Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21TRCV00625 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00625, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00625 Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: April 25, 2023¿¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00625

¿¿¿

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

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Dipu Haque, et al.

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: None

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: February 13, 2024

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses From Defendant, Michael Ball, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set 6)

Tentative Rulings: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFP set #6 is GRANTED and monetary sanctions of $1,185 are awarded.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

This action involves a self-represented defendant. Plaintiffs are investors in various businesses established by Defendant, Michael Ball (“Defendant”) memorialized in written contracts, wherein Defendant was 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, Plaintiffs note that they served Defendant with Request for Production of Documents (Set 6) seeking documents that pertain specifically to Power Distribution, LLC. Plaintiff further notes that Defendant did not respond. As such, on March 16, 2022, Dipu notes that it moved for an order compelling Defendant to provide verified responses without objections, and that motion was granted. Subsequently, Plaintiff notes that on January 31, 2023, Defendant served the verified responses without objections, though the responses were grouped along with his responses to four other sets of Requests for Production. Further, Plaintiff notes that Defendant provided the identical response to each and every category of demand, regardless, by stating: “Following a diligent search and inquiry responding party has been unable to locate documents responsive to this demand.”

As such, Plaintiffs now bring this Motion to Compel Further Responses.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed these motions to compel further responses. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿¿

¿II. MEET AND CONFER ¿¿¿

¿¿

Per the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel Rosa Kwan, she sent a meet-and-confer letter to Mr. Ball on February 13, 2023 but received to response nor any supplemental or amended response.

¿III. ANALYSIS¿¿

¿¿

A. Motion to Compel Further Responses

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1). It is not necessary for the motion to show that the material sought will be admissible in evidence. “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586-88; see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2019.030(a)(1) [Information is discoverable if it is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.]; Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-12 [noting a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence].)

Section 2031.210 and 2031.230 impose requirements on the responding party in circumstances such as these. While Defendant complied with some of Section 2031.230 by stating there was an inability to comply with the document request, he fell short of the requirements of the Civil Discovery Act in an important way: failing to specify if the inability to comply with the demand is because the documents never existed, or have been purged, or once existed but have been lost of misplaced. This additional requirement is of particular importance in a case such as this where the plaintiff is wondering if the document or documents can be found with someone else or with another entity.

The response to RFP #6 is also insufficient because it is not contained in a single, stand-alone, self-contained verified response. Much as the Court appreciates efficiency, the Discovery Act requires a stand-alone written response to each separate discovery series, and for each to be separately verified. The Motion to Compel is thus GRANTED.