2015-00181475-CU-BT

Brian Spears vs. Lauren Spears

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form 2) Special 3) Production 4) Admissions

Filed By: Spears, Brian

This matter is continued to 3/12/2018 at 02:00PM in this department to be heard by Judge Culhane. An order made by one judge cannot be reconsidered by another judge of the same court, absent the unavailability of the first judge (such as by retirement). Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232.

The Tentative Ruling from 2/23/18 is copied without change below.

Self-represented Plaintiff Brian Spears’ Motion to Compel Defendant Jason Bartlett to provide Further Answers to Form and Special Interrogatories and Further Responses to Requests for Production (Sets One) is DENIED. The cross-requests for imposition of sanctions are DENIED. Code Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d), 2031.310(d), 2023.030(a).

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at

Plaintiff moves to compel further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 2.1, 3.1-3.7, 4.1 -4.2; Special Interrogatory No. 3, 8, 9,10; and Requests for Production of Documents No. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Form Interrogatory No. 2.1 – DENIED

This Interrogatory requests that Bartlett identify his name and every other name used in the past, along with dates those names were used, IF ANY. Bartlett responded with his one and only name, Jason K. Bartlett.

The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that parts (b) and (c) are inapplicable as Bartlett has not used any other name in the past.

No further response is required.

Form Interrogatory Nos. 3.1-3.7 – DENIED

These interrogatories ask Bartlett if he, individually, is a corporation. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that plaintiff is an individual, not a corporation.

No further response is required.

Form Interrogatory Nos. 4.1-4.2 DENIED

Bartlett denies that there was any policy of insurance through which he might have been insured at the time of the incident. Also that he was not self-insured. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies his response.

No further response is required.

Special Interrogatory No. 3 – DENIED

This Interrogatory No. 3 asks Bartlett to “IDENTIFY all real estate loans YOU arranged RELATING TO Lauren Spears.” Bartlett responded that he only recalls only one real estate loan he arranged for Lauren Spears, approximately ten years ago, and he no longer possesses any documentation in that regard. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that response.

No further response is required.

Special Interrogatory No. 8 – DENIED

No. 8 requests “all details” of any and all communications between Bartlett and Lauren Spears regarding the Harwich property as it relates to the allegations of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [for conspiracy to commit fraud]. Bartlett responded that he recalled having at least one conversation with his sister Lauren Spears about the Harwich property, but nothing as it related to the FAC. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that response.

No further response is required.

Special Interrogatory No. 9 – DENIED

No. 9 asks for all details of any and all communications between Bartlett and John Anderson regarding the Harwich property as it relates to the allegations of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for conspiracy to commit fraud. Bartlett responded that he recalled having at least one conversation with John Anderson regarding the Harwich property; but nothing as it related to the FAC. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that response.

No further response is required.

Special Interrogatory No. 10 – DENIED

No. 10 requests “all details” of any and all communications between Bartlett and Lauren Spears regarding the CUNY property as it relates to the allegations of Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint for conspiracy to commit fraud. Bartlett responded that he recalled having at least one conversation with Lauren Spears regarding the Cuny property; but nothing as it related to the FAC. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that response.

No further response is required.

Requests for Production of Documents No. 1 – DENIED

Copies of all documents relating to Bartlett’s ownership of the real property commonly known as 12200 Prairie Rose Way, Bakersfield, California.

Bartlett’s supplemental response represents that he does not have any documentation relating to the ownership of that real property. He has no possession, custody or control of those documents as he purchased the property in 2002 and sold his interest in the property in 2005.

No further response is required.

Requests for Production of Documents No. 2 – DENIED

Copies of all documents relating to real estate loans Bartlett arranged relating to Lauren Spears and community property.

Bartlett responded that these filed are long closed and there are no records available to be produced. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that response.

No further response is required.

Requests for Production of Documents No. 3 – DENIED

Copies of all documents relating to personal loans Bartlett arranged relating to Lauren Spears and community property.

Bartlett responded that he has no possession, custody or control of those documents so long after the transactions were conducted. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that response.

No further response is required.

Requests for Production of Documents No. 4. – DENIED

Copies of all documents relating to funds transferred between Bartlett and Lauren Spears, including wire transfers and checks.

Bartlett responded that he has no possession, custody or control of those documents. He asserts that the transactions do not related to the allegations of the FAC. The Supplemental Response served Feb. 7, 2018 clarifies that response.

No further response is required.

The cross-requests for sanctions are denied.