Case Name: Jason v. Vierra, et al.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-283551

Plaintiff Trent Jason (“Plaintiff”) met with defendant Roland A. Vierra aka Roland Arthur Vierra (“Vierra”) and Flooring Forensics, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) to hire Vierra as an expert in a products liability case involving defective flooring. (See first amended complaint (“FAC”), ¶¶ 13-30.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly billed Plaintiff for work never performed, and Vierra also failed to perform his duties as an expert—including the attendance of his deposition, resulting in the exclusion of Vierra at trial and the eventual loss of the case. (See complaint, ¶¶ 31-124.) Despite Plaintiff’s demand, Defendants refuse to return the monies paid for his services. On November 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed the FAC against Defendants, asserting causes of action for: 1) wrongful failure to account for funds; 2) conversion; 3) intentional misrepresentations; 4) fraud; and, 5) unfair business practices.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories numbers (“SIs”) 1, 5-7, 21-26, and, 29-32.

Font size of Plaintiff’s papers is too small.

Plaintiff’s papers use a font size that appears smaller than 12 points. Rule of Court 2.104 and 2.105 require a font that is not smaller than 12 points, using a font that is essentially equivalent to Courier, Times New Roman or Arial font. Plaintiff is hereby admonished for the violation of the Rule of Court, and is cautioned that non-conformance with this Rule of Court may result in the rejection of any such submitted papers. (See Rule of Court 2.118, subd. (a).)

Meet and confer efforts are inadequate

In support of his motion, Plaintiff has submitted a 25-paged declaration consisting of 88 paragraphs, and a document entitled “Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts prior to Plaintiff serving and filing Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Flooring Forensics, Incorporated, to answer thirteen special interrogatories.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 requires the moving party to submit “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion [that] shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.) Here, Plaintiff’s declaration does not refer to his meet and confer efforts, and there is no declaration attached to Plaintiff’s meet and confer document. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate that his meet and confer efforts were adequate and code-compliant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED on this basis.

Moreover, even if the Court had looked to the contents of Plaintiff’s May 4, 2016 letter, Plaintiff apparently misunderstands the meet and confer process. As previously stated, section 2016.040 requires parties to meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute as to each issue so as to avoid the necessity of a motion. Plaintiff’s letter briefly mentions an April 26, 2016 meeting regarding a need to meet and confer with regards to special interrogatories, but there is no suggestion by the letter that Plaintiff attempted to resolve the discovery dispute as to each issue at that meeting. The May 4, 2016 letter attached Plaintiff’s separate statement, but was delivered on May 5, 2016, just two business days prior to the date Plaintiff filed the instant motion. There is no suggestion that Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendants prior to filing the instant motion other than the May 4, 2016 letter that would suggest that the issues were unable to be resolved. Plaintiff’s reply brief also does not suggest that Plaintiff made attempts to resolve each issue presented by the motion on April 26, 2016, or further attempted to resolve the issues after the delivery of his May 4, 2016 letter before filing the instant motion. Accordingly, even considering the May 4, 2016 letter, Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts are inadequate.

That said, it should be noted that Defendants should have attempted to respond to Plaintiff after receipt of the letter on May 5, 2016. Defendants have submitted no evidence of any attempt to do so. As there are circumstances that would make imposition of the sanction unjust—namely, Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s May 4, 2016 letter, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the order.