Stacy M. Bromley, et al. v. Steven S. McGowan, et al.

Stacy M. Bromley, et al. v. Steven S. McGowan, et al., 25CV-0127

Hearing: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Documents Requests

Date: May 21, 2026

On February 28, 2025, Stacy M. Bromley and Margaret O’Hara, as Trustee of the Kirby K. Gordon Family Trust dated April 6, 2017, (Plaintiffs) filed this lawsuit against Steven S McGowan (McGowan); Anthony E. Toste (Toste); Silver Shoals Investors, LLC; SSD, Inc.; and Toste Construction, Inc. Anthony E. Toste and Toste Construction, Inc. are collectively referred to as Toste Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that beginning in 2012, the parties jointly developed a real estate project consisting of 19 family home sites (Project). McGowan and Toste were in control of the finances for the Project and allegedly engaged in self-dealing, refused to provide a proper accounting, and did not pay Plaintiffs their rightful share of profits.

Plaintiffs move to compel Toste Defendants to provide further responses and produce documents in response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request No. 11 (Request 11).1 Request 11 seeks “[a]ll bank statements during the relevant time period for any account used to manage Project funds.” The Toste Defendants responded to Request 11 as follows:

Objection. This Request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects on the further ground that the Request seeks information that is protected by Responding Party’s (and other party’s) right to financial privacy.

(Separate Statements in support of Motion.) Plaintiffs also seek sanctions against the Toste Defendants and their attorneys for misuse of the discovery process.

The Toste Defendants oppose the motions arguing Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith and Request 11 is overbroad and violates the Toste Defendants’ rights of privacy.

1. Standard for Determining Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.0102 states: “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in

1 Plaintiffs propounded separate requests for production on Toste and Toste Construction, Inc. Request 11 is identical in each of the discovery requests and Toste’s and Toste Construction, Inc.’s response to Request 11 are identical. 2 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated.

evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” “‘For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement....’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.’” (