2017-00210102-CU-BC

Alfiya Bogdnova Laub vs. Aaron Grigsby Agency, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Underwood, Eli

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing party of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. The parties are also reminded that

pursuant to local court rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Defendants and Cross-Complainants Aaron Grisby Agency, Inc. and Aaron Grisby’s (collectively “Grisby”) motion to compel production of documents from Cross-Defendant Mercy Di Paolo Insurance Services dba Steve C. Luth Insurance Services (“Di Paolo”) is ruled upon as follows.

In their cross-complaint, Grisby alleges that they entered into independent contractor agreements with cross-defendants Alfiya Laub (“Laub”) and Adelia A. Bogdanova (“Bogdanova”). The agreements included a non-solicitation agreement in the event the agreements were terminated. The agreements also included confidentiality clauses. Grisby alleges that Laub and Bogdanova terminated the agreements and began working for Di Paolo. Grisby alleges that all three began soliciting, stealing, and servicing Grisby’s clients.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Grisby’s notice of motion and separate statement appears to seek further responses from Di Paolo. Whereas, the caption of the motion is entitled “motion to compel . . . document production”, the body of the introduction to the memorandum of point and authorities, and the conclusion seeks an order compelling the production of documents only. Despite this discrepancy, upon review it appears that Grisby is seeking the production of documents, rather than further responses.

In Di Paolo’s responses to the request for production, it agreed to produce responsive documents. Grisby contends that despite its agreement to produce, Di Paolo has refused to produce documents.

In opposition, Di Paolo proffers evidence that on October 13, 2017, it produced responsive documents. (Declaration of Dan Near, ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Di Paolo indicated that he was still working on getting other responsive document referring to Laub and Bogdanova’s pay stubs, and documents relating to 30 clients that Grisby had lost. According to Di Paolo’s counsel, Di Paolo never located any records responsive to the request for pay stubs, and documents relating to 30 clients that Grisby had lost.

Because Di Paolo indicates that there are no more responsive documents to the request for production of documents, the Court cannot compel Di Paolo to produce documents it does not have. However, given Di Paolo’s representation that it has already produced all documents responsive to the RFPs, it must say so in a verified discovery response. The motion to compel production of documents is DENIED without prejudice. Nonetheless, Di Paolo must serve a further verified written response stating under oath that it has produced all documents responsive to the RFPs. Di Paolo must serve the further verified written response by no later than April 13, 2018. In the event Di Paolo does not serve a further verified response by April 13, 2018, Grisby may again move to compel the production of documents.

Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.