Case Number: EC066715 Hearing Date: June 01, 2018 Dept: B

# 8

enrique ricardo-vargas, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

frank mcnally dba mcnally law office, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: EC066715

Hearing Date: June 1, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel Further responses to form interrogatories

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiffs Enrique Ricardo-Vargas and Regina Ricardo (“Plaintiffs”) allege they retained Defendants Frank McNally dba McNally Law Office (“McNully”) and Debra Koven (collectively, “Defendants”) to represent them in a legal action to recover damages arising from an electrocution incident. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages because Defendants failed to exercise proper care and skill in the matter. The complaint was filed on May 4, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses against McNully to form interrogatories (“FROG”), set one. McNully opposes.

DISCUSSION

A. Separate Statement

The questions and answers in dispute must be set forth verbatim in a separate statement, which must also set forth the factual or legal reasons why a further answer should be compelled. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) “The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference.” (Id., rule 3.1345(c).)

No separate statement accompanies Plaintiffs’ motion. In opposition, McNully also fails to provide a separate statement. Furthermore, the moving papers and opposition brief fail to provide a discussion of each FROG at issue. The failure to comply with this CRC Rule and to apprise the Court of which particular FROG requests are at issue in this motion is a ground to deny this motion.

B. Meet and Confer

Motions to compel further response must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration per CCP §2016.040, setting forth facts evincing a “reasonable and good faith attempt an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (See CCP §2030.300(b).)

Plaintiffs propounded the FROG on January 24, 2018 on McNully. (Santos Decl., ¶2.) The parties extended the deadline for McNully to respond to March 16, 2018. (Id., ¶4.) On March 20, 2018, McNully sent responses by mail to Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶¶8-9, Exs. F-G.) On March 27, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he sent a meet and confer email, seeking amended responses without objection by April 6, 2018. (Id., ¶¶10-11, Ex. H-I.) On April 2, 2018, McNully’s counsel responded via letter, requesting Plaintiffs to identify which FROG was at issue and the grounds for why further responses were requested. (Id., ¶12, Ex. J.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed this motion on April 10, 2018.

The meet and confer efforts here are sparse. The meet and confer letter attached to Exhibit H is an email requesting amended responses without objection, and Exhibit I is an email attaching an envelope showing that McNully untimely served responses on March 20, 2018. This meet and confer letter fails to address the merits of the responses that were provided, their insufficiency, and why the objections are meritless—even after McNully’s counsel appeared to be amenable to continue meeting and conferring about the FROGs. Plaintiffs have not shown that they made good faith attempts at meeting and conferring with McNully in attempts to informally resolve this matter prior to bringing this motion. This is another ground to deny the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel McNully’s further responses is denied. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.

McNully’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $600.00 to McNully, by and through counsel, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.

Posted 5/30/18 at 11:21 a.m.