2016-00200160-CU-BC

David Dinelli vs. Jamie Timms

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1. Admissions 2. Form

Filed By: McKim, David M.

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

Plaintiff David Dinelli’s (Dinelli) motion for an order compelling Defendants Jamie Timms (Timms) and Butch Baccala (Baccala) (collectively sometimes “the Individual Defendants”) to serve further responses to the first sets of requests for admissions and form interrogatories is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Individual Defendants’ request for judicial notice of court documents is GRANTED.

Procedural Background

In the complaint, Dinelli alleges that he, Timms and Baccala each own shares in Co-Defendant California Academy of Baseball, Inc. (CAB). Dinelli further alleges that he and Cross-Defendant Sonny Merlo (Merlo) formed a limited liability company (“the LLC”) to operate a baseball training facility catering to youth. According to Dinelli, Merlo caused the LLC’s assets to be sold to Timms and/or CAB. Merlo received all the cash tendered for the sale, and Dinelli took his interest in CAB. In addition, CAB orally hired Dinelli to provide baseball coaching services in exchange for cash compensation.

Dinelli alleges that Timms and Baccala decided to oust him under the pretext he had misused social media. He alleges he has not received compensation due for his coaching services. He also alleges that some of his personal equipment and other property were wrongfully transferred to CAB, which has not returned it despite his demands. The complaint contains a breach of contact cause of action against CAB, a conversion cause of action against all the defendants and a corporate dissolution cause of action against all the defendants.

On 6/13/18, Dinelli served Timms and Baccala substantially identical sets of requests for admissions and form interrogatories. (See McKim Decl., Exhs. A, C, E, G.) Timms and Baccala served substantially identical objections and unverified responses. (Id., Exhs., B, D, F, H.) Dinelli’s counsel sent a substantive meet-and-confer letter but received no response. (Id., ¶ 10 and Exh. I.) This motion followed.

Discussion

Requests for Admissions

Dinelli’s request for further responses to Requests for Admissions 11-14, 17, 18 and 20-33 is granted. The Individual Defendants’ objections are overruled. Verified further responses that strictly comply with CCP §§ 2033.210-2033.240 are required, except that no objections may be raised. The further responses shall not incorporate other responses by reference, and each response shall respond directly to the call of the

corresponding request.

In ordering further responses to the requests for admissions, the court rejects the Individual Defendants’ argument that Dinelli is barred from seeking admissions or other discovery related solely to legal claims directed at CAB. Discovery may relate to any party or issue in the litigation. (See CCP § 2017.010.)

The court likewise rejects the Individual Defendants’ argument that Dinelli may not pursue discovery germane to the dissolution cause of action because CAB has already been dissolved. Whether or not a voluntary dissolution is underway, the court does not find that CAB has been dissolved, and Dinelli’s dissolution cause of action remains a proper subject for discovery.

That CAB is or was in bankruptcy does not alter the order for further responses to the requests for admissions either. The bankruptcy did not result in a stay of the action against Timms or Baccala. Furthermore, CAB’s bankruptcy was dismissed, and therefore none of Dinelli’s causes of action against it were extinguished. (See Reply McKim Decl., Exh. J.)

Nor may the Individual Defendants point to their production of documents (such as the parties’ Asset Purchase Agreement) as a substitute for proper written responses to the requests for admissions. The Individual Defendants have not demonstrated any duplicativeness amounting to an undue burden.

Form Interrogatories

Dinelli’s request for further responses to Form Interrogatories 2.6(a), 2.7, 2.8, 3.6, 3.7, 15.1, 17.1 and 50./1-50.6 is granted. The Individual Defendants’ objections to this discovery are overruled. Verified further responses that strictly comply with CCP §§ 2033.210-2033.240 are required, except that no objections may be raised. The further responses shall not incorporate by reference other discovery responses. Although some of the interrogatories call for background educational and other information that is probably of modest relevance, they are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and must be answered. The court also notes that form interrogatories are drafted by the Judicial Council and are presumptively relevant. To avoid ambiguity, where the Individual Defendants mention any business entity by name in their responses, they shall identify that entity by its complete name, not as “the company.”

Dinelli’s further request for further responses to Form Interrogatories 2.6(b) and 12.1-12.6 is denied. The term INCIDENT is ambiguous as applied to this action given that the case encompasses alleged breaches of contract and conversion of property-both of which could be considered INCIDENTS. The Individual Defendants’ objections on grounds of vagueness and ambiguity are sustained, and no further responses are required.

Monetary Sanctions

Although the results of the motion are somewhat mixed, the Individual Defendants were not substantially justified in their opposition, and other circumstances do not make the imposition of a monetary sanction unjust. (See CCP §§ 2030.300(d),

2033.290(d).) The court thus imposes a monetary sanction against Timms, Baccala and their counsel, Joseph M. Elguindy, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,130 (6

hrs @ reasonable rate of $345 + $60 filing fee).

Timms, Baccala and Elguindy shall pay the sanction no later than 11/09/18. If the sanction is not paid by such date, then Dinelli may lodge for the court’s signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Disposition

The motion is granted in part and denied in part on the terms above.

Where verified further responses are ordered, they shall be served no later than 10/31/18.

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