JEANNE HAM PETO VS. THOMAS P. FAZEKAS ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Thursday, September 25, 2025, Line 12. [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.]

PLAINTIFF JEANNE PETO TRUSTEE OF THE PETO FAMILY TRUST's Motion To Compel Further Discovery Response To Request For Production 18. Plaintiff Jeanne Ham Peto seeks an order compelling defendant Thomas P. Fazekas to provide further responses to her request for production of documents no.

18.

The motion is granted in part and the court orders Fazekas to pay $2,060 in sanctions to Peto within 30 days of entry of this order.

RFP 18 asks for "All statements of assets or similar loan application documents in which you listed the Property as an asset at any time. To be clear, the request only seeks information regarding what you told lenders the Property is worth and non-responsive assets and personal financial information other than the Property may be redacted." In other words, Peto seeks Fazekas's prior statements about the value of the real property that is the subject of this partition action. The request is not limited as to time.

Fazekas responded: "Responding Party objects that this request is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and therefore harassing. He further objects that it invades his right to financial privacy, as well as that of third parties. The request is also compound. Subject to and without waiving the objection(s) to this Request, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party concurrently produces documents, Bates stamped FAZEKAS 00001-01364. Specifically, see FAZEKAS 01072-01234."

In subsequent meet and confer discussions, Fazekas continued to assert objections but counsel also made a representation that all documents had been produced. It is not clear from counsel's representations in the meet and confer correspondence, or from the RFP response, whether all responsive documents were produced or only those that Fazekas was willing to produce. After the motion was filed, Fazekas produced another responsive document.

The court grants the motion in part and orders Fazekas to amend his response. His overbreadth objection has merit in that the request is not limited as to time. The court limits the request to seven years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Fazekas's remaining objections lack merit in light of Peto's concession that other financial information may be redacted from the documents.

Fazekas did not provide a code-compliant response to the RFP. Where a response objects in part, it must state what documents are being withheld subject to the objection. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.240, subd. (b)(1).) In addition, Fazekas's statement of compliance was ambiguous (as was his meet and confer correspondence) as to whether Fazekas's offer of production was compliance in whole or in part. (Id., section 2031.220.) Fazekas shall amend to conform to the Code and produce responsive documents within 10 days of entry of this order.