2016-00202624-CU-SL

MyECheck, Inc. vs. Kenneth Maciora

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Filed By: Maciora, Kenneth

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. Parties are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Defendant in pro per Maciora’s motion to compel plaintiff’s further responses to requests for production of documents is DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY, as follows.

Defendant failed to comply with CRC Rule 2.111(3) and Rule 3.1110(b)(3).

This is securities fraud case which was filed on 10/31/2016. No trial date has been set. Defendant in pro per recently served a set of three (3) requests for production on plaintiff, in response to which the latter asserted various objections.

According to the separate statement filed in support of this motion, the first of defendant’s requests seeks “All documents, records, or other tangible items including contracts, unprivileged lawsuit documents and agreements in which the Plaintiff and Tangiers appear as parties to such documents.” The second request is the same but inserts “Chicago Ventures” in place of “Tangiers.” The third request is similar to the second, asking for “All documents, records, or other tangible items including contracts, unprivileged lawsuit documents and agreements between the Plaintiff and Chicago Ventures appear [sic] as parties to such documents.”

Plaintiff’s objections to these requests included “vague, ambiguous and overbroad;” mediation and attorneyclient privileges as well as attorney work-product; duplicative of other requests; “overly broad as to scope and time;” unduly burdensome; “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…;” seeks information protected by the right of privacy (financial and otherwise), and information which is confidential and proprietary in nature.

Defendant subsequently demanded via letter dated 11/14/2017 “proper” responses to the discovery, arguing that the objections were without frivolous and boilerplate. Plaintiff then explained in a detailed letter on 11/17/2017 why the requests were objectionable and offered to provide further responses provided that defendant clarified and narrowed his requests. Defendant refused this invitation on 11/20/2017 and then filed an initial motion to compel on 12/1/2017 with a 12/27/2017 hearing date. After this initial motion was dropped at the request of defendant, the present motion to compel was filed on 12/15/2017.

In short, defendant contends plaintiff’s objections to the requests are improper and further responses are necessary. In opposition, plaintiff maintains that defendant’s requests are overly broad, improper and objectionable on several distinct grounds including privilege and privacy. The opposition also asserts that defendant failed to meet-and-confer in good faith as required by the Code.

The Court will deny this motion in its entirety due to defendant’s complete failure to engage in a serious, meaningful and good faith attempt to meet-and-confer on the specific issues raised by this motion. As this Court has often explained, the meet-and-confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather, it “requires…a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) It does not appear that defendant

has complied with this requirement. Aside from defendant’s unreasonable refusal to pursue plaintiff’s invitation to meet-and-confer in an attempt to clarify and narrow the subject requests, defendant has also failed to file in support of the present motion a declaration required by Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)(2) so as to demonstrate affirmatively that the parties engaged in an appropriate meet-and-confer process before filing the present motion. In actuality, it does not appear that defendant filed any declaration whatsoever in support of the present motion.

Although not necessary to this ruling, it is worth noting that this Court must reject defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff’s numerous objections are improper or otherwise without merit. Indeed, each of the requests at issue here suffers from numerous deficiencies which justify plaintiff’s objections and refusal to produce responsive documents. Thus, plaintiff’s objections will not under the circumstances here be overruled.

Finally, the Court finds that defendant’s moving papers here fail to “set forth specific facts showing good cause” justifying the discovery sought by each of these documents requests, as specifically required by Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)(1). Among other things, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate why his requests for “all documents, records and other tangible things” without even providing a relevant time period is warranted, especially when far more narrow requests seeking only the specific types of documents which contain the information that defendant insists is important to this case could be crafted with minimal effort. (Underline added for emphasis.)

In light of the foregoing, defendant’s motion to compel is denied but this ruling is without prejudice to defendant’s right to propound carefully-crafted requests for production which are reasonably designed to obtain non-privileged/private information bearing on the issues in this case.

Plaintiff is awarded monetary sanctions against moving defendant in the amount of $600, representing two hours of attorney time. Sanctions to be paid by moving defendant no later than 2/6/2018 and if not paid by that date, plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment against moving defendant. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)