Lawzilla Additional Information. Defendant’s attorney for this matter is Zachary Scribner

19-CIV-01274 ROBERT BRANZUELA VS. FREDERICK P. KOO, ET AL.

ROBERT BRANZUELA FREDERICK P. KOO
SARAH SHAPERO BRIAN J. MCSWEENEY

MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT BRANZUELA TO PROVIDE COMPLETE, NON-EVASIVE RESPONSES TO (1) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; (2) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS; (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES; AND (4) PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY FREDERICK P. KOO AND SHERRY W. KOO TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion to compel responses to (1) requests for production of documents, (2) requests for admissions, (3) form interrogatories, and (4) to produce additional documents is DENIED. The court finds Defendants have failed to meet and confer in good faith as required by CCP § 2016.040.

On July 10, Defendants’ counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel “to confirm our discussion of the various issues raised during our telephonic meet and confer meeting of July 8, 2019.” The letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

Given that we have previously agreed to extend the deadline on a motion to compel your client’s discovery production and responses to July 19, 2019, please provide your client’s revised responses no later than July 19, 2019 with the understanding that your client grants my clients a new deadline on filing a motion to compel on Mr. Branzuela’s Supplemental Responses up to and including August 31, 2019. Please immediately advise if you do not agree.

Shapero Decl., Ex. A (emphasis in original). Plaintiff sent supplemental responses via email on July 19. Plaintiff served the responses by mail on the following Monday, July 22. Defendants’ counsel acknowledges he received the supplemental responses at 3;35 p.m. on Friday, July 19. Scribner Decl. ¶ 6. Notwithstanding counsel’s receipt of the supplemental responses on July 19, and notwithstanding the parties’ agreement to an August 31 deadline for filing a motion to compel, Defendants filed the present motion to compel on July 22. In light of these facts, the court finds that Defendants did not meet and confer in good faith.

Defendants assert the deadline for filing their motion to compel was July 19. Scribner Supp. Decl., ¶ 6. This assertion, however, is contrary to defense counsel’s July 10 letter, in which counsel stated that the new deadline for filing a motion to compel supplemental responses was August 31, 2019. The letter instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to “Please immediately advise if you do not agree.” Plaintiff’s counsel did not indicate any disagreement with the new deadlines.

Defendants also contend they did not agree to electronic service of the supplemental responses and that service was therefore untimely. Notably, however, in an email sent on May 16, Defendants’ counsel demanded electronic service of prior supplemental discovery responses as follows: “Your client sued my clients and have made outrageous and unsustainable allegations, thus I expect your client to have responsive Discovery documents within the 2 week period you requested, ie no later than May 24, 2019, you will deliver to me electronically code compliant responses.” Scribner Decl., Exhibit B, ¶ 5.

Notwithstanding this correspondence demanding electronic service of discovery responses, Defendants now contend that Plaintiff’s supplemental responses were not timely served because the parties had no agreement to accept electronic service pursuant to CRC 2.251. Further, notwithstanding the fact that the May 16 email correspondence was sent from Brian McSweeney to Sarah Shapero, and that no other parties were copied on that correspondence, and notwithstanding the fact that both Mr. McSweeney and Mr. Scribner received the supplemental responses on July 19, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s paralegal “attempted to ‘hide the ball’ by only including Mr. McSweeney in the email attempting to serve the Second Supplemental Responses[.]” Scribner Supp. Decl., ¶ 9. Considering Defendants’ prior demand for electronic service and counsel’s actual notice of the supplemental responses, Defendant’s claim that the supplemental responses were not timely served has dubious merit. In any event, however, the court need not reach the issue, because the court finds that Defendants have not met and conferred in good faith.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,180, pursuant to CCP § 2023.020. Defendants shall pay this amount within 21 days of this order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.