ZIONS BANCORPORATION N.A. VS AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES, INC, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******9137    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: 74

*******9137 ZIONS BANCORPORATION N.A. vs AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied. Plaintiff is to pay defendant sanctions of $4125 within 30 days.

A document response must consist of: 1) an agreement to comply, stating whether the productions or inspection will be allowed “in whole or in part,” and that all documents or things in the possession, custody or control of the respondent, as to which no objection is made, will be included, by the date set for inspection (unless informally extended in writing, or the designated timing is subject to objection); 2) a representation of inability to comply, with a specification of any person believed or known to have possession of documents; or, 3) objections and specification of withheld documents. (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2031.210, subd. (a), 2031.220, 2031.270, 2031.280, subd. (b).) With regard to document requests, a response expressing an inability to comply shall state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made to locate the items, and the reason for an inability to comply, including that the item never existed, was lost or stolen, was destroyed, or is not in respondent’s possession, along with the identity and address of anyone believed to have the document. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.230.)

The responses state a diligent seach and reasonable inquiry was made, that there are no documents in respondent’s possession, custody or control, and the reasons respondent cannot produce documents. The responses are code-compliant.

When a party objects to discovery requests and also provides complete responses to the requests, nothing is left to address in a motion to compel. (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 247, 269.)

Plaintiff’s argument that responsive documents must exist does not address a ground for a motion to compel further responses.

A motion to compel further discovery responses cannot be granted based on the reason that verified answers served are really untrue. (Holguin v. Sup. Ct. (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820, 821.) A respondent cannot be compelled to admit a fact in discovery, even where its truth is obvious. (Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 618, 634; Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 267, 273. )

The motion is denied. The amount requested, $4125, is reasonable and is awarded.

Case Number: *******9137    Hearing Date: August 07, 2020    Dept: 74

*******9137 ZIONS BANCORPORATION vs AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES

Defendant’s Motion to Specially Set Hearing Date on Summary Judgment Motion or, Alternatively, to Continue Trial

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. As there is no trial date set in this case, the court will discuss setting trial at today’s trial setting conference.

Case Number: *******9137    Hearing Date: October 16, 2020    Dept: 74

*******9137 ZIONS BANCORPORATION N.A. vs AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

Plaintiff is ordered to file a Notice of Related Cases in the following cases within 10 days: BC508592 (California Bank & Trust vs Ousama V Karawia), BC695125 (Pamela Karawia vs California Bank & Trust), and *******9137 (Zions Bancorporation N.A. vs American Guard Services).

1. Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendants American Guard Services, Inc., et al To Provide Further Responses To Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two; Request For Monetary Sanctions is DENIED. The court sustains defendants’ overbreadth and privacy objections. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel (1) Defendants To Provide Further Responses To Request For Production Of Documents, Set One, and (2) Defendants’ Compliance With Plaintiff’s Request For Production Of Documents, Set One; Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses to requests 21 and 23 within 20 days and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days.  To the extent defendants claim a privilege or asserts a right to privacy over any of the responsive documents or information, defendants shall simultaneously serve a privilege log with the document production that, at a minimum, identifies each document for which a privilege or privacy right is claimed, its author, recipients, date of preparation, and the specific privilege or privacy right claimed. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Special Interrogatories

Special Interrogatories 25 – 30 seek the identity of defendants’ customers, contractors and subcontractors for two periods of time.

As defined in these special interrogatories, ““IDENTIFY” means to state the individual’s full current name, to state the individual’s full current residential address, full current business address, e-mail address, and the individual’s telephone numbers.” Applied to these interrogatories, a response would pose a serious intrusion to one’s privacy expectation, as the individuals that conduct business with AGS likely did not intend for its information to be used and/or shared outside of AGS internal storage program.

Requests for Production

RPD 21 requests “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS which RELATE TO any services either SAM KARAWIA, KARIM KARAWIA or the KARAWIA ENTITIES provided to YOU in exchange for all PAYMENTS made by YOU to either SAM KARAWIA, KARIM KARAWIA or the KARAWIA ENTITIES.”

RPD 23 requests “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS with RELATE TO the value of services SAM KARAWIA, KARIM KARAWIA or the KARAWIA ENTITIES provided to YOU.”

Defendants served a second supplemental response identifying documents they assert are responsive: a payment ledger. Defendants attempt to unilaterally re-write and limit plaintiff’s request does not conform to code. “All documents” would include bank records, invoices, cancelled checks, work product related to the services performed and/or emails related to such communication. (Reply p. 4: 7-16.) Indeed, defendants’ own pleadings describe additional documents and/or communication related to Sam Karawia, Karim Karawia or the Karawia entities. (Opp. p.4: 25-28; p.5: 1.)

Case Number: *******9137    Hearing Date: November 16, 2020    Dept: 74

*******9137 ZIONS BANCORPORATION vs AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 3, and Request for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. American Guard Services is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses to request 62 within 20 days and to produce all responsive documents within 30 days. To the extent American Guard Services claims a privilege or asserts a right to privacy over any of the responsive documents or information, American Guard Services shall simultaneously serve a privilege log with the document production that, at a minimum, identifies each document for which a privilege or privacy right is claimed, its author, recipients, date of preparation, and the specific privilege or privacy right claimed. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

American Guard Services served code-compliant supplemental responses to RPDs nos. 51-58 and 63 on November 2, 2020.

American Guard Services’ objections to RPDs nos. 59-62 are sustained as the requests are overbroad.

American Guard Services’ objections to RPD 62 is overruled as it is narrowly tailored and requests documents relevant to Plaintiff’s assertions that Sam Karawia conspired with others to avoid payment.