2016-00204793-CU-PA

Chicago Title Insurance Company vs. Sheryl Hayden

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories (Shoichi Martinson)

Filed By: Thomas, Christopher R.

Plaintiff Chicago Title’s Motion to Compel Self-represented Defendant Shoichi Martinson to provide Further Answers to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. The request for imposition of sanctions is denied. Code Civil Procedure sections 2030.300(d), 2023.030(a).

The Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. ( Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.

Plaintiff Chicago Title served its first set of written discovery requests on defendant by mail on August 1, 2017. Martinson failed to respond to the propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to compel responses to form interrogatories. On Dec. 7, 2017, the Court granted the unopposed motion and ordered defendant to respond to the form interrogatories by Dec. 28, 2017.

Defendant timely responded, but his response to Interrogatory no. 15.1 only included answers to 15.1(a), but failed to identify the witnesses to incidents alleged in subpart

(b) or the documents which support his position in subpart (c).

Although self-represented defendant opposes this motion, he fails to address why he did not provide responses to 15.1(b) and (c).

The Court declines to impose sanctions as it finds that the circumstances here would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

Defendant shall serve counsel for the plaintiff with verified, further written answers to form interrogatory nos. 15.1(b) and (c) not later than Wed., April 4, 2018.