On April 11, 2019 a
Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE BY BANK OF AMERICA, N....)
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gaveet Waterproofing And Construction Llc,
Knibb Design Corp,
Knibb Sean,
The Picard Family Company Inc. Dba Watson Plumbing,
Steinberg Michael H,
Steinberg Sheeri,
and
Alzona Gary,
Condo Jr. Nelson S.,
Condo Nelson S.,
Gaveet Construction And Water Proofing Llc A Limited Liabiltiy Company,
Hewitt Construction,
Hewitt Construction Inc. A Corporation,
Hewitt Constuction Inc.,
Knibb Design Corp,
Knibb Sean,
M&B Customs A Business Organization Form Unknown,
M&M Sheet Metal & Rain Gutter,
Pedersen Michael,
Satoh Michael,
The Picard Family Company Inc. Dba Watson Plumbing,
Watson Plumbing A Division Of The Picard Family Company Inc,
Watson Plumbing A Division Of The Picard Family Company Inc.,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
West District, Santa Monica Courthouse, Department R
19SMCV00681 June 6, 2023
SHEERI STEINBERG, et al. vs SEAN KNIBB, et al. 9:00 AM
Judge: Honorable Mark H. Epstein CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: E. Goldstein ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: A. Crespin Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Edward E. Johnson
For Defendant(s): Joseph Powers by Amy Pennington; Richard Dennis Seely
Other Appearance Notes: All counsel appear remotely via LACourtConnect
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance by Bank of
America, N.A. with Order to Produce Documents
The matter is called for hearing.
The Court posts its tentative ruling as follows:
The unopposed motion to compel Bank of America to Produce Documents is GRANTED.
The underlying case is about a construction project that went very, very wrong. In the course of
this litigation, plaintiff served a subpoena on Bank of America seeking bank records relating to
Hewitt Construction. The records returned pursuant to the subpoena were allegedly incomplete.
Therefore, plaintiffs served a second subpoena, this time seeking records from Hewitt’s personal
bank account. Hewitt moved to quash the subpoena. That issue was resolved by way of an IDC
before Judge Karlan that resulting in a stipulation signed by the parties and ordered by the court.
The order required the production. Plaintiff served the order on Bank of America, which then
produced certain records. Plaintiffs contend that as they went through the records, they realized
that some were missing. Plaintiffs wrote to Bank of America calling out this problem, but Bank
of America stated that it had closed the file on the subpoena and would do nothing further
without a new subpoena.
The motion to compel is GRANTED. The court does not know why Bank of America chose to
ignore this motion, but if it in fact has not complied with the subpoena, it ought to do so
promptly. If it did comply, then so be it, but then it ought to respond to this motion to explain
why it is that the documents plaintiffs claim were not produced (but should have been) are not in
Bank of America’s possession, custody, or control, or to explain that they have in fact been
produced, or to explain that there are (and never were) any such documents. Plaintiffs’ other
alternative would be to seek something akin to contempt if the custodian of records’ declaration
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
June 06, 2023
Case Filing Date
April 11, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division West District, Santa Monica Courthouse, Department R 19SMCV00681 June 6, 2023 SHEERI STEINBERG, et al. vs SEAN KNIBB, et al. 9:00 AM Judge: Honorable Mark H. Epstein CSR: None Judicial Assistant: E. Goldstein ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: A. Crespin Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Edward E. Johnson For Defendant(s): Joseph Powers by Amy Pennington; Richard Dennis Seely Other Appearance Notes: All counsel appear remotely via LACourtConnect NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance by Bank of America, N.A. with Order to Produce Documents The matter is called for hearing. The Court posts its tentative ruling as follows: The unopposed motion to compel Bank of America to Produce Documents is GRANTED. The underlying case is about a construction project that went very, very wrong. In the course of this litigation, plaintiff served a subpoena on Bank of America seeking bank records relating to Hewitt Construction. The records returned pursuant to the subpoena were allegedly incomplete. Therefore, plaintiffs served a second subpoena, this time seeking records from Hewitt’s personal bank account. Hewitt moved to quash the subpoena. That issue was resolved by way of an IDC before Judge Karlan that resulting in a stipulation signed by the parties and ordered by the court. The order required the production. Plaintiff served the order on Bank of America, which then produced certain records. Plaintiffs contend that as they went through the records, they realized that some were missing. Plaintiffs wrote to Bank of America calling out this problem, but Bank of America stated that it had closed the file on the subpoena and would do nothing further without a new subpoena. The motion to compel is GRANTED. The court does not know why Bank of America chose to ignore this motion, but if it in fact has not complied with the subpoena, it ought to do so promptly. If it did comply, then so be it, but then it ought to respond to this motion to explain why it is that the documents plaintiffs claim were not produced (but should have been) are not in Bank of America’s possession, custody, or control, or to explain that they have in fact been produced, or to explain that there are (and never were) any such documents. Plaintiffs’ other alternative would be to seek something akin to contempt if the custodian of records’ declaration Minute Order Page 1 of 2