This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/10/2019 at 01:02:02 (UTC).

DOV CHARNEY VS STANDARD GENERAL LP ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/07/2015 DOV CHARNEY filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against STANDARD GENERAL LP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERRY A. GREEN and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1130

  • Filing Date:

    05/07/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TERRY A. GREEN

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CHARNEY DOV

CHARNEY DOV (JUDGMENT)

CHARNEY DOV JUDGMENT

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-50

P STANDARD GENERAL LTD

STANDARD GENERAL LP

STANDARD GENERAL MASTER FUND LP

Not Classified By Court

FINK KEITH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FINK & STEINBERG

MULLER OLAF JERZY

SAGI-LEBOWITZ IMBAR

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HELM MARK B. ESQ.

TARAN JESSICA

 

Court Documents

Reply

12/7/2018: Reply

Ex Parte Application

2/22/2019: Ex Parte Application

Separate Statement

3/11/2019: Separate Statement

Minute Order

3/12/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

6/28/2019: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service

2/27/2018: Proof of Service

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE

3/8/2018: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE

Proof of Service

7/23/2018: Proof of Service

Request for Refund / Order

9/10/2018: Request for Refund / Order

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

9/27/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

Minute Order

10/9/2018: Minute Order

Other -

10/10/2018: Other -

Notice

11/16/2018: Notice

PLAINTIFF DOV CHARNEY'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF COLLEEN BROWN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AMERICAN APPAREL, INC. AND COLLEEN BROWN'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

9/25/2015: PLAINTIFF DOV CHARNEY'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF COLLEEN BROWN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AMERICAN APPAREL, INC. AND COLLEEN BROWN'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION

2/17/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF MINUTES REGARDING ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF JAY S. AUSLANDER AND NATALIE SHKOLNIK

4/5/2016: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF MINUTES REGARDING ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF JAY S. AUSLANDER AND NATALIE SHKOLNIK

NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING THIRD PARTY EXAMINATION OF DAVID NISENABUM ON BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES APPAREL, INC.

6/29/2017: NOTICE OF RULING REGARDING THIRD PARTY EXAMINATION OF DAVID NISENABUM ON BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES APPAREL, INC.

PROOF OF HAND DELIVERY

11/6/2017: PROOF OF HAND DELIVERY

294 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Standard General, LP (Defendant); Standard General Master Fund, LP (Defendant); P Standard General, Ltd (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Standard General, LP (Defendant); Standard General Master Fund, LP (Defendant); P Standard General, Ltd (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Regarding Dates of Examination of Dov Charney and Keith A. Fink); Filed by Standard General, LP (Defendant); Standard General Master Fund, LP (Defendant); P Standard General, Ltd (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Order (Third Proposed Modified Post-Judgment Assignment and Restraining Order); Filed by Standard General, LP (Defendant); Standard General Master Fund, LP (Defendant); P Standard General, Ltd (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Declaration (of Jessica Taran in Support of Application for Admission of Pro Hac Vice of Julie A. Cilia Nunc Pro Tunc as of July 30, 2018); Filed by Standard General, LP (Defendant); Standard General Master Fund, LP (Defendant); P Standard General, Ltd (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Declaration (of Julie Cilia in Support of Application for Admission of Pro Hac Vice of Julie A. Cilia Nunc Pro Tunc as of July 30, 2018); Filed by Standard General, LP (Defendant); Standard General Master Fund, LP (Defendant); P Standard General, Ltd (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice; Filed by Standard General, LP (Defendant); Standard General Master Fund, LP (Defendant); P Standard General, Ltd (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 94; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order Re: Proposed Modified Post-Judgment Assignment an...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Re: Proposed Modified Post-Judgment Assignment an...) of 04/12/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
508 More Docket Entries
  • 06/19/2015
  • DECLARATION OF THANE REHN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2015
  • DECLARATION OF DAVID GLAZEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2015
  • DECLARATION OF ALLAN MAYER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2015
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 14; Non-Appearance Case Review - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2015
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Dov (JUDGMENT) Charney (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Dov (JUDGMENT) Charney (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2015
  • PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DEFAMATION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC581130    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

(CCP § 1048; CRC Rule 3.350)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants/Judgment-Creditors Standard General, L.P., Standard General Master Fund, L.P., and P Standard General Ltd.’s Motion to Consolidate is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for defamation, false light, intentional interference with actual economic relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and violation of Business and Professional Code §§ 17200, et seq.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Consolidate this action with P Standard, et al v. Dov Charney, et al., LASC Case No. BS172538 because both cases involve common questions of law and facts.

OPPOSITION: No opposition. Further, counsel for Plaintiff/Judgment-Debtor Dov Charney (“Judgment-Debtor”) submitted a declaration attesting to the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the cases for purposes of judgment collection purposes.

REPLY: Counsel for Defendants/Judgment-Creditors Standard General, L.P., Standard General Master Fund, L.P., and P Standard General Ltd. (“Judgment-Creditors”) filed a reply declaration attesting to the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the cases for purposes of judgment enforcement.

ANALYSIS:

On May 7, 2015, Judgment-Debtor filed the instant action (BC581130) against Judgment-Creditors alleging defamation, false light, intentional interference with actual economic relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and violations of Business & Professional Code §§ 17200, et seq. The instant case was initially filed in Department 14 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. On September 25, 2017, the Court ordered judgment in favor of Judgment-Creditors and disposed the case. On November 12, 2017, the case was transferred to Department 94 of the same courthouse. Finally, on January 18, 2020, the case was transferred to Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

On February 16, 2018, Judgment-Creditors filed an application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment against Judgment-Debtor (Case No. BS172538.) The Court entered judgment in favor of Judgment-Creditors and against Judgment-Debtor on the same date and disposed the case. On August 9, 2018, the case was transferred to Department 94 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. On January 21, 2020, the case was again transferred to Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

The two cases are now in two different departments. BC581130 is currently in Department 25. BS172538 is currently in Department 26.

The parties also submitted stipulations to consolidate the cases for purposes of judgment enforcement only.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subs. (a), “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Emphasis added.) Additionally, under Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “[c]ases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.”

Here, the cases are not assigned to the same department, nor have the cases yet been deemed related. (See CRC Rule 3.300, subd. (h)(1)(A).) Moreover, the cases are not “pending” before the court. In contrast, both cases were disposed on September 25, 2017 (BC581130) and February 16, 2018 (BS172538). The Court notes that a notice of related case was filed in case number BS172538 on May 24, 2018. The Court, however, did not order the cases related.

Although the parties stipulate to consolidate the cases for purposes of judgment enforcement, the Court cannot consider the instant motion because the cases are not assigned to the same department nor has been deemed related. (CRC Rule 3.300, subd. (h)(1)(A).) Moreover, the

cases were disposed and are not “pending” before the court. (See CCP § 1048(a).) Therefore, the instant motion to consolidate this action with P Standard, et al v. Dov Charney, et al., LASC Case No. BS172538 is inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Court cannot consider Judgment-Creditors’ motion to consolidate the cases at this time. The motion is placed off calendar.

Court clerk to give notice.

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

(CRC Rule 3.300(a); LASCR 3.3(f))

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300)

[ ] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a)

[ ] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b))

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for defamation, false light, intentional interference with actual economic relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and violation of Business and Professional Code §§ 17200, et seq.

RELIEF: Relate this action with P Standard, et al v. Dov Charney, et al., LASC Case No. BS172538.

OPPOSITION: Not applicable.

REPLY: Not applicable.

ANALYSIS:

Related Cases

The rules governing related cases are set forth in CRC Rule 3.300(a) and LASCR 3.3(f). “A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment, if the cases: (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” (CRC Rule 3.300(a).)

California Civ. Proc. Code section 1049 states, “[a]n action is deemed to be pending from the time of its commencement until its final determination upon appeal, or until the time for appeal has passed, unless the judgment is sooner satisfied.”

Pursuant to California Rules of Court section 3.300(h)(1)(D), “[i]n the event that any of the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related…any party in any of the cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related. The motion must be filed with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge.”

Dov Charney v. Standard General, L.P., et al, LASC Case No. BC581130

On May 7, 2015, Judgment-Debtor Dov Charney (“Judgment-Debtor”) filed the instant action (BC581130) against Judgment-Creditors Standard General, L.P., Standard General Master Fund, L.P., and P Standard General, Ltd. (collectively “Judgment-Creditors”) alleging defamation, false light, intentional interference with actual economic relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and violations of Business & Professional Code §§ 17200, et seq. The instant case was initially filed in Department 14 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. On January 20, 2016, after granting Judgment-Creditors’ anti-SLAPP motion, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice and awarded attorney’s fees in favor of Judgment-Creditors and against Judgment-Debtor. On March 28, 2017, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion and its subsequent dismissal of the case. Attorney’s fee was again awarded in favor of Judgement-Creditors. On November 21, 2017, the Court granted Judgment-Creditors’ motion for an order charging Judgment-Debtor’s membership interest in Art, Commerce, and Manufacturing Solutions, LLC and Apex Real Estate Management, LLC.

On May 24, 2018, Judgment-Debtor filed a notice of related case. It was noticed for related case numbers BC706996 and BS172538. The notice indicates that Judgment-Creditors in the instant case are also Judgment-Creditors in case number BS172538 (with the exception of Standard General, L.P.) Additionally, Judgment-Creditors are in the process of enforcing two judgments in the instant case and it would be more efficient to conduct examinations of Judgment-Debtor (and third-parties) to identify assets that could be used to satisfy judgments. Moreover, Judgment-Creditors will engage in substantial motion practice in connection with the efforts to enforce judgment. These motions will seek similar, if not identical, relief that affect substantially the same parties. On July 5, 2018, the Court finds case numbers BC706996 and BS172538 not related to the instant case within the meaning of California Rules of Court 3.300. The Court orders the cases to remain assigned to the department where they were pending at the time of filing and service of the Notice of Related Case.

On September 12, 2017, the instant case was transferred to Department 94 of the same courthouse. On January 8, 2020, Judgment-Creditors filed a motion to consolidate the instant case with case number BS172538. On January 18, 2020, the instant case was transferred to Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

P Standard, et al v. Dov Charney, et al., LASC Case No. BS172538

On February 16, 2018, Judgment-Creditors filed an application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment against Judgment-Debtor (Case No. BS172538.) Sister-State-Delaware issued a final order and judgment in favor of Standard General L.P., Standard General Master Fund L.P., and P Standard General, Ltd. against Dov Charney. Generally, the Delaware-order finds contracts and notes entered into between Judgment-Debtor and Judgment-Creditors valid and enforceable. The Delaware court ordered Judgment-Debtor to pay the full principal and interest to Judgment-Creditors.

On February 16, 2018, the Court entered judgment based on sister-State judgment against Judgment-Debtor and disposed the case.

On May 24, 2018, Judgment-Creditors filed a notice of related case. The notice contends identical reasons as the notice of related case in the above-mentioned case number BC581130.

On August 9, 2018, the case was transferred to Department 94 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On August 26, 2019, the Court granted Judgment-Creditors’ motion to amend judgment to add Art, Commerce, and Manufacturing Solutions, LLC and Apex Real Estate Management, LLC as additional judgment debtors.

On January 21, 2020, the case was again transferred to Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

The parties also submitted stipulations to consolidate the cases for purposes of judgment enforcement only.

Here, case number BC581130 is no longer pending before the court. The case was dismissed with prejudice. Further, on appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings. Similarly, case number BS172538 is not pending before the court. On February 16, 2018, an entry of judgment was entered in favor of Judgment-Creditors. Judgment-Debtor did not file a notice of appeal. Therefore, neither cases are “pending” in order for the Court to relate the cases pursuant to CRC Rule 3.300(a).

Alternatively, if the Court deems to consider the four factors in CRC Rule 3.300(a):

First, both cases involve the same parties, but the cases are not based on same or similar claims.

Judgment-Debtor and Judgment-Creditors are the same in both case numbers BS172538 and BC581130, with one exception that Standard General, L.P. is not a judgment creditor in BS172538. The two cases, however, are not based on the same or similar claims. Case number BS172538 is based on entry of a sister-state judgment resulting from contract claims. Conversely, case number BC581130 is based on Judgment-Debtor’s allegations against Judgment-Creditors for defamation, false light, intentional interference with actual economic relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and violation of Business and Professional Code.

Second, the cases do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. As discussed above, case number BS172538 is based on contracts in Delaware, but case number BC581130 is based on allegations that Judgment-Creditors defamed Judgment-Debtor and interfered with Judgment-Debtor’s economic interests. Third, for the same reasons, the cases do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.

Lastly, the cases should be related, however, for reasons of substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (CRC Rule 3.300(a)(4).) Both cases have now been disposed. The remaining issue is judgment enforcement against Judgment-Debtor. Currently, case number BS172538 is in Department 26. There are five scheduled hearings to order appearance and examination, and one scheduled hearing on status of supplemental briefing of proposed receivers. Additionally, case number BC581130 is in Department 25. There are two hearings scheduled in the case: (1) motion to consolidate; and (2) hearing on motion for order to confirm the report and recommendation of referee. The determinative issues of the two cases involve enforcement of judgment already conclusively entered against the same Judgment-Debtor and in favor of the same Judgment-Creditors. Accordingly, the cases should be related to avoid substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

In the instant case, the parties should instead file a motion in Department 1 to have the cases related, i.e., appeal the ruling on July 5, 2018, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).

Case Number: BC581130    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY ORDER

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditors’ motion to compel compliance with the Court’s March 29, 2019 Discovery Order is granted. Judgment Debtor shall serve Code-Compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

Judgment Creditors’ request for sanctions is denied.

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 24, 2020.

REPLY: Filed on March 2, 2020.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

This case has a long history. Judgment Creditors’ motion is based on the Court’s March 29, 2019 Discovery Order.

II. Legal Standard

C.C.P. §2023.030 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process:

(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

C.C.P. §2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (C.C.P. §2023.010(d) and (g).)

C.C.P. §2031.310(i) provides, as follows: “Except as provided in subdivision (j), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

III. Discussion

Judgment Creditors move for an order compelling Judgment Debtor’s compliance with the Court’s March 29, 2019 Discovery Order. Judgment Creditors also request monetary sanctions against Judgment Debtor in the amount of $25,541.65.

Judgment Creditors’ request for judicial notice is granted. However, the Court will not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted within the first amended complaint and report and recommendation of referee. (RJN, Exhibits E and J.)

Judgment Debtor’s evidentiary objections are overruled.

On March 29, 2019, the Court entered an order granting Judgment Creditors’ motion to compel further discovery responses from Judgment Debtor as to Requests Nos. 7, 8, 9, 14, 40, 42, 44, 45, and 46 of the Document Demand. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.) (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶4.)

Judgment Creditors submitted evidence showing Judgment Creditor failed to comply with the Court’s March 29, 2019 Discovery Order. Judgment Creditors submitted evidence Judgment Debtor produced 729 pages of documents on April 23, 2019, of which 585 were photographs and the remaining vast majority were duplicative of documents previously produced by Judgment Debtor in 2018. (Declaration of Taran ¶20.) Judgment Creditors submitted evidence Judgment Debtor’s document productions do not contain any emails or routine correspondence (except for one non-responsive email in hard copy), and omit other critical records. (Declaration of Taran ¶21.) Judgment Creditors also submitted evidence suggesting Charney and his counsel agreed, during Charney’s examination, to produce certain documents, and failed to produce the documents. (Declaration of Taran ¶¶24-25.)

As set forth below in detail, the Court finds Judgment Debtor failed to comply with the Court’s March 29, 2019 Discovery Order.

Request No. 7

Request No. 7 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to any interest that

You have, whether directly or indirectly, in any limited liability companies, limited partnerships, joint ventures, or other corporate or partnership entities, including, without limitation, any Judgment Debtor Entity. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In a supplemental response, served on August 9, 2019, Judgment Creditor asserted objections and stated, as follows: “After reasonable and diligent search, responding party has no further documents to provide which have not already been produced to requesting parties. The responding party (or third parties by way of subpoena) has already produced the bank records of Apex Real Estate Management Inc, Art Commerce, and Manufacturing Solutions LLC and the formation documents of the entities. Responding party has no other interest in other entities.”

(Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Debtor’s supplemental response does not indicate that all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control have been produced. (See C.C.P. §2031.220 (“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”).)

Judgment Debtor also did not produce all responsive documents. For example, Judgment Debtor produced tax returns for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, after Judgment Creditors filed the instant motion. (Reply Declaration of Taran ¶¶4-9.) (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶11.) However, Judgment Debtor has not produced the tax returns for 2014 and 2015. (Reply Declaration of Taran ¶¶6-7.) Judgment Debtor also has not produced the tax preparation materials. (Reply, pg. 3.) (Declaration of Taran ¶21.)

Request No. 8

Request No. 8 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to all income that You have received during the Relevant Time Period. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In the supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and stated, as follows: “After reasonable and diligent search, responding party will produce the tax returns from 2014 and 2015 and will supplemental the ladder years as they are formulated. Any and all other responsive documents are already in possession, custody and/or control of Judgment Creditors by way of production from Judgment Debtor and/or Subpoena responses from third parties.” (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Debtor’s supplemental response does not comply with C.C.P. §2031.220. Moreover, Judgment Debtor has not produced all responsive documents. As discussed above, Judgment Debtor has not produced the tax returns for 2014 and 2015, and the tax preparation materials.

Request No. 9

Request No. 9 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to any interest that any of Your family members have, whether directly or indirectly, in any Judgment Debtor Entity. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In the supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and stated, as follows: “After reasonable and diligent search, responding party does not have any documents in his possession, custody or control responsive to this request and upon information and belief none have ever existed.” (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Creditor’s supplemental response does not comply with C.C.P. §2031.230. Judgment Creditor did not properly specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been. Judgment Creditor’s response, upon information and belief, is insufficient. (See C.C.P. §2031.230 (“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”).)

Judgment Debtor also failed to produce responsive documents. Assuming, arguendo, the family members do not have any interest in any Judgment Debtor Entity, that lack of interest would potentially be shown by tax preparation materials, correspondence with accountants, and financial statements, all of which have not been produced. (Declaration of Taran ¶21.) Judgment Debtor also did not produce documents evidencing a $50,000.00 loan from his father. (Declaration of Taran ¶¶19, 21; Exhibit 1.)

Request No. 14

Request No. 14 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to any bank, checking, savings, or brokerage account You (whether alone, or jointly with any third party) or any Judgment Debtor Entity maintain or have maintained during the Relevant Time Period, including, without limitation, documents reflecting or referring to bank account numbers, ABA numbers, deposits, withdrawals, and balance transfers. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In the supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and stated, as follows: “After reasonable and diligent search, responding party will produce the tax returns from 2014 and 2015 and will supplemental the ladder years as they are formulated. Any and all other responsive documents are already in the possession, custody and/or control of Judgment Creditors by way of production from Judgment Debtor and/or Subpoena responses from third parties.” (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Debtor’s supplemental response fails to comply with C.C.P. §2031.220. Moreover, Judgment Debtor has not produced all responsive documents. (Declaration of Taran ¶21.) (Reply Declaration of Taran ¶14.)

Request No. 40

Request No. 40 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to Your tax returns for the years 2014 through the present, including, without limitation, copies of the tax returns and all back-up documentation used to prepare the tax returns. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and responded, as follows: “After a reasonable and diligent search, responding party will produce the tax returns for 2014 and 2015 and will supplemental the ladder years as they are formulated.” (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Debtor’s supplemental response does not comply with C.C.P. §2031.220. Moreover, Judgment Debtor has not produced all responsive documents. As discussed above, Judgment Debtor has not produced the tax returns for 2014 and 2015, and the tax preparation materials. (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Request No. 42

Request No. 42 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to correspondence among or between You, Your accountants, and the accountants of any Judgment Debtor Entity. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In the supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and stated, as follows: “After reasonable and diligent search, responding party will produce documents that are in his custody, possession, and/or control responsive to this request.”

Judgment Creditors submitted evidence suggesting that Judgment Debtor has not produced responsive documents. (Declaration of Taran ¶21.)

Request No. 44

Request No. 44 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to any internet-based computing, storage, or backup service, program, application, or company, which You have used for personal and business purposes during the Relevant Time Period, including, without limitation, documents reflecting or referring to the time periods which You have used such service, program, application, or company. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In the supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and stated, as follows: “After reasonable search and diligent search, responding party does not have documents in his custody, possession, and/or control responsive to this request nor have any ever existed.” (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Debtor’s supplemental response does not comply with C.C.P. §2031.230. Judgment Debtor’s response does not track the language of the statute.

Request No. 45

Request No. 45 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to any email account You have maintained during the Relevant Time Period both for personal and professional use, including, without limitation, documents reflecting or referring to the time periods during which You had maintained such accounts. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In the supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and stated, as follows: “After reasonable and diligent search, responding party does not have documents in his custody, possession and/or control responsive to this request. The document(s) existed when the email account was activated but has long since been lost.” (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Debtor’s supplemental response does not comply with C.C.P. §2031.230. Judgment Debtor did not affirm “that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with the demand” and did not “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category.”

Judgment Debtor also did not produce responsive documents. (Declaration of Taran ¶21.) Judgment Creditors submitted evidence suggesting Judgment Debtor has used the email address dovcharneypersonal@gmail.com, in conducting business within the period covered by the Request. (Reply Declaration of Taran ¶13; Exhibit 5.)

Request No. 46

Request No. 46 seeks production of documents reflecting or referring to any telephone accounts that You have maintained during the Relevant Time Period, including accounts for cellular service, both for personal and professional use, by telephone phone number, service, provider, including, without limitation, documents reflecting or referring to the time period during which each account was maintained. (Declaration of Taran ¶19; Exhibit 1.)

In the supplemental response, Judgment Debtor objected and stated, as follows: “After reasonable and diligent search, responding party does not have documents in his custody, possession and/or control responsive to this request. The document(s) existed when the email account was activated but has long since been lost.” (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶5; Exhibit A.)

Judgment Debtor’s supplemental response does not comply with C.C.P. §2031.230. Judgment Debtor did not affirm “that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with the demand” and did not “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category.” Moreover, Judgment Debtor’s response is unclear. Judgment Debtor only referred to an email account. The Request seeks production of documents regarding telephone accounts. According to Judgment Creditors, Judgment Debtor did not produce any documents regarding telephone accounts that Judgment Debtor may have maintained during the Relevant Time Period. (Declaration of Taran ¶21.)

In opposition, Judgment Debtor argues the motion is procedurally defective because it is not accompanied by a separate statement. (Opposition, pg. 2.) However, Judgment Debtor did not establish Judgment Creditors are required to file and serve a separate statement with a motion to compel compliance. Even assuming, arguendo, such a requirement under CRC 3.1345, the motion involved limited Requests and a separate statement was unnecessary.

Judgment Debtor also argues the motion is procedurally defective because it combines two motions into one – a motion to compel compliance with the Court’s March 29, 2019 Discovery Order and motion to compel a further response relating to documents Judgment Debtor indicated he would look for during his examination. (Opposition, pgs. 2-3.) However, the Court’s ruling is limited to the motion properly noticed by Judgment Creditors - the motion to compel compliance with the Court’s March 29, 2019 Discovery Order. Any reference to documents Judgment Debtor agreed to produce and/or indicated he would look for during the examination are only relevant so far as they fall under one of the categories of documents identified above.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Judgment Debtor engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. The Court orders Judgment Debtor to comply with the March 29, 2019 Discovery Order within 30 days. However, the Court declines to impose sanctions against Judgment Debtor. The Court finds the imposition of sanctions would be unjust in light of the lack of sufficient good faith meet and confer, as well as, the excessive amount of sanctions sought by Judgment Creditors. (Declaration of Taran ¶¶28-30; Exhibit 3.) (Declaration of Sagi-Lebowitz ¶¶7-10; Exhibits B-D.)

IV. Conclusion & Order

Judgment Creditors’ motion to compel compliance with the Court’s March 29, 2019 Order is granted. Judgment Debtor shall serve Code-Compliant supplemental responses within 30 days.

Judgment Creditors’ request for sanctions is denied.

Judgment Creditors are ordered to give notice.