Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00625, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00625    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 12, 2023¿¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00625

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Dipu Haque, et al v. Michael Ball, et al.

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Dipu Haque, et al.

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Michael Ball, but no opposition has been filed

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: Feb. 13, 2024

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set 7), RE: Power Teas, LLC

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set 10)

(3) Requests for Monetary Sanctions

¿

Tentative Rulings: (1), (2) Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel responses are GRANTED.

(3) Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $500 per motion for a total of $1,000

¿¿

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

This action involves an in pro per defendant. Plaintiffs are investors in various businesses established by Defendant, Michael Ball (“Defendant”) memorialized in written contracts, wherein Defendant is appointed manager of the investments upon an agreement to provide Plaintiffs with unfettered access to the Businesses’ financial records so that they may monitor their investments. Plaintiffs allege that since 2014, they have invested approximately $20 million in the aforesaid business. However, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has breached his agreements with Plaintiffs by refusing to grant them access to all of the businesses’ financial records.

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Dipu Haque served ten sets of Requests for Production on Defendant via regular mail. Each set of Special Interrogatory concern a different business entity. Defendants verified responses were due November 19, 2021. Additionally, On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff Served Defendant with Request for Production, Set 10. Defendant also has failed to respond to this request. Plaintiff claims that he has not served responses or otherwise communicated with Plaintiffs or their counsel to either seek a time extension for the responses or explain why he has not responded. (See Declaration of Rosa Kwong (“Kwong Decl.”)

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On March 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel responses. To date, no responses have been filed. Defendant did not file an opposition.

¿¿

¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿

¿¿

None.

¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿

¿¿

A. Motions to Compel Responses

Here, it does not appear that Defendant has filed any response to the 2 sets of discovery nor the two motions that are the subjects of the motion hearing on January 12, 2023. The Motions on their face show merit. As such, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. The Court orders Defendant Michael Bell to serve verified written responses to each of the Requests for Production in each of sets no. 7 and 10 without objections, and to produce the responsive documents, if any, on or before January 31, 2023.

B. Sanctions

The Court awards $500 per motion for a total of $1,000. Moving party is ordered to give notice.¿¿