Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01112, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV01112 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿
¿¿
HEARING DATE: April 16, 2024
¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01112
¿¿
CASE NAME: Reza Abolahrar v.
PNC Bank, National Association, et al.
¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, PNC Bank, National
Association
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Reza Abolahrar
¿¿
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One
(2) Request for
Sanctions
Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED. The revised Separate Statement is required to
be filed by April 30, 2024. This motion is continued to May 7, 2024. The Court will nonetheless entertain a
discussion as to how the 33 discovery requests can be consolidated into a
subset of substantive issues to truncate the 88-page separate statement.
(2) PNC’s Requests
for Sanctions is CONTINUED to May 7 also
¿¿
¿
I. BACKGROUND¿¿
¿¿
A. Factual¿¿
¿
On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff, Reza Abolahrar (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint against Defendants, PNC Bank, National Association, Joshua
Wolfson a/k/a Josh Wolfson d/b/a Executive Funding Solutions, and DOES 1
through 20. On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On
August 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). On
February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleging
causes of action for: (1) Fraud; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3)
Negligence; and (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Defendant, PNC asserts that in April 2023, it served
Plaintiff with its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On June 1,
2023, Plaintiff served responses together with documents labeled as Bates Nos.
000001-000607. PNC contends that the responses contain six “General Objections”
and a “Preliminary Statement” that are incorporated by reference into each
individual response. However, PNC also argues that the individual responses
each also contain boilerplate objections. PNC contends that the objections make
it impossible to determine whether Plaintiff has withheld responsive documents.
PNC argues that Plaintiff’s pleadings make it clear he was fully aware of the
Broker Agreement as each iteration of his complaint expressly referenced the
$10,000 fee prescribed under the agreement. Nonetheless, PNC asserts that when
presented with a copy of the signed Broker Agreement, Plaintiff represented
that he only has an unsigned copy of the document. However, PNC contends that
Plaintiff has yet to produce this unsigned copy.
PNC further argues that Plaintiff’s representation
that he only has an unsigned copy of the Broker Agreement cannot be squared
with the fact that Wolfson produced a copy of an email he sent to Plaintiff
with a signed copy of the Broker Agreement included as an attachment. Irrespective,
PNC asserts that in light of Wolfson’s email, Plaintiff either: (1) has a
signed copy of the Broker Agreement that he failed to produce; (2) destroyed
evidence; or (3) failed to conduct a diligent search of his records. All of
these potential scenarios represent a discovery abuse. As such, PNC contends
that it has been left with no choice but to bring this motion which seeks an
order compelling Plaintiff to not only further respond to the Requests for
Production of Documents, without objection, and to supplement his production,
but to also: (1) certify the efforts he and his counsel have undertaken to
search for responsive documents and (2) identify all documents that have been
destroyed. PNC also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff for his discovery abuse.
B. Procedural¿¿
¿
On March 12, 2024, PNC filed a Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On April
3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. To date, no reply brief has been
filed.
¿II. ANALYSIS¿
¿
A.
Legal
Standard
“Unless otherwise limited by order
of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery
regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in
that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code
of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) For discovery purposes, information is regarded as
relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.” (City of Los
Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 288.)
A motion to compel further
responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents (“RFP”) may be
brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate,
evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or
overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A
motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good
cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court
(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing
that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the
discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to
other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.” If the
moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden
is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct
(2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) ¿
"The court shall limit the
scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness
of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought
will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Cal. Code of Civ.
Proc. § 2017.020(a).) Generally, objections on the ground of burden require the
objecting party to produce evidence of (a) the propounding party's subjective
intent to create burden or (b) the amount of time and effort it would take to
respond. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In
and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) However, no such
evidence is necessary where discovery is obviously overbroad on its face. (See Obregon
v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)
B. Discussion
Preliminarily, this Court notes that the purpose of
a Separate Statement in a discovery motion is to make it easier, not harder,
for the Court to rule on motions compelling further responses to propounded
discovery categories. Regurgitating arguments, points, authorities, and
citations from a moving or opposing brief in a separate statement, especially
to the extent done by Defendant, PNC, violates the page limitations of briefs
supporting or opposing a motion. PNC is requesting an order to compel further responses
to thirty-three requests for production of documents, but the separate
statement was 88 pages long. Accordingly, this Court notes that PNC must refile
a Separate Statement. The revised Separate Statement to be submitted will
contain only the definitions plus the verbatim requests at issue and the
verbatim responses to each request at issue. If a supplemental response was
given, the revised Separate Statement must include that as well immediately
following the initial verbatim language of the response. The Court urges the
parties to take note of this as the Court will not rule on motions to compel
further responses with excessive separate statements, but instead, will send
the issues back to the party to further meet and confer. The Requests for
Monetary Sanctions will also be continued.
III. CONCLUSION¿¿
¿¿¿
For the foregoing reasons, PNC’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One is CONTINUED
PNC is ordered to give notice.
¿¿¿
¿¿
¿¿
¿