Case Name: Spiro Jannings v. Pacfic Gas and Electric Company
Case No.: 17CV315033

Plaintiff is a self-represented individual, and has filed a number of pleadings related to discovery requests apparently served on Defendant. These all appear to be attempts at bringing motions to compel further responses, although all are replete with significant procedural and substantive defects. Defendant has filed a detailed opposition.

On 7/16/18, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery and Electronic Service.” (Italics in original.)
On 7/17/18, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Amended Omnibus Motion to Compel Defense to Respond to Production of Documents; And Comply With All Service to Plaintiff by Electronic Service.”
On 8/20/18, Plaintiff filed both the “Second Amended” and “Third Amended” Omnibus Motions to Compel.
Finally, on 9/6/18 Plaintiff filed the “Fourth Amended” Omnibus Motion.

Defendant filed on 9/10/18 an Opposition to the “Third Amended” motion, which includes a request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s motions, which the Court will consider a single motion to compel further responses to document requests, are DENIED.
The motions are denied on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiff has not filed and served the Separate Statement required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345;

2. Plaintiff has not made a showing of specific facts to demonstrate good cause for the requested discovery, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310(b)(1);

3. Plaintiff has not filed and served the meet and confer declaration required by §2031.310(b)(2) and §2016.040, and has failed to state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion; and

4. Finally, although Defendant has not raised this issue in the Opposition, Plaintiff’s service of all papers does not appear to comply fully with the requirements of the law. Code of Civil Procedure §1013a requires that service by mail be accomplished by an adult person who is “not a party to the cause.” Here, each of the proofs of service Plaintiff has filed indicate that he, personally, served the pleadings by mail (as well as by electronic service, which does not appear to have the same restriction – see §1013b and cf. §1013a). As Defendant clearly received service and has filed Opposition, and does not object to service, the court does not base its denial of the motion on this apparent conflict or contradiction between the requirements for different methods of service.

Defendant also requests the imposition of monetary sanctions, which are mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.310(h), 2023.010(h), 2023.010(i), and 2023.020. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to pay forthwith to counsel for Defendant the sum of $2,484, as and for reasonable expenses incurred by Defendant in opposing Plaintiff’s motion(s).