JUDY PORTONE vs. AVENUE 31 - We believe attorney Robert Rucci is the attorney for the cross-defendant in this matter. The Los Angeles online case summary for this matter lists Haight, Brown and Bonesteel as defendants' counsel. The tentative ruling refers to attorney Rucci. From online court filings Robert Rucci filed a declaration opposing the motion, and no one else, reflecting his personal knowledge and involvement in these issues.

From the tentative ruling this is what happened:

Attorney Robert Rucci from Haight Brown and Bonesteel represents a cross-defendant.

The cross-defendant was served with discovery to answer. This included written questions and a request to produce documents.

The discovery was originally served in May 2017 but never answered, before Rucci got involved in the case.

The judge said it was "undisputed" that the discovery was personally sent to Rucci on January 22, 2018.

Normally there is about thirty days to answer. But no responses came from Robert Rucci's office.

The judge then notes there were "further efforts" to get discovery responses. For example, a February 28th email to attorney Rucci about answering the discovery. But again, nothing from attorney Rucci's law firm. Then another email on March 1st warning motions would be filed unless the discovery was answered. Still no responses from Rucci's office.

Finally, on March 8, 2018, motions to compel were filed.

Now this is where it gets really interesting ...

(Interesting, that is, unless your name is Robert Rucci.)

On March 23rd attorney Robert Rucci filed an opposition to the motions to compel. He claimed he was not aware of the discovery until March 1st - apparently referring to the THIRD email sent to him about the discovery.

Also on March 23rd discovery "responses" were provided, but they contained improper objections and were not verified. Basically, an unverified response is tantamount to no response at all.

The judge then decided to hammer Robert Rucci, Esq.'s firm Haight Brown and Bonesteel with $1387.50 in sanctions.

Our opinion of the ruling is the judge implied Mr. Rucci is a liar.

If the judge believed that attorney Rucci was not aware of the discovery until March 1st then it would be difficult to sanction his law firm over a motion filed just a week later.

Although there is the issue of the March 23rd "responses" having improper objections and not being verified.

But that is not what the judge said.

The court went out of its way to note:

- Discovery served in May 2017 (that would presumably be in the case file when Rucci took over the case and he would thus be aware of it).

- January correspondence to Rucci about the discovery.

- February correspondence to Rucci about the discovery.

- March correspondence to Rucci about the discovery.

- Finally, "responses" with improper objections not signed by Robert Rucci's clients, and even that glop was not sent until the opposition to the motion was filed.

In our opinion an attorney like Robert Rucci show know objections at that point had long ago been waived and should not have been made to the discovery, and that responses needed to be verified by his clients.

No wonder the court said it was going to sanction the attorneys.

Would you hire Robert Rucci to be your attorney?

We have concerns. After reading the judge's tentative order we were concerned the judge seemed not to believe Mr. Rucci's version of events. We still could have given him the benefit of the doubt, but the belated discovery responses, if they can be called that, with objections, is disturbing - especially since they were not made until the opposition to the motion was filed.

This does not seem to be great attorney work.

We do not have the case file and more likely happened than what is mentioned by the judge, but it seems to us if attorney Ricci was truly unaware of the discovery, or had forgotten about it, and had somehow missed two emails about it, when receiving the March 1st warning he could have immediately sent documents and information with a promise of a later verification and full discovery responses to ward off a motion.

It seems to us negligent to not do that, especially since by this time the law firm should have been in possession of their clients' documents and information.

Robert Rucci was admitted to the California Bar in 1986. Bar Number 126250.

Haight Brown and Bonesteel
402 West Broadway Suite 1850
San Diego, California 92101

Law School: California Western