NOTICE OF MOTION

XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

XXX
Petitioners, In Pro Per

XXX BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT STATE OF XXX
In RE:
XXX & XXX

Debtors

XXX, and XXX
Plaintiffs

XXX & XXX
Defendants Adv. Case # XXX
BK Case No: XXX
Chapter 7

NOTICE OF MOTION ; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; and MONETARY SANCTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Honorable XXX

Date:
Time:
Courtroom:

NOTICE OF MOTION

To XXX and XXX:
Please TAKE NOTICE that on [ENTER DATE], at [ENTER TIME] or soon thereafter, the plaintiffs herein will move this Court, in its Department of Bankruptcy located at 1415 State Street,XXX

For an order compelling Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner to provide written verified responses to requests for production of documents, with document production, without objections as set forth herein: and
For an order of sanctions against Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner in the amount of $1,000 for their failure to provide responses to the requests for production of documents.

This motion will be based on the grounds that XXX and XXX have failed to comply with Plaintiffs regarding the above-described Requests for Production of Documents, as alleged herein.

The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the declaration of the plaintiffs here below undersigned and the memorandum set forth below, on the records and file herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

Dated this: [ENTER DATE].

Teena Colebrook: ………………
XXXX: …………………
XXX: …………………..
Colleen Craig: …………………
(Plaintiffs In Pro Per)

Teena Colebrook
S. Broad Street XXX
XXX, XXX
XXX@gmail.com.

XXX, and XXX
Petitioners, In Pro Per

XXX BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT STATE OF XXX
In RE:
XXX & XXX

Debtors

XXX, and XXX
Plaintiffs

XXX & XXX
Defendants Adv. Case # XXXX
BK Case No: XXX
Chapter 7

NOTICE OF MOTION ; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; and MONETARY SANCTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Honorable Judge XXXX

Date:
Time:
Courtroom:

                                                             MOTION

NOW COMES this day XXX and XXX Petitioners, Proceeding Pro Se, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, made applicable to adversary proceedings by operation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure XX; and LBR XXX, who hereby moves this Court for an Order to Compel the Defendants that Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner to comply with Plaintiffs’ Discovery requests as alleged herein.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
The defendants XXX have failed to comply with the plaintiffs’ XXX demand for production of documents, set “one” and thus the court should make an order that Defendants comply with Plaintiffs’ requests and imposing a monetary sanction for the failure to respond.
A. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On 20th June 20XX, plaintiffs served on the defendant the set one of interrogatories and request of production of documents. The same was equally served on the defendant’s former attorney on record, XXX on or around November 20XX when he entered appearance on behalf of the defendants. The due date for the responses was February 10, 20XX. However the defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs with the requested documents and information well within their access and/or knowledge.
On or about [ENTER DATE], Plaintiffs filed May 13, 20XX, Plaintiff Teena Colebrook filed “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in re Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents on Defendant Andrea Gardner”, which Motion was denied by the Court on June 16, 20XX. The ground for denial of the said Plaintiff’s Motion was that the Motion failed to adhere to LBR 7026-1(c)(3), which requires that a motion to compel discovery be made in the form of a joint stipulation identifying each disputed issue and providing points and authorities as to each issue from each party. The Court further stated that Plaintiffs could file the said Motion without the said stipulation, if the Motion is accompanied by a Declaration in that effect.
On or about [ENTER DATE], Defendant(s) responded to the Plaintiffs’ requests in the following manner:

REQUEST NUMBER 1. Provide a copy of the check (s) evidencing and establishing your allegation that Defendants paid Teena Colebrook in full for her items consigned with Timeless Treasures.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #1 Objection. Plaintiff has them. Without waiving the objection, all accounting concerning Teena Colebrook’s consigned items as well as payment dates, check numbers and date payment cleared the bank was provided to Mrs. Colebrook via her ConsignPro account, to which she had access to for over 3 years, and for 6 additional months after the store was closed. It was also emailed to her. With that said I am able to provide copies of the cleared checks. I ordered them from Wells Fargo. I will not be able to do this for all consignment checks as I no longer bank with WF and they are $12.00 for each check for which I have no money to pay.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiff does not have these check copies. Said copies were never emailed despite a promise to do so. According to James at Wells Fargo check copies are $5 per check not $12 as Defendant’s state and take from 7-10 business days to produce upon request. As Defendant stated in their January 19th, 2021 response that they had been ordered there is no reason for their non-production. These check copies are relevant to show how much Plaintiff Colebrook was paid versus what she is owed.

REQUEST NUMBER 4. Provide written proof of your evidence that Plaintiff was accused of fraud in other BK proceedings. Provide documentary evidence, email, or testimony that your current attorney told you to put this irrelevant information into your answer.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #4 To the extent available, Defendant will produce these documents.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL XXX. #4. See case number 2:14-bk-10853-WB. See the attached court docket, and docket #32, the Motion For Relief From the Stay that I personally mailed to you on 5/12/2014. so, you already have this document from your 2014 bankruptcy case.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiff Colebrook asserts that submitting this claim from 20XX into this court is irrelevant to the current case and was meant to defame and slander Colebrook. Attorney XXX fails to note that plaintiff submitted a sworn affidavit rebutting every statement of Attorney XXX then client. Nothing further was heard from Attorney XXX or his client after Colebrook’s sworn affidavit proved his client was committing perjury. It is relevant to the case as it shows that Defendants and their attorney are not being candid with the court.

REQUEST NUMBER 7. Photocopies of any and all documents including all internal customer record(s) (commonly known as a customer ledger, account histories, or A/R Ledgers) that show the invoice dates, numbers, and amount and the payments received by movant from Defendant, for the account relationship between movant(s) and Defendant(s) for the Applicable Period.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #7 Objection, vague, ambiguous, and confusing. Without waiving the objections. TTHC had sales reports for each day, however Defendant does not have them because she does not have the ConsignPro software or records.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiffs state that the request is not confusing, and Defendant is able to request the records from ConsignPro, they are relevant to the case to prove what if anything was itemized in the store and paid out to all plaintiffs and what they are still owed.

REQUEST NUMBER 8. Any and all documents which Defendant(s)intend to introduce into evidence or mark as an exhibit at the trial in this adversary proceeding.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #8 See Defendants Rule 7026 initial disclosures, which documents will be or have been provided.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL 19TH, 20XX. #8. Defendants are still looking for documents.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiffs are still waiting for said documents and these are relevant to prepare for trial.

REQUEST NUMBER 11. Any and all state and federal tax returns from 20XX through 20XX.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #11 To the extant available. Defendant will produce these documents.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL 19TH, 20XX. #11. they will be provided upon receipt.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has had ample time to request and receive these documents from the IRS and/or her bookkeepers. These returns are essential for Plaintiffs to prove that Defendants have failed to speak with candor to the court and may have committed perjury.

REQUEST NUMBER 13. Provide all names and all statements of the 5 or more banks that upon information and belief Plaintiff believes Defendant has or has had access to since XXX through present; Both business and personal, including all credit card accounts, with addresses, which you now have available for cash advances and state amount balances of each checking, savings, and credit card(s).
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #13. The banks which personal and business accounts were held during the operation of the store were as follows: Wells Fargo, US Bank, Rabo Bank. Defendant does not have the accounts or bank statements. Defendant currently banks with Chase Bank. Both accounts were opened long after the store closed. Defendant does not have a savings or a line of credit. To the extent available. Defendant will produce these documents.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL 19TH, 20XX #13. There are not 5 bank accounts, so the documents do not exist. Bank statements have been provided for the banks which Defendants have or had accounts and to which they have access. If you think there are more bank accounts, tell us. Or go subpoena the records.
DEFICIENCIES.
Plaintiffs have received incomplete records from Wells Fargo Bank and Rabobank. Plaintiffs have received no records from US Bank or Chase Bank or any credit cards that Defendants had during May 2016 to January 2020. Plaintiffs assert that full bank records are necessary to prove our claims of fraud and nonpayment to certain creditors. Plaintiffs called 3 of the known banks though the District attorney’s office stated that there were more than 2 accounts and less than 10 in Defendants names.

WELLS FARGO
According to James at XXXretention period is 7 years; check copies are $5 per check both personal and business accounts even on closed accounts not $12 as Defendants stated and take from 7-10 business days to produce upon request. Statements are free and take 7-10 business days to receive.
US BANK
Per – Jeff at US Bank on 1240 Los Osos Valley Road. XXX statements are free, 4-5 or more $7 a statement. Time to produce them depends on the type of request and how long account has been closed but no longer than 30 days.
MECHANICS BANK (formerly RABOBANK)
Lisa at Mechanics Bank (formerly Rabobank) on 2276 Broad St. (805) 541-5500 states retention period is 5 years. Longest it would take would be about a week to send out from request.

REQUEST NUMBER 14. Any and all consignment payments that Defendants have forwarded to plaintiffs in the past four years.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #14 Defendant has ordered the cleared checks for consignment payments for XXX is not a TTHC consignor, therefore has never been paid. And Defendant is unable to provide this information for Kevin Rock or Colleen Craig without the ConsignPro software, as she is unable to see the check numbers and dates posed. Documents will be produced upon receipt from the banks.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL 19TH,XXX #14. by definition you already have the documents. XXX is not a TTHC consignor, therefore has never been paid.
DEFICIENCIES. Answer is insufficient, If Defendants had ordered the cleared checks as stated they should have produced them by now. Defendants know and have always known that XXX is the husband of Roxanne as he bought the couples marital property to the store and was introduced as her husband. His wife is too distraught over the whole situation to deal with it and asked her husband Mr.XXX to deal with the case. Defendants can request information from ConsignPro and have still not produced requested documents months later. Plaintiffs assert that these documents are essential to the case for proving the defendants have not been truthful.

REQUEST NUMBER 17. Any and all dates, names, addresses, telephone number, receipts and correspondence between Defendant(s) and any friends, family members, associates, or employee(s) of the Defendants, relating to the any and all “transfers” of plaintiff’s artwork, whether sold, given away, or donated.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #17 No such documents existed. There are no family members, friends or employees who have transferred any property of Plaintiff and or have ever owned, purchase, received as a gift or donation any item consigned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff consigned with TTHC over a 3-year period of time. Pursuant to the signed contract. TTHC had the right to donate any item considered abandoned under the time frames listed in the signed contract. As a general rule, TTHC donated largely to Mission Thrift and the Assistance League. Thousands of items were donated each year from the smallest teacup to the largest TV cabinet. Items were not tracked that way. Any items left at the time of the store closing went to 805 Premier for the sales. This list was provided via email to Plaintiff after the sale was complete. She stated the items document as hers were not.
DEFICIENCIES. Defendant’s statement is untruthful as Defendant’s mother stated to Colebrook when she took in a consignment of cache pots that she was going to buy the items herself and she proceeded to put them aside for herself. The record of sale or transfer of Colebrook’s art needs to be produced.

REQUEST NUMBER 18. Provide the name, address, and phone number of the person(s) who purportedly purchased the rare stained-glass window of a runner including the amount that it was sold for. Specifically, to include the following pieces

Sunrise (framed) -BLS private collection) 47″x49″ 1983.
Sunset (framed) – BLS private collection 47″x49″ 1983
California Landscape -BLS private collection) 52″x46 1986.
Australian Seascape (framed) 48″x39 1986; and
a rare and original stained framed window of a runner (not by Brett Livingstone Strong)
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #18 No Such documents exist. Plaintiffs’ consignment account does not reflect a “rare” stained glass window of a runner. Nor was there any record of correspondence of one missing from her account. The first TTHC hear of this stained glass was after the store closed. And Plaintiff stopped by the store one a week for almost two years to visit shop and drop flowers and never once mentioned a missing rare stained glass.
DEFICENCIES: Plaintiff Colebrook asserts that Defendants are being less than candid with the court in this respect. Defendants clearly did not add all Colebrook’s consignment pieces to the ConsignPro account. Defendants own email of June 14th that Defendant filed into this court states in response to Colebrook question about if it had sold QUOTE “that sold a long time ago, 2017oelr (sic) 2018. I will find out.” Plaintiff Colebrook asked about it multiple times on those weekly visits, including talking with Andrea about it possibly going to an athlete as it depicted a female runner. Andrea said she knew Jordan Hassay’s (a locally famous runner) family and would contact them to see if would interest them. Plaintiff told Andrea that she did not want it sold for less than $400 as one tiny piece of glass cost $135 to repair. Colebrook asked why it was not on display and was told that it was a delicate item and would be shown to those she though would be interested. Plaintiff never saw it on display at the store. The other 4 art pieces from Brett Livingston Strong were never entered into the computer.

REQUEST NUMBER 26. Provide documentary proof that Defendants contacted by email, letter, or phone to inform her of the auction of the contents of the store.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #26 No Documents exist. TTHC spoke to Plaintiff for months about picking up her items. This was not via email or phone. Pursuant to the contract TTHC did not call consignors after an item had expired. It was the consignor’s responsibility o follow the dates listed on the www.myresaleweb.com. It was in person. It was regular practice at the time for TTHC to ask all consignors who stopped by or called the store to pick up any items that they could, so they did not have to be moved. At that time, it was believed that the new location would be much smaller. Plaintiff repeatedly stated she would pick up the items, but she did not.
DEFICENCIES. Plaintiff Colebrook strongly denies she was told to pick up her items and asserts that Defendant is again speaking with less than candor to the court. In fact, in Colebrook’s sworn complaint to the District Attorney signed on October 30th, 2019 she stated that Colebrook visited the store in late April 2019 before she visited her sick mother and asked Andrea if her art had sold. She gave me some prints that I had consigned and the appraisal that were in an envelope because she did not want them to be damaged in the move. I asked about the framed art and window and she stated they would be safe as they would be moved with all the other framed art. If she had not stated, they would be safe I would have taken them right then along with the unframed prints. Andrea stated that she would see me in May at the new store. Andrea did not inform plaintiff Craig that she could pick up her art despite Craig asking multiple times. Andrea encouraged Plaintiff Viar and his wife to bring their bookcases in knowing that she was being evicted shortly. Earlier Defendant stated that those consigners that answered her calls were able to come in and pick up their items. Proof of emails or calls to consignors is critical to knowing how many consigners were actually notified of this sale.

Response for Collen Craig

REQUEST NUMBER ONE
Plaintiff has requested the name, address and telephone number of the person who purchased the listed art of Robert McKee, valued at $1500, which was never put into ConsignPro.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NUMBER ONE
The defendant claims that “there was not time for a one person cashier (sic) to enter a name, telephone number, address.” The defendant then
states she can “provide a credit card receipt or documentation that would match that item, day, or time.”

DEFICIENCIES
This transaction information, which was promised in an email from Bowen-Gardner to Craig fully two years ago, and dated February 28, 2019, has never been provided. See below:
“As for your accusation that we pocketed your money, we will be happy to make a copy of every credit card transaction for the purchases of your items. We will do this tomorrow and will send with tracking. We also have receipts for every donation. We will include that to. (sic)”

Neither has she provided transaction information for the wrought iron chandelier (REQUEST NUMBER 2), the wrought iron table (REQUEST NUMBER 3), the hand painted Parisian screen (REQUEST NUMBER 4) or the antique Chinese saddle bench (REQUEST NUMBER 5.)

All these items, it should be noted, were discussed at length and had agreed upon prices. If not sold at the price desired, consignor Craig would pick them up. On one of many occasions when Craig and her husband went to the store, they inquired after the Chinese saddle bench. Bowen Gardner had no recollection of it. Craig’s husband drew a picture of the bench (the picture is in our possession), and reminded Bowen Gardner. She then remembered, it, and called somebody on the phone to ask after the price. We don’t know who she spoke with. She had no record of the sale. We were told it sold for a few hundred dollars (way below what we had wanted), given a check, and promised a copy of the transaction, which never arrived.

REQUEST NUMBER 16
Plaintiff requested copies of donations made of her items, so she could see that they were, in fact, donated – specifically against her wishes, as she was considering giving her items to friends who’d lost their belongings in the Santa Rosa fires. But at the very least, she could use the tax write off.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST NUMBER 16
TTHC does not have or ever had donation slips filled out by the charity. There was never any written request to save any abandoned items for Sonoma County Fire victims.
DEFICIENCIES
Bowen Gardner often exceeded the 90 day contract – by months – on items consigned to her, claiming there was not enough room on the showroom floor, and that they were in the warehouse. Given that not all her items were listed in ConsignPro, plaintiff had no idea of knowing when her items appeared, if ever. Hence, the word ‘abandoned’ is used inappropriately. A consignor and her husband regularly checking on their items, in person and by phone, are not abandoning anything, but rather showing dedicated stewardship of their expensive belongings. Further, on at least two occasions, Bowen Gardner assured Craig that they never donated anything in the value range of her items. She would be contacted to come pick them up if they didn’t sell. She was never contacted. Nor was it ever suggested that she put her request to ‘save her abandoned items’ in writing. Instead, Craig relied on the verbal assurances of the defendant, which she had no reason to disbelieve, given that she did not enter into the relationship expecting to be deceived and defrauded.

Further, as in the abovementioned Deficiencies with regard to Request Number 1, Bowen Gardner sent an email to Craig dated February 28, 2019, promising to send copies of all the donation slips.
“As for your accusation that we pocketed your money, we will be happy to make a copy of every credit card transaction for the purchases of your items. We will do this tomorrow and will send with tracking. We also have receipts for every donation. We will include that to. (sic)”.

All requests for TTHC are running 7 business days. I think two years was a reasonable amount of time for you to be interested in your items or your accounting questions.

The consign pro is an inventory accounting program that updates itself daily. I do not add anything, it does everything , so I seriously doubt there is an error. So what supsificly are you asking about?

We would be happy to forward a tax deduction for you. Again, two years was prently of time for you to request this information.

Finally, Plaintiff Teena Colebrook has an email from Bowen-Gardner offering to generate a donation slip for one of Colebrook’s donated items. Bowen Gardner has three different responses to a single question regarding donation slips.

The said Defendants having not complied fully with Plaintiffs’ requests, Plaintiffs hereby file the instant Motion to Compel Defendants full response to Plaintiffs’ requests.

B. ARGUMENTS
i. Plaintiffs have reasonably attempted to satisfy the meet and confer requirement

The purpose of the meet-and-confer requirement is to “force litigants to attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, the disputed issues to prevent the unnecessary waste of time and effort on any given motion.” Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 199 (D.D.C. 1999).
A district court has the inherent power to discipline parties inside and outside the courtroom if their conduct disrupts the orderly and efficient manner of court proceedings. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-44 (1991).
In compliance with the Bankruptcy rules, Parties held a telephone conference in an attempt to amicably agree on the Discovery Process. Notably, Plaintiff met with Defendant’s attorney David Lally on Tuesday April 27th, 2021.However, Mr. Lally spoke in a condescending tone especially to the two-female pro se plaintiffs and lacked civility as required by the professional rules of conduct. When Ms. Craig was pointing out contradictions in Defendants statements, Attorney Lally said to Ms. Craig “oh Boo Hoo, Grow up, you are wasting time” and “Oh that is awesome, I am so glad I didn’t need to go to law school for you”.
It follows; the meet and confer did not fit the full parameters required by law since Attorney Lally was dismissive of many of Plaintiffs’ concerns and could not answer why Defendants had not already given the requested documents, some of which Defendants can request from the banks and receive within 7-10 days. Besides, in emails to Plaintiff Rock and Viar re: Settlement talks, the said Attorney also made unprofessional and derisive comments such as “If you could get to be reasonable, you would get the Olympic Gold Medal. Unfortunately I’m not holding my breath”
ii. This Court should compel Defendants to respond fully to Plaintiffs’ requests.

“The purpose of a motion to compel discovery is not to challenge the truthfulness of the response but rather to compel a party to answer the interrogatory.” Annabel v . Heyns, 2014 WL 1207802, at *1 (E.D. Mich. March 24, 2014).
A court may compel a party to answer interrogatories and respond to requests for production if the party has failed to answer the interrogatories or produce the requested materials. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (3)(B)(iii), (iv)). In determining whether a party has failed to answer or produce, a court should treat evasive or incomplete answers or disclosures as failures.( Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (4)).
A party moving to compel another party to respond to a discovery request must direct the court to the particular discovery request at issue and inform the court of how the response received to that request, if any, is deficient. See Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2015 WL 5042918 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2015). To enable the court to assess the sufficiency of the discovery produced, the court must know which request is at issue, how the response to that request is allegedly deficient, and why the producing party’s response runs afoul of the discovery rules. Id. at *2. Without this information, the court cannot properly determine whether defendants’ responses are inadequate. Id.; see also Royster v. Corizon, 2015 WL 853788, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2015) (explaining that the moving party “must supply the court with . . . defendants’ response to his discovery request and advise the court why the response is inadequate or otherwise improper” for “[w]ithout this information the court cannot accurately assess [the party’s] motion to compel”).
In the instant proceeding, the defendant’s responses to the interrogatories and the requests for production were evasive and incomplete. The Defendants are therefore legally bound to provide more detail concerning their responses to the requests for production and Interrogatories.
Secondly, the defendant’s responses to Interrogatories are not acceptable. It is not appropriate to make such general objections, and therefore we request this Honorable Court to find the Defendant’s answers to these requests for production of documents/interrogatories similarly evasive and incomplete. See Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 483 (N.D. Tex. 2014); U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Am. Derivatives Corp., 2007 WL 1020838, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2007).
The Defendants must either answer the request for production of documents, or, if he has legitimate objections, they must state those objections more clearly. Rule 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (1). Rule 26 also provides that “[o]n motion or on its own,” a court “must” limit discovery that falls outside this permitted scope. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Besides, “[w]hen a party objects to discovery requests, the burden falls on the party seeking the discovery to show the relevance of the information requested.” United Access Techs., LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 11-338-LPS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103532, at *3-4 (D. Del. June 12, 2020).
Plaintiffs aver that when the party to whom an inspection demand has been directed fails to serve a timely response to it, that party waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Section 2018.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)). Therefore, Defendants waived their right to object to the requests, when they failed to provide a timely response initially.
Plaintiffs submit that the sought after responses and documents are relevant to this case and shall go on to demonstrate that the defendants are financially capable of settling the debt owed. In that regard, Plaintiffs’ submit that the aforesaid requests are deficient in the following manner:

Answers to Defendants recent response

Copies of inventory of 3c trains

According to ex-partner Kevin Rock there were 3c trains full of items that did not fit in the showroom and there should be an inventory if all items were tagged with consignment numbers as Defendants state. We would like to see that inventory and if there is not one then it shows that Defendants did not honor the contracts with Consignors. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of Donated Items 2016-2019

If Copies of donated Inventory were given to Attorney David Lally as Defendants state, Mr. Lally did not forward them to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not believe It is not an invasion of privacy to request where the items were donated to and for the donation receipts. Plaintiffs wish to ascertain when these items were donated and if the contract was adhered to. Defendants in prior emails contradicted this statement when they emailed plaintiff Craig l February 28, 2019 Defendants stated “As for your accusation that we pocketed your money, we will be happy to make a copy of every credit card transaction for the purchases of your items. We will do this tomorrow and will send with
tracking. We also have receipts for every donation. We will include that to”. NOTE: NEVER SENT
Please see that in her response to our request for production of documents (No.#1), she indicates that she never had copies of these transactions. Not that she had misplaced them, or they were with the sheriff’s office, or had been lost. She never had them. Evidently, she was not telling the truth. Same with the donation receipts. (N0#16) She claims that she does not now, and never had any.
However, above, she claims to have receipts for every donation. Which is it? Further,
Teena Colebrook has an email from Bowen Gardner where she offers to generate donation receipts. So, here we have a case of

1.) TT never had them
2.) TT has them and will send
3.) TT will generate them as needed. Three different scenarios.

Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of W2 or 1099

Defendants state that these documents cannot be provided for defendant’s mother Linda Bowen and Nick Brooks due to EDD laws and Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Judge intervene and authorize production of these forms. Plaintiffs wish to ascertain if Defendant’s mother and Nick were being paid under the table to avoid taxes. No such documents for Defendants themselves have been sent despite their assertions to the contrary if they have them they should provide them. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of records or sales taxes impounded by state board.

Defendant’s state these are not relevant to the case and Plaintiffs disagree, they are TTHC documents and Plaintiffs believe that they will show that Defendants have deliberately defrauded the state board as they have other consigners, and it will show a pattern of fraud Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of Sales Tax to the State Board of Equalization.

Defendants’ response is Asked and Answered? Plaintiffs state that these documents have not been proffered. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of all credit card transactions XXX.

Defendants state they are not in possession of documents, and they could not give them out due to privacy reasons? Plaintiffs disagree and assert that Defendants can request Credit card statements from their credit card companies and that they are not private. Plaintiffs are asking for sales and receivable information from their business and personal credit cards to show what their were spending on and/or receiving. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of all accounting documents from XXX

Plaintiffs have not received accounting documents as Defendants state and aver that Defendants are avoiding providing relevant documents because they are hiding information that is relevant to Plaintiffs case. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of al bounced checks from both Defendants XXX.

Unlike Defendants answers. These are absolutely relevant to the case as it shows that Defendants consistently refused to pay people and intended to defraud. Plaintiffs disagree that these will have personal information that cannot be disclosed. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items

Copies of documents request by the trustee in Defendants Bankruptcy,

These are absolutely relevant to the case. If trustee wants them it shows that they are relevant to the case. Plaintiffs aver that all the documents requested by the Trustee Jeremy Faith at the 341 hearings have not been provided as requested. (eg. Tax returns, contracts of purchase and sale of vehicles) Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items

Copies of receipts of items taken by the DA.

This has not been answered and is relevant to the case, Defendants stated that the DA and Sheriff’s confiscated items so she could not provide them. The District Attorney informed Plaintiffs that a full receipt and accounting of all items confiscated was provided to Defendants. Plaintiffs are requesting that receipt which is relevant to our case as it will show what documents were in Defendant’s possession. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items

Copies of cleared checks for Colleen Craig and Teena Colebrook.
Defendants have previously stated on January 19th,XXX that these copies were ordered from the bank; now they say that documents were provided which is blatantly untrue Plaintiffs cannot and should not have to attempt to ascertain what defendants claim to have paid them and are unable to ask for confirmation from their bank. This is information that Defendants have to provide; they must prove that they paid plaintiffs what they claim to have paid them. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.
Copies of personal and business tax returns.

Documents have not been provided as claimed and if tax returns had been filed they were available for defendants to request from the IRS. There should be no reason for a forensic tax service in Burbank to provide what should be available from the IRS? Defendants previously stated that plaintiffs would receive them on September 24th so their story changes all the time and plaintiffs aver that defendants have had more than enough time to provide the documents requested. Bankruptcy Trustee Jeremy Faith stated to Defendants in XXX that they had to refile because they could not have a negative income. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items. Re: Tax returns: Answer to RFP: “To the extent available Defendant will produce these documents”. Defendants state that they have filed taxes they should easily be able to provide a copy of filed taxes, they should not need to now manufacture them.

On or about September 23, XXX, Defendant Andrea Bowen emailed Plaintiff Teena that Mady the accountant would email the taxes to the Plaintiff in the morning. However, the said Defendant did not send the promised information.
Copies of missing bank statements.

Defendants have not provided all bank statements Plaintiffs have asked for specific missing statements many times. Defendant have promised them, but they have not been provided, if defendants had them, they can easily be provided within a matter of days but have not. Plaintiffs aver those defendants are trying to hide relevant information. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

On or about Wednesday October 13, XXX, Defendant Andrea Bowen emailed Plaintiff Teena that he had ordered a new set of bank statements from the Bank, and that he would forward them the next day. However, the said Defendant did not send the statements.
Re #5 Copies accounting documents:

Copies of cleared checks for Colleen Craig and Teena Colebrook.
Defendants have previously stated that these copies were ordered from the bank; now they say that documents were provided which is untrue Plaintiffs cannot and should not have to attempt to ascertain what defendants claim to have paid them and are unable to ask for confirmation from their bank. This is information that Defendants have to provide, they must prove that they paid plaintiffs what they claim to have paid them.

In Defendants 1/19/XXX RFP They stated “With that said I am able to provide copies of the cleared checks. I ordered them from Wells Fargo” 10 months later Plaintiff Colebrook is still waiting for them and cannot ask her own bank as they do not have copies of them.
C. COSTS

When a party makes an inspection demand under Section 20XX.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the party to whom the demand is directed fails to respond, the demanding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction under Section XXX of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code Civ. Proc. § XXX).
The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1030(a)).
The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section XXXof the Code of Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust (Code Civ. Proc. §§ XXX(a), 2031.300(c)).
Rule 37 requires the Court to consider whether to impose the costs of bringing the instant motion on the Debtor or his counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (“If the motion is granted…the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”).
The Court may not impose costs if “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (5)(A).
In preparing this motion, the plaintiffs in pro per spent a total of 30 hours researching the rules and writing the outline and also sought legal help from a paralegal and this weekend an attorney and to finalize the first a subsequent amended motion after Attorney David Lally sent an email on Thursday13th of May telling us we needed to withdraw our motion to compel or if he was forced to respond he would seek attorney fees. Plaintiffs immediately sought extra help to determine why the motion was so “terribly defective”. Our total outside legal costs for this motion =$700 plus Plaintiff’s time of 30 hours researching and writing award of those costs for 30 hours at $30 per hour for a total of $900.
David Lally

XXXX


          Hello I see you filed a motion to compel
         You need to withdraw it because procedurally and substantively it is terribly defective.

If I am forced to respond I am going to seek my attorney’s fees, which is waste of everyone’s time. Please let me know what you intend to do by Monday May 17, 2021.
Thank you

Plaintiffs therefore ask the court to award sanctions in the amount of $1,600 and any other sanctions the court determines is applicable.

RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, The Plaintiffs undersigned pray that the court to compel defendants to comply with Plaintiff(s)’ requests in full. Plaintiffs also pray this Court orders Defendants pay costs in the amount of $1,600 for their failure to provide responses to the requests for production of documents.

Dated this: [ENTER DATE].

Respectfully submitted:
By s/XXX Colebrook ……………..
By s/XXX …………………
By s/XXX…………………..
By s/XXX…………………..

Plaintiffs in Pro Per.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing notice of motion and motion to compel responses to requests for interrogatories and discovery of documents was sent to defendants Andrea B. Gardner and Phillip Gardner at their mailing address of 511 E. Walnut Avenue, Burbank, CA 91501 respectively, on the XXth day of May XXX.

Dated This XXX .

XXX
XXX

XXX

Petitioners, In Pro Per

XXX BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT STATE OF XXX
In RE:
XXX & XXX

Debtors

XXX
Plaintiffs

XXX
XXX

NOTICE OF MOTION ; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; and MONETARY SANCTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Honorable Judge XXX

Date:
Time:
Courtroom:

NOTICE OF MOTION

To Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner:
Please TAKE NOTICE that on [ENTER DATE], at [ENTER TIME] or soon thereafter, the plaintiffs herein will move this Court, in its Department of Bankruptcy located at 1415 State Street, XXX, ZZZ

For an order compelling Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner to provide written verified responses to requests for production of documents, with document production, without objections as set forth herein: and
For an order of sanctions against Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner in the amount of $1,000 for their failure to provide responses to the requests for production of documents.

This motion will be based on the grounds that Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner have failed to comply with Plaintiffs regarding the above-described Requests for Production of Documents, as alleged herein.

Dated this: [ENTER DATE].

XXX

XXX BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT STATE OF XXX
In RE:
XXX

Debtors

XXX,
Plaintiffs

XXX & XXX
Defendants Adv. Case # 9:XXX
BK Case No: XXX
Chapter 7

NOTICE OF MOTION ; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT THEREOF; and MONETARY SANCTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Honorable Judge Deborah Saltzman

Date:
Time:
Courtroom:

                                                             MOTION

NOW COMES this day XXX and XXX Petitioners, Proceeding Pro Se, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, made applicable to adversary proceedings by operation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure XXX, who hereby moves this Court for an Order to Compel the Defendants that Andrea Bowen Gardner and Philip Gardner to comply with Plaintiffs’ Discovery requests as alleged herein.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
The defendants XXX & XXX have failed to comply with the plaintiffs’ XXX demand for production of documents, set “one” and thus the court should make an order that Defendants comply with Plaintiffs’ requests and imposing a monetary sanction for the failure to respond.
A. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On 20th June 2020, plaintiffs served on the defendant the set one of interrogatories and request of production of documents. The same was equally served on the defendant’s former attorney on record, Mr. David B. Lally on or around November 20XXwhen he entered appearance on behalf of the defendants. The due date for the responses was February 10, 20XX. However the defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs with the requested documents and information well within their access and/or knowledge.
On or about [ENTER DATE], Plaintiffs filed May 13, 20XX, Plaintiff Teena Colebrook filed “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in re Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents on Defendant Andrea Gardner”, which Motion was denied by the Court on June 16, 20XX. The ground for denial of the said Plaintiff’s Motion was that the Motion failed to adhere to LBR 7026-1(c)(3), which requires that a motion to compel discovery be made in the form of a joint stipulation identifying each disputed issue and providing points and authorities as to each issue from each party. The Court further stated that Plaintiffs could file the said Motion without the said stipulation, if the Motion is accompanied by a Declaration in that effect.
On or about [ENTER DATE], Defendant(s) responded to the Plaintiffs’ requests in the following manner:

REQUEST NUMBER 1. Provide a copy of the check (s) evidencing and establishing your allegation that Defendants paid Teena Colebrook in full for her items consigned with Timeless Treasures.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #1 Objection. Plaintiff has them. Without waiving the objection, all accounting concerning Teena Colebrook’s consigned items as well as payment dates, check numbers and date payment cleared the bank was provided to Mrs. Colebrook via her ConsignPro account, to which she had access to for over 3 years, and for 6 additional months after the store was closed. It was also emailed to her. With that said I am able to provide copies of the cleared checks. I ordered them from Wells Fargo. I will not be able to do this for all consignment checks as I no longer bank with WF and they are $12.00 for each check for which I have no money to pay.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiff does not have these check copies. Said copies were never emailed despite a promise to do so. According to James at Wells Fargo check copies are $5 per check not $12 as Defendant’s state and take from 7-10 business days to produce upon request. As Defendant stated in their January 19th, 20XX response that they had been ordered there is no reason for their non-production. These check copies are relevant to show how much Plaintiff Colebrook was paid versus what she is owed.

REQUEST NUMBER 4. Provide written proof of your evidence that Plaintiff was accused of fraud in other BK proceedings. Provide documentary evidence, email, or testimony that your current attorney told you to put this irrelevant information into your answer.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #4 To the extent available, Defendant will produce these documents.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL 19TH, XXX. #4. See case number 2:14-bk-10853-WB. See the attached court docket, and docket #32, the Motion For Relief From the Stay that I personally mailed to you on 5/12/XXX. so, you already have this document from your 2014 bankruptcy case.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiff Colebrook asserts that submitting this claim from 20XX into this court is irrelevant to the current case and was meant to defame and slander Colebrook. Attorney XXX fails to note that plaintiff submitted a sworn affidavit rebutting every statement of Attorney XXX then client. Nothing further was heard from AttorneyXXX or his client after Colebrook’s sworn affidavit proved his client was committing perjury. It is relevant to the case as it shows that Defendants and their attorney are not being candid with the court.

REQUEST NUMBER 8. Any and all documents which Defendant(s)intend to introduce into evidence or mark as an exhibit at the trial in this adversary proceeding.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #8 See Defendants Rule 7026 initial disclosures, which documents will be or have been provided.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL XXX. #8. Defendants are still looking for documents.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiffs are still waiting for said documents and these are relevant to prepare for trial.

REQUEST NUMBER 11. Any and all state and federal tax returns from 20XXthrough 20XX.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #11 To the extant available. Defendant will produce these documents.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL XXX. #11. they will be provided upon receipt.
DEFICIENCIES. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has had ample time to request and receive these documents from the IRS and/or her bookkeepers. These returns are essential for Plaintiffs to prove that Defendants have failed to speak with candor to the court and may have committed perjury.

REQUEST NUMBER 13. Provide all names and all statements of the 5 or more banks that upon information and belief Plaintiff believes Defendant has or has had access to since XXX through present; Both business and personal, including all credit card accounts, with addresses, which you now have available for cash advances and state amount balances of each checking, savings, and credit card(s).
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #13. The banks which personal and business accounts were held during the operation of the store were as follows: Wells Fargo, US Bank, Rabo Bank. Defendant does not have the accounts or bank statements. Defendant currently banks with Chase Bank. Both accounts were opened long after the store closed. Defendant does not have a savings or a line of credit. To the extent available. Defendant will produce these documents.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL XXX #13. There are not 5 bank accounts, so the documents do not exist. Bank statements have been provided for the banks which Defendants have or had accounts and to which they have access. If you think there are more bank accounts, tell us. Or go subpoena the records.
DEFICIENCIES.
Plaintiffs have received incomplete records from Wells Fargo Bank and Rabobank. Plaintiffs have received no records from US Bank or Chase Bank or any credit cards that Defendants had during MayXXX to January XXX. Plaintiffs assert that full bank records are necessary to prove our claims of fraud and nonpayment to certain creditors. Plaintiffs called 3 of the known banks though the District attorney’s office stated that there were more than 2 accounts and less than 10 in Defendants names.

WELLS FARGO
According to James at 800-225-5935 retention period is 7 years; check copies are $5 per check both personal and business accounts even on closed accounts not $12 as Defendants stated and take from 7-10 business days to produce upon request. Statements are free and take 7-10 business days to receive.
US BANK
Per – Jeff at XXX. statements are free, 4-5 or more $7 a statement. Time to produce them depends on the type of request and how long account has been closed but no longer than 30 days.
MECHANICS BANK (formerly RABOBANK)
Lisa at Mechanics Bank (formerly Rabobank) on XXX states retention period is 5 years. Longest it would take would be about a week to send out from request.

REQUEST NUMBER 14. Any and all consignment payments that Defendants have forwarded to plaintiffs in the past four years.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #14 Defendant has ordered the cleared checks for consignment payments for XXX is not a TTHC consignor, therefore has never been paid. And Defendant is unable to provide this information for Kevin Rock or Colleen Craig without the ConsignPro software, as she is unable to see the check numbers and dates posed. Documents will be produced upon receipt from the banks.
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY EMAIL RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR MISSING DISCOVERY DATED APRIL 19TH, 2021 #14. by definition you already have the documents. XXX is not a TTHC consignor, therefore has never been paid.
DEFICIENCIES. Answer is insufficient, If Defendants had ordered the cleared checks as stated they should have produced them by now. Defendants know and have always known that XXX is the husband of Roxanne as he bought the couples marital property to the store and was introduced as her husband. His wife is too distraught over the whole situation to deal with it and asked her husband XXX to deal with the case. Defendants can request information from ConsignPro and have still not produced requested documents months later. Plaintiffs assert that these documents are essential to the case for proving the defendants have not been truthful.

Sunrise (framed) -BLS private collection) 47″x49″ 1983.
Sunset (framed) – BLS private collection 47″x49″ 1983
California Landscape -BLS private collection) 52″x46 1986.
Australian Seascape (framed) 48″x39 1986; and
a rare and original stained framed window of a runner (not by Brett Livingstone Strong)
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #18 No Such documents exist. Plaintiffs’ consignment account does not reflect a “rare” stained glass window of a runner. Nor was there any record of correspondence of one missing from her account. The first TTHC hear of this stained glass was after the store closed. And Plaintiff stopped by the store one a week for almost two years to visit shop and drop flowers and never once mentioned a missing rare stained glass.
DEFICENCIES: Plaintiff Colebrook asserts that Defendants are being less than candid with the court in this respect. Defendants clearly did not add all Colebrook’s consignment pieces to the ConsignPro account. Defendants own email of June 14th that Defendant filed into this court states in response to Colebrook question about if it had sold QUOTE “that sold a long time ago, 2017oelr (sic) 2018. I will find out.” Plaintiff Colebrook asked about it multiple times on those weekly visits, including talking with Andrea about it possibly going to an athlete as it depicted a female runner. Andrea said she knew Jordan Hassay’s (a locally famous runner) family and would contact them to see if would interest them. Plaintiff told Andrea that she did not want it sold for less than $400 as one tiny piece of glass cost $135 to repair. Colebrook asked why it was not on display and was told that it was a delicate item and would be shown to those she though would be interested. Plaintiff never saw it on display at the store. The other 4 art pieces from Brett Livingston Strong were never entered into the computer.

REQUEST NUMBER 26. Provide documentary proof that Defendants contacted by email, letter, or phone to inform her of the auction of the contents of the store.
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST #26 No Documents exist. TTHC spoke to Plaintiff for months about picking up her items. This was not via email or phone. Pursuant to the contract TTHC did not call consignors after an item had expired. It was the consignor’s responsibility o follow the dates listed on the www.myresaleweb.com. It was in person. It was regular practice at the time for TTHC to ask all consignors who stopped by or called the store to pick up any items that they could, so they did not have to be moved. At that time, it was believed that the new location would be much smaller. Plaintiff repeatedly stated she would pick up the items, but she did not.
DEFICENCIES. Plaintiff Colebrook strongly denies she was told to pick up her items and asserts that Defendant is again speaking with less than candor to the court. In fact, in Colebrook’s sworn complaint to the District Attorney signed on October 30th, XXX she stated that Colebrook visited the store in late April XXX before she visited her sick mother and asked Andrea if her art had sold. She gave me some prints that I had consigned and the appraisal that were in an envelope because she did not want them to be damaged in the move. I asked about the framed art and window and she stated they would be safe as they would be moved with all the other framed art. If she had not stated, they would be safe I would have taken them right then along with the unframed prints. Andrea stated that she would see me in May at the new store. Andrea did not inform plaintiff Craig that she could pick up her art despite Craig asking multiple times. Andrea encouraged Plaintiff XXX and his wife to bring their bookcases in knowing that she was being evicted shortly. Earlier Defendant stated that those consigners that answered her calls were able to come in and pick up their items. Proof of emails or calls to consignors is critical to knowing how many consigners were actually notified of this sale.

Response for Collen Craig

All requests for TTHC are running 7 business days. I think two years was a reasonable amount of time for you to be interested in your items or your accounting questions.

We would be happy to forward a tax deduction for you. Again, two years was prently of time for you to request this information.

The said Defendants having not complied fully with Plaintiffs’ requests, Plaintiffs hereby file the instant Motion to Compel Defendants full response to Plaintiffs’ requests.

B. ARGUMENTS
i. Plaintiffs have reasonably attempted to satisfy the meet and confer requirement

The purpose of the meet-and-confer requirement is to “force litigants to attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, the disputed issues to prevent the unnecessary waste of time and effort on any given motion.” Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 199 (D.D.C. 1999).
A district court has the inherent power to discipline parties inside and outside the courtroom if their conduct disrupts the orderly and efficient manner of court proceedings. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., XXX.
In compliance with the Bankruptcy rules, Parties held a telephone conference in an attempt to amicably agree on the Discovery Process. Notably, Plaintiff met with Defendant’s attorney XXX on Tuesday April 27th,XXX.However, Mr. XXX spoke in a condescending tone especially to the two-female pro se plaintiffs and lacked civility as required by the professional rules of conduct. When Ms. Craig was pointing out contradictions in Defendants statements, Attorney XXX said to Ms. XXX, Grow up, you are wasting time” and “Oh that is awesome, I am so glad I didn’t need to go to law school for you”.
It follows; the meet and confer did not fit the full parameters required by law since Attorney XXX was dismissive of many of Plaintiffs’ concerns and could not answer why Defendants had not already given the requested documents, some of which Defendants can request from the banks and receive within 7-10 days. Besides, in emails to Plaintiff Rock and Viar re: Settlement talks, the said Attorney also made unprofessional and derisive comments such as “If you could get to be reasonable, you would get the Olympic Gold Medal. Unfortunately I’m not holding my breath”
ii. This Court should compel Defendants to respond fully to Plaintiffs’ requests.

“The purpose of a motion to compel discovery is not to challenge the truthfulness of the response but rather to compel a party to answer the interrogatory.” Annabel v . XXX,XXX
A court may compel a party to answer interrogatories and respond to requests for production if the party has failed to answer the interrogatories or produce the requested materials. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (3)(B)(iii), (iv)). In determining whether a party has failed to answer or produce, a court should treat evasive or incomplete answers or disclosures as failures.( Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (4)).
A party moving to compel another party to respond to a discovery request must direct the court to the particular discovery request at issue and inform the court of how the response received to that request, if any, is deficient. See Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2015 WL 5042918 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26,XXX). To enable the court to assess the sufficiency of the discovery produced, the court must know which request is at issue, how the response to that request is allegedly deficient, and why the producing party’s response runs afoul of the discovery rules. Id. at *2. Without this information, the court cannot properly determine whether defendants’ responses are inadequate. Id.; see also Royster v. Corizon, XXX WL 853788, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26, XXX) (explaining that the moving party “must supply the court with . . . defendants’ response to his discovery request and advise the court why the response is inadequate or otherwise improper” for “[w]ithout this information the court cannot accurately assess [the party’s] motion to compel”).
In the instant proceeding, the defendant’s responses to the interrogatories and the requests for production were evasive and incomplete. The Defendants are therefore legally bound to provide more detail concerning their responses to the requests for production and Interrogatories.
Secondly, the defendant’s responses to Interrogatories are not acceptable. It is not appropriate to make such general objections, and therefore we request this Honorable Court to find the Defendant’s answers to these requests for production of documents/interrogatories similarly evasive and incomplete. See Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 483 (N.D. Tex. XXX); U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Am. Derivatives Corp., 2007 WL 1020838, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, XXX).
The Defendants must either answer the request for production of documents, or, if he has legitimate objections, they must state those objections more clearly. Rule 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (1). Rule 26 also provides that “[o]n motion or on its own,” a court “must” limit discovery that falls outside this permitted scope. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Besides, “[w]hen a party objects to discovery requests, the burden falls on the party seeking the discovery to show the relevance of the information requested.” United Access Techs., LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 11-338-LPS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103532, at *3-4 (D. Del. June 12, 20XX).
Plaintiffs aver that when the party to whom an inspection demand has been directed fails to serve a timely response to it, that party waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Section 2018.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)). Therefore, Defendants waived their right to object to the requests, when they failed to provide a timely response initially.
Plaintiffs submit that the sought after responses and documents are relevant to this case and shall go on to demonstrate that the defendants are financially capable of settling the debt owed. In that regard, Plaintiffs’ submit that the aforesaid requests are deficient in the following manner:

Answers to Defendants recent response

Copies of inventory of 3c trains

Copies of Donated Items XXX

If Copies of donated Inventory were given to Attorney XXX as Defendants state, Mr. XXX did not forward them to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not believe It is not an invasion of privacy to request where the items were donated to and for the donation receipts. Plaintiffs wish to ascertain when these items were donated and if the contract was adhered to. Defendants in prior emails contradicted this statement when they emailed plaintiff Craig l February XXX Defendants stated “As for your accusation that we pocketed your money, we will be happy to make a copy of every credit card transaction for the purchases of your items. We will do this tomorrow and will send with
tracking. We also have receipts for every donation. We will include that to”. NOTE: NEVER SENT
Please see that in her response to our request for production of documents (No.#1), she indicates that she never had copies of these transactions. Not that she had misplaced them, or they were with the sheriff’s office, or had been lost. She never had them. Evidently, she was not telling the truth. Same with the donation receipts. (N0#16) She claims that she does not now, and never had any.
However, above, she claims to have receipts for every donation. Which is it? Further,
Teena Colebrook has an email from Bowen Gardner where she offers to generate donation receipts. So, here we have a case of

1.) TT never had them
2.) TT has them and will send
3.) TT will generate them as needed. Three different scenarios.

Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.

Copies of W2 or 1099

Copies of records or sales taxes impounded by state board.

Copies of Sales Tax to the State Board of Equalization.

Copies of all credit card transactions XXX.

Copies of all accounting documents from XXX

Copies of al bounced checks from both Defendants XXX.

Copies of documents request by the trustee in Defendants Bankruptcy,

Copies of receipts of items taken by the DA.

Copies of cleared checks for Colleen Craig and Teena Colebrook.
Defendants have previously stated on January XXX that these copies were ordered from the bank; now they say that documents were provided which is blatantly untrue Plaintiffs cannot and should not have to attempt to ascertain what defendants claim to have paid them and are unable to ask for confirmation from their bank. This is information that Defendants have to provide; they must prove that they paid plaintiffs what they claim to have paid them. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items.
Copies of personal and business tax returns.

Documents have not been provided as claimed and if tax returns had been filed they were available for defendants to request from the IRS. There should be no reason for a forensic tax service in Burbank to provide what should be available from the IRS? Defendants previously stated that plaintiffs would receive them on September 24th so their story changes all the time and plaintiffs aver that defendants have had more than enough time to provide the documents requested. Bankruptcy Trustee Jeremy Faith stated to Defendants in 2019 that they had to refile because they could not have a negative income. Plaintiffs respectfully ask Judge to order discovery on these items. Re: Tax returns: Answer to RFP: “To the extent available Defendant will produce these documents”. Defendants state that they have filed taxes they should easily be able to provide a copy of filed taxes, they should not need to now manufacture them.

On or about September 23, 20XX, Defendant Andrea Bowen emailed Plaintiff Teena that XXX the accountant would email the taxes to the Plaintiff in the morning. However, the said Defendant did not send the promised information.
Copies of missing bank statements.

On or about Wednesday October 13, 20XX, Defendant Andrea Bowen emailed Plaintiff Teena that he had ordered a new set of bank statements from the Bank, and that he would forward them the next day. However, the said Defendant did not send the statements.
Re #5 Copies accounting documents:

In Defendants XXX RFP They stated “With that said I am able to provide copies of the cleared checks. I ordered them from Wells Fargo” 10 months later Plaintiff Colebrook is still waiting for them and cannot ask her own bank as they do not have copies of them.
C. COSTS

When a party makes an inspection demand under Section XXX.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the party to whom the demand is directed fails to respond, the demanding party may move for an order compelling response and for a monetary sanction under Section XXX.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code Civ. Proc. § XXX.300).
The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1030(a)).
The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section XXX.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), XXX.300(c)).
Rule 37 requires the Court to consider whether to impose the costs of bringing the instant motion on the Debtor or his counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (“If the motion is granted…the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”).
The Court may not impose costs if “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (5)(A).
In preparing this motion, the plaintiffs in pro per spent a total of 30 hours researching the rules and writing the outline and also sought legal help from a paralegal and this weekend an attorney and to finalize the first a subsequent amended motion after Attorney XXX sent an email on Thursday13th of May telling us we needed to withdraw our motion to compel or if he was forced to respond he would seek attorney fees. Plaintiffs immediately sought extra help to determine why the motion was so “terribly defective”. Our total outside legal costs for this motion =$700 plus Plaintiff’s time of 30 hours researching and writing award of those costs for 30 hours at $30 per hour for a total of $900.
XXX

Thu, May XX, 1:12 PM (4 days ago)        

          to me, Rich, Kevin, Colleen


          Hello I see you filed a motion to compel
         You need to withdraw it because procedurally and substantively it is terribly defective.

If I am forced to respond I am going to seek my attorney’s fees, which is waste of everyone’s time. Please let me know what you intend to do by Monday May XXX.
Thank you

Plaintiffs therefore ask the court to award sanctions in the amount of $1,600 and any other sanctions the court determines is applicable.

Dated this: [ENTER DATE].

Respectfully submitted:
XXX…………………..

Plaintiffs in Pro Per.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Dated This 17th Day of May XXX.

XXX

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

NOTICE OF MOTION

Recent Posts

Quick Links

Legal Info

Services

Contact Us