Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the ruling below we believe defendant is represented by attorney Krystle Meyer from the Rosen Saba law firm and is being severely sanctioned.

17-CIV-01393 ARMANDO SOLORIO vs. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al.

SOLORIO, ARMANDO CARLA J. HARTLEY

XPO LOGISTICS, INC.

3. XPO GF AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL further RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, SET Two, REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.112.50

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion is denied as to Form Interrogatories 2.11, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1-12.7, 13.1, and 13.2. Using XPO’s definition of “INCIDENT,” Solorio cannot answer these interrogatories. For Solorio to provide a substantive response would implicitly admit that he used XPO’s confidential information. XPO’s attempt to redefine “INCIDENT” by adding “whether Solorio denies such conduct occurred” is ineffective, because the word is still defined as his use of confidential information.

The motion is denied as to Form Interrogatory 17.1. Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks for factual information behind failures to admit various Requests for Admissions. XPO’s Moving Separate Statement fails to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c) (if response to discovery request depends on response given to another discovery request, other requests and the responses must be set forth).) XPO’s Moving Separate Statement does not set forth the Request for Admissions or Solorio’s response to them. The Court cannot determine what Solorio was being asked to admit or what his response was. Without that information, the Court cannot determine whether his response to 17.1 is sufficient or evasive.

Solorio’s request for sanctions is granted. Attorney Krystle D. Meyer and the law firm of Rosen Saba, LLP, shall jointly and severally pay a monetary sanction of $1390.00 to Armando Solorio, no later than April 4, 2018, or one week after written notice of this order, whichever is later. This sanction is separate and distinct from the sanction ordered in connection with XPO’s motion regarding Form Interrogatories, Set Three.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Armando Solorio shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

4. XPO GF AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO form INTERROGATORIES, SET three, REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.112.50

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion is denied as to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) 2.11, 4.1, 4.2, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1, and 13.2. Using XPO’s definition of “INCIDENT,” Solorio cannot answer these interrogatories. For Solorio to provide a substantive response would implicitly admit that he solicited XPO’s clients or business, which he denies. XPO’s attempt to redefine “INCIDENT” by adding “whether Solorio denies such conduct occurred” is ineffective, because the word is still defined as his solicitation of clients or business.

Solorio’s request for sanctions is granted. Attorney Krystle D. Meyer and the law firm of Rosen Saba, LLP, shall jointly and severally pay a monetary sanction of $1390.00 to Armando Solorio, no later than April 4, 2018, or one week after written notice of this order, whichever is later. This sanction is separate and distinct from the sanction ordered in connection with XPO’s motion regarding Form Interrogatories, Set Two.