Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC708104, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC708104 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: August 2, 2022
CASE NAME: Sergey Grishin v. Twelve Productions Ltd.
CASE NO.: BC708104
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OBJECTING TO DISCOVERY REFEREE’S REPORT DATED 4/4/22 (MOTION #20) and MOTION TO SEAL
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Sergey, et al.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Jennifer Sulkess
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An order modifying the Discovery Referee Report to allow Defendant Sulkess’ communications with the press and affiliated third parties are discoverable
2. An order determining the word “YOU” is not overly broad.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. The Motion Objecting to the Discovery report and seeking a modification is DENIED. The request modifying the report as it relates to the communications is DENIED. The request stating that definition of You is not overly broad is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiffs Sergey Grishin (“Grishin”) and his company SG Acquisitions, LLC (“SGA”) filed a Complaint on May 29, 2018 against Defendants Anna Fedoseeva (“Fedoseeva”) and Jennifer Sulkess (“Sulkess”) and their movie production company, Twelve Production, Ltd. (“TP”), alleging that they defrauded Grishin and his company to loan or invest approximately half a million dollars in Fedoseeva and Sulkess’s movie production company.
Fedoseeva and Sulkess filed a Cross-complaint on January 24, 2019 and the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) on February 21, 2019 against Grishin and Roes. The FACC asserts the following causes of action:
1. Cyberstalking in violation of Civil Code § 646.9;
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
3. Invasion of Privacy;
4. Domestic Violence in violation of Civil Code § 1708.6;
5. Assault;
6. Battery;
7. False Imprisonment;
8. Civil Extortion by Letter in violation of Penal Code §§ 518 et seq.
On April 43, 2022, the Discovery Referee issued a report recommending GRANTING Plaintiff’s request for Production (Set 10) items: 217, 224, 238 and 252; and, DENYING items: 218-223-225-237, 239-251 and 253-258.
LEGAL STANDARD
“When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the written motion of any party, or of its own motion, appoint a referee in the following cases pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 640: … When the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 639, subd. (a)(5).)
A referee must report their decision to the Court within 20 days after the hearing, unless the Court otherwise provides. (Code Civ. Proc., § 643, subd. (a).) Any party may file an objection to the referee’s report or recommendations within 10 days after the referee serves and files the report, or within another time as the court may direct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 643, subd. (c).) Responses to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on the referee and all other parties within 10 days after the objection is served. (Id.) The court shall review any objections to the report and any responses submitted to those objections and shall thereafter enter appropriate orders. (Id.)
A discovery referee’s report is advisory, not determinative, and the trial court must independently consider the referee’s findings before acting upon the referee’s recommendations. (Marathon Nat. Bank v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1261.) “[T]he referee's recommendations are entitled to great weight.” (In re Marriage of Petropoulos (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 161, 176.)
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff moves to have the Discovery Referee’s report modified as it is too narrow. The report issued on 4/4/22 denied the Plaintiff’s requests that sought Sulkess’ communications with the press, other named parties, party-affiliated witnesses as well as defined the word “You” too narrowly.
Procedural matters:
Under CCP 643(a), the referee must report the decision within 20 days. Here, the referee’s report was entered on March 14, 2022, and filed on April 4, 2022. Therefore, it was timely filed. Additionally, a party may object to the report within 10 days after the report is served and filed. (CCP § 639(b)). Here, the current motion was filed on April 14, 2022. Therefore, this motion is timely.
1. Sulkess’ Communications
Plaintiff contends that the limitation concerning communications with other individuals was arbitrary. These statements made by Sulkess’ and her agents are “(1) are a source of prior inconsistent statements (Evid. Code §§1235 and 780(h)); (2) are a source of dishonest and misleading statements by Defendants about matters in dispute in this case relevant to assess their credibility (CACI 107; Evid Code §§780(e), 786); (3) bely Sulkess’ claim that she lives in fear of Grishin (Evid. Code §§1235, 780(h)); (4) can be used to advance Plaintiffs’ fraud claims; and (5) can be used to challenge her severe emotional distress claims (CACI No. 107; Evid. Code §§1250 and 1251).” (Motion 13: 3-9).
2. Definition of “You”
The report issued by the discovery referee indicated that the word “You” was limited to Sulkess only, and could not include any of the following: “all of her current and former employees, agents, press agents, attorneys, public relations consultants, directors, representatives, members, owners, consultants, affiliates, accountants, independent contractors, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, divisions, parent corporations, partners, and servants.” (Motion 13: 19-22). Plaintiff contends that this limitation is also arbitrary and inconsistent.
The Court Sustains the Referee’s findings:
The trial court has the ultimate decision when it comes to referee’s finding. “The referee's factual findings are advisory recommendations only. . . . Nevertheless, ‘the referee's recommendations are entitled to great weight.’ ” (In re Marriage of Petropoulos (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 161, 176). Here, the underlying action involves various causes of action based upon a loan of $564,137.60. The cross-complaint alleges various causes of action related to retaliation that Defendants have labeled a campaign of terror. The report issued by the discovery referee acknowledge the Plaintiff’s contention that this information may be relevant to the “international smear campaign.” (Report 10: 26-28, filed 4/4/2022). Nonetheless, the referee found that in many respects that request was overbroad and thus limited communications related to “Sergey Grishin” and the definition of “You.” This Court agrees with the Referee’s assessment. In many respects, the requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
The Motion Objecting to the Discovery Report is DENIED. The Court Adopts the findings and recommendations of the Referee in full.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 2, 2022 _________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court