Lawzilla Additional Information:
Attorney Mark Ellis or his firm the Ellis Law Group have been the subject of multiple sanctions orders by the courts.

2010-00067737-CU-BC

Ellis Law Group LLC vs. Marison M Mull

Nature of Proceeding:    Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories

Filed By:   Halpern, Kriss

**If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the
requesting party must inform the court and opposing counsel of the specific
issue(s) on which oral argument is sought.**

Defendant Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties’ (“NCSLP”) motion to compel a further
response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 (Relating to Requests for Admissions Nos. 26
-33] is GRANTED.

This case presents an attorney-client dispute in which Plaintiff Ellis Law Group, Inc.
(“ELG”) alleges that NCSLP owes money for legal services performed in a Los
Angeles County Superior Court action.  ELG apparently represented multiple clients in
that case. ELG is seeking, among other amounts, pre-judgment interest.   NCSLP contends that ELG has made inconsistent allegations about the amount of pre-
judgment interest owed.  NCSLP further contends that ELG lacks proper billing records
or other means to reduce its alleged damages to a sum certain.  NCSLP reasons that,
because pre-judgment interest is tethered to both an amount that may be calculated
and the defendant’s awareness of the amount owed, ELG’s claim for pre-judgment
interest is infirm.  (See CCP § 3287(a); Chesapeake Industries, Inc. v. Togova Enterp.,
Inc. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 901, 907.)

In order to gain discovery on the issue of pre-judgment interest, including the basis for
the various sums ELG has cited during this litigation, NCSLP propounded certain
requests for admissions in conjunction with Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.  Thus,
NCSLP sought to require ELG (1) to admit or deny certain facts pertaining to pre-
judgment interest, and to the extent ELG issued a denial, (2) to state all facts and
identify all documents supporting the denial.

NCSLP now argues that ELG was evasive in terms of identifying facts supporting its
denials.  Likewise, NCSLP observes that, with respect to identifying documents
supporting its denials, ELG repeatedly provided the following response:

ELG’s entire client file in the Halpern, et al. v. Mull et al. matter, which
was previously provided to NCSLP, including, but not limited to, Bates
Stamped documents 25,990-33,478 and additional email
correspondence which has also been provided to defendant in response
to prior discovery requests.  Billing records of Ellis Law Group (and its
predecessor law firm).

In other responses, ELG identified the responsive documents as:

Correspondence between the law firm and the clients, and the fee
agreement between law firm and clients, all of which have been provided
to defendant in response to prior discovery requests. Billing records of
Ellis Law Group (and its predecessor law firm).

In NCSLP’s view, ELG’s broad references to categories of documents are too vague to
comply with the applicable sections of the Discovery Act.

The court agrees with NCSLP on all counts.  ELG’s objections to the subject discovery
are all overruled, and ELG must serve further written responses that strictly comply
with CCP § 2030.220(a) [each response to an interrogatory must be “as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits”].  All facts provided in support of a denial of a request for admission must
directly respond to the terms of the request.  Furthermore, all responsive documents
must be identified either by bates-stamp number or by title, date, author and recipient,
to the extent these identifiers are available.  ELG may only refer NCSLP to a series of
bates-stamped documents if each document in the series is genuinely responsive.
The fact that ELG may have produced responsive documents in conjunction with other
discovery does not relieve it of the obligation to identify responsive documents with
reasonable precision now.

Counsel for both sides are advised to cease personal attacks against opposing
counsel.  Such attacks serve no useful purpose and, on the contrary, thwart the court’s               efforts to distill the substantive issues and resolve them.  Repeated accusations that
opposing counsel has engaged in personal attacks are equally distracting.  If counsel
determine that they require the attention of a discovery referee, then they are directed
to file their stipulation pursuant to CCP § 638.

Pursuant to CCP § 2030.300(d), the court imposes a monetary sanction against ELG
in the amount of $1,110 (3 hrs @ reasonable rate of $350/hr + $60 filing fee).  ELG
was unjustified in opposing the motion, and circumstances do not otherwise make
imposition of a monetary sanction unjust.

ELG’s request for judicial notice of court documents is DENIED as irrelevant.

The court need not rule and does not rule on ELG’s objections to evidence.  The court
has only considered admissible evidence in making its ruling.

Conclusion

The motion is granted.

ELG shall serve the further written responses no later than June 12, 2014.

ELG shall pay the sanction no later than June 30, 2014.  If ELG fails to pay the
sanction by such date, then NCSLP may lodge for the court’s signature a formal order
awarding sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate judgment.  (See Newland v.
th
Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4   608, 615.)

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.