2016-00193438-CU-BC

Michael Scallin vs. Tom Blum

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Filed By: Rosenberg, Sid M.

Defendant Realty Roundup, Inc.’s (RRI) motion for terminating, issue and/or monetary sanctions is CONTINUED to 9:00AM on 3/05/19, subject to the following orders:

RRI’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Overview

This is a residential landlord / tenant case. Plaintiff Michael Scallin (Scallin) is suing RRI for failure to return his security deposit, breach of contract, breach of warranty of habitability, and wages owed. Among other things, Scallin alleges that he was required to perform work on the property to make it habitable, and that he should be compensated for his labor.

In June 2018, RRI served Scallin with its first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admissions and document requests. Scallin’s attorney did not timely object. In late July 2018, Scallin served unverified responses to the discovery. In response to each of the 75 document requests, Scallin stated, “This information is already within the knowledge or control of the defendants.” He provided similarly incomplete and improper responses to several form interrogatories, to all 151 special interrogatories, and to all 25 requests for admissions.

On 9/21/18, the court granted RRI’s unopposed motion to compel verified written

responses and to deem admitted the requests for admissions. The court directed Scallin to serve written responses that strictly complied with applicable sections of the Discovery Act.

On or about 10/18/18, Scallin served verifications, but with the same improper responses served originally. This motion for sanctions followed.

Discussion

Scallin did not comply with the court’s 9/21/18 order. In opposition to the current motion, he argues that he is somehow excused from compliance because he provided some factual information at deposition, and because he produced documents in response to another party’s document requests. He further argues, somewhat remarkably, that he provided “full and complete responses” to RRI when he initially responded in July. Finally, he argues that the court should impose lesser sanctions before imposing any terminating sanction.

Scallin has willfully disobeyed the 9/21/18 order. Neither the court nor RRI must accept Scallin’s counsel’s word that Scallin produced everything RRI might need to defend in this case. Instead, Scallin is required to submit to the Discovery Act by serving written responses in compliance with the Act’s provisions and this court’s orders.

Given the broad discovery requests to which Scallin refuses to respond, and given that the requests for admissions have already been deemed admitted, the only appropriate issue or evidence sanctions the court might impose would effectively bar Scallin from prevailing at trial. In other words, the appropriate sanction is a terminating sanction.

Rather than strike the complaint at this time, the court STAYS Scallin’s case against RRI so that Scallin has a second and final chance to comply with the 9/21/18 order.

Scallin is ordered for a second time to serve verified written responses to RRI’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories and document requests. The responses shall strictly comply with CCP §§ 2030.210, 2030.220 and 2030.240; or with 2031.210-2031.250, except that no objections may be raised.

Scallin shall serve the responses no later than 2/08/19.

No later than 2/19/19, RRI’s counsel shall file and serve by facsimile a declaration explaining to extent to which Scallin has served written discovery responses in compliance with this order. No later than 2/26/19, Scallin’s counsel may file a responsive declaration.

On 3/04/19, the court will post a further tentative ruling on the motion for terminating sanctions. If Scallin had complied with his discovery obligations, the court is likely to lift the stay and impose a monetary sanction but no other sanction. Otherwise, the court is likely to impose a monetary sanction, strike Scallin’s complaint against RRI and enter RRI’s dismissal. Other appropriate orders could be made as well.

Once the further tentative ruling is posted on 3/04/19, either party may request oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or further notice is required.