KNM Outdoor Tribe LLC vs Roulette William Smith

Case Number

23CV02416

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 03/09/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Hearing re Compliance

Tentative Ruling

KNM Outdoor Tribe, LLC v. Roulette William Smith 

Case No. 23CV02416

           

Hearing Date:      March 9, 2026                                  

HEARING:              Compliance with the Court’s February 9, 2026 Order on 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:

The court is satisfied that defendant Roulette William Smith has fully complied with the court’s February 9, 2026 order. No sanctions are imposed against or in favor of either party.

Background and Analysis:

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 a 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 February 9, 2026, the court granted KNM’s motion in part, ruling:

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.

Smith lodged copies of the documents and filed his fourth amended privilege log as ordered.

The court has reviewed the lodged documents, as well as the privilege log, and is satisfied that Smith has now fully complied with the February 9, 2026 order. No sanctions will be imposed against or in favor of either party.