2013-00154076-CU-PO

Melinda Dana vs. Nancy Safinick

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Responses

Filed By:  Paulus, Edmund J.
Filed By:  Paulus, Edmund J.

**If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the
requesting party must inform the Court and opposing counsel of the specific
discovery requests or issues on which oral argument is sought.**

Plaintiff Melinda Dana’s motion for an order compelling Defendant Nancy Safinick to
serve further discovery responses and produce documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 12.6(b) and
Requests for Admissions Nos. 15, 16, and 17.  Plaintiff additionally moves to compel
production of the documents that Defendant agreed to produce in response to
Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8-15, and 22.

Preliminarily, Defendants’ Further Reply filed on June 17, 2014 is STRICKEN.  The
Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize such a document to be filed, and
Defendant did not seek or receive leave of court to file it.

The Court grants the motion in its entirety for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s
Separate Statement.  The Court rejects Defendant’s arguments that the motion is
somehow moot or unnecessary because the information sought was provided in meet-
and-confer letters.  Among other things, all responses to discovery must be verified
under penalty of perjury.  A meet-and-confer letter is not a substitute for a verified
discovery response.

Defendant must provide all responsive information in the format prescribed by
California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 2030.210-2030.250, 2031.210-
2031.250, and 2033.210-233.240.  For example, pursuant to CCP §§ 2031.210-
2031.230, Defendant must plainly state whether she will comply with the document
requests and, if so, to what extent (i.e., fully or in part).  Similarly, Defendant must
either admit or deny each request for admission as phrased.  Defendant may not
merely respond to part of a request for admission and ignore the remainder.

No later than July 7, 2014, Defendant shall (1) serve further written, verified responses
to the discovery at issue (Form Interrogatory No. 12.6(b), Requests for Admissions
Nos. 15, 16, and 17, and Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8-15, and 22) and (2)
produce the responsive documents she has already stated she would produce.  The
further responses shall not contain any objections but must otherwise strictly comply
with the applicable statutes, including CCP §§ 2030.210-2030.250, 2031.210-
2031.250, and 2033.210-233.240.

Pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h) and 2033.290(d), the Court imposes a
monetary sanction against Defendant in the amount of $360.00 (3 hours @ reasonable
rate of $100.00/hr + $60.00 filing fee).  Defendant shall pay the sanction no later than
July 21, 2014.  If Defendant fails to pay the sanction by such date, then Plaintiff 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.)

Plaintiff counsel is advised that the Sacramento County Superior Court’s Local Rules
were revised and renumbered as of 01/01/13.  When giving notice of the court’s
tentative ruling system, counsel should cite Local Rule 1.06, not former Local Rule
3.04.

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