Vasu Arora v. William Dresser, et al.		CASE NO. 113CV254667
DATE: 15 August 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 9

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose.  Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.882.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 14 August 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 15 August 2014, the motion of defendant William Dresser (“Defendant”) to compel initial responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents and deem admitted requests for admission, and for an award of monetary sanctions, was argued and submitted.  Plaintiff Vasu Arora (“Plaintiff”) filed a formal opposition to the motion.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f).[1]

Statement of Facts  

This is an action for legal malpractice.  Plaintiff retained Defendant to represent him in a lawsuit (“the Underlying Action”) arising out of an employment dispute with his former employer.  Defendants Roger Sisneros (“Mr. Sisneros”) and Michael J. DePaul (“Mr. DePaul”) represented Plaintiff’s former employer in the Underlying Action.

On 21 November 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging that Defendant breached duties owed to him by: improperly propounding and failing to object to discovery; allowing Mr. Sisneros to draft the settlement contract (“Settlement Agreement”) resolving the Underlying Action; not demanding that the defendants in the Underlying Action pay certain costs; negotiating a settlement without his input; not verifying whether Mr. Sisneros had the authority to sign the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the defendants in the Underlying Action; filing a dismissal of the Underlying Action before the defendants paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; allowing the defendants to pay him late without interest; coercing him to sign the Settlement Agreement; and not giving him enough time to review the terms of the Settlement Agreement and ask questions.

Discovery Dispute

Defendant asserts that he served Plaintiff via U.S. mail with form interrogatories, set one (“FI”), special interrogatories, set one (“SI”), requests for production, set one (“RPD”), requests for admission, set one (“RFA”), and a declaration of necessity for the SI on 6 December 2013.[2]  (See Mem. Ps & As., p. 1:17-18; see also Dresser Dec., Exs. A, B, C, and D.)

On 1 May 2014, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter regarding Plaintiff’s purported intention to file a small claims lawsuit against him.  (See Dresser Dec., Ex. E.)  Defendant requested that Plaintiff reconsider pursuing the small claims litigation and stated that “[s]hould you instead chose to continue, then please immediately provide to me complete responses and production, without objection, to the discovery served on you by mail on December 6, 2013 consisting of: First Set of Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Vasu Arora; Declaration for Additional Discovery; First Set of Requests to Admit to Plaintiff Vasu Arora; and First Set of Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff Vasu Arora.”  (Id.)

Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with responses to the discovery requests.  (See Dresser Dec., p. 1:24-26.)

On 27 June 2014, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel initial responses to the FI, SI, and RPD and deem admitted the RFA, and for an award of monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff filed papers in opposition to the motion on 29 July 2014.  Defendant filed a reply declaration on 6 August 2014.[3]   On 11 August 2014, Plaintiff filed a declaration in response to Defendant’s reply declaration.

Discussion

I.             Motion to Compel Initial Responses to the FI, SI, and RPD and to Deem Admitted the RFA

A.           Procedural Issues

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff argues that the instant motion should be denied on various procedural grounds.

Plaintiff asserts that the moving papers are defective because they do not specify whether this case is limited or unlimited.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 3, p. 2:5-7, Ex. 5, p. 2:7.)  However, such information is only required if the case is a limited civil case, and this is an unlimited civil case.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.111(10).)  Thus, this argument lacks merit.

Plaintiff further asserts that the moving papers do not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.111 because they do not specify whether this is a civil or criminal case.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 3, p. 2:5-8, Ex. 5, p. 2:6.)   While California Rules of Court, rule 2.111(6) requires complaints and petitions to identify the character of the action or proceeding, a discovery motion such as this need only describe the nature of the paper.  Here, the moving papers comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.111(6) because the notice of motion indicates that the instant motion is one to compel discovery responses and deem admitted requests for admission, and for an award of monetary sanctions.

Next, Plaintiff contends that the moving papers do not include the name of the presiding judge.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 5, p. 2:8.)  While California Rules of Court, rule 2.111(7) requires papers to identify the presiding judge, Plaintiff cites no legal authority in support of the proposition that a court should refuse to hear a motion due to this trivial defect.  Therefore, this argument lacks merit.

Plaintiff also contends that the motion should be denied because his name as written in the notice of motion at page 1, line 16 “is incorrect/incomplete.”  (See Opp’n., Ex. 5, p. 2:11.)  However, Plaintiff’s name is spelled correctly and all that appears to be missing is his middle initial, which is included in the case title in the notice of motion.  (See Notice of Motion, p. 1:10, 1:16.)  Moreover, Plaintiff cites no legal authority in support of the proposition that a court should refuse to consider a motion as a result of such an omission.  Thus, this argument is not well-taken.

In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the motion is defective because the notice of motion is not signed by Defendant.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 5, p. 2:4.)  This argument is without merit as the notice of motion is in fact signed by Defendant.  (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:8-11.)

In his reply declaration, Defendant points out that Plaintiff’s opposition papers filed on 29 July 2014, are untimely.  (See Dresser Reply Dec, p. 4:21-22.)  Defendant asserts that he was first served with the opposition papers at the 5 August 2014 case management conference in this action.  (See Dresser Reply Dec., p. 1:21-28, 2:1-10.)  Defendant also contends that Plaintiff’s opposition is 91 pages and, therefore, impermissibly long.  (Dresser Reply Dec., p. 4:22-23.)

 

While Plaintiff’s opposition papers are lengthy due to the attachment of numerous exhibits, the memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant motion is only two pages long, which is well under the fifteen-page limit.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) [“Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages … The page limit does not include exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service”].)

In addition, Plaintiff’s opposition is not untimely as it was filed on 29 July 2014, 13 court days before the hearing.  (See Code Civ. Proc., 1005, subd. (b) [all opposing papers to be filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing].)

B.           The FI, SI, and RPD

Defendant moves to compel initial responses to the FI, SI, and RPD on the ground that Plaintiff did not serve him with any responses to the discovery requests.

               1.            Legal Standard

The party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents have been propounded is required to serve a response within 30 days, or on any later date to which the parties have agreed.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2030.270 [interrogatories], 2031.260, 2031.270 [requests for production].)  An additional 5 calendar days are added if the discovery is served by mail within California.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).)

If the party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [requests for production].)

Additionally, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories or requests for production of documents.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b) [interrogatories], 2031.300 [requests for production].)

There is no limitation period or meet and confer requirement for bringing a motion to compel an initial response to interrogatories or requests for production of documents.  (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-411; Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  The moving party need only show that the discovery was properly propounded and a timely response was not served.  (See Leach v. Super. Ct., supra, at pp. 905-906.)

               2.            Waiver of Objections

Defendant asserts that all of Plaintiff’s objections to the FI, SI, and RPD are waived since Plaintiff did not timely serve responses to the same.  In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that his objections to the FI, SI, and RPD have not been waived.  Plaintiff states that “[d]iscovery requests from defendant William C. Dresser, via mail on December 6, 2013, were never received by the Plaintiff Vasu D. Arora, on information and belief.”  (Opp’n., p. 1:24-25.)  Plaintiff indicates that he first received a copy of the FI, SI, and RPD when he was served with the instant motion.  (See Opp’n., p.  2:3-4.)   Plaintiff contends that based upon the same, his responses were not due until 2 August 2014.  Plaintiff further contends that since he filed his responses to the FI, SI, and RPD as exhibits to his opposition to the instant motion, his responses are timely.

Defendant provided the Court with a copy of a signed proof of service dated 6 December 2013, indicating that the FI, SI, and a declaration of necessity for the SI were served on Plaintiff via U.S. mail on 6 December 2013.  (See Dresser Dec., Ex. B.)  The 6 December 2013 proof of service does not reference the RPD or otherwise indicate whether they were served on Plaintiff.  (Id.)

A valid proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that papers were properly served by mail and therefore received.  (See Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4thh 1426, 1441-1442.)  The rebuttable presumption can only be dispelled by contradictory evidence.  (See Craig v. Brown & Root (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 421.)  Once the presumption is dispelled, the trier of fact shall determine the existence or non-existence of the fact from the evidence and any appropriate inferences that may be drawn from it.  (See Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1479.)

Here, the proof of service is valid because it complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a).  Therefore, a rebuttable presumption arises that the FI and SI were properly served on 6 December 2013, and subsequently received by Plaintiff.  No such presumption arises with respect to the RPD because it is not listed on the proof of service.

Plaintiff asserts in his opposition papers that he did not receive the FI, SI, and RPD until he was served with the instant motion on 27 June 2014.  The only evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of this contention is his declaration in which he states that “[t]he facts, stated in the accompanying Memorandum of points and Authorities pertaining to the status of the Discovery responses, are true and correct.”  (See Opp’n., Ex. 9.)

Upon weighing the facts, the Court finds that the evidence favors Defendant’s position that the FI and SI were properly served by mail on 6 December 2013.  Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter on 1 May 2014, referencing the discovery requests and requesting that Plaintiff provide a response to the same.  (See Dresser Dec., Ex. E.)  Plaintiff does not explain why he did not contact Defendant upon receipt of the 1 May 2014 letter, advise that he had not received the FI and SI, or take any other action upon learning that Defendant had purportedly served him with the discovery requests on 6 December 2013.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s statement that he did not receive the FI and SI is not credible.

Based upon the date of service, Plaintiff’s responses to the FI and SI were due by 10 January 2014, 35 days from 6 December 2013.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2030.270, 1013, subd. (a).)  Since Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with his responses to the FI and SI by that date, all of his objections to the same are waived.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

With respect to the RPD, the Court finds that the requests were not served on Plaintiff until 27 June 2014.  Plaintiff’s assertion that he did not receive the RPD prior to the service instant motion is uncontradicted as the RPD are not listed on the 6 December 2013 proof of service.

Based on the date of service, Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD were due by 1 August 2014, 35 days from 27 June 2014.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.260, 2031.270, § 1013, subd. (a).)  As indicated below, the purported responses that Plaintiff attached as exhibits to his opposition on 29 July 2014, do not constitute formal discovery responses.  Thus, Plaintiff has not timely served Defendant with his responses to the RPD, and all of his objections to the same are waived. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

               3.            Mootness

Plaintiff argues that the instant motion to compel initial responses to the FI, SI, and RPD is “irrelevant” because he is now filing his responses to the discovery requests as exhibits to his opposition to the instant discovery motion.  (See Opp’n., p. 1:25-26, p 2:1-2, 2:11-18.)  Conversely, Defendant argues that the documents attached as exhibits to Plaintiff’s opposition do not constitute formal discovery responses.  Defendant points out several of the exhibits are characterized as motions to dismiss and a motion is not a proper response to a discovery request.

With respect to the SI, attached to Plaintiff’s opposition as exhibit 3 is a document entitled “Motion of Plaintiff Vasu D. Arora to Dismiss First Set of Special Interrogatories of Defendant William C. Dresser to Plaintiff Arora being in violative of CCP§ 2030.030. (a) 1. 2 (b) as First Set of Special Interrogatories exceeded the number 35 allowed and no supporting declaration was attached per CCP§ 2030.050 allowing greater number of interrogatories and Sanctions for numerous violations of California Rules of Court 2.111 and 3.111.”  (See Opp’n., Ex. 3, p. 1.)  The self-styled motion to dismiss then lists the identifying information for the 15 August 2014 hearing on the instant discovery motion.  (See id.)  This is followed by identification of Defendant as the propounding party and Plaintiff as the responding party of a first set of discovery.  (See id.)

Subsequently, the document sets forth a notice of motion for the 15 August 2014 hearing followed by numerous objections to the SI and the format of the moving papers.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 3, p. 2.)  The document then sets forth an introduction section in which Plaintiff states that he will “fully and completely answer all the interrogatories contained herein within the limitation as detailed,” and that he did not anticipate this litigation or “save all the documents” relating to Defendant’s representation of him in the Underlying Action.  (See id.)  Plaintiff then asserts several general objections to the SI.  (See id.)  Thereafter, the document contains a numbered list and Plaintiff’s purported responses to the SI.[4]  (See Opp’n., Ex. 3, pp. 3-14.)  Several of the purported responses contain improper argument and others are patently incomplete.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 3, p. 8:5-27, 9:1-19, 9:22-27, 10:1-27.) The document is signed and verified by Plaintiff.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 3, p. 14.)

With respect to the FI, attached to Plaintiff’s opposition as exhibit 6 is a document entitled “7-8-2014 Form Interrogatories of Defendant Dresser-General Answers.”  (See Opp’n., Ex. 6, p. 1.)  The document contains a numbered list and what appears to be Plaintiff’s purported responses to the FI. (See Opp’n., Ex. 6, p. 1-2.)  The document is not on pleading paper and does not list the title of the action, the identity of the propounding party, the identity of the responding party, or the set number of the discovery.  (See id.)  The document is signed and verified by Plaintiff.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 6, p. 2.)

With respect to the RPD, attached to Plaintiff’s opposition as exhibit 8 is a document entitled “Motion of Plaintiff Vasu D. Arora to Dismiss First Set of Requests to Produce of Defendant William C. Dresser to Plaintiff Arora being in violations of California Rules of Court 2.111 and 3.111and Sanctions.”  (See Opp’n., Ex. 8, p. 1.)  The self-styled motion to dismiss then lists the identifying information for the 15 August 2014 hearing on the instant discovery motion.  (Id.)  This is followed by identification of Defendant as the propounding party and Plaintiff as the responding party of a first set of discovery.  (Id.)

Subsequently, the document sets forth a notice of motion for the 15 August 2014 hearing followed by numerous objections to the RFA—even though the title of the document indicates that the document pertains to the RPD—and objections to the format of Defendant’s moving papers.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 8, p. 2.)  The document then sets forth an introduction section in which Plaintiff states that he will “fully and completely answer all the Requests to Admit, contained herein within the limitation as detailed,” and that he did not anticipate this litigation or “save all the documents” relating to Defendant’s representation of him in the Underlying Action.  (See id.)

Plaintiff then asserts several general objections to the RPD.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 8, p. 3)  Thereafter, the document contains a numbered list and Plaintiff’s purported responses to the RPD.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 8, pp. 3-4.)  Several of the purported responses merely state that “the documents are with the Defendant Dresser.”  (See e.g., Opp’n., Ex. 8, p. 3:15-16.) The document then contains a prayer for relief in which Plaintiff “requests the leave of the Court for appropriate sanctions monetary or otherwise as deemed just.”  (See Opp’n., Ex. 8, p. 4:7-10.)  The document is signed by Plaintiff, but is not verified.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 8, p. 4.)

Here, the documents filed by Plaintiff as exhibits 3, 6, and 8 to his opposition do not constitute formal discovery responses to the FI, SI, or RPD.  The purported responses to the SI and RPD are characterized as motions to dismiss Defendant’s discovery motion and contain numerous references to the 15 August 2014 hearing and argument regarding the instant motion.  In addition, the purported responses to the RPD are not verified and an unverified response is the equivalent of no response at all.  (See Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635.)

Finally, the purported responses to the FI do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, subdivision (b) because the document does not contain the title of the case, the identity of the responding party, the set number of the discovery, or the identity of the propounding party.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (b).)  Given the unusual formatting, titling, structure, and contents of exhibits 3, 6, and 8, the purported responses contained therein do not qualify as formal discovery responses.

Since Plaintiff has not served formal discovery responses on Defendant, Defendant’s motion to compel initial responses to the FI, SI, and RPD is GRANTED.

 

C.           The RFA

Defendant moves to deem admitted the RFA on the ground that Plaintiff did not serve him with any responses to the same.

1.            Legal Standard

The party to whom requests for admission have been propounded is required to serve a response within 30 days, or on any later date to which the parties have agreed.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.250, 2033.260.)  An additional 5 calendar days are added if the discovery is served by mail within California.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).)

If the party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

In addition, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in those requests be deemed admitted.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The court shall make this order unless it finds that, prior to the hearing on the motion, the responding party served a proposed response that is substantially code-compliant.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see also Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 814, 828.)

There is no limitation period or meet and confer requirement for bringing a motion to deem matters admitted.  (See Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4; Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584.)  The moving party need only show that the discovery was properly propounded and a timely response was not served.  (See Brigante v. Huang, supra, at p. 1584.)

                              2.            Waiver of Objections

The parties make the same arguments with respect to the waiver of Plaintiff’s objections to the RFA as they made with respect to waiver of Plaintiff’s objections to the FI and SI.  (Opp’n., p.  2:8-9.)

As indicated above, Defendant provided the Court with a copy of a signed proof of service dated 6 December 2013, indicating that the RFA were served on Plaintiff via U.S. mail on 6 December 2013.  (See Dresser Dec., Ex. B.)  The 6 December 2013 proof of service is valid because it complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a) and, thus, creates a rebuttable presumption that the RFA were properly served.  (See Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4thh 1426, 1441-1442.)  For the same reasons as articulated above with respect to the FI and SI, the Court finds that the RFA were properly served on Plaintiff on 6 December 2013.

Based upon the date of service, Plaintiff’s responses to the RFA were due by 10 January 2014, 35 days from 6 December 2013.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.250, 2033.260, 1013, subd. (a).)  Since Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with his responses by that date, all of his objections to the same are waived.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

3.            Substantially Code-Compliant Responses

Plaintiff argues that the instant motion is “irrelevant” because he is now filing his responses to the RFA as an exhibit to his opposition to the instant discovery motion.  (See Opp’n., p. 1:25-26, p 2:8-18.)  Defendant argues that the documents attached as exhibits to Plaintiff’s opposition do not constitute formal discovery responses.  Defendant points out several of the exhibits are motions to dismiss and a motion is not a proper response to a discovery request.  Defendant further argues that the purported responses are not substantially code-complaint.

Attached to Plaintiff’s opposition as exhibit 10 is a document entitled “Motion of Plaintiff Vasu D. Arora to Dismiss First Set of Requests to Admit of Defendant William C. Dresser to Plaintiff Arora being in violations of California Rules of Court 2.111 and 3.111 and Sanctions.”  (See Opp’n., Ex. 10, p. 1.)  The self-styled motion to dismiss then lists the identifying information for the 15 August 2014 hearing on the instant discovery motion.  (Id.)  This is followed by identification of Defendant as the propounding party and Plaintiff as the responding party of a first set of discovery.  (Id.)  Subsequently, the document sets forth a notice of motion for the 15 August 2014 hearing followed by numerous objections to the RFA and the format of the moving papers.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 10, p. 2.)  The document then sets forth an introduction section in which Plaintiff states that he will “fully and completely answer all of the Requests to Admit, contained herein within the limitation as detailed,” and that Defendant breached several duties owed to him in connection with the Underlying Action.  (See id.)  Thereafter, the document contains a numbered list of the RFA and Plaintiff’s purported responses to the same.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 10, p. 2:21-26, 3:1-27, 4:1-27, 5:1-3.)  Several of the purported responses contain improper objections and others are completely nonresponsive to the RFA.  (See e.g., Opp’n., Ex. 10, p. 2:21-25, 3:19-25.)  The document is signed by Plaintiff, but is not verified.  (See Opp’n., Ex. 10, p. 5.)

Here, the subject document does not constitute a formal discovery response to the RFA  because it is characterized as a motion to dismiss the instant motion, contains numerous references to the 15 August 2014 hearing, and contains argument regarding the instant motion.  Moreover, the purported responses contain impermissible objections and are nonresponsive such that they are not substantially code-complaint.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220.)  Lastly, the purported responses are not verified and an unverified response is the equivalent of no response at all.  (See Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635.)

Since Plaintiff has not served any responses to the RFA, let alone responses that are substantially code-compliant, Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters set forth in the RFA is GRANTED.

II.            Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions           

Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $100 under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010.  (See Mem. Ps & As., p. 4:21-28.)  Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 defines acts that constitute misuses of the discovery process, and does not itself set forth any provisions regarding the issuance of a monetary sanction.  Since Defendant did not cite to any statute governing the issuance of monetary sanctions in connection with a particular discovery method in support of his request for sanctions, his request is DENIED.

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s motion to compel initial responses to the FI, SI, and RPD and deem admitted the matters set forth in the RFA is GRANTED.  Accordingly, Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with verified, code-compliant responses to the FI, SI, and RPD, without objections, within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.  In addition, the truth of all matters specified in the RFA are deemed admitted.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

 

[1] “Each exhibit must be separated by a hard 8½ x 11 sheet with hard paper or plastic tabs extending below the bottom of the page, bearing the exhibit designation.  An index to exhibits must be provided.”

[2] The proof of service dated 6 December 2013, that was provided to the Court by Defendant lists only the FI, SI, RFA, and declaration of necessity, and does not reference the RPD.  (See Dresser Dec., Ex. B.)

[3] Defendant did not file any formal reply papers other than his declaration.

[4] Plaintiff only provided purported responses to SI Nos. 1-35 and did not provide responses of any kind to SI Nos. 36-61 based upon his waived objections.