2017-00210937-CU-PN

Maria Ann Zeno vs. Matthew Decaminada

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Protective Order

Filed By: Kimball, Betsy S.

Defendant Sagaria Law, A.P.C’s motion for protective order pursuant to CCP 2017.020 is granted.

The instant action is one for legal malpractice, and includes claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Broadly, the complaint alleges that at all times, defendant DeCaminada was under the employ of Sagaria Law, A.P.C, and in doing the things herein alleged was acting within the scope of such employment and agency. It is further alleged that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.

Defendant Scott Sagaria suddenly passed away in mid September 2018, after the Requests for Admission were served on him, Sagaria Law APC and Matthew Decaminada on August 8, 2018. The plaintiff has withdrawn the discovery as to Scott Sagaria. Scott Sagaria was the sole owner of Sagaraia Law APC and defendant contends no one is available or willing to verify the responses to the requests for admission on behalf of Sagaria Law, APC. (Declaration of Betsy Kimball) Defendant seeks a protective order staying the deadline for defendant Sagaria Law. A.P.C. to serve verified responses to the requests for admissions until 21 days after the Placer County Superior Court (Probate) enters an order appointing an individual who has the authority to authorize the responses and the individual so appointed informs the defendants that he/she is willing and able to verify the responses.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that defendants were given numerous extensions of time to provide responses, with the ultimate due date of December 12, 2018. It was not until November 21, 2018 that defendant’s counsel Ms Kimball informed plaintiff’s counsel that the individual who had been acting on behalf of the law corporation would not continue in that capacity. Trial in this case is set for March 11, 2019. Plaintiff contends that the requested open ended extension to respond to the requests for admission will be prejudicial because of the need to prepare for trial. Plaintiff contends any delay of trial will be prejudicial since she was allegedly made homeless by defendants’ legal malpractice, but the Court fails to see how delay would ameliorate her homelessness. Plaintiff also contends that the protective order should be denied as it was not promptly sought before the discovery responses were due because the

motion was not filed until the day before they were due.

In Reply, defendants state they are filing a motion to continue the trial for at least 120 days. Such motion, under our Local Rules, must be addressed to the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.05(B).[unless otherwise directed by the Presiding Judge, ….all motions

for consolidation, severance, bifurcation, intervention, pretrial conference, coordination and to advance or for continuance of trial, a setting conference, or pretrial conference shall be heard by the Presiding Judge.])

Under the circumstances presented, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion for protective order as to the defendant law practice to avoid a court order deeming the requests for admission admitted. Again, given the circumstances, the motion seeks to avoid an injustice. While the Court cannot foresee the result of the motion to continue, the Court believes that delay of the trial may be inevitable due to the death of defendant and, in any event, cannot find that the discovery delay was due to defendants lack of diligence. It bears noting that it is well established, in California and elsewhere, that a court has both the inherent authority and responsibility to fairly and efficiently administer all of the judicial proceedings that are pending before it, and that one important element of a court’s inherent judicial authority in this regard is “the power … to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” (People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131, 1146 [and cases cited therein].)

The matter will be set for a status report on February 25, 2019 (46 days from this date) to obtain an update from defendant as to the status of the probate proceedings. Counsel shall file and serve on or before February 20 a status report on the progress of appointing a representative of the law firm who can verify the discovery responses. Moving counsel is ordered to take all steps possible to ensure that the Probate Court is able to address the appointment at the earliest possible opportunity. The Court takes no position on the ability of plaintiff’s counsel to move to set aside the protective order, in the event Sagaria Law, A.P.C’s efforts are fruitless or dilatory.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court’s signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312. .