Case Number: EC067282 Hearing Date: July 27, 2018 Dept: A

Singer v Samuel

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND FURTHER RESPONSES

Calendar: 16

Case No: EC067282

Hearing Date: 7/27/18

Action Filed: 9/14/17

Trial: Not set

MP: Plaintiff Ian J. Singer

RP: None

ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT:

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he advanced $15,100.00 to Defendant Wayne Gary Samuel (“Defendant”) over period of time, but Defendant failed to satisfactorily perform legal services pursuant to an oral contract. Plaintiff alleges that he hired Defendant as an independent contractor and gave Defendant several legal assignments to complete, but Defendant failed to complete the assignments and to provide regular invoices.

The complaint, filed September 14, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud and deceit (Count 1: false promise; Count 2: negligent misrepresentation); (2) accounting; (3) breach of contract; (4) common counts – money had and received; and (5) unjust enrichment.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves to compel a response to an unanswered special interrogatory, set one (“SROG”), and compel further responses to a three SROGs.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel

On January 4, 2018, Plaintiff served on Defendant the SROG, which only consisted of four interrogatories. Responses were due by February 8, 2018. On February 7, 2018, Defendant’s former counsel, C.R. McReynolds, requested an extension, which Plaintiff granted until February 22, 2018. On February 28, 2018, Defendant untimely provided objections to SROG nos. 1-3, but did not provide a response for SROG no. 4.

Plaintiff states that he emailed Mr. McReynolds to inquire about SROG No. 4. Mr. McReynolds responded that he was moving to be relieved as counsel and requested another extension to supplement the responses to the SROG. Plaintiff granted multiple extensions, such that a response was due by April 25, 2018. The parties agreed to extend the time for Plaintiff to file a motion to June 4, 2018.

After Mr. McReynolds’ motion to be relieved as counsel was granted on April 27, 2018, Plaintiff inquired by email directly to Defendant about the responses, but Defendant did not provide a response.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to SROG nos. 1-3, and an initial response as to SROG no. 4.

SROG no. 1 asks Defendant to identify every task Defendant performed while engaged as an attorney by Plaintiff, including the date the work was performed and amount of time spent. Defendant responded with a list of tasks, but failed to answer the entire interrogatory by providing dates and time spent on the tasks.

This response is not complete as it fails to answer the entirety of the SROG. Defendant did not raise any objections and or stated that he was unable to answer the interrogatory. (See CCP §§2030.220, 2030.240.) Thus, the Court will grant the motion to compel further as to SROG no. 1.

SROG no. 2 asks Defendant to identify every document Defendant generated (and when it was generated) while engaged as an attorney by Plaintiff. In response, Defendant referred Plaintiff to the documents produced in response to the request for production of documents, set one.

This response is not code-compliant. While Defendant may refer to documents, this may be done pursuant to CCP §2030.230. Defendant’s response fails to comply with this code section as it does not specify the writings from which the SROG may be derived or ascertained—rather, Defendant’s response generally directs Plaintiff to all of the documents he produced. Moreover, “[a]nswers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, ‘See my deposition,’ ‘See my pleading,’ or ‘See the financial statement.’ Indeed, if a question does require the responding party to make reference to a pleading or document, the pleading or document should be identified and summarized so the answer is fully responsive to the question.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783–784.)

Thus, the Court will grant the motion to compel further as to SROG no. 2.

SROG no. 3 asks Defendant to state with specificity the amount of money Defendant contends he earned performing legal services pursuant to his engagement by Plaintiff. In response, Defendant stated he was not aware of the total amount earned, but believes that the total amount exceeds $15,100.00 total paid by Plaintiff to Defendant.

Plaintiff argues that this response is evasive and in violation of CCP §2030.220(a). Subsection (a) states that each answer to an interrogatory shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. Plaintiff states that it is undisputed that Plaintiff provided Defendant the sum of $15,100.00. However, Plaintiff seeks a direct response from Defendant rather than his “belief” of the amount.

As this answer is not straightforward and complete, the Court will grant the motion to compel further as to SROG no. 3.

SROG no. 4 asks Defendant to state with specificity all facts supporting his contention regarding the amount of money he contends he earned performing legal services pursuant to his engagement by Plaintiff.

No response was provided by Defendant with regard to no. 4. As such, Defendant is ordered to provide a verified response to SROG no. 4, without objection, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $74.61, which includes $60 for filing fees and $14.61 for travel expenses to attend the hearing on this matter.

The Court will grant the request for sanctions in the amount of $74.61.

RULING:

Grant the motion to compel and compel further responses to the special interrogatories, set one, in its entirety. Defendant is ordered to provide verified code-compliant responses, without objection within 20 days of notice of this order.

Grant plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $74.61.