Judge Monica Bachner, Case BC704715 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: BC704715, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC704715 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

ERIC MINTZ,

vs.

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. DENIS, P.C., and DAVID R. DENIS.

Case No.: BC704715

Hearing Date: January 19, 2023

Plaintiff Eric Mintz’s motion to compel Defendant David R. Denis to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide a code compliant response and a privilege log within 15 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Law Offices of David R. Denis, P.C., to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide a code compliant response and a privilege log within 15 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Law Offices of David R. Denis, P.C., to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide a code compliant response and a privilege log within 15 days.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant David R. Denis is denied.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Law Offices of David R. Denis, P.C., is denied.

Plaintiff Eric Mintz (“Mintz”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant David R. Denis (“Denis”) (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) (Set Two). (Notice of Motion RFP Denis, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2023.010(e), 2023.030(a), 2023.040.) Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant Denis in the amount of $3,060. (Notice of Motion RFP Denis, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010(e), 2023.030(a), 2031.310(a)(3), (h).)

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Law Offices of David R. Denis, P.C., (“LODD”) (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s RFP (Set Two). (Notice of Motion RFP LODD, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2031.310, 2023.010(e), 2023.030(a), 2023.040.) Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant LODD in the amount of $3,060. (Notice of Motion RFP LODD, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2023.010(e), 2023.030(a), 2031.310(a)(3), (h).)

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant LODD to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) (Set One). (Notice of Motion SROG LODD, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2030.310(a), (d); §§2023.010(d), (e), (f).) Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant Law Office in the amount of $3,060. (Notice of Motion SROG LODD, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§2030.300, 2023.010(d), (e), (f).)

Background

On January 8, 2021, Judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s employment action against Defendant Denis and Defendant LODD (collectively, “Defendants”) in the amount of $16,935.90. Plaintiff sought to obtain post-judgment discovery to assist in the collection of judgment and propounded sets of RFP (Set Two) on Defendants on August 2, 2022. Plaintiff propounded SROG (Set One) on Defendant LODD on August 22, 2022. Defendants served responses to RFP (Set Two) on September 7, 2022. Defendant LODD served its response to SROG (Set One) on September 23, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendants’ further responses to RFP (Set Two) on October 21, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant LODD’s further responses to SROG (Set One) on October 28, 2022. Defendants filed their oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s RFP (Set Two) on December 8, 2022. Defendant LODD filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s SROG (Set One) on January 5, 2023. Plaintiff filed his omnibus reply on January 9, 2023.

Meet and Confer

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by meet-and confer-declarations per C.C.P. §2016.040 demonstrating a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (C.C.P. §§2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2).)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares she sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant Denis on September 19, 2022, regarding the RFPs. (RFP Decl. of Shapiro ¶6, Exh. 3; see Opposition RFP Decl. of Anooshian ¶2.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant Denis responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter on October 14, 2022, and on October 17, 2022, and parties were not able to resolve their issues regarding the instant motions. (RFP Decl. of Shapiro ¶¶7, 8, Exh. 4, Exh. 5; see Opposition RFP Decl. of Anooshian ¶¶2, 3.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares she sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant LODD on October 6, 2022, regarding the SROGs, and she did not receive a response to her meet and confer letter. (Decl. of Shapiro ¶6, Exh. 3.) Defendant LODD’s counsel declares they did not receive Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letter, and the letter is only addressed to Plaintiff’s former attorney. (Opposition SROG Decl. of Anooshian ¶2; Decl. of Galvan ¶2.) However, while the meet and confer letter does not include Defendant LODD’s counsel’s email address, Plaintiff’s counsel’s email indicates Counsel Anooshian’s email address was included on the October 6, 2022, email that attached Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. (See Decl. of Shapiro, Exh. 3.) Defendant’s counsel failed to meet and confer with Defendant LODD’s counsel regarding the motion to compel SROGs.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs (Set Two)

Denis RFP Nos. 28-98

These requests as Defendant Denis to produce: (28) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all of YOUR current bank accounts, including, but not limited to all current bank account number(s) and current balance(s); (29) All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO all of YOUR current bank accounts, including, but not limited to all current bank account number(s) and current balance(s); (30) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any real estate property in which YOU have an ownership interest, and any rental income YOU derive therefrom, whether directly or indirectly; (31) All DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY all rental income YOU currently receive from any real estate in which YOU have an ownership interest; (32) All DOCUMENTS from 2017 to the present, RELATING to any income derived from any business entity in which YOU have an ownership interest; (33) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all checking accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (34) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all jewelry in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (35) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all watches in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (36) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all stocks, bonds, and other securities in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (37) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all brokerage accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (38) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any safe or safety deposit box YOU own or use and the contents therein; (39) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any safe or safety deposit box YOU own or use and the contents therein[1]; (40) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any banks at which YOU currently have an account; (41) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any accountants or accounting firms which YOU have retained from 2017 to the Present; (42) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any state tax returns YOU have filed from 2017 to the present; (43) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any PERSONS who prepared any state tax returns from 2017 to the present; (44) All DOCUMENTS RELATED to any of YOUR property held by any third-parties for the benefit of YOU; (45) DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY all cases which are currently pending in a state court in California in which YOU are an attorney of record; (46) DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY all cases which are currently pending in a federal court in California in which YOU are an attorney of record; (47) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any monies over $750 paid to YOU from January 9, 2020 to present; (48) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made by YOU to David R. Denis from January 9, 2020 to present; (49) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made to YOU by any law firm since January 9, 2020 to present; (50) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to the ownership of [LODD] from September 1, 2017 to the present; (51) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made to YOU from any attorney since January 9, 2020; (52) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made to YOU from any insurance company from January 9, 2020 to present; (53) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any settlement payments made to YOU in any case in which YOU were an attorney of record since September 1, 2017; (54) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made to YOU in the settlement of the case of Hector Garcia v. Republic Bag, Inc. et. al. - Riverside Superior Court Case No. MCC1400946; (55) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made to YOU in the settlement of the case of Aida Jones v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et. al. - Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC593; (56) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made by YOU in the settlement of the case of Hector Garcia v. Republic Bag, Inc. et. al. - Riverside Superior Court Case No. MCC1400946; (57) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made by YOU in the settlement of the case of Aida Jones v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et. al. - Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC593522; (58) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any federal tax returns YOU have filed from 2017 to the present; (59) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any PERSONS who prepared any federal tax returns from 2017 to the present; (60) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all savings accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (61) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all money market accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (62) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all business banking accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (63) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all bank accounts from which YOU pay YOUR employees; (64) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all mutual fund accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (65) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all cash accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (66) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the current residential address(es) of any PERSONS who hold an ownership interest in [LODD]; (67) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the current residential address(es) of any shareholders, officers or directors of [LODD]; (68) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the current shareholders, officers or directors of [LODD]; (69) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any shareholders, officers or directors of any business YOU own; (70) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any shareholders, officers or directors of any business YOU own; (71) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2018; (72) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2019; (73) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2020; (74) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2021; (75) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2022; (76) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies which YOU currently hold for use by [LODD]; (77) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies which YOU currently hold to pay operating expenses by [LODD]; (78) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies which YOU currently hold to pay taxes incurred by YOU; (79) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any bank accounts from which YOU pay expenses incurred by YOU; (80) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all cases currently handled by [LODD]; (81) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all payments made by YOU to the [LODD] since 2021; (82) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2021; (83) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2022; (84) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2018; (85) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2019; (86) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2020; (87) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds transferred to YOU by the [LODD] in 2020; (88) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds transferred to YOU by the [LODD] in 2021; (89) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds transferred to YOU by the [LODD] in 2022; (90) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds held for the benefit of the [LODD] in 2022; (91) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all automobiles leased by the [LODD] for YOUR benefit since 2018; (92) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all automobiles purchased by the [LODD] for YOUR benefit since 2018; (93) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any federal tax returns YOU have filed from 2018 to the present; (94) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any PERSONS who prepared any federal tax returns for YOU from 2017 to the present; (95) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made to YOU from the settlement proceeds of any legal case since January 9, 2020 to present; (96) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made by YOU to any attorney since January 1, 2017 to present; (97) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any real estate property in which YOU have purchased since January 1, 2018; and (98) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any mortgages YOU obtained on any real estate property since January 1, 2018.

In his initial responses, Defendant Denis objected to these requests as: (1) protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, (2) overbroad, (3) calls for speculation, (4) vague and ambiguous, (5) unduly burdensome, (6) seeks information that is confidential and protected by the constitutional right of privacy, (7) seeks to violate the privacy rights of third parties, (8) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (9) seeks information that is equally or more readily available to the demanding party. (Opposition Denis RFP SS, pgs. 2-195.)

Defendant Denis argues this Court should suspend or continue the hearing on the motions to compel further responses by ninety (90) days to await the resolution at the appellate level rather than enable Plaintiff to interfere with pending appellate proceedings. (Opposition Denis RFP, pg. 3; C.C.P. §1176; Selma Auto Mall II v. Appellate Department of Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1681-1682.) Defendant Denis argues that if the court of appeals affirms the trial court’s decision and judgment, then Plaintiff would be allowed to proceed, and if the decision is reversed, the discovery issues raised in the instant motions would be moot. (Opposition Denis RFP, pg. 3.) C.C.P. §1176 and Selma Auto Mall II are inapposite because the instant action is not for possession of real property or unlawful detainer.

Defendant Denis argues that Aryeh Leicheter’s July 31, 2020, claim of lien as to any monies payable to Plaintiff in regard to the February 27, 2019, sanctions judgment of $7,795.00 and on any judgment or settlement rendered in favor of Plaintiff to secure $2,402.12 in costs and expenses advanced on behalf of Plaintiff had the effect of making Defendants the “judgment debtor” of Aryeh Leichter who became Plaintiff’s “judgment creditor,” and Plaintiffs therefore cannot enforce any judgment in the action and Defendants no longer can pay any amount to Plaintiff out of the amounts subject to the lien. (Opposition Denis RFP, pg. 3; C.C.P. §§708.440(a), 708.470(c).) Defendant Denis argues that because there is no “money judgment” in this case, as defined by C.C.P. §680.270, there is no right of discovery under C.C.P. §708.030 and Plaintiff’s discovery is unenforceable by a motion to compel. (Oppositions RFP, pgs. 3-4.) C.C.P. §708.030 expressly authorized a trial court to compel a judgment debtor to produce documents in its possession or control regarding third parties:

The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made in the manner provided in Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, if the demand requests information to aid in the enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall respond and comply with the demand in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

. . .

Inspection demands served pursuant to this section may be enforced to the extent practicable, in the same manner as inspection demands in a civil action.

(C.C.P. §§708.030(a), (c).) “A judgment creditor may conduct discovery directly against the judgment debtor by means of a judgment debtor examination (§ 708.110), written interrogatories (§ 708.020), and requests for production of documents (§ 708.030).” (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 751-752.) Therefore, this Court is within its jurisdiction to authorize Plaintiff’s demand to inspect documents to aid in the enforcement of a money judgment. (Id. at pg. 752.) Further, this Court entered a money judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants that is collectable via post-judgment discovery. (See Judgment.)

Defendant Denis argue Plaintiff’s requests improperly demand “all documents” and “bank accounts” including number(s), which are a protectable interest, and fails to specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of item as required by C.C.P. §2030.010, and therefore seek to compel unlimited disclosure of Defendants’ private financial information that is protected by California’s constitutional right to privacy. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.) Valley Bank is inapposite because here discovery is directed at Defendants as judgment creditors, not a third party, and is proper pursuant to C.C.P. §708.030(a). (SCC Acquisitions, Inc., 243 Cal.App.4th 752.)

Defendant Denis is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and privilege log identifying with particularity any documents and bank account numbers that are protectable interests, subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, set forth the particular privilege invoked, and provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of that claim. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

Considering Plaintiff’s need for specific information to enforce its judgment against Defendant Denis, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further production.

LODD RFP Nos. 28-93

These requests ask Defendant LODD to produce: (28) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all of YOUR current bank accounts, including, but not limited to all current bank account number(s) and current balance(s); (29) All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO all of YOUR current bank accounts, including, but not limited to all current bank account number(s) and current balance(s); (30) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to YOUR commercial lease(s); (30) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to YOUR commercial lease(s); (31) All DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY all rent YOU pay; (32) All DOCUMENTS from 2017 to the present, RELATING to any income derived from any business entity in which YOU have an ownership interest; (33) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all checking accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (34) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all office equipment in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (35) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all computers in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (36) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all stocks, bonds, and other securities in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (37) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all brokerage accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (38) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any safe or safety deposit box YOU own or use and the contents therein; (39) All DOCUMENTS relating to any banks at which YOU currently have an account; (40) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any accountants or accounting firms which YOU have retained from 2017 to the Present; (41) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any state corporate tax returns YOU have filed from 2017 to the Present; (42) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any PERSONS who prepared any state corporate tax returns from 2017 to the present; (43) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any of YOUR property held by any third-parties for the benefit of YOU; (44) DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY all cases which are currently pending in a state court in California in which YOU are an attorney of record; (45) DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY all cases which are currently pending in a federal court in California in which YOU are an attorney of record; (46) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any monies over $750 paid to YOU from January 9, 2020 to present; (47) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made by YOU to David R. Denis from January 9, 2020 to present; (48) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made to YOU by any law firm since January 9, 2020 to present; (49) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to the ownership of [LODD] from September 1, 2017 to the present; (50) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made to YOU from any law firm since January 9, 2020; (51) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any payments made to YOU from any insurance company from January 9, 2020 to present; (52) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any settlement payments made to YOU in any case in which YOU were an attorney of record since September 1, 2017; (53) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made to YOU in the settlement of the case of Hector Garcia v. Republic Bag, Inc. et. al. - Riverside Superior Court Case No. MCC1400946; (54) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made to YOU in the settlement of the case of Aida Jones v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et. al. - Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC593522; (55) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made by YOU in the settlement of the case of Hector Garcia v. Republic Bag, Inc. et. al. - Riverside Superior Court Case No. MCC1400946; (56) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made by YOU in the settlement of the case of Aida Jones v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et. al. - Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC593522; (57) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any federal corporate tax returns YOU have filed from 2017 to the present; (58) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any PERSONS who prepared any federal corporate tax returns from 2017 to the present; (59) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all savings accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (60) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all money market accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (61) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all business banking accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (62) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all bank accounts from which YOU pay YOUR employees; (63) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all mutual fund accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (64) All DOCUMENTS RELATING to all cash accounts in which YOU currently have an ownership interest; (64 [sic]) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the current residential address(es) of any PERSONS who hold an ownership interest in [LODD]; (65) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the current residential address(es) of any shareholders, officers or directors of [LODD]; (66) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the current shareholders, officers or directors of [LODD]; (67) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any shareholders, officers or directors of any business YOU own; (69) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2018; (70) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2019; (71) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2020; (72) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2021; (73) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies paid to YOU in 2022; (74) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies which YOU currently hold for use by [LODD]; (75) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies which YOU currently hold to pay operating expenses by [LODD]; (76) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any monies which YOU currently hold to pay taxes incurred by YOU; (77) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY any bank accounts from which YOU pay expenses incurred by YOU; (78) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all cases currently handled by [LODD]; (79) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all payments made by YOU to the [LODD] since 2021; (80) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2021; (81) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2022; (82) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from [LODD] in 2018; (83) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from [LODD] in 2019; (84) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all accounts which YOU deposited payments made to YOU from the [LODD] in 2020; (85) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds transferred to YOU by the [LODD] in 2020; (86) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds transferred to YOU by the [LODD] in 2021; (87) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds transferred to YOU by the [LODD] in 2022; (88) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all funds held for the benefit of the [LODD] in 2022; (89) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all automobiles leased by the [LODD] for YOUR benefit since 2018; (90) All DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all automobiles purchased by the [LODD] for YOUR benefit since 2018; (91) All DOCUMENTS which IDENTIFY to whom YOU pay rent for any commercial property YOU lease; (92) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made to YOU in the settlement of the case of Jason Migas v. CalFire; and (93) All DOCUMENTS evidencing any payments made by YOU in the settlement of the case of Jason Migas v. CalFire. (RFP LODD SS, pg. 2-53.)

In their initial responses, Defendant LODD objected to these requests on the same basis as Defendant Denis and raised the same arguments as Defendant Denis in its opposition.

Defendant LODD is ordered to produce a code-compliant response and privilege log identifying with particularity any documents and bank account numbers that are protectable interests, subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, set forth the particular privilege invoked, and provide sufficient factual information for Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of that claim. (C.C.P. §2031.240.)

Considering Plaintiff’s need for specific information to enforce its judgment against Defendant LODD, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further production.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to SROG

SROGs to LODD Nos. 1-26

These interrogatories ask Defendant LODD to identify: (1) every current and active lawsuit in which YOU . . . are the attorney of record; (2) any and all PERSONS . . . who currently owe YOU money; (3) all LAW FIRMS . . . who are defending current and active cases filed by YOU; (4) all PERSONS who pay rent to [Defendant Denis]; (5) all PERSONS who are parties to any lease agreements for rental properties leased by [Defendant Denis]; (6) all PERSONS who are parties to any lease agreements for rental properties leased by [LODD]; (7) the amount of any and all rent payable to [LODD]; (8) the amount of any and all rent payable to [Defendant Denis]; (9) the frequency of any rent due and payable to [LODD]; (10) the frequency of any rent due and payable to [Defendant Denis]; (11) the date(s) on which any rent is due and payable to [LODD]; (12) the date(s) on which any rent is due and payable to [Defendant Denis]; (13) the address(es) of all rental properties for which rent is due and payable to [LODD]; (14) the address(es) of all rental properties for which rent is due and payable to [Defendant Denis]; (15) the amount of any monthly rent payable to [LODD]; (16) the amount of any monthly rent payable to [Defendant Denis]; (17) all lease agreements for rental properties leased by [Defendant Denis]; (18) all lease agreements for rental properties leased by [LODD]; (19) all persons who are renters of any rental properties leased by [Defendant Denis]; (20) all persons who are renters of any rental properties leased by [Defendant Denis]; (21) all persons who currently owe money to [Defendant Denis]; (22) all persons who currently owe money to [LODD]; (23) all active cases filed by [LODD] including but not limited to, state and federal cases, workers’ compensation cases, labor board cases, and arbitration and mediation cases for the years 2019 through present day; (24) all active cases in which [LODD] has an interest, including but not limited to, state and federal cases, workers’ compensation cases, labor board cases, and arbitration and mediation cases for the years 2019 through present day; (25) all active cases filed by [Defendant Denis], including but not limited to, state and federal cases, workers’ compensation cases, labor board cases, and arbitration and mediation cases for the years 2019 through present day; and (26) all active cases in which [Defendant Denis] has an interest, including but not limited to, state and federal cases, workers’ compensation cases, labor board cases, and arbitration and mediation cases for the years 2019 through present day. (SROG SS, pgs. 2-80.)

In their initial response, Defendant LODD objected to answering these interrogatories as: (1) protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, (2) overbroad, (3) calls for speculation, (4) vague and ambiguous, (5) unduly burdensome, (6) seeks information that is confidential and protected by the constitutional right of privacy, (7) seeks to violate the privacy rights of third parties, (8) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (9) seeks information that is equally or more readily available to the demanding party. (SROG SS, pgs. 2-81.)

Defendant LODD argues this Court should suspend or continue the hearing on the motions to compel further responses by ninety (90) days to await the resolution at the appellate level rather than enable Plaintiff to interfere with pending appellate proceedings. (Opposition LODD SROG, pg. 3; C.C.P. §1176; Selma Auto Mall II v. Appellate Department of Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1681-1682.) Defendant LODD argues that if the court of appeals affirms the trial court’s decision and judgment, then Plaintiff would be allowed to proceed, and if the decision is reversed, the discovery issues raised in the instant motions would be moot. (Opposition LODD SROG, pg. 3.) C.C.P. §1176 and Selma Auto Mall II are inapposite because the instant action is not for possession of real property or unlawful detainer.

Defendant LODD argues that Aryeh Leicheter’s July 31, 2020, claim of lien as to any monies payable to Plaintiff in regard to the February 27, 2019, sanctions judgment of $7,795.00 and on any judgment or settlement rendered in favor of Plaintiff to secure $2,402.12 in costs and expenses advanced on behalf of Plaintiff had the effect of making Defendants the “judgment debtor” of Aryeh Leichter who became Plaintiff’s “judgment creditor,” and Plaintiffs therefore cannot enforce any judgment in the action and Defendants no longer can pay any amount to Plaintiff out of the amounts subject to the lien. (Opposition LODD SROG, pg. 3; C.C.P. §§708.440(a), 708.470(c).) Defendant LODD argues that because there is no “money judgment” in this case, as defined by C.C.P. §680.270, there is no right of discovery under C.C.P. §708.030 and Plaintiff’s discovery is unenforceable by a motion to compel. (Opposition LODD SROG, pgs. 3-4.) C.C.P. §708.030 expressly authorized a trial court to compel a judgment debtor to produce documents in its possession or control regarding third parties:

. . .

Inspection demands served pursuant to this section may be enforced to the extent practicable, in the same manner as inspection demands in a civil action.

Defendant LODD argues Plaintiff’s requests improperly demand “all documents” and “bank accounts” including number(s), which are a protectable interest, and fails to specifically describe each individual item or reasonably particularize each category of item as required by C.C.P. §2030.010, and therefore seek to compel unlimited disclosure of Defendants’ private financial information that is protected by California’s constitutional right to privacy. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.) Valley Bank is inapposite because here discovery is directed at Defendants as judgment creditors, not a third party, and is proper pursuant to C.C.P. §708.030(a). (SCC Acquisitions, Inc., 243 Cal.App.4th 752.)

Considering Plaintiff’s need for specific information to enforce its judgment against Defendant LODD, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling further production.

Monetary Sanctions

The Court finds sanctions are not warranted in light of the ruling on the motion.

Dated: January ____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes Denis RFP No. 39 appears to be a duplicate of Denis RFP No. 38.