KNM Outdoor Tribe LLC vs Roulette William Smith

Case Number

23CV02416

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/09/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Compel Code Complaint Privilege Log etc

Tentative Ruling

KNM Outdoor Tribe, LLC v. Roulette William Smith 

Case No. 23CV02416

           

Hearing Date:      February 9, 2026                           

HEARING:              Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant KNM Outdoor Tribe, LLC’s Motion to Compel Code Compliant Privilege Log and Production of Non-Privileged Documents; Request for Monetary Sanctions

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant KNM Outdoor Tribe, LLC and Cross-Defendant Scott Wilkinson: Randall Fox, Reetz, Fox & Bartlett LLP; Jill L. Friedman, Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP

                                    For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Roulette William Smith: Mark T. Coffin, Mark T. Coffin, PC

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

KNM Outdoor Tribe, LLC’s Motion to Compel Code Compliant Privilege Log and Production of Non-Privileged Documents is granted, in part, as follows:

1. The communications that are directly to or from Smith’s attorneys, or legal staff, are privileged. They need not be produced and the descriptions of those communications in the Third Amended Privilege Log are code compliant. Communications between Smith, his children, or other third parties regarding the attorneys are not privileged and may not be withheld.
2. The references to medical information and to financial information, that does not relate to this action in any way, are protected by substantial privacy rights and may be redacted from the further production. Financial information that relates to this action may not be redacted.
3. All other documents are to be produced, along with a revised privilege log, no later than February 23, 2026, by the close of business.
4. Smith shall file the revised privilege log with the court, as well as lodge copies of all withheld or redacted pages of documents, no later than February 23, 2026, by the close of business.
   1. Smith shall remove all items that are produced to KNM from the lodged documents, providing the court with only what is necessary to determine what was withheld. As required by Code, Smith shall also file and serve a redacted copy of the lodged documents.
5. A further hearing regarding compliance with this order is scheduled for March 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in this department.
6. The court reserves on the issue of monetary sanctions.

Background:

On June 6, 2023, plaintiff KNM Outdoor Tribe, LLC (KNM) filed its complaint against Roulette William Smith (Smith) asserting causes of action for specific performance and breach of contract.

As alleged in the complaint:

“The Property which is the subject of this action is an improved 2.6-acre parcel of land located at 2600 Foothill Road, Santa Barbara, in Santa Barbara County, California (APN 023-180-007) (the ‘Property’).” (Complaint, ¶ 2.) “On or about May 1, 2023, a written Property Sale and Purchase Agreement was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant (the ‘Purchase Agreement’) committing to sell and transfer the Property from Defendant to Plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶ 4.)

“Plaintiff has requested performance of the Purchase Agreement and has performed or is ready, willing, and able to perform, all conditions, covenants, and promises required by it on its part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement. This action constitutes further request for performance of the Purchase Agreement.” (Complaint, ¶ 7.) “Defendant has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to perform the conditions of the Purchase Agreement on his part in that he refuses to execute a conveyance of the

Property as provided in the Purchase Agreement.” (Complaint, ¶ 8.) “Plaintiff has requested mediation in accordance with paragraph XVIII(a) of the Purchase Agreement. Defendant has refused to participate.” (Complaint, ¶ 9.)

On July 25, 2023, Smith filed his answer to the complaint admitting some of the allegations, denying some of the allegations, and setting forth 20 affirmative defenses.

Also on July 25, 2023, Smith filed a cross-complaint against KNM and Scott Wilkinson (Wilkinson) asserting causes of action for: (1) civil assault and battery; (2) fraud; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) elder abuse; and (5) declaratory relief.

As alleged in the cross-complaint:

“On or about April 30, 2023, Defendant SCOTT WILKINSON initiated a Zoom call with Cross-Complainant. Participants included Cross-Complainant ROULETTE SMITH, Nicole Smith, Todd Smith, SCOTT WILLKINSON, Mr. WILKINSON’s fiancé Melody, and some of WILKINSON’S adult children.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 9.) “During the April 30, 2023 Zoom call, Mr. WILKINSON discussed his proposed ideas for purchasing the PROPERTY. Cross-Complainant did not agree to Mr. WILKINSON’s proposals. Ms. WILKINSON invited Mr. SMITH to dinner the following evening, at a Japanese restaurant in Santa Barbara (which upon information and belief is named ‘Oku’).” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 10.)

“On May 1, 2023, Cross-Complainant attended a dinner with Cross-Defendant and others. A large amount of Japanese beer was consumed by all parties. At the end of the dinner, Cross-Defendant WILKINSON insisted that Cross-Complainant sign a written ‘sales contract’ to sell his interest in the PROPERTY.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 11.) “Prior to the dinner, Cross-Complainant SMITH had never seen a ‘sales agreement’ of any kind from Mr. WILKINSON, nor did he review the sales contract that Cross-Defendant had prepared that evening. Mr. SMITH told Mr. WILKINSON at the dinner that Cross- Complainant was not prepared to sign a contract at that time, because the parties had not reached agreement on several necessary terms, and because Cross-Complainant required any contracts to be reviewed and approved by legal counsel and by his adult children.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 12.) “At the May 1, 2023 dinner, Mr. WILKINSON physically grabbed Cross-Complainant’s hand while Mr. SMITH was holding a pen. While holding SMITH’s hand, WILKINSON attempted to forge Cross-Complainant’s signature on the last page of the agreement, above the blank line for his signature. Mr. SMITH once again told Cross-Defendant in definitive terms that he would not sign the purported agreement.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 13.)

“Upon learning that Cross-Complainant would not execute the purported contract, Mr. WILKINSON wrote the words ‘I Intend to Sale to Scott’ at the bottom of the page . . .. Cross-Defendant WILKINSON also wrote the phrase ‘* This precedes Mr. Smith + Todd + Nicole reviewing to ensure legal entity [sic],’ along with several arrows and a circle.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 14.) “Cross-Complainant signed his actual

signature inside the circle, next to the statement ‘I Intend to Sale to Scott . . .’ as a letter of intent. In so doing, Cross-Complainant memorialized his willingness to sell the PROPERTY, but only after the remaining terms had been agreed upon by the parties, and after the entire contract had been reviewed and approved by Cross-Complainant’s legal counsel, and by his adult children Todd and Nicole.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 15.)

On November 5, 2025, KNM propounded Requests for Production of Documents, set two (RFPs), and Supplemental Requests for Production of Documents (SRFPs) on Smith. (Friedman Decl., ¶ 1.)

On December 1, 2025, Smith’s discovery responses were served, via email, to counsel for KNM and contained a Privilege Log. (Friedman Decl., ¶ 3 & Exhs. 1-4.)

Following meet and confer efforts, on December 9, 2025, Smith’s counsel served an Amended Privilege Log. (Friedman Decl., ¶¶ 4,5 & Exhs. 5, 6.)

Arguing that Smith has refused to comply with his discovery obligations regarding production of documents, and a code compliant privilege log, KNM filed the present motion to compel code compliant privilege log and production of non-privileged documents. The hearing date was originally scheduled to take place on May 4, 2026.

On January 7, 2026, KNM filed an ex parte application for order shortening time for hearing on the motion. On January 8, 2026, the courts order included:

“1. Defendant SMITH shall serve Plaintiff KNM with a new privilege log by close of business on January 20, 2026;

“2. Before close of business on January 27, 2026, Plaintiff KNM shall notify Defendant SMITH whether the new privilege log is satisfactory;

“3. If the matter is not resolved after meeting and conferring, the parties shall, by January 30, 2026, lodge with the court a packet for an in camera review;

“4. Plaintiff KNM’s Motion to Compel shall be heard on February 9, 2026 at 10:00 am in Department 5.”

On January 30, 2026, Smith filed his Third Amended Privilege Log, which appears to have been served on KNM on January 29, 2026. Also on January 30, 2026, Smith lodged 696 pages of documents, text messages and emails, that he claims are privileged.

By way of his opposition to the motion, Smith argues that he has represented Smith since 2021, and that he also represents Smith’s adult children, Nicole Smith (Nicole) and Todd Smith (Todd). (Note: Due to common surnames, Nicole Smith and Todd Smith will be referred to by their given names. No disrespect is intended.) Smith further argues that his privilege log is code-compliant and that the withheld text messages and email are either not relevant to this action or are privileged communications.

On February 4, 2026, KNM filed its reply brief.

Analysis:

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.010 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any party may obtain discovery . . . by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.

“(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

“(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . .

“(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item, or

“(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

As an initial observation, the court agrees with Smith that many of the RFP’s are overbroad and encompass categories of documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, that is not currently before the court.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.240, provides:

“(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.

“(b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

“(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.

“(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.

“(c)(1) If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

“(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.”

Despite the overbroad wording of many of the RFPs, Smith did provide some responsive documents as well as a privilege log.

“The precise information required for an adequate privilege log will vary from case to case based on the privileges asserted and the underlying circumstances. In general, however, a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.” (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130 (Catalina Island Yacht Club).)

One of the main arguments advanced by KNM is regarding Smith’s claims of attorney client privilege.

“As used in this article, “ ‘lawyer’ ” means a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to practice law in any state or nation.” (Evid. Code, § 950.)

“As used in this article, “ ‘client’ ” means a person who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from him in his professional capacity, and includes an incompetent (a) who himself so consults the lawyer or (b) whose guardian or conservator so consults the lawyer on behalf of the incompetent.” (Evid. Code, § 951.)

“As used in this article, “ ‘confidential communication between client and lawyer’ ” means information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted, and includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that relationship. (Evid. Code, § 952.)

The attorney-client privilege “ ‘ “has been a hallmark of Anglo–American jurisprudence for almost 400 years.” ’ [Citation.] Its fundamental purpose ‘ “is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters. [Citation.]. . .’ ” “ ‘The privilege is given on grounds of public policy in the belief that the benefits derived therefrom justify the risk that unjust decisions may sometimes result from the suppression of relevant evidence.’ ” [Citations.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “[T]he privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.” ’ [Citation.]’ ” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 758.) “ ‘ “[The privilege] is not to be whittled away by means of specious argument that it has been waived. Least of all should the courts seize upon slight and equivocal circumstances as a technical reason for destroying the privilege.” ’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.]” (Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1125-1126.)

“The case law therefore recognizes only three methods for waiving the attorney-client privilege: (1) disclosing a privileged communication in a nonconfidential context (Evid. Code, § 912, subd. (a)); (2) failing to claim the privilege in a proceeding in which the holder has the legal standing and opportunity to do so (ibid.); and (3) failing to assert the privilege in a timely response to an inspection demand (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a)). [Citations.] Failing to serve a privilege log or serving an inadequate privilege log does not fall into any of these three methods. [Citations.]” (Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1126.) “Accordingly, if a party responding to an inspection demand timely serves a response asserting an objection based on the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, the trial court lacks authority to order the objection waived even if the responding party fails to serve a privilege log, serves an untimely privilege log, or serves a privilege log that fails either to adequately identify the documents to which the objection purportedly applies or provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party to evaluate the objection.” (Ibid.)

In the third amended privilege log, Smith describes the documents, and various portions of them, as withheld on the following grounds: (1) Not Responsive; (2) Financial Privacy; (3) Personal Privacy; (4) Attorney-Client Privilege; and (5) Medical Privacy.

Most of the claimed “privileges” are not actually recognized as privileges.

“Not Responsive,” is not a category of privilege. If a document were not responsive to a request, it need not even be mentioned. Any non-responsive documents should have been removed completely because there is no obligation to provide documents that were not requested.

“Financial Privacy,” “Medical Privacy,” and “Personal Privacy” are not technically categories of privilege. However, many financial documents, medical documents, and other personal information can be withheld based on the sensitivity of such personal information. “Although admissibility is not a prerequisite to discoverability, a heightened standard of discovery may be justified when dealing with information which, though not privileged, is sensitive or confidential.” (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1492.)

The only properly asserted privilege in the privilege log is the attorney client privilege. The main issue with most of the documents that have been withheld on a claim of attorney client privilege is that the communications are not between counsel and client, but between Smith and his adult children. Those conversations are not protected by the attorney client privilege. Smith’s counsel’s declaration that he also represents Nicole and Todd, without substantially more, is irrelevant. Nicole and Todd are not parties to this lawsuit and, despite Smith’s arguments to the contrary, they are not Smith’s “agents.” Smith’s argument that Nicole and Todd fall under the common interest doctrine is likewise without merit. Simply because they intend on inheriting Smith’s estate (Coffin Decl., ¶ 5), does not give them a current interest in the subject litigation, nor was the substance of any of the communications rendered necessary to accomplish Smith’s purpose in seeking legal advice from an attorney.

There are some emails that are to or from attorneys Mark Coffin, Lacy Taylor, and their staff. Those emails are protected by the attorney client privilege and the privilege log describing those documents is adequate. No further details could have been given without disclosing attorney client privileged information. It should be noted that numerous texts, where attorneys are not participants to the conversations, discuss attorneys, or things people intend on telling attorneys. Those documents are not privileged.

Clearly, most of the withheld documents are not privileged and are subject to discovery. As just one example, near the beginning of the production: Bates Nos. 2804 through 2812 are unprivileged texts directly discussing the issues of this case. KNM is entitled to those conversations.

Importantly, in response to each of the RFPs and the SRFP’s, Smith did not object as to relevance or that the requests were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The objections to each request are: “Objection: Overbroad, burdensome, seeks to violate the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, seeks premature disclosure of expert testimony in violation of C.C.P. section 2034, et seq.” As such, Smith has waived any relevancy objection to the requests. While KNM likely does not want to sift through texts regarding discussions of recipes, songs, and friends’ vacation photos, those are not privileged and are to be included in the production.

Smith will be ordered to produce all the documents, other than those emails that are to or from attorneys or their staff. Those documents are to be removed from the production. Also, even though not technically privileged, medical information and financial information that does not relate to this action in any way, involve important privacy rights that the court cannot overlook. Those items may be redacted, but counsel should carefully examine each portion to ensure that financial information that does relate to the current action is not redacted and is produced.

Smith will be ordered to separately lodge unredacted copies of all redacted and removed information for review by the court, and a further hearing will be scheduled to determine proper compliance with the court orders.

The court will reserve on the issue of monetary sanctions. Without ruling as such at this time, the court is inclined to deny sanctions should Smith fully comply with the court’s order and produce all non-privileged documents. The court is inclined to issue sanctions should Smith attempt to further avoid producing non-privileged documents.