Case Number: SC120499 Hearing Date: February 13, 2015 Dept: P
RODRIGUES v. STEELE
SC120499

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS, FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
2/13/15

Complaint filed: 4/4/13
Trial date: Not set

Recommended Ruling/Analysis:

As this Court pointed out in its December 10, 2014 Minute order, this is an over-litigated, acrimonious action. Indeed, Judge Goodman has repeatedly admonished respective counsel of the need to reasonably litigate this action; he even ordered the parties to comply with the local rules regarding civility. Nevertheless, respective counsel continue to litigate this action in a manner which has resulted in needless law and motion and proceedings – and thus have demonstrated a continuing lack of regard for the proper use of the limited time and resources of the Court and its staff.

The four motions at bar today are discovery motions which are the result of the kind of unreasonable conduct which has permeated this action; they are the result of defendant Steele’s (“Defendant”) patently obstreperous, bad faith objections and “responses” to Plaintiff’s written discovery.

All four motions are granted in full.

Defendant is to serve full and complete, Code-compliant, comprehensive, verified responses to all of the form and special interrogatories listed in the moving CRC 3.1020 separate statements, without objection, on or before February 23, 2015. The further responses provided pursuant to this order are to be clearly captioned as “COURT-ORDERED FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES” and “COURT-ORDERED FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES”

Defendant is to serve verified further responses to all inspection demands listed and reproduced in the moving CRC 3.1020 separate statement, in full compliance with CCP 2031.210 – 2031.250, without objection save for those based upon the attorney-client or work-product privileges, on or before February 23, 2015. Each response is to be self-contained. All responsive documents not already produced are to be produced concurrently, including but not limited to those in electronic form. The further responses provided pursuant to this order are to be clearly captioned as “COURT-ORDERED FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS.” As to any document demanded as to which objection is made on the ground of attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, Defendant is to concurrently serve a privilege log sufficiently specific for the reader to determine whether each withheld document is privileged. See, CCP 2031.240(c)(1); Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201.

Plaintiff is to serve verified further responses to all requests for admissions listed and reproduced in the moving CRC 3.1020 separate statement, without objection and in full compliance with CCP 2033.210 2033.240, on or before February 23, 2015. Each response is to be self contained. The further response provided pursuant to this order are to be clearly captioned as “COURT ORDERED FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.”

Defendant, and his attorneys Wasserman, Comden & Casselman, LLP and Wilheim & Wilheim PC, are sanctioned, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $5,212.50 (no reply briefs were necessary), to be paid by certified check at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office within 30 days.

Should Defendant fail to strictly comply with the discovery orders issued today, the Court will consider issuing evidentiary, issue, and/or monetary sanctions upon proper motion. Indeed, Defendant’s counsel is reminded that the “graduated sanctions” approach to an award of terminating sanctions is not required where there is no indication that the imposition of lesser sanctions would compel compliance with discovery obligations. E.g., R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.

Steele did not file an opposition to any of the motions at bar. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to timely file a notice of non-receipt of opposition or any other type of reply document, thereby initially leaving the Court to question whether the motions would proceed as noticed. It would have been helpful to the Court had Plaintiff filed the notice of non-receipt in a timely manner.

NOTICE

Plaintiff shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312. A copy of this ruling is to be attached thereto.