Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV15735, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15735    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Radenko Milakovic

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant David Glasser, as trustee of the Glasser Family Trust

(1)   Motion to Compel Defendant David Glasser, as Trustee of the Glasser Family Trust’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Radenko Milakovic             

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Michele Tritt-Glasser

(2)   Motion to Compel Defendant Michele Tritt-Glasser’s Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.[1]

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court denies defendants David Glasser, as trustee of the Glasser Family Trust, and Michele Tritt-Glasser’s requests for judicial notice because the matters to be judicially noticed are not relevant to the court’s disposition of the motions to compel their further responses to discovery.  (Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [“Any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue”].)

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT GLASSER’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff Radenko Milakovic (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant David Glasser, as trustee of the Glasser Family Trust (“Glasser”), to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 6, 11, 20, 31, 34, 37-44, 51-57, 65, 67-71, 73, and 79-82, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $6,172.50.

In his opposition to this motion, Glasser has presented evidence establishing that, on December 26, 2024, he served further amended responses to all of the subject Requests for Production of Documents.  (Bernet Decl., Ex. 3, pp. 12:2-17, 19:3-18, 30:15-28, 42:23-43:8, 46:7-19, 50:1-17, 51:3-19, 52:7-25, 53:13-54:2, 54:17-55:4, 55:19-56:6, 56:21-57:8, 57:22-58:9, 69:16-70:4, 70:21-71:11, 71:26-72:14, 73:1-17, 74:4-20, 75:7-23, 76:12-28, 84:16-28, 86:25-87:12, 87:25-88:10, 88:22-89:7, 89:19-90:4, 90:16-91:1, 92:26-93:11, 100:2-15, 100:26-101:11, 101:24-102:10, 102:23-103:9.)  Glasser’s further amended responses to those requests assert representations of Glasser’s inability to comply with the particular demands pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.  (Bernet Decl., ¶ 15.) 

Plaintiff (1) has not requested that the court exercise its discretion to consider Glasser’s further responses, which appear to set forth his representations of his inability to comply with the subject demands that comply with section 2031.230, and (2) agrees that his request to compel Glasser’s further responses is moot.  (Reply, pp. 2:21-22 [“Given Trustee Glasser has amended his responses, Plaintiff’s request that Trustee Glasser be compelled to provide further amended responses is moot”], 3:3.)  The court denies Plaintiff’s request that the court order Glasser to withdraw his objections since Glasser has served amended responses to the subject discovery.

The court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Glasser because Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought” and therefore does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040.  (Not. of Mot., p. 2:4-6.)

            The court finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff unjust and therefore denies Glasser’s request for an award of sanctions in his favor and against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TRITT-GLASSER’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Michele Tritt-Glasser (“Tritt-Glasser”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, numbers 6, 10-11, 20-21, 32-33, 43, 47-48, 50-58, 60-61, and 64-66, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $6,172.50.

As a threshold matter, because (1) Tritt-Glasser has submitted evidence, in support of her opposition, establishing that she has served further amended responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 50-52, 55-58, 60-61, and 64, and (2) Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that Tritt-Glasser served those responses and instead agrees that his motion is moot as to those demands, the court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to compel Tritt-Glasser’s further responses to those demands is moot.  (Bernet Decl., Ex. 3, pp. 37:15-24, 50:17-27, 43:13-25, 44:9-20, 46:2-13, 46:25-47:8, 47:21-48:4, 49:16-28, 50:9-19, 51:2-12, 54:9-17; Reply, p. 2:19-21 [“Given Tritt-Glasser has amended her responses to RFP Nos. 43, 50-52, 55-58, 60-61, and 64, Plaintiff’s request that Tritt-Glasser be compelled to provide further amended responses as to those responses is moot”].)  

Further, while Plaintiff concedes that Tritt-Glasser served a further response to request number 43, Plaintiff requests that the court order that she “produce all responsive documents” to that request as she agreed, but failed, to do.  (Reply, p. 2:20-22.)  The court denies that request, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a motion to compel compliance with Tritt-Glasser’s statement of compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320.  

Thus, the court evaluates Plaintiff’s motion as to Requests for Production of Documents numbers 6, 10-11, 20-21, 32-33, 43, 47-48, 53-54, and 65-66.

First, the court denies as moot Plaintiff’s motion to compel Tritt-Glasser’s further responses to numbers 6, 10-11, 20-21, 32-33, 43, 47-48, and 53-54 because Plaintiff has, in reply, withdrawn his motion as to those demands.  (Reply, pp. 2:27-3:4 [“given the Court’s October 25, 2024 ruling, Plaintiff is withdrawing [his] request to compel responses as to those requests, and therefore, those requests are moot”].)

Second, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel Tritt-Glasser’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, numbers 65 and 66 because the objections in those responses are not without merit since (1) the demands are overbroad because they include information and request the production of documents that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) the demands seek information that is protected by Tritt-Glasser’s right to privacy.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310, subd. (a)(3), 2017.010.)

Third, the court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Tritt-Glasser because Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought” and therefore does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040.  (Not. of Mot., p. 2:3-5.)

            Fourth, the court finds that the circumstances presented would make the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff unjust and therefore denies Tritt-Glasser’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, made in her opposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff Radenko Milakovic’s motion to compel defendant David Glasser, as trustee of the Glasser Family Trust’s further responses and for sanctions.

            The court denies plaintiff Radenko Milakovic’s motion to compel defendant Michele Tritt-Glasser’s further responses to requests for production of documents and for sanctions.

            The court denies all requests for sanctions.

            The court orders defendant Michele Tritt-Glasser to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 10, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court