Decl. of Turnauer ¶9, Exh. 4.)  On August 16, 2022, Defendant received another document production, which contained some, but not all of the documents.  (Decl. of Turnauer ¶¶10, 11.)  Defendant filed the instant motion on November 16, 2022.  Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition on December 7, 2022.  Plaintiff filed a late opposition on December 12, 2022.  Defendant filed a reply on January 18, 2023.

 

Discovery Requests

 

          C.RC., Rule 3.1345(a) states as follows:

 

Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion:

 

  1. To compel further responses to requests for admission;

  2. To compel further responses to interrogatories;

  3. To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things;

  4. To compel answers at a deposition;

  5. To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition;

  6. For medical examination over objection; and

  7. For issue or evidentiary sanctions. A motion to compel further document production at a deposition is subject to the separate statement requirement.

     

(C.R.C, Rule 3.1345(a)(7), emphasis added.)

 

          Defendant’s motion does not include a separate statement identifying the issues that remain in dispute.  (C.R.C, Rule 3.1345(a)(7).)  Parties are directed to file a joint separate statement identifying the issues that remain in dispute as to each party, specifying the documents produced by Plaintiff and Ball Cross-Defendants responsive to each request including each document’s Bates Stamp Number.

 

          Defendant is directed to file a separate motion fee for each party subject to its motion. The Court requires proof of payment of a motion fee for each discovery device directed to each specific, single defendant, i.e., for each motion.  (See Gov. Code §70677(d).)

 

         

 

Dated:  January _____, 2023                                  

                                                                                                                       

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court