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. This motion follows the court’s order filed March 7, 2018 granting, in substantial part, plaintiff’s prior motion to compel further responses to a substantially similar request.

At issue is the following request:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
Copies of all lawsuits filed, demand letters sent from counsel only, and legal claims filed in court or arbitration against DEFENDANT, from January 2, 2002 to January 1, 2010, by any former or current client, which involve claims that DEFENDANT committed fraud related to billing, overbilled and/or committed malpractice or negligence.

The prior demand on which the court ruled in its March 7 order reads:

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.

The Court finds its analysis of Request No. 29 applies equally to the current Request No. 47.

Both of these demands are narrower in scope than those addressed by the court in its order filed July 25, 2017, in part as they no longer seek the production of client files, settlement agreements, or other specific content from such files. Plaintiff has further narrowed and tailored Request No. 47 from prior No. 29, and appears to have incorporated the court’s limitations on the type and source of documents sought. As the court views both demands, they essentially seek 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 in 2017: “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 orders. Specifically, as to the time span of this request, defendant once again fails to make any affirmative factual showing that production of the documents would be unduly burdensome. In the current motion, Plaintiff has now shown sufficient good cause to expand the time period for responsive documents. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice under Evidence Code §452(d) is granted as to documents 1 – 4 and denied as to document 5, under §453.

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore GRANTED.

As defendant has failed to justify its objections, and plaintiff’s motion is granted in full, monetary sanctions of $4,500 are awarded against defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, under Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(h).

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 September 28, 2018.