Case Name: Bradford Newman v. McManis Faulkner
Case No.: 17CV304813

Plaintiff brings a motion to compel further responses to a single demand for production of documents, to which defendant has asserted objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
Copies of all lawsuits filed, lawsuits threatened, demand letters sent, and legal claims filed in court or arbitration against DEFENDANT, from January 1, 2000 to the present, by any former or current client, which involve claims that DEFENDANT committed fraud related to billing, overbilled and/or committed malpractice or negligence.

This demand is narrower in scope than those addressed by the court in its order filed July 25, 2017, in part as it no longer seeks the production of client files, settlement agreements, or other specific content from such files. As the court views this demand, it essentially seeks documents which show claims or demands made by other clients or former clients, in the nature of the claims asserted by plaintiff in this litigation. Plaintiff argues there is good cause for the production of such documents, as this information is relevant to the unfair business practices claims he has asserted against defendant, based upon an alleged pattern and practice of behavior. This court agrees, as did the court in its prior order: “Plaintiff’s argument is well-taken.”
Defendant has failed to justify or support its objections, many of which were addressed in the court’s prior order. Specifically, as to the time span of the request, defendant fails to make any affirmative factual showing that production of the documents would be unduly burdensome.
Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED, as follows. As the court finds the terms “lawsuits threatened” to be unclear, ambiguous, and potentially overly broad in scope, the motion is granted solely as to “lawsuits filed, demand letters sent, and legal claims filed in court or arbitration.” The court will also limit the time covered by this request to the period January 1, 2010 to the present. Although defendant has failed to make any affirmative showing of undue burden, the court finds it is a reasonable limitation on the scope of this discovery to limit it initially to the past 8+ years, rather than over 18 years. This limitation is without prejudice to a further showing of good cause for the production of earlier documents, based upon this production and further discovery between the parties.

As defendant has failed to justify its objections, and plaintiff’s motion is granted in substantial part, monetary sanctions of $2,600 are awarded against defendant under Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(h). This sanction is based upon 4 hours of counsel’s time at $650 per hour.

Further verified responses and all responsive documents, as well as payment of monetary sanctions, are to be served on plaintiff’s counsel no later than March 30, 2018.

Based upon counsel’s declaration, the court VACATES the Order to Show Cause set on 3/6/18 at 10 a.m. Further Case Management Conference is set on June 12, 2018 at 10 a.m.