Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1171109, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

The Motion for Enforcement of Court Order Dated December 2, 2022 filed by Plaintiff Massoud Kaabinejadian (“Plaintiff”) on 1/20/23 is DENIED.

Though it is presented as a motion to enforce, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to the underlying RFPs, as all of his argument concerns alleged deficiencies in the further responses provided by Defendant after the previous ruling.  Per the moving papers, Defendant did provide further responses as ordered on December 19, 2022, however a number of responses reflected that the stipulated protective order had not been signed yet, and thus production could not yet occur.

A review of the order from December 2, 2022 (ROA 231) shows that the ruling as to RFPs 20-31, 36, 38, 40, and 102-105 hinged on the concurrent ruling that the parties enter into a protective order. As to items 81-84, the court ruled that the responses adequately provided information for Plaintiff to evaluate the privilege. As to Nos 97-101, 107, and 108, the court ruled no further production was necessary.

As to those requests that hinged on the stipulated protective order, both parties agree that the protective order was not signed and executed until May 17, 2023.  Based on the emails provided by Defendant, Plaintiff disputes whether Defendant EQR-Toscana is a party to that protective order, as the signature line does not list EQR-Toscana, though it is listed as a party to the protective order in the first paragraph of the document.  It is clear from the December 2, 2022 ruling that the court was ordering all parties to enter into the protective order, as much of the ruling on the motion to compel referenced the responses being subject to the ordered protective order. Defendant’s concern about producing proprietary documents in the face of Plaintiff’s insistence that the protective order does not apply is a valid concern.

As to Plaintiff’s assertion that the sanctions order was not obeyed, Plaintiff admits that he received the check for the full sanctions amount.  Plaintiff provides no authority for his assertion that the source of the funds must be directly from Defendant.

To the extent Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel further responses, it is procedurally deficient under CRC 3.1345(a) as it does not include a separate statement.  Further, Defendant has complied with the December 2, 2022 order as fully as possible in the face of Plaintiff’s refusal to recognize it as a party to the protective order, and represents that it is ready to produce the balance of the documents as soon as the protective order issue is resolved.  As such the motion is DENIED.

Defendant Equity Residential Management, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, filed on September 28, 2022 and continued from April 20, 2023 is GRANTED.

The court previously determined that Plaintiff’s noncompliance was willful as to the underlying order from January 6, 2022, requiring Plaintiff to provide full, complete, straightforward responses within 21 days.  The court then chose to give Plaintiff a final chance to comply before ordering terminating sanctions, allowing Plaintiff 15 days from the April 20, 2023 ruling to comply by providing full and complete responses to Form Interrogatories 2.12, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, as well as Requests for Production 2-5, 11, and 13-15 and to enter into the protective order.

Instead of seizing this chance to comply, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 20, 2023 order, on the grounds that Defendant lacked standing.  That motion was denied on August 10, 2023, as Plaintiff’s arguments had no merit and his motion did not comply with the statutory requirements.  Plaintiff’s choice to bring a meritless, procedurally defective motion to reconsider on the present motion instead of complying with the unchallenged January 6, 2022 order represents a continued willful violation of the underlying order.  Even if the motion to reconsider had been granted, it would not have changed Plaintiff’s obligation to comply with the underlying January 6, 2022 order. As such, terminating sanctions are warranted. The motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.