MARSHA MALAMET v. FRANCES COYLE - The Los Angeles court's online case summary lists Zev Weinstein as plaintiff's attorney. However, from the court records it appears the law firm is Schwimer Weinstein and attorney Michael Schwimer is the one making declarations with personal knowledge about the case, including this matter. For that reason we will refer to Michael Schwimer as the attorney for the plaintiff responsible for this matter.

From the tentative ruling this is what happened:

Attorney Michael Schwimer of the Schwimer Weinstein law firm represents the plaintiff in this case.

One of the defendants served written questions for Mr. Schwimer's client to answer.

Generally, responses to the questions are to be provided in about thirty days.

Here the defendant granted a two week extension of time to answer.

Then defendant granted a second two week extension of time.

Finally, defendant granted a third extension - this time for one week.

Overall - five weeks of extensions in addition to the four weeks to provide a response.

Guess what?

Attorney Schwimer's firm then made boilerplate objections to every question without providing his client's response to anything.

The objections included:

- Vague
- Ambiguous
- Overbroad
- Burdensome
- Oppressive
- Requires expert testimony
- Involves a legal conclusion
- Lacks foundation
- Assumes facts
- Attorney-client privilege
- Privacy rights
- Work product
- Not relevant

Basically, Schwimer's office gave the middle finger.

Then it got even worse ...

Schwimer's firm tried to blame defendant for the shotgun boilerplate objections saying plaintiff was not given enough time to answer and needed another week, and defendant was engaged in bad faith by not giving enough time to answer.

It was then represented plaintiff would actually provide responses in a week.

But nothing was forthcoming in a week from the Schwimer law firm.

We guess defendant's attorney at this point was quite angry.

Naturally, a motion to compel was filed.

In opposition to the motion to compel Michael Schwimer, Esq., made no effort to try and substantiate the objections.

Instead, Schwimer argued that actual responses were provided, after he caused defendant to incur the time and expense to file a motion to compel, so the matter was moot.

Defendant's attorney then noted Schwimer's client provided the exact same response to every question and this was deficient.

The judge then ordered attorney Michael Schwimer's client to provide real answers to the questions within fifteen days.

The judge then hamered Michael Schwimer, or at least his law firm, with a whopping $2800 in sanctions quickly payable within ten days.

It is a huge amount of sanctions.

Would you hire Michael Schwimer to be your attorney?

Sometimes extensions of time to answer discovery are needed. A client may need more time. An attorney may need more time. But that does not excuse making frivolous, boilerplate, and shotgun objections to discovery.

It does not excuse falsely blaming the other attorney.

It does not excuse misrepresenting when responses will be provided.

It does not excuse providing garbage responses months later, after a motion is filed, to try and moot the issue.

In our opinion this is bad lawyering and worse, suggests someone willing to play fast and loose with the law and their obligations as an attorney.

The massive amount of sanctions speaks for itself.

Bottom line: what do you think the judge thinks about Michael Schwimer after this nonsense? Probably not that he is a stellar attorney. Would you want Schwimer representing you before this judge?

Michael Schwimer was admitted to the California Bar in 2008. Bar Number 255567.

Schwimer Weinstein Limited Liability Partnership
2665 Main Street Suite 200
Santa Monica, California 90405

Law School: University of Southern California