Supply & Demand, Inc. v. Anthony Kaye, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 735) August 24, 2026 DEPARTMENT 735 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

IMAX Corporation. et al. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions The court declines to take judicial notice of a prior order in an unrelated action. Plaintiff moves for further responses to requests for admissions numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 on grounds that responses are noncompliant and therefore insufficient. Plaintiff also challenges the "vague and ambiguous" objections.

Defendant in opposition first contends an inadequate meet and confer effort. Defendant next specifically identifies the "admit" response to numbers 1 and 2. On numbers 4, 5 and 6, Defendant reiterates the vague and ambiguous objections. Plaintiff reached out in an effort to meet and confer. [Declaration of Armen Zenjiryan, P. 4, Ex. 2.] Defendant asserts limited effort, but also presents no proof of a response to the initial effort. [Declaration of Joseph Hadacek, P.P. 3-4, Ex B.] The effort appears sufficient. Further, the court held an IDC on the subject items. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).)

For requests numbers 1 and 2, the responses admit to no written policies. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).) For numbers 4, 5, and 6, Plaintiff requests information about the alleged promotion policy, including the timing of any disclosure to Plaintiff. Defendant responds only with a "vague and ambiguous" objection and inability to "admit or deny" the request. The objections are unconvincing. Defendant both knows its own policies at the time (for number 4), and also should be aware of the person(s) responsible for promotion decisions and communications with direct reports.

CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to request for admissions, numbers 1 and 2, and grants the Motion to Compel further responses to numbers 4, 5, and 6. Given the mixed outcome of the Plaintiff's motion arising from Defendant's opposition having some justification, the court denies sanctions. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV31438 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 735 Supply & Demand, Inc. v. Anthony Kaye, et al.

Plaintiff propounded discovery on March 17, 2026. Defendant Anthony Kaye ("Defendant") provided deficient, objection-only responses on April 20, 2026. The parties met and conferred multiple times between April and May 2026 and eventually agreed to narrow certain defined terms and for Defendant to serve supplemental responses by June 3, 2026. Defendant, however, served supplemental responses on August 11, 2026, the same day as his opposition was filed. Based on the supplemental responses, Plaintiff, in reply, requests supplemental responses to Requests for Admissions Nos. 3-8, 18, 26, and 31-33.

Responses RFA No. 3: Deny. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the defined-term narrowing cuts across Defendant's ambiguity argument and Defendant's response is not Code-complaint. However, although Plaintiff has attached a copy of the document to the first amended complaint, Plaintiff has failed to attach a copy of the document to the discovery request, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060, subdivision (g).

RFA No. 4: Deny. See RFAs No. 3 analysis.

RFA No. 5: Grant. Plaintiff's request is not seeking an admission as to the genuineness of the document, thus Defendant's Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060, subdivision (d) argument is unpersuasive. Also, as discussed above, the parties' agreement to narrow the defined terms eliminates ambiguity concerns. Defendant states that he "lacks the personal knowledge to admit any of this request. After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request has been made, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the entire matter." However, the Court finds this response to be evasive because the agreement references that Plaintiff is a lienholder of Defendant's tangible and intangible properties. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 6: Grant. Plaintiff's request is not seeking an admission as to the genuineness of the document, thus Defendant's Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060, subdivision (d) argument is unpersuasive. Also, as discussed above, the parties' agreement to narrow the defined terms eliminates ambiguity concerns. Defendant states that he "lacks the personal knowledge to admit any of this request. After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request has been made, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the entire matter." However, the Court finds this response to be evasive because the agreement references that Defendant is required to sign a wage assignment form for employment. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 7: Grant. See RFAs No. 5 analysis. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 8: Grant. See RFAs No. 6 analysis. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 18: Grant. As discussed above, the parties' agreement to narrow the defined terms eliminates ambiguity concerns. Defendant states that he "lacks the personal knowledge to admit any of this request. After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request has been made, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the entire matter." However, the Court finds this response to be evasive because Defendant should reasonably know whether he has made a payment since February 25, 2019. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 26: Grant. As discussed above, the parties' agreement to narrow the defined terms eliminates ambiguity concerns. Defendant states that he "[a]fter a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the request has been made, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the entire matter." However, the Court finds this response to be evasive because Defendant has admitted in response to RFAs No. 25 that he is the sole controlling shareholder of Tony Kaye Pictures, Inc.; thus, Defendant should reasonably know whether a formal board of directors meeting has been held since 2018. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 31: Grant. As discussed above, the parties' agreement to narrow the defined terms eliminates ambiguity concerns. Defendant states that he "lacks the personal knowledge to admit any of this request. After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request has been made, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the entire matter." However, the Court finds this response to be evasive because Defendant should reasonably know whether he has any documents supporting a claim that the debt owed to S&D was paid. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 32: Grant. As discussed above, the parties' agreement to narrow the defined terms eliminates ambiguity concerns. Defendant states that he "lacks the personal knowledge to admit any of this request. After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request has been made, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the entire matter." However, the Court finds this response to be evasive because Defendant should reasonably know whether he has any documents showing that S&D agreed to forgive, waive, or release the debt. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

RFA No. 33: Grant. As discussed above, the parties' agreement to narrow the defined terms eliminates ambiguity concerns. Defendant states that he "lacks the personal knowledge to admit any of this request. After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the request has been made, the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the entire matter." However, the Court finds this response to be evasive because Defendant should reasonably know whether he had insufficient remaining assets to satisfy his debts to S&D after the March 12, 2024 transfer of the defined property. Defendant shall provide a Code compliant response within 10 days.

Sanctions In reply, Plaintiff requests $11,289.00 in sanctions at $795/hour. This includes $5,565.00 in fees and costs sought in the Motion (7 hours of work) and an additional $5,742.00 in fees and costs sought in the Reply (7.2 hours of work). Defendant failed to address the two-month delay in serving supplemental responses in its opposition or declaration. The Court finds the time and hourly rate reasonable. Accordingly, the Court awards $11,289 in sanctions against Defendant.

Defendant also requested $3,850 in sanctions at $350/hour (6 hours drafting the opposition, 1 hour reviewing the reply, and 2 hours for preparing and appearing at the hearing). The Court finds that because the motion was primarily granted in part, with only two requests denied due to a procedural error, sanctions against Plaintiff are unjustified. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's request for sanctions in its discretion.

Conclusion

Defendant shall provide Code compliant responses within 10 days to Requests for Admission 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 26, 31, 32, and 33. Defendant shall pay plaintiff's counsel $11,289 in attorney's fees as sanctions within 30 days. | Home -->)" -->