This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/09/2020 at 08:49:23 (UTC).

LANNY DUGAR VS. QIANG BJORNBAK

Case Summary

On 01/26/2018 LANNY DUGAR filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against QIANG BJORNBAK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM D. STEWART, OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE, LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7915

  • Filing Date:

    01/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

WILLIAM D. STEWART

OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

DUGAR LANNY

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

BJORNBAK DAVID

QJORNBAK QIANG

BJORNBAK QIANG

Others

PETER C. WITTLIN ESQ.

SCIENBIZIP PC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW K. DAVIS

PETER C. WITTLIN ESQ.

SCIENBIZIP PC

DAVIS MATTHEW KANANI

LAW OFFICE OF QIANG BJORNBAK

WITTLIN PETER CONRAD

CHEN HUA

BJORNBAK QIANG

PIGGOTT GEORGE BROMAN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

WITTLIN PETER CONRAD

CHEN HUA

BJORNBAK QIANG

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

DAVIS MATTHEW KANANI

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Mail

6/29/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Judgment

1/13/2020: Judgment

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

12/2/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

12/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

Request for Judicial Notice

11/22/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

10/24/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

10/10/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN THE TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8/5/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN THE TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF LANNY J. DUGAR

7/10/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF LANNY J. DUGAR

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT (ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT)

6/19/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT (ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF HUA CHEN

6/7/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HUA CHEN

Declaration - DECLARATION HUA CHEN

6/7/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION HUA CHEN

Declaration - DECLARATION OF QIANG BJORNBAK WITH EXHIBITS

6/7/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF QIANG BJORNBAK WITH EXHIBITS

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/4/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DUGAR'S MOTION TO STRIKE BJORNBAKS' ANSWER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/11/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DUGAR'S MOTION TO STRIKE BJORNBAKS' ANSWER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Summons

1/26/2018: Summons

167 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketOrder ([Propopsed] Amended Judgment); Filed by Qiang Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant); David Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Qiang Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant); David Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Order to Show Cause); Filed by Qiang Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant); David Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Disassociation of Counsel); Filed by Qiang Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant); David Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Hearing on Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Order in Related Case GC050848); Filed by Qiang Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant); David Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Non-Appearance Case Review - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Qiang Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant); David Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Qiang Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant); David Bjornbak (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
237 More Docket Entries
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Lanny Dugar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketNotice (OSC re Failure to Comply With Trial Court Reduction Act)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketOrder-Court Fee Waiver (ORDER GRANTED ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067915    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: A

Dugar v Bjornbak

Motion for Summary Judgment

Calendar:

13

Case No.:

EC067915

Hearing Date:

November 01, 2019

Action Filed:

January 26, 2018

Trial Date:

November 27, 2019

MP:

Defendants David Bjornbak and Qiang Bjornbak

RP:

Plaintiff Lanny J. Dugar

ALLEGATIONS:

In this action, Plaintiff Lanny J. Dugar (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was previously involved in a litigation with Defendants David Bjornbak and Qiang Bjornbak (“Bjornbak Defendants”) in Case No. GC050848 (the “Underlying Action”). He alleges that in the Underlying Action, the parties reach an oral settlement before the Court, such that: (1) the parties would mutually dismiss their claims and cross-claims; (2) Bjornbak Defendants would pay Plaintiff in the amount of $6,000 within 14 days; (3) judgment would be entered in favor of Bjornbak Defendants and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500,000; (4) of all rights and causes of action Plaintiff may have against his insurance carrier for its bad faith refusal to defend him in the Underlying Action would be assigned; and (5) Bjornbak Defendants would covenant not to pursue the judgment against Plaintiff individually, but rather only using it in pursuit of claims against his insurance carrier as assigned to them by Plaintiff. (SAC, ¶6.) Plaintiff alleges that Bjornbak Defendants never paid the $6,000 to Plaintiff, and that Bjornbak Defendants have begun attempts to enforce the judgment against him personally.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed September 20, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Oral Contract; and (3) Promissory Estoppel.

On October 26, 2018, Bjornbak Defendants filed an answer to the SAC and a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for (1) Fraud, (2) Breach of Oral Contract, and (3) Promissory Estoppel.

PRESENTATION:

Bjornbak Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on August 15, 2019. Plaintiff opposed the motion on October 18, 2019, and a reply brief was submitted on October 25, 2019.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Bjornbak Defendants move for summary judgment (not adjudication) on the entirety of the Second Amended Complaint.

DISCUSSION:

Timeliness/Service – Plaintiff objects to the timeliness of the instant motion, arguing that the motion was not filed within the statutory deadlines of 80 days when served by mail, and that Bjornbak Defendants’ service by email was ineffective due to lack of consent. Bjornbak Defendants contend that the timeliness and electronic service of the instant motion are proper, because of Plaintiff’s consent to electronic service by signing up for One Legal, which is an electronic service provider that includes, as part of its terms of service, an agreement to consent by electronic service under the California Rules of Court and Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants contend that the timeliness and electronic service of the instant motion are proper, due to Plaintiff’s consent to electronic service by signing up for One Legal, which is an electronic service provider that includes, as part of its terms of service, an agreement to consent by electronic service under the California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(b)(1)(B) and Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6. See Decl. of Qiang Bjornbak, ¶5, Ex. 32. The motion is timely.

---

Standard of Review – A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(a). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c). In other words, the opposing party cannot present contrary admissible evidence to raise a triable factual dispute.

“A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court must consider all inferences from the evidence, even those contradicted by the moving party’s evidence. The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 833, 841. In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, “‘[a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment . . . .’” Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal. App. 4th 1195, 1198-99. “In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 171, 179.

With a summary judgment motion, a three-step analysis is required of the trial court. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker Nat’l Bank (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 1061, 1064–65. First, the trial court must identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. Id. Secondly, the court must determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in movant’s favor. Id. When a summary judgment motion prima facie justifies a judgment, the third and final step is to determine whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material factual issue. Id. On a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that each element of the cause of action in question has been proved, and that there is no defense thereto. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c(o)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.

---

When, as here, the party moving for summary judgment does not request summary adjudication on any individual cause of action, then the existence of any cause of action suitable for trial on the merits warrants denial of the entire motion. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c(f). Here, there is a material dispute over who initially breached the underlying settlement agreement. See Decl. of Qiang Bjornbak, Ex. 12; SAC ¶¶6, 23-29; Motion, 11:1-16; and Opposition, 6:26-7:26.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the instant motion for summary judgment.

---

RULING: DENY

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants David Bjornbak and Qiang Bjornbak’s Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on November 01, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: EC067915    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: A

Dugar v Bjornbak

Discovery Motions

Calendar:

18

Case No.:

EC067915

Hearing Date:

October 25, 2019

Action Filed:

January 26, 2018

Trial Date:

November 27, 2019

MP:

Defendant/Cross-Complainants David Bjornbak; Qiang Bjornbak

RP:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Lanny Dugar

ALLEGATIONS:

In this action, Plaintiff Lanny J. Dugar (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was previously involved in a litigation with Defendants David Bjornbak and Qiang Bjornbak (“Bjornbak Defendants”) in Case No. GC050848 (the “Underlying Action”). He alleges that in the Underlying Action, the parties reach an oral settlement before the Court, such that: (1) the parties would mutually dismiss their claims and cross-claims; (2) Bjornbak Defendants would pay Plaintiff in the amount of $6,000 within 14 days; (3) judgment would be entered in favor of Bjornbak Defendants and against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,500,000; (4) of all rights and causes of action Plaintiff may have against his insurance carrier for its bad faith refusal to defend him in the Underlying Action would be assigned; and (5) Bjornbak Defendants would covenant not to pursue the judgment against Plaintiff individually, but rather only using it in pursuit of claims against his insurance carrier as assigned to them by Plaintiff. (SAC, ¶6.) Plaintiff alleges that Bjornbak Defendants never paid the $6,000 to Plaintiff, and that Bjornbak Defendants have begun attempts to enforce the judgment against him personally.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed September 20, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Oral Contract; and (3) Promissory Estoppel.

On October 26, 2018, Bjornbak Defendants filed an answer to the SAC and a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for (1) Fraud, (2) Breach of Oral Contract, and (3) Promissory Estoppel.

PRESENTATION:

Bjornbak Defendants filed this motion on October 07, 2019, which is untimely under Code of Civ. Proc. §1005 by 3 Court Days, and improperly combined two motions – one to compel further response to Requests for Admissions, and one to compel further response to Requests for Production – into a single motion. Further the Proof of Service indicates that the instant motion was served to Plaintiff by email only on October 07, 2019, which is untimely, and does not indicate that the parties stipulated to electronic service of process. Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion on October 17, 2019, which is untimely under Code of Civ. Proc. §1005 by 3 Court Days. No reply brief has been received.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Bjornbak Defendants move to compel further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, and 22; Requests for Production Nos. 1-9, 11, 14-21, 24, 26-30, 32, 34, 36-40, and 42-51.

DISCUSSION:

Procedural Errors – As an initial matter, Code of Civ. Proc. §1005 requires that all noticed motions be filed on or before 16 Court days prior to the hearing, and that opposition be filed 9 Court days prior to the hearing. Here, Bjornbak Defendants filed their motion only 13 Court days prior to the hearing, and Plaintiff filed opposition only 6 Court days prior to the hearing.

In addition to the failure to comply with Code of Civ. Proc. §1005, moving party improperly combined two motions to compel further responses to different discovery devices into a single motion. Each discovery motion is authorized by a different statute indicates the intent of the legislature to require separate motions for each discovery device. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290 (compel further admissions), Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310 (compel further production). Further, each require separate statements under California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345, which in turn requires a separate motion as a matter of course, as the Bjornbak Defendants are requesting relief as to specific and distinct discovery requests.

On these grounds, the Court will deny the motion for failure to conform to the proper procedural requirements. But even if considered on the merits, the motion(s) lack merit.

---

Standard of Review – Compel Further Requests for Admission – Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission where the responding party provides evasive or incomplete responses, or the objections are too general or without merit. The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve all issues raised by the motion. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290(b). The motion must be brought within 45 days of service of verified responses or supplemental verified responses. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290(c). Sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290(d). Additionally, if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response to the requests for admission, the Court may deem those requests admitted and impose monetary sanctions. Code of Civ. Proc. §2033.290(e).

Meet and Confer – On review of the moving papers, the Court considers that any further meet and conferral efforts would be futile, and need not rule on the adequacy of the efforts.

Requests Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, and 22 – Under Code of Civ. Proc. §2033.220(b) a party responding to Requests for Admission must “(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” On review of the requests propounded and the responses given, the Court concludes that the responses all comply with Plaintiff’s requirements under the code.

Accordingly, the motion will be denied as to the portion seeking to compel further requests for admission.

Standard of Review – Compel Further Requests for Production – Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310 provides that a party may bring a motion to compel further to Requests for Production where the responding party provides inadequate, incomplete, or evasive responses, or the objections are too general or without merit. The propounding party must submit a declaration under Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040 stating facts demonstrating a good faith and reasonable effort to informally resolve all issues raised by the motion. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(2). A motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production must further specifically identify facts showing good cause for the discovery. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1). The motion must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses or supplemental responses. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(c). Sanctions are mandatory against the party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make imposition of sanctions unjust. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h).

Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 40, 46 – On review, the Court will deny the motion as to these Requests for Production, as the requests are overbroad on their face.

Requests for Production Nos. 8, 9, 24, 26, 27, 30 – The Court’s review of these requests for production indicate that Plaintiff has provided code compliant responses. As Bjornbak Defendants have failed to establish any basis for the Court to determine that Plaintiff is withholding any responsive documents, the instant motion lacks merit.

Requests for Production Nos. 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 34, 36, 51 – Plaintiff has identified documents under the possession, custody or control of Bjornbak Defendants, or equally available to them through public sources, as their response to the request for production. As Bjornbak Defendants presumably have such documents in their possession, custody, or control, or can obtain them in the same manner as Plaintiff, Plaintiff need not produce them for Bjornbak Defendants, as Plaintiff is not required to perform work on behalf of Bjornbak Defendants, that the Bjornbak Defendants can perform on their own. See, e.g., Lindgren v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 237 Cal. App. 2d 743, 748 (citing Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal. App. 2d 813, 819) (“the discovery act ‘does not require one party to, at his expense, prepare the case of his opponent.’” ).

Request for Production No. 16, 17 - Bjornbak Defendants request Plaintiff’s medical records for the last 20 years. Under Article I section 1 of the California Constitution, California recognizes a constitutional right to privacy. This right “protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 171. Under California law, even highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s inalienable right to privacy. See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855–56. The right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370. Where privacy interests are concerned, the Court is required to engage in a careful balancing of the right to privacy against the need for discovery. Disclosure may be ordered if a compelling public interest would be served. Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 855–56. Further, even where a litigant “can establish a compelling state interest in discovery, precision of compelled disclosure is required so that the right of privacy is not curtailed except to the extent necessitated by the legitimate governmental objective.” John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199–1200 (internal quotations omitted).

“The proponent of discovery of constitutionally protected material has the burden of making a threshold showing that the evidence sought is directly relevant to the claim or defense.” Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665. This requires that the matter sought is “essential to determining the truth of the matters in dispute.” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Proc. Before Trial Ch. 8C-5 (Rutter Group 2014) §8:320. Discovery may be denied if there are less intrusive methods available. See Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.

Plaintiff’s medical records are protected under the right to privacy. “The individual’s right to privacy encompasses not only the state of his mind, but also his viscera, detailed complaints of physical ills, and their emotional overtones.” Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 679. Bjornbak Defendants essentially argues that, by bringing suit, Plaintiff has made his entire medical history relevant to the case because he claims to have suffered emotional distress. Separate Statement, 47:22-48:6.

This is a woefully inadequate basis for discovering confidential medical records, and Bjornbak Defendants’ failure to provide any cognizable legal basis for their request for those records indicates to the Court that the request was made to harass or oppress Plaintiff. The request is denied.

Request for Production No. 18, 20, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50 - Bjornbak Defendants request billing records for Plaintiff’s criminal defense case after December 14, 2016, and bank records to “prove” Plaintiff was indigent on December 14, 2016. Financial records are afforded the same right to privacy as medical records and, the Court concludes that Bjornbak Defendants have failed to demonstrate the relevancy of these records to the instant case. Accordingly the motion will be denied.

Accordingly, the portion of the motion seeking to compel further responses to requests for production will be denied.

---

Sanctions – As noted above, making or opposing a motion for further discovery requests without substantial justification is grounds for the issuance of sanctions. Here, the Court finds that Bjornbak Defendants made the instant motion without substantial justification, and with the purpose to harass Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court will award discovery sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00

---

RULING: Denied. Defendants to pay plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant/Cross-Complainants David Bjornbak; and Qiang Bjornbak’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and Requests for Production came on regularly for hearing on October 25, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED; AND

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000.00.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE