On 06/20/2016 ZEV WEINSTEIN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ISAAC BLUMBERG, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE and NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****6011
06/20/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LISA HART COLE
NANCY L. NEWMAN
WEINSTEIN ZEV
RIBNER EYTAN
BLUMBERG RIBNER INC.
BLUMBERG ISAAC
BLUMBERG ISSAC DBA ISSAC BLUMBERG CPA
ISAAC BLUMBERG CPA'S
CPA'S ISAAC BLUMBERG
ZEBROWSKI HONORABLE JOHN
HONORABLE JOHN ZEBROWSKI
BAUM MICHAEL C.
LEBOVITS MOSES
DANIELS FINE ISRAEL SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS
WOLF WALLENSTEIN & ABRAMS
ELLEN K. WOLF
WOLF ELLEN K.
5/13/2019: Declaration
7/12/2019: Motion in Limine
6/20/2016: Summons
8/5/2016: Legacy Document
7/20/2018: Reply
7/20/2018: Objection
8/20/2018: Ex Parte Application
9/13/2018: Reply
9/13/2018: Reply
9/13/2018: Reply
9/14/2018: Exhibit List
9/14/2018: Special Verdict
9/17/2018: Notice
10/15/2018: Response
10/26/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
11/26/2018: Notice
12/12/2018: Opposition
2/13/2019: Motion in Limine
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)
Hearingat 09:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Trial
Hearingat 09:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status Conference
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order on Parties Stipulation to Advance Hearings) - Held - Advanced and Heard
DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Zev Weinstein (Plaintiff)
DocketMotion to Compel (PLAINTIFF?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO NOTICE FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL; DECLARATION OF MOSES LEBOVITS); Filed by Zev Weinstein (Plaintiff)
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department P; Court Order
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: Ex Parte Application set for 8/12/19;)); Filed by Clerk
DocketEx Parte Application (for Order on Parties Stipulation to Advance Hearings); Filed by Issac Blumberg (Defendant); Eytan Ribner (Defendant); Blumberg Ribner, Inc. (Defendant) et al.
DocketDefendants' Proposed Statement of the Case; Filed by Issac Blumberg (Defendant); Eytan Ribner (Defendant); Blumberg Ribner, Inc. (Defendant) et al.
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Zev Weinstein (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice; Filed by Zev Weinstein (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketNotice (NOTICE OF ERRATA ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Zev Weinstein (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint Filed
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff
DocketComplaint; Filed by Zev Weinstein (Plaintiff)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet
Case Number: SC126011 Hearing Date: November 15, 2019 Dept: P
Zev Weinstein v. Isaac Blumberg et al., Case No. SC126011
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Hearing Date 11/15/2019
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to produce his email communications from the morning of February 17, 2016. Plaintiff asserts these emails will prove he was working at home that day, contrary to defendants’ assertion that his employment had terminated.
On July 25, 2019, plaintiff served defendants with a notice for production of documents at trial under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1987(c). Defendants objected on the grounds that they are burdensome or oppressive and/or request defendants to produce documents which do not exist.
Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1987(c), a court may compel production of items to which objection was made “unless the objecting party or person establishes good cause for nonproduction[.]”
Defendants state, after a thorough search, only one email responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests was found, and it will be produced at trial. Antoine Declaration at ¶ 5. Plaintiff claims he sent and/or received 50-100 emails that morning. Reply at pg. 2:18. The court cannot determine which party is correct based on the proffered evidence. Defendants provide no evidence regarding what search was done, how, by whom, etc. Antoine’s declaration merely states plaintiff’s counsel was informed of the search. The court notes, however, that producing emails sent to/from plaintiff on one date is not burdensome. The only issue is whether defendant has conducted a thorough and complete search of the email servers, etc.
The court requires such information to rule on the motion. Defendants to provide a sworn declaration(s) outlining how the search was conducted, by whom, etc. and stating the results of the search. This information to be provided to the court within 7 days.