Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV36009, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36009    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff Luis Abundes filed this action against Defendant Antonio Perez and others.

On November 20, 2023, the Court ordered, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff to cooperate with Defendant in obtaining records pursuant to a deposition subpoena for production of business records, “including, but not limited to, executing any documents required for the release of records in the possession, custody or control of SSA, SSI, or General Relief Fund . . . .”

On September 5, 2024, the Court denied as moot Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with the November 20, 2023 order because Plaintiff had provided the signed form and supplemental responses.

On March 3, 2025, Defendant filed another motion to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s November 20, 2023 order.  Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied as irrelevant.

Defendant “moves this court for an order enforcing the Court’s November 20, 2023 Order and compelling Plaintiff . . . to obtain and produce responsive documents in the possession of the Social Security Administration and General Relief.”  (Motion at p. 2.)  Defendant contends that “This is litigation abuse and stonewalling at its worst!”  (Id. at p. 4.)

Plaintiff explains that a Consent for Release of Information was sent to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) on December 20, 2024.  (Tehrani Decl. ¶ 7.)  On December 31, 2024, SSA sent a letter requesting a wet signature and a check for the records, which Plaintiff sent on January 6, 2025.  (Tehrani Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)  According to Plaintiff, there has been no response from SSA.  (Tehrani Decl. ¶ 10.)  From February 20, 2025 to March 11, 2025, the parties met and conferred about the scope of the requested documents from Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (“DPSS”) and eventually reached an agreement.  (Tehrani Decl. ¶¶ 12-16.)  Plaintiff provided his signature for DPSS as of March 14, 2025.  (Tehrani Decl. ¶ 17.)

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff impermissibly and unilaterally narrowed the request for SSA records from “Benefits Applications (1985-2020); Statement of Income and Resources (1985-2020); Evidence or Proof of Income (1985- 2020); Evidence or Proof of Resources (1985-2020); Determination/Redetermination Of Eligibility Letters (1985-2020)” (Defendant’s proposed request) to “Any disclosures of ownership or interest in the property . . . made during any period in which I applied for Social Security Administration benefits or services” (Plaintiff’s actual request).  (Motion, Ex. 9; Opposition, Ex. C.)

The Court has already ordered Plaintiff to cooperate with obtaining records from SSA and sees no need to repeat its order.  The order required Plaintiff to cooperate with obtaining records “regarding any inquiries by the SSA, SSI or General Relief Fund pertaining to ABUNDES’ ownership interest in any real property and ABUNDES’ responses and submissions pertaining to ABUNDES’ ownership interest in any real property only.”  The Court cannot find that Plaintiff is currently out of compliance with this order based on his request for documents from SSA without knowing what documents will in fact be produced in response to that request.  To date, Plaintiff has submitted his records request, and SSA has not responded.

Disobedience of discovery orders can and should result in monetary sanctions sufficient to put the other party where they would have been if they did not have to bring discovery motions.  If Plaintiff still has not produced the requested documents by the Final Status Conference or at the commencement of trial, the Court would be inclined to impose evidentiary preclusion or issue sanctions on Plaintiff.  Alternatively, Defendant may move for other non-monetary discovery sanctions before trial.

The motion is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant bringing a different motion seeking appropriate sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 27th day of March 2025