Leon Lunt, et al., v. Novacoast, Inc., et al.

Case Number

24CV04434

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 03/06/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Compel (5); Motion to Quash

Tentative Ruling

Leon Lunt, et al., v. Novacoast, Inc., et al. 

Case No. 24CV04434

           

Hearing Date: March 6, 2026                                                 

HEARING:              (1)       Motion of Plaintiff SeaLunt to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Novacoast to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

                                    (2)       Motion of Plaintiff SeaLunt to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Gray to Special Interrogatories, Set One

                                    (3)       Motion of Plaintiff SeaLunt to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Anderson to Special Interrogatories, Set One

                                    (4)       Motion of Plaintiff SeaLunt to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Novacoast to Request for Production, Set One

                                    (5)       Motion of Plaintiff SeaLunt to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Novacoast to Request for Production, Set Two

                                    (6)       Motion of Defendants to Quash Business Records Subpoena

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff SeaLunt US, LLC: Randall Fox, Paola Delgadillo, Reetz, Fox & Bartlett LLP

                                    For Defendants Novacoast, Inc., Paul Arthur Anderson, and Adam Gray: Meghan K. Woodsome, Kevin R. Nimmons, Alec R. Simpson, Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

As set forth herein:

(1)       The motion of plaintiff SeaLunt to compel further responses from defendant Novacoast to special interrogatories, set two, is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to require further responses to interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 as qualified by the court. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

(2)       The motion of plaintiff SeaLunt to compel further responses from defendant Adam Gray to special interrogatories, set one, is denied.

(3)       The motion of plaintiff SeaLunt to compel further responses from defendant Paul Arthur Anderson to special interrogatories, set one, is denied.

(4)       The motion of plaintiff SeaLunt to compel further responses from defendant Novacoast to requests for production, set one, is denied.

(5)       The motion of plaintiff SeaLunt to compel further responses from defendant Novacoast to requests for production, set two, is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to require further responses to requests for production Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 29, as qualified by the court. In all other respects, the motion is denied. All responsive documents identified as to be produced in the further response shall be produced concurrently with the service of the further response. All documents withheld on the grounds of privilege shall be identified in a privilege log concurrently served with the further response; the privilege log shall include such additional information as is necessary for the court to rule on the claim of privilege.

(6)       The motion of defendants to quash the subpoena issued by SeaLunt to non-party deponent Avidbank is granted to quash the subpoena in its entirety without prejudice. No documents are to be produced in response to the subpoena.

(7)       Where a further response or document production is required by this order, the further responses and documents shall be served on or before March 23, 2026, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. Written responses shall be verified, without objection except as to privilege, and in a form complying with the Code of Civil Procedure.

Background:

On August 9, 2024, plaintiffs Leon Lunt, Joyce Lunt (collectively, the Lunts), and SeaLunt US LLC (SeaLunt) filed their original complaint in this action against defendants Novacoast, Inc. (Novacoast), Paul Arthur Anderson, and Adam Gray, asserting three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional misrepresentation; and (3) elder abuse.

On December 20, 2024, defendants filed their demurrer to the original complaint.

On January 15, 2025, the court entered its order, on the stipulation of the parties, for a protective order re financial, confidential, and proprietary information.

On May 23, 2025, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the original complaint with leave to amend.

On June 6, 2025, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (FAC), asserting seven causes of action against defendants: (1) breach of contract (1505 Chapala); (2) breach of contract (1511 Chapala); (3) breach of contract (1515 Chapala); (4) breach of contract (1517 Chapala); (5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) intentional misrepresentation; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. The FAC eliminated the Lunts as plaintiffs, leaving SeaLunt as the remaining plaintiff. (Note: References to plaintiff in the singular are to SeaLunt.)

On July 8, 2025, defendants filed their demurrer and motion to strike as to the FAC.

On September 2, 2025, defendants filed their motion to quash a subpoena for business records issued by plaintiff SeaLunt to third party deponent Avidbank. The motion to quash is opposed by SeaLunt.

On October 1, 2025, plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

On October 6, 2025, following unsuccessful meet and confer discussions, SeaLunt filed five discovery motions: (1) to compel further responses from Novacoast to request for production, set one (RFP1); (2) to compel further responses to request for production, set two (RFP2); (3) to compel further responses from Gray to special interrogatories, set one (Gray SI1); (4) to compel further responses from Anderson to special interrogatories, set one (Anderson SI1); and (5) to compel further responses from Novacoast to special interrogatories, set two (Novacoast SI2). The discovery motions are opposed by defendants.

On October 31, 2025, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. On November 14, 2025, plaintiff filed its second amended complaint (SAC), asserting the same seven causes of action as in the FAC.

The causes of action of the SAC arise from plaintiff’s allegations that: SeaLunt is the owner and lessor of office spaces in the Chapala Building in Santa Barbara. (SAC, ¶¶ 1, 8.) The Lunts, as trustees of their revocable trust, are the sole owners of SeaLunt and formerly owned the Chapala Building directly. (SAC, ¶¶ 2, 13.) Novacoast is the lessee of office spaces pursuant to written leases and lease extensions guaranteed by Anderson. (SAC, ¶¶ 9-12.) Novacoast defaulted in payment of rent, leading to lease termination agreements. (SAC, ¶¶ 14-19.) Novacoast defaulted again. (SAC, ¶ 20.) Gray, on behalf of Novacoast, claimed that Novacoast could no longer pay rent and would be closing. (SAC, ¶ 26.) The parties negotiated for Novacoast to get out of the lease. (SAC, ¶¶ 27-31.) Instead, Novacoast was not closing business, but transitioned its employees to remote status and left open its offices elsewhere. (SAC, ¶ 36.) Novacoast asserts that it had reached a binding deal to terminate the leases for $50,000, which was paid to the Lunts (and subsequently returned). (SAC, ¶¶ 32-35.)

On December 16, 2025, defendants filed their demurrer and motion to strike as to the SAC, which are noticed for hearing on April 24, 2026.

Analysis:

(1)       Interrogatories

SeaLunt seeks to compel further responses to special interrogatories directed at each of the defendants.

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

“(1)      An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

“(2)      An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

“(3)      An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

            (A)       Novacoast

Novacoast SI2 No. 12 (not at issue in SeaLunt’s motion) is: “IDENTIFY each PERSON having an interest (whether equity, security, debt, or other legal interest) in NOVACOAST, including but not limited to partners, shareholders, directors, officers, executives, and/or agents-specifying as to each the title and relationship to NOVACOAST and the value of the interest held by each PERSON in NOVACOAST for the period January 2021 through December 2024.” (Delgadillo decl., exhibit G, p. 65.)

Novacoast provided a substantive response to SI2 No. 12.

Novacoast SI2 No. 13 is: “State the amount of COMPENSATION NOVACOAST provided to each PERSON IDENTIFIED in Special Interrogatory No. 12 during the period January 2021 through December 2024.” (Delgadillo decl., exhibit G, p. 65.)

The response to Novacoast SI No. 13 is: “Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory because it contains subparts and is compound, conjunctive, and/or disjunctive, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(f) which states ‘No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.’ Responding Party also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation and is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.

“Responding Party also objects to this Interrogatory because it is immaterial, oppressive, and invasive disclosure of Responding Party’s officers, directors and shareholder personal finances. The information sought is so remote from the subject matter as disclosed by the issues framed by the pleadings as to make the disclosure of this information of little or no practical benefit to the Propounding Party other than to harass and annoy the Responding Party and non-party officers, directors and shareholders.

“Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory as inappropriately requiring Responding Party to create a compilation, summary, and analysis of all sources of individuals with an interest in Responding Party. Creating such a compilation would require undue effort and is beyond the scope of discovery.

“Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory seeking disclosure of personal financial interests on the grounds that it impermissibly invades the privacy rights of Responding Party’s officers, directors and shareholders. Even if this information sought was relevant—it is not— third parties and any individual who is a party to litigation has a fundamental right of privacy regarding their confidential financial affairs under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. (See Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550; Civil Code section 3295(c).) This right to privacy under the California Constitution is applicable to natural persons such as Responding Party’s officers, directors and shareholders. It is a fundamental principle that individual [sic] have a privacy interest in their personal financial records. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.)”

The objection that SI2 No. 13 is contains subparts, is compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive is overruled.

A leading treatise “urges a practical approach to questions of interpretation. In referring to the prohibition of ‘compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive’ questions (§ 2030.060, subd. (f)), [the Rutter Group treatise] point[s] out that the ‘purpose again is to prevent questions worded so as to require more information than could be obtained by 35 separate questions. [¶] How strictly this rule will be applied remains to be seen. Arguably, any question containing an “and” or “or” is compound and conjunctive!’ (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial [(The Rutter Group 2009)] ¶ 8:978.1, p. 8F–21.) They comment that ‘[t]he rule should probably apply only where more than a single subject is covered by the question. Questions regarding the same subject should be allowed although they include an “and” or “or.” For example: “State your first name, middle name and last name, and your current address and telephone number.” Since only one subject is involved—identification of responding party—the question should not be objectionable because of the “ands” used.’ [Citation.]” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.)

SI2 No. 13, using the special definition of COMPENSATION, seeks the total amount of compensation for each of these persons for a designated time period. The structure of the interrogatory generally falls within the single subject approach by breaking down the total compensation paid to interested parties.

The objection based on compilation is also overruled. “If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party shall then afford to the propounding party a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)

The response does not purport to identify documents from which a compilation could be made.

The objection based on burden and oppression is also overruled. “[A]s with other objections in response to interrogatories, the party opposing discovery has an obligation to supply the basis for this determination. An ‘objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 (Williams).) No such showing has been made.

The objection as to relevance is intertwined with the objection based on privacy. “In [Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 (Hill)], we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citation.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)

There is a legally protected privacy interest in financial information. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 656.) A person with an interest in Novacoast has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in information related to compensation based on that interest. The interrogatory threatens a serious intrusion into that privacy interest by disclosing the amount of such compensation.

The countervailing interest is the relevance of proposed discovery. SeaLunt argues that because it has alleged that Novacoast, Anderson, and Gray fraudulently misrepresented Novacoast’s financial condition when they attempted to obtain a release from their contractual obligations after they breached the contracts at the center of this case, the information sought is directly relevant to SeaLunt’s allegations. In response, defendants argue that the amount of compensation paid to individuals as compensation is not relevant to Novacoast’s financial condition and that financial discovery is generally prohibited in support of punitive damage claims. (See Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (c).) In weighing the respective interests, SeaLunt also points out that there is a protective order in place to protect confidentiality.

SeaLunt’s allegations of misrepresentation relate to the financial condition of Novacoast as a general proposition and to the closing of its business. In balancing the privacy interests of the individuals involved, the aggregate amount of compensation paid by Novacoast may be relevant, but the specific amounts paid to particular individuals is insufficiently related to justify, at this time, the intrusion into the individuals’ respective privacy interests. With respect to the aggregate number, the protective order adequately serves to protect Novacoast’s proprietary interests.

The court will require a further response only to state the total amount of COMPENSATION Novacoast provided for all persons identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 12 during the period January 2021 through December 2024, collectively. No other response to SI2 No. 13 is required, and specifically, no response is required as to the compensation provided to any particular person identified in SI2 No. 12.

Novacoast SI2 No. 14 is: “State how the amount of COMPENSATION NOVACOAST provided to each PERSON IDENTIFIED in Special Interrogatory No. 12 during the period January 2021 through December 2024 was calculated.”

Novacoast responds with what appears as the same objections as to SI2 No. 13.

Novacoast argues that, as written, SI2 No. 14 requires hundreds of factual inquiries to explain how compensation was calculated for each person. Based on the same privacy and relevance analysis as for SI2 No. 13, the limited relevance of this interrogatory is to understand the accounting components used to calculate the total amount of compensation provided in response to SI2 No. 13. The court will require a further response only as to accounting categories used to calculate the response to SI2 No. 13 and the source of the numbers (e.g., the accounting documents) used for the calculation. (So, hypothetically for example, a response may state that all compensation, as defined, consists of payroll and benefit amounts, which amounts are taken from the amounts shown under those categories in the annual income statement (for which a specific identification is made).) No other response is required.

            (B)       Gray

Gray SI1 No. 2 is: “IDENTIFY ANY DOCUMENT that supports or contradicts YOUR contention in YOUR April 20, 2023 email to Joyce Lunt, that “[a]t this point I can pay you 40k to get out of the lease and we could be out by the end of next week”.”

The original response to SI1 No. 2 is: “Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent this Interrogatory asks Responding Party to IDENTIFY confidential or proprietary DOCUMENTS. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as follows: Novacoast’s financial and employee headcount data to be produced in response to Propounding Party’s concurrently served Requests for Production to Novacoast. Novacoast has not yet completed its document collection, investigation or discovery in this case and reserves the right to supplement this interrogatory response to reflect further documentation identified in that process.”

The amended response to SI1 No. 2 is: “The following response is designated confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order Re: Financial, Confidential and Proprietary Information: At the time of responding to this Interrogatory, Responding Party does not recall and has not yet located any document on which he specifically relied in communicating the above-quoted text. Responding Party understands that Novacoast has produced various documents that illustrate the financial distress in which Novacoast found itself at the time that it sought to terminate its lease in April 2024, including without limitation [six categories of documents with identifying numbers].”

SeaLunt argues that the amended response is insufficient because it does not state that Gray made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain information. Gray argues that he states that he does not recall and that the response is sufficient.

“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

SeaLunt argues: “As the person who made these statements, Gray should be able to identify the documents on which he relied or which support his statements.” (Separate Statement in Support of Motion re Gray SI1, at p. 5.) SeaLunt’s argument is correct as far as it goes. Gray, however, is limited by his memory and by whatever notes or other matter may refresh that memory. Gray has stated that he does not recall on what he specifically relied. Gray has identified documents which, he asserts, objectively support his statement whether or not he did in fact rely upon them.

It may be reasonably inferred from the response that Gray has made a reasonable and good faith effort to respond fully to this request. There is no present reason why an order compelling a further response would result in any more substantive information than is now in the response. A further response would simply express what is now implied, namely, that Gray made a reasonable and good faith effort to respond fully. On that basis no further response is required.

The same analysis and result applies to Gray SI1 Nos. 3, 4, and 5. The motion to compel further responses to Gray SI1 will be denied.

            (C)       Anderson

Defendant Anderson is alleged to be the Chief Executive Officer of Novacoast and a personal guarantor of the leases at issue in the SAC. (SAC, ¶ 4.)

The Anderson SI1 interrogatories all request information about Anderson’s income, assets, and debts. For example, SI1 No. 5 is: “IDENTIFY ALL YOUR separate property assets owned in whole or in party by YOU, whether in YOUR name or that of another and wherever located for the years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.”

The response to SI1 No. 5 is:

“Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory because it contains subparts and is compound, conjunctive, and/or disjunctive, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(f) which states ‘No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.’ Responding Party also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent this Interrogatory seeks a legal conclusion for this witness to determine what is and what is not separate property.

“Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory because this response requires the immaterial, oppressive, and invasive disclosure of Responding Party’s personal finances. Responding Party’s personal finances are so remote from the subject matter as disclosed by the issues framed by the pleadings as to make their disclosure of little or no practical benefit to the Propounding Party other than to harass and annoy the Responding Party.

“Responding Party further objects that Special Interrogatory No. 5 inappropriately requires Responding Party to create a compilation, summary, and analysis of all his ‘separate property.’ Creating such a compilation would require undue effort and is beyond the scope of discovery because it would require him to hire legal counsel with expertise in investigating, analyzing, and ultimately sifting through Responding Party’s personal finances to determine what is Responding Party’s separate property.

“The Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory seeking disclosure of personal finances on the grounds that it impermissibly invades Responding Party’s right to privacy. Even if this information sought was relevant an individual who is a party to litigation has a fundamental right of privacy regarding their confidential financial affairs under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. (See Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550; Civil Code section 3295(c).) This right to privacy under the California Constitution is applicable to natural persons such as Responding Party as opposed to corporations such as Novacoast, Inc., which has previously produced voluminous financial documentation in discovery. (See Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corporation (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 791, 796–797.)

“Moreover, it is elementary that a party has a privacy interest in his or her personal financial records. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.) Confidential financial information given to a bank by a customer is protected by the right to privacy: ‘[T]here is a right to privacy in confidential customer information whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information.’ (Fortunato v. Sup.Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 481(emphasis in original).)

“Moreover, pretrial discovery of a defendant’s financial condition, although relevant in a punitive damages claim, is prohibited. (Doak v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 257 Cal.App.2d 825, 832-834.) Where there is a claim for punitive damages, special rules have been adopted to prevent this exact type [sic] ‘games playing’ [sic] Propounding Party attempts to elicit with Special Interrogatory No. 5. The right to pretrial discovery of defendant’s net worth and profits is limited under Civil Code section 3295(c), and the information sought in Interrogatory No. 5 by Propounding Party is not permitted without a court order and unless Propounding Party can show to the Court there is a substantial probability (not just prima facie showing) that it will prevail on the claim for punitive damages. (See Kerr v. Rose (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1551, 1565.) Courts must weigh the evidence presented by both sides and make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on the claim for punitive damages. (See Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) This is an extremely high standard where a ‘court must (1) weigh the evidence presented by both sides, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.’ (Id. at p. 744, emphasis added.) Unless and until the Court orders pretrial discovery into Responding Party’s financial condition, Responding Party will not produce any personal financial information.”

SeaLunt argues that the misrepresentations were valuable to Anderson because termination of the leases—rather than subleasing the property—also released Anderson from liability as a guarantor. SeaLunt concludes that Anderson’s financial condition is relevant because it helps to determine the extent Anderson stood to benefit from Novacoast’s misrepresentations.

Using the Williams framework for addressing the privacy objection, as discussed above, the court finds that Anderson has a legally protected privacy interest in his financial information, that Anderson has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in this information, and that the threatened intrusion is serious. SeaLunt has not shown substantial countervailing interests by disclosure. The misrepresentation alleged relates to Novacoast’s financial condition. While SeaLunt alleges that defendants’ prior conduct in obtaining lease termination agreements were part of a larger effort to avoid their obligations, Anderson’s financial condition is not alleged to have been a subject of misrepresentation or material discussion. Anderson’s financial condition is tangential to the issues raised by the SAC.

Although there is a protective order in place, the court concludes, on the record now presented, that Anderson’s privacy interests outweigh this discovery at this time. The motion will therefore be denied.

(2)       Requests for Production of Documents

SeaLunt also moves to compel further responses to two sets of requests for production of documents from Novacoast.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

“(1)      A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

“(2)      A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

“(3)      An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following:

“(1)      The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

“(2)      The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

Novacoast RFP1 No. 1 is: “ANY DOCUMENTS that RELATE to YOUR monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements including statements of income, profit & loss, balance sheets, statements of stockholder’s equity, statements of changes in retained earnings, statements of cash flows, notes thereto whether prepared for internal or external reporting purposes for the period 2022 to present.”

The original response to RFP1 No. 1 is: “Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Statement above as though fully restated herein. Responding Party objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, unreasonably overbroad, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party further objects to this Request because it is not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation and is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010). Responding Party also objects to this Request because it seeks financial records that are protected from disclosure by Responding Party's constitutional right of privacy (Cobb v. Super. Ct., 99 Cal. App. 3d 543 (1979); Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1). The Request also prematurely seeks documents related to expert opinions and analysis in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2034. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine or any other applicable privilege.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subject to entry of an appropriate protective order, Responding Party will produce consolidated Balance Sheet, Income Statements, and Profit & Loss Statements for April 2021 through April 2024.”

The further response to RFP1 No. 1 is: “Responding Party objects to this Request because it potentially seeks documents which are not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation because it requests documents outside the time period relevant to this action, thus documents in the 2022, 2024-2025 time periods are not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2017.010). The Request also prematurely seeks documents related to expert opinions and analysis in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2034 because it potentially encompasses documents created by a financial professional during an evaluation of the claims in this action. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine or any other applicable privilege.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order Re Financial, Confidential, and Proprietary Information entered on January 15, 2025 (the ‘Protective Order’), Responding Party has produced consolidated Balance Sheets, Income Statements, and Profit & Loss Statements for April 2021 through April 2024. Such documents are designated as ‘Confidential’ and bates stamped NC_000020 – NC_000021. Novacoast will further produce monthly income statement trend, balance statement trend, and trial balance trend data for the years 2022 and 2023. Such documents are designated as ‘Confidential’ and bates stamped NC_000025-58, NC_000196-2012, and two Excel files titled: ‘Novacoast CONS 2022.xlxs and Novacoast Inc 2023 Monthly Financial Statements.xlsx.’ ”

The amended response to RFP1 No. 1 is: “In addition to the responses and objections in Novacoast, Inc.’s, Further Response to Request for Production No. 1, Novacoast, Inc., amends its response to also include any and all documents responsive to the Request in its possession, custody, and control pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order Re Financial, Confidential, and Proprietary Information entered on January 15, 2025 (the ‘Protective Order’): On February 25, 2025, Novacoast, Inc., produced documents responsive to this request including monthly financial statements from April 2022 (NC_000219), May 2022 (NC_000221), June 2022 (NC_000223), August 2022 (NC_000225), September 2022 (NC_000227), October 2022 (NC_000229), January 2023 (NC_000231), February 2023 (NC_000233), March 2023 (NC_000235), April 2023 (NC_000237), June 2023 (NC_000239), July 2023 (NC_000241), August 2023 (NC_000243), September 2023 (NC_000245), October 2023 (NC_000247), November 2023 (NC_000249), January 2024 (NC_000251), February 2024 (NC_000251), and April 2024 (NC_000253) each including Novacoast, Inc.’s, Consolidated Financial Statement Excel Spreadsheet plus related entities’ monthly financial statements via Excel Spreadsheets. These documents were designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ and bates numbered NC000219-NC000254. There were no stand alone monthly financials created for the following months and years: July 2022, November 2022, December 2022, May 2023, or December 2023. Responding Party’s finances reflecting the specific aforementioned months are reflected in the consolidated financial statements previously produced on February 13, 2025 and Bates numbered NC_000196-NC_000212.”

The amended further response to RFP1 No. 1 is: “Responding Party objects to this Request because it potentially seeks documents which are not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation because it requests documents outside the time period relevant to this action. Specifically, documents in the 2022, 2024, and 2025 time periods are not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010). The Request also prematurely seeks documents related to expert opinions and analysis in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2034 because it potentially encompasses documents created by a financial professional during an evaluation of the claims in this action. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine or any other applicable privilege.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order Re Financial, Confidential, and Proprietary Information entered on January 15, 2025 (the ‘Protective Order’), Responding Party has produced consolidated monthly Balance Sheets, Income Statements, and Profit & Loss Statements for April 2022 through April 2024, one year before and one year after the alleged breach. Such documents are designated as ‘Confidential’ and bates stamped NC_000020 – NC_000021. Novacoast produced monthly income statement trend, balance statement trend, and trial balance trend data for the years 2022 and 2024. Such documents are designated as ‘Confidential’ and bates stamped NC_000196-212, NC_000219-254, and two Excel files titled: ‘Novacoast CONS 2022.xlxs and Novacoast Inc 2023 Monthly Financial Statements.xlsx.’

 

“The aforementioned documentation includes detailed monthly financials from April 2022 to April 2024 – one year before and after the date of the alleged breach in this matter. These financial documents include monthly, quarterly, and annual financial statements containing statements of income, profits and losses, balance sheets, year-end trial balances, accounts receivable balances, and stock holder’s equity from common stock and retained earnings. After a reasonable and diligent search, Responding Party does not have any responsive documents of ‘notes’ in its possession, custody, or control, because such responsive documents never existed.

“The aforementioned are partitioned monthly, and therefore comport with the quarterly and annual subsections of this Request. Due to the overbreadth of this Request (i.e., ‘ANY DOCUMENTS that RELATE to...’ what amounts to roughly 100 different types of potential financial reporting) Responding Party is unable to describe what specific document or documents it is not producing, if it indeed is not producing a responsive document, at least not without sustaining substantial costs that is not justified by the lack of relevance. For example, to name just a few of the nearly infinite documents that the request as phrased could encompass, the Request would include every receipt, documentation of every transaction, the vast majority of internal accounting and sales emails from a 4-year time period, any communication that may authorize an expenditure on behalf of Responding Party, and the list goes on indefinitely. The documents that Novacoast has already produced are more than adequate, particularly when the only relevant issue to which they pertain is whether Mr. Gray believed in the truth of the statements he made to Mrs. Lunt about Novacoast’s financial condition at the time he was negotiating a termination of the lease. This is not a matter requiring a forensic analysis of nearly a half-decade’s worth of financial documentation, particularly when Mr. Gray has already responded under oath that he does not recall and, has not yet located, any document on which he specifically relied in his communications with Mrs. Lunt.”
 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(1), the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. “[A]bsent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) As the response demonstrates, Novacoast has produced substantial financial documentation in response to this request. Under these circumstances, SeaLunt must show good cause for production of the additional documents that SeaLunt seeks to be compelled by this motion.

SeaLunt argues: “The request seeks specific financial information from Novacoast for the period 2022-2024 (the time the RFP was served). Plaintiff has alleged that Novacoast fraudulently misrepresented a business closure to avoid its contractual obligations (First Amended Complaint ‘FAC1’ at ¶¶26-32). Novacoast’s defense is centered on an allegation that Novacoast was facing financial distress at the time it breached the contracts at issue. This request seeks fifteen (15) months of financial information prior to the breach and misrepresentation, and twenty-one (21) months after the breach and misrepresentation. A complete picture of Novacoast’s financial status before, and after it defaulted on its lease payments is reasonable and necessary to determine Novacoast’s true financial status as of April 2023.” (SeaLunt Separate Statement re RFP1, at p. 11.)

Novacoast has produced a large number of financial documents which are a subset of the scope of documents that may be responsive to this request. The document produced are for a reasonable period of time before and after the alleged breach and are internal documents showing Novacoast’s financial condition at that time. These documents would be expected to provide the basic information that SeaLunt argues is relevant to the issue of whether representations made about Novacoast’s financial condition were fraudulent. Alternatively, these documents would be expected to demonstrate gaps or inconsistencies, either alone or in combination with other information, that would provide good cause for the production of additional financial documents. SeaLunt fails to provide a fact-specific showing of relevance. No further response will be required for RFP1 No. 1.

The same analysis and result applies to RFP1 Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10.

RFP1 No. 12 is: “ANY DOCUMENTS for the time period January 2020 to present that RELATE to YOUR tenancy at the SUBJECT PROPERTY.”

The original response to RFP1 No. 12 is: “Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Statement above as though fully restated herein. Responding Party objects to this Request as unreasonably overbroad, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party will undertake reasonable efforts to search for and produce all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request after entry of a protective order.”

The further response to RFP1 No. 12 is: “Responding Party objects to this Request as unreasonably overbroad, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party will undertake reasonable efforts to search for and produce all responsive, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request subject to the Protective Order. To the extent Novacoast withholds any documents based on attorney-client or other privilege, it will log any such withholding.”

The amended response to RFP1 No. 12 is: “Novacoast, Inc. amends it response to include NC_000277-NC000279 which is concurrently produced. Further, Responding Party provides a Privilege Log of documents withheld that may be responsive to Request No. 12.”

The amended further response to RFP1 No. 12 is: “Responding Party objects to this Request as unreasonably overbroad, and unduly burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subject the [sic] Protective Order, Responding Party will only produce all responsive documents within its possession, custody, or control between January 2022 and December 2023 – well beyond the date of the alleged breach -- and refers Propounding Party to the previously produced documents Bates stamped NC_000304-NC000723. After a diligent and reasonable search, these aforementioned documents include all emails that relate the to Responding Party’s tenancy at SUBJECT PROPERTY in the aforementioned time period, the Leases, the Termination Agreement, and invoices from third-parties Responding Party incurred when it moved-out of the Subject Property in reliance on the Termination Agreement.”

RFP1 No. 12 addresses a different class of documents from the earlier requests for production, namely, documents relating to the tenancy rather than to Novacoast’s financial condition. Documents within this category may well be relevant to any of the causes of action. As with the other RFP1 requests, because Novacoast has agreed to produce, or has actually produced, a narrower group of responsive documents, the good cause requirement focuses upon the documents sought by this motion.

SeaLunt argues: “The request seeks documents from January 2020 to December 2024, when the request was propounded, but Defendant has unilaterally limited its production to documents from January 2022 to December 2023. Documents from 2020 and 2021 are relevant to understanding the history of the lease agreements and the parties’ relationship.” (SeaLunt Separate Statement re RFP1, at p. 53.) This is an insufficient statement of why additional documents from other time periods are relevant to SeaLunt’s claims. This general statement could just as easily apply to any prior time period without restriction. Compounding this issue is the fact that the term “related to” is defined in very broad terms.

The court does not find that SeaLunt has shown good cause for production of these documents. No further response is required to RFP1 No. 12. This ruling is without prejudice to SeaLunt propounding further document production requests specific to particular types of documents, within or without the time period of RFP1 No. 12, for which good cause may later be shown.

Novacoast RFP2 No. 16 is: “To the extent not already produced, ANY DOCUMENTS including but not limited to emails, text messages, instant messages, or notes of telephone or video calls EVIDENCING COMMUNICATIONS between ANY member of YOUR LEADERSHIP TEAM that RELATE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY for the period January 2021 through December 2024.”

The original response to RFP2 No. 16 is: “Responding Party objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous, unreasonably overbroad, and unduly burdensome and oppressive because it requests information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation and is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010). The Request also prematurely seeks documents related to expert opinions and analysis in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2034. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine or any other applicable privilege.

“Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and subject the protective order entered on January 15, 2025, Responding Party will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request between January 2023 through December 2023.”

The further response to RFP2 No. 16 is: “Responding Party incorporates the objections in its original Response to this Request. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order Novacoast produces all responsive documents within its possession, custody, and control herewith Bates Stamped: NC_000304-NC000723.”

In asserting good cause for RFP2 No. 16, SeaLunt states: “The communications sought relate directly to the subject property at issue in this litigation and Novacoast’s tenancy, which are central to the claims in this case. Communications between and amongst Novacoast’s leadership team related to the subject property will show exactly when and how Novacoast decided to breach the leases at issue, and will also help Plaintiff support its claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. Novacoast concedes that this information is relevant because it produced documents within the requested time period. However, an accurate statement of compliance is required.” (SeaLunt Separate Statement re RFP2, at pp. 6-7.)

Unlike the broad generic assertions of relevancy in RFP1, this statement of good cause is focused on particular types of communications. The court notes that “leadership team” is apparently a defined term but its definition is not included in the separate statement. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c)(4).) The definition is found in RFP2 as: “ ‘LEADERSHIP TEAM’ shall be understood to mean any natural person who was a manager or executive at Novacoast, Inc. or its subsidiaries during the relevant period in the Request, including but not limited to Paul Anderson, Adam Gray, Janice Newlon, Eron Howard, Darin Sanders, Gabe Laughlin, Emmy Savenelli, and Randy Bender.”

When limited to the named individuals in the definition, there is good cause shown for expanding the time period to January 2021, which includes times related to the alleged lease termination agreements, but does not show good cause for expanding the time period later than December 2023, which is Novacoast’s end time for its agreed production.

As to the request for the documents for which good cause is shown, the objections, except as to privilege, are overruled for the same reasons discussed above in the context of responses to interrogatories. A further response will be required.

The same analysis and result applies to RFP2 Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27.

To the extent that a further response does not identify any additional documents from a response that had been provided, the further response needs to state expressly that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry all responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party have been produced except those responsive documents identified in a privilege log as being withheld on the grounds of privilege.

RFP2 No. 29 is: “The Loan and Security Agreement (including the First and Second Amendments) between Avidbank, and Novacoast Inc, Novacoast Holding, Novacoast Federal, and/or Whale Tale Games.”

The only response to RFP2 No. 29 is: “Responding Party objects to this Request as unreasonably overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive because it requests information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation and is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010). Responding Party also objects to this Request because it seeks financial records and information that are protected from disclosure by Responding Party’s constitutional right of privacy (Cobb v. Super. Ct., 99 Cal. App. 3d 543 (1979); Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1). Responding to the Request imposes an undue burden on Responding Party and the intrusiveness of this Request outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

In addressing relevance, SeaLunt states: “Plaintiff has alleged that Novacoast fraudulently misrepresented a business closure to avoid its contractual obligations. In addition, Novacoast’s defense is centered on an allegation that Novacoast was facing financial distress at the time it breached the contracts at issue. In order to understand whether these representations were accurate, the complete and operative 2021 Loan and Security Agreement detailing Novacoast’s line of credit during the time is breached the contracts at issue is essential.” (SeaLunt Separate Statement re RFP2, at pp. 38.)

Novacoast responds: “Novacoast has met its obligations under this Request. Novacoast has produced substantial materials reflecting its relationship with AvidBank, including the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and Restated Loan and Security Agreements (NC_000255-NC_000270), line of credit statements for each month from January through December 2023 (NC_000014), AvidBank account statements for 2023 (NC_000280-NC_000290), and periodic updates from Novacoast’s Chief Financial Officer to AvidBank during the 2023 calendar year (NC_000727-NC_000762). (Woodsome Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. 7.)

“These documents provide Plaintiff with the substance of Novacoast’s lending relationship: the loan terms, the monthly borrowing activity, the account statements, and the CFO’s contemporaneous updates to the lender. Plaintiff contends that Novacoast’s production of loan amendments necessarily implies that the base Loan and Security Agreement exists and must be produced. The base agreement is a third-party lending document that predates the events at issue and governs an ongoing banking relationship. It is not relevant to whether Gray’s statements about Novacoast’s financial condition were false or misleading in April 2023; the CFO’s contemporaneous updates to AvidBank and the account statements already in Plaintiff’s possession are far more probative on that question.

“To the extent Plaintiff contends the response does not use the precise statutory language of sections 2031.220 and 2031.230, Novacoast is willing to serve an amended response.” (Novacoast Response Separate Statement re RFP2, at pp. 43-44.)

What is unclear from the arguments of the parties is whether the complete agreement has been produced. A restated agreement ordinarily restates and supplants the terms of an earlier agreement. To the extent the documents produced for RFP2 No. 29 provide the complete terms of the agreement in effect during all of calendar year 2023, no further response is required. Otherwise, Novacoast shall be required to provide a further response so that the complete agreement in effect during any part of 2023 will be produced.

RFP2 No. 30 is: “ANY DOCUMENTS including but not limited to memorialized agreements, deeds of trust, promissory notes, emails, text messages, instant messages, or notes of telephone calls RELATED TO ANY loan for the benefit of Paul Arthur Anderson, or Paul Arthur Anderson and Betsy Palmer Anderson.”

The only response to RFP2 30 is: “Responding Party objects to this Request as unreasonably overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive because it requests information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this litigation and is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010) The documents sought are immaterial and this Request is an inappropriately intrusive inquiry into Mr. Anderson’s personal financial affairs. Mr. Anderson’s personal finances are so remote from the subject matter as disclosed by the issues framed by the pleadings as to make their disclosure of little or no practical benefit to the Propounding Party other than to harass and annoy the Responding Party and its principal.

“The Responding Party further objects to this Request seeking disclosure of Mr. Anderson’s personal financial information on the grounds that it impermissibly invades his right to privacy. Even if this information sought was relevant, an individual who is a party to litigation has a fundamental right of privacy regarding their confidential financial affairs under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. (See Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550; Civil Code section 3295(c).) This right to privacy under the California Constitution is applicable to natural persons such as Mr. Anderson. Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that a party has a privacy interest in his or her personal financial affairs. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.)”

For the same reasons the court denies the motion to compel as to Anderson, discussed above, no further response is required for RFP2 No. 30.

The same analysis and result applies to RFP2 No. 31.

(3)       Sanctions

The parties have requested awards of monetary sanctions in connection with the motions to compel. Under the totality of the circumstances here, the court finds that any award of monetary sanctions with respect to any party or motion would be unjust. All requests for awards of monetary sanctions will be denied.

(4)       Motion to Quash

On August 7, 2025, SeaLunt issued a deposition subpoena for business records to non-party custodian of records of Avidbank. (Simpson decl., exhibit 3.) There are five categories of documents sought by this subpoena:

“1.       The Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated as of May 25, 2021, including all attachments therein, between YOU and Novacoast, Inc., Novacoast Holding, Novacoast Federal, and Whale Tale Games, including ALL amendments through December 31, 2024.

“2.       For the period May 25, 2021 through December 31, 2024: ALL DOCUMENTS provided to YOU pursuant to the Reporting Covenants in the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated as of May 25, 2021, as amended, between YOU and Novacoast, Inc., Novacoast Holding, Novacoast Federal, and Whale Tale Games, including but not limited to: AIR & AIP aging reports by invoice date, deferred revenue schedule, Borrowing Base Certificate, copies of outside bank statements, monthly financial statements, Compliance Certificate, Annual Financial Plan (board approved), Ammal financial statements (CPA reviewed), Personal Guarantors - Tax Returns with Schedules (except for documents related to Betsy Palmer Anderson), Personal Financial Statements of Personal Guarantors ( except for documents related to Betsy Palmer Anderson), AIR and Collateral Audit, and IP Notices.

“3.       For the period May 25, 2021 through December 31, 2024: ALL Compliance Certificates related to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated as of May 25, 2021, as amended, between YOU and Novacoast, Inc., Novacoast Holding, Novacoast Federal, and Whale Tale Games.

“4.       For the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2024: ALL DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and ANY representative of Novacoast, Inc. RELATED to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated as of May 25, 2021, as amended, between YOU and Novacoast, Inc., Novacoast Holding, Novacoast Federal, and Whale Tale Games.

“5.       For the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2024: ALL monthly transaction statements prepared and/or sent by YOU to Novacoast, Inc. RELATED to the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated as of May 25, 2021, as amended, between YOU and Novacoast, Inc., Novacoast Holding, Novacoast Federal, and Whale Tale Games.” (Simpson decl., exhibit 3.)

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

As discussed above, both in the context of interrogatories and in the context of requests for production of documents, Novacoast’s financial condition is an issue with respect to whether the statements made regarding Novacoast’s financial condition were fraudulent. The discovery subject to this motion encompasses a significant amount of sensitive financial documentation. While the existing protective order mitigates the proprietary concerns regarding disclosure, the subpoena to a lender of virtually all bank information for a commercial borrower is, in the present context, unreasonably overbroad. Given the level of financial information provided by Novacoast in response to other discovery and the absence of evidence in this motion that the information provided in discovery is inaccurate or materially incomplete, the principal value of the information is only to verify the other discovery.

Given the nature of the documents sought to be produced by the subpoena, the record before the court, and the relative importance of this discovery at this stage of the proceedings, the court finds that the subpoena constitutes an unreasonable and oppressive demand. The motion to quash will be granted to quash the entirety of the subpoena. This ruling is without prejudice to the later issuance of a narrower subpoena where the need for discovery of documents from this deponent is more evident.