GREGORY & TRACEY AGUILAR VS. UNION METAL CORP

Summary:

Attorney Michael Fabrega represents the defendant. The plaintiff had previously responded to requests for admissions. Mr. Fabrega then served new admissions asking plaintiff to admit her prior verified responses were true.

The judge said this was not a proper use of discovery, denied a motion to compel attorney Fabrega filed, then sanctioned Fabrega's client $1600 for the misconduct.





Court Ruling:

Michael Fabrega's motion is denied. Sanctions awarded against Mr. Fabrega's client.



...





From the Judge and Court File:

Michael Fabrega, an attorney employed by the law firm Adelson Testan Brundo Novell and Jimenez, represented defendant Ameron Pole Products, LLC, in an automobile accident case.




Requests for admissions were served on plaintiff, which she answered under penalty of perjury. The judge said plaintiff admitted what was admittable and for some requests stated she lacked sufficient information to admit or deny the request.




Attorney Fabrega then served 43 more requests for admissions. One of the questions was: Admit Ameron Pole Products, LLC, is not a public entity.




The bulk of the requests pertained to plaintiff's prior answers to the admission requests. For example, if plaintiff said she had made a reasonable inquiry into X but did not have sufficient information to admit if X was true or not, Fabrega served new discovery asking plaintiff to admit that she had made a reasonable inquiry and to admit she lacked sufficient information about X.




After plaintiff objected to this type of discovery Mr. Fabrega filed a motion to compel and sought sanctions.

The judge said the "Requests at issue ask Plaintiff to admit that her verified responses to [prior discovery] are true."

The judge then said "This is not a proper use of discovery."




With regard to Michael Fabrega's legal reasoning and argument, the judge said "Defendant cites no authority" to support his position. The judge then went on to explain why such discovery was meaningless and did not advance the case: "For example, an admission that Plaintiff 'made a reasonable inquiry concerning whether a cause of action is without merit' would establish only that Plaintiff made a reasonable inquiry about the cause of action, but not that the cause of action lacks merit."




The judge then denied Fabrega's motion in its entirety and ordered $1600 in sanctions against defendant for the improper discovery and motion to compel.



...





Lawzilla Commentary:

This is one of the more bizarre discovery motions we have seen.

How would you like to pay your attorney to draft questions asking someone to admit that a LLC is not a public entity? In our opinion this suggests a lack of "big picture" legal analysis and cost-effective discovery. Not surprisingly, we believe plaintiff admitted an LLC is not a public entity.

No doubt the judge saw that type of question when reviewing the other discovery that was part of the motion Fabrega filed.

Plaintiff claimed in her opposition to Fabrega's motion that defendant had served more than 400 discovery requests.




In our opinion that likely also grabbed the judge's attention. In our opinion it suggests a lot of attorney time being billed on discovery.

That is how we read what the judge said. Discovery being served was improper and attorney Fabrega had "no authority" to support his attempt to justify the discovery.

It seems to us that discovery about discovery could create an endless loop of requests asking about prior answers, which while generating legal fees does not materially advance the case.

It is worth noting that the sanctions order is only against defendant and not the attorney. Our review of the file tells us plaintiff only sought sanctions for defendant's motion without asking that they also be imposed against the attorney. From what the judge said, and what is in the court file, if we were Ameron Pole Products, LLC, we would be asking the attorney to pay the sanctions.

Would you hire Michael Fabrega to be your attorney?

The judge issued $1600 in sanctions while saying the discovery was improper and that there was "no authority" supporting attorney Fabrega's argument.

On the other hand, this is but one motion. While concerning, sweeping judgments about an attorney from one motion should probably not be made.

was admitted to the California Bar in 2012. Bar Number 285843.

Adelson Testan Brundo Novell and Jimenez
1851 East 1st Street Suite 100
Santa Ana, California 92705

Law School: Whittier

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, wages, etc.