2015-00181475-CU-BT

Brian Spears vs. Lauren Spears

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Spears, Brian

Plaintiff Brian Spear’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1, Nos. 1-5 from defendant Jason Bartlett is ruled on as follows:

This matter was continued to this date from September 5, 2018. Defendant has now filed a substantive opposition to the motion on September 17, 2018, and plaintiff has filed a reply on September 25, 2018.

ORAL ARGUMENT WILL TAKE PLACE ON THIS TENTATIVE RULING ON OCTOBER 17, 2018.

The Clerk shall fax a copy of the tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator on or before October 11. The litigation coordinator shall then provide the tentative ruling to plaintiff Brian Spears. Appearance is required on October 17, 2018.

Plain Brian Spears shall be available, by COURTCALL, to participate in oral argument on the continuance date.

In this action, Brian Spears alleges that defendant Jason Bartlett, the brother and financial advisor of defendant Lauren Spears, plaintiff’s estranged wife. Plaintiff alleges that when he and Lauren Spears’ Harwich property was sold, he received only $18,000 and the remaining funds were distributed to the defendants including Jason Bartlett. (Complaint ¶ 45) Plaintiff alleges that he was trying to save his assets and the main attach against his attempts came from Jason Bartlett who wanted to purchase property at foreclosure to help his sister get around having to give plaintiff his share. (Id. ¶ 120)

Jason Bartlett is named in the 8th cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, in which plaintiff alleges that he knew or should have known that his action would result in emotional distress and that he was aware of his sister’s inability to balance a check book, and his knowledge of her drug habit was good reason not to place control of assets in her hands. (Id. 157-158.) He is also named in the 9th cause of action Conspiracy to Commit Fraud.

Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories on Jason Bartlett on May 7, 2018. Plaintiff received defendant’s responses on June 20, 2018. This motion seeks to compel further responses with regard to defendant’s responses and objections that were served on June 20, 2018.

Special Interrogatories, Set 2

No. 1: Denied. This interrogatory asks defendant to identify all companies he owns or owned within the last 10 years. The Court sustains the objections to the request. Plaintiff has not shown how this request is in any way relevant to any of his allegations against defendant.

No. 2: Denied. This interrogatory seeks communications defendant had with Quantix, LLC relating to the Harwich Property. Defendant raised objections of relevance among other objections, and then, responded as follows subject to the objections: “Defendant does not know any person who had an ownership interest or working relationship with business known as Quanatix.”

Plaintiff contends that because the request referred to Quantix LLC, the response referring to Quanatix is evasive and non responsive. In opposition, defendant notes that plaintiff himself refers to Quanatix LLC in Special Interrogatory No. 4 and that the response is adequate as it obviously refers to Quantix LLC.

Plaintiff has failed to explain in his separate statement how any question about Quantix or Quanatix is relevant to his claims against Jason Bartlett. Plaintiff merely states “defendants relationship with Quantix LLC establishes a path of possible fraud and further (sic) plaintiff’s theories, if there is no relationship then defendant should simply say so.” This explanation is not sufficient to order a further response. The Court found no reference to either name in the Complaint. Therefore, court sustains the objections, including that based on relevance.

Request No. 3 Denied. This question seeks information about defendant’s ownership interest in Quantix, LLC. Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of this interrogatory is the same as that for No. 2. The motion is denied for the same reason stated as to No. 2.

Request No. 4 Denied. This question seeks the identities of persons with an ownership or working relationship with Quanatix, LLC. Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of this interrogatory is the same as that for No. 2. The motion is denied for the same reason stated as to No. 2.

Request No. 5. Granted. This request asks defendant to identify persons who received or whom he believes received proceeds from the sale of the Harwich Property between January 2015 and February 2016. The Court overrules the objections. The request is clearly relevant to the allegations of the Complaint which

alleges that moving defendant received proceeds from the sale of the plaintiff’s property. The objections are followed by the statement “Defendant does not know the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the “Harwich Property.” Plaintiff is entitled to a response to the question asked concerning identities without objections.

Sanctions are denied, as each side partially prevailed.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel for moving party is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If counsel for moving party is unable to contact counsel for opposing party prior to hearing, counsel for moving party shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule

3.1312 or further notice is required, however the clerk shall mail a copy of the minute order to the defendant.