Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376)
SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, LLP
1083 Vine Street, Suite 907
Healdsburg, California 95448
Telephone: (707) 433-0377
Facsimile: (707) 433-0379
Attorneys for Defendant
DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4
and JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
RICHARD ABEL, an individual, CASE NO. SCV-263456
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND
JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD
ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
Plaintiff,
vs.
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an
individual; SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN,
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1
ing Date:
through 100, inclusive, Hearing Date
Time:
Dept.: 17
Defendants. Trial Date: October 7, 2022
emus meres
Assigned For All Purposes to the
Honorable Arthur a. Wick
Dept. 17
I
FACTS
The burden of proof under California Evidence Code section 500 is on the party to whose}
case the fact is essential. In this action, plaintiff in propria persona Richard Abel (hereinafter
“ABEL”), bears the burden of proof concerning his causes of action in his November 18, 2020
amended complaint in this action.
ABEL was served with DOE 4 defendant Dale Davis’ and DOE 9 defendant Jacinda
Duval’s first set of requests for admissions on March 11, 2022. (See accompanying declaration
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
1of Edward McCutchan, Exhibits “1” and “3” attached thereto).
On or about April 3, 2022, ABEL responded to Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s first set
of admissions with evasive responses and improper objections on matters that ABEL is well
aware of and within his knowledge, control and possession pertaining to his claims in his
November 18, 2020 amended complaint in this action and his participation in the Robert
Zuckerman bankruptcy as stated in In re Robert Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9" Cir. BAP 2020), a
published decision. (See accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan, Exhibits “2” and “4”
attached thereto).
Thereafter, counsel for Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval sent ABEL “meet and confer
letters” to resolve his evasive responses and improper objections to actual documents that are
relevant to his perceived fabricated claims in this action that he authored. (See Exhibits “5,”
“6,”and “9” attached to the accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan).
Il
ABEL’S ANSWERS TO DALE DAVIS’ ADMISSION REQUESTS ARE
EVASIVE AND HIS OBJECTIONS TO UNANSWERED ADMISSION
REQUESTS LACK A FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS
A principal feature of the discovery act is that most discovery requests are self-executing
and do not consume court time. A mere “objection” does nothing but invite a motion to compel.
(Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal App. 3d 1097, 11110. CCP § 2033.290 provides the
following:
“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may
move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the
following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection
to a particular request is without merit or too general.”
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION |
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
227
28
The primary purpose of requests for admissions is to set at rest triable issues so that they
will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial. The basis for imposing sanctions ...
is directly related to that purpose. Unlike other discovery sanctions, an award of expenses... is
not a penalty, Instead, it is designed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a party in
proving the truth of a requested admission . . . such that trial would have been expedited or
shortened if the request had been admitted.” (Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4" 860, 865).
As discussed below, and in Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s separate statement filed herewith,
ABEL served evasive, nonresponsive answers, which included general and meritless objections
to detailed requests as to his claimed assignments of former plaintiffs and the insolvency of
debtor Robert Zuckerman in the Liebling v. Goodrich matter, a Sonoma County Superior Court
action. Accordingly, the Court is authorized to compel further responses for the reasons stated
below.
C.C.P. Section 2033.220 provides the following:
“(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge. (c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a
reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the
answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made,
and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA. DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
3the matter.”
As stated in the accompanying Declaration of Edward McCutchan, and detailed in the
Separate Statemen, included herewith, ABEL served evasive, nonresponsive answers, which
included meritless objections to actual documents that ABEL authored and now refuses to admit
because such documents demonstrate that he fabricated this lawsuit against all named
defendants.
“Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” CCP §
2030.220(a). As demonstrated in moving party’s Separate Statement, ABEL provided
incomplete, deficient, nonresponsive, and evasive answers to Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s
first requests for admissions on him. Requests for Admission. (See Exhibits “1,” “2,” “3,” and
“4” to the accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan and he has failed to remedy the
problems per Exhibits “5,” “6,” and “9” attached to the accompanying declaration of Edward
McCutchan.
“Bach answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true,
either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding
party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much off
the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2030.220(b)).
“The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources|
reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (See Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d
318, 322). In Cembrook v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco (1961)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
456 Cal. 2d 423, the Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why the
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at 430).
“Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth in answering written requests. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.
“Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the
information sought is wholly insufficient.” (Ibid). Likewise, a party may not provide deftly
worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (bid).
Verification of the answers is in effect a declaration that the party has disclosed all
information which is available to him or her. If only partial answers can be supplied, the answers
should reveal all information then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he or
she should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He cannot plead ignorance to
information which can be obtained from sources under his control. (Ibid. at 781-783).
It is evident that ABEL failed to conduct an adequate investigation when responding to
Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s separate first requests for admissions on him, including
consulting all sources reasonably available to obtain the information (i.e., facts necessary to
respond properly to the discovery requests).
CCP § 2017.010 provides the following: Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in|
accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any
motion made in that action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to
the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
5may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable
matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.
CCP § 2033.230 further provides: (a) If only a part of a request for admission is
objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered. (b) If an objection is made to a
request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in
the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked
shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected
work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be
expressly asserted.
As demonstrated in Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s separate statement, ABEL
improperly relies upon a myriad of boilerplate and meritless objections. Defendant interposed the|
same general and boilerplate objections to nearly all of the moving parties’ admission requests
without any effort to explain or identify how each objection applied to any particular question or
part of a question.
“If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request
shall be answered.” CCP § 2033.230(a). As shown in moving parties’ separate statement, in the
case of Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s admission requests upon him, ABEL has asserted
objections as to only a portion of these requests and has failed to provide the remaining
information requested to which no objections were asserted.
i
MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST ABEL ARE
WARRANTED CONCERNING THIS MOTION
CCP § 2033.290(b) provides that this motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer]
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
6declaration under Section 2016.040.” A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall
state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue
presented by the motion. (CCP § 2016.040). Per the accompanying declaration of Edward
McCutchan, Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval sent three (3) separate meet and confer letters to
ABEL outlining the deficiencies in his admission responses allowing additional days to remedy
his deficient responses.
“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or
any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney,
and after opportunity for hearing may impose ... sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct
that is a misuse of the discovery process...” CCP § 2023.030. “Misuses of the discovery process
include, but are not limited to .. . (e) Making, without substantial justification, an
unmeritorious objection to discovery .. . (f) Making an evasive response to discovery... (h)
Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or
to limit discovery... .” (CCP § 2023.010).
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion
to compel a further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with
substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
CCP § 2033.290(d). (Emphasis added).
‘These sanctions may be awarded under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a
motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or an opposition
to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after
the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1030(a)). In the present case, there is no excuse
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
727
28
or justification for ABEL’S refusal to provide further responses to the subject admission requests
that contain documents that he authored that.
The accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan herewith attests to the efforts
expended on the part of this moving party to avoid this motion. The purpose of discovery
sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. (Do v.
Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1213). It is evident from the facts presented that
ABEL will not comply with this authorized method of discovery absent a court order and the
imposition of sanctions of $ 2,847.50 requested in the accompanying declaration of Edward
McCutchan,
IV
CONCLUSION
Moving parties, Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval, request that this Court grant their motion
to compel further verified responses by ABEL to their separate first set of requests for
admissions either admitting or denying their requests within 45 days after notice of the order
after hearing and order ABEL to pay Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval $2,847.50 in monetary
sanctions payable to Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP to compel the further answers to the two
separate sets of admissions on ABEL stated herein within 45 days after notice of the order after
hearing.
The detailed requests for admissions of DOE defendants, Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval
on ABEL are specifically tailored to deal with his claimed assignments and if a former plaintiff
in the Liebling action actually signed them and when (before the claimed plaintiff's were
dismissed as a party in the Liebling action of before).
Mf
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
8Date: May , 2022
SUNDERLAND | MeCUTCHAN, LLP
Edward MgCutchan
Attorneys for Defendant
DALE DAVIE. DOE 4
JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
9PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA
I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my present address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg.
California 95448.
On May 16. 2022, I served the foregoing documents described as MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND
JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S
COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE on the parties b
placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
By Regular U.S. Mail. The documents were placed for collection and mailing following
ordinary business practice for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated above.
By personal service. I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s
as stated above.
By facsimile transmitted from (707) 433-0379. The document transmission was reported ag
complete and without error.
By email or electronic transmission. I caused the document to be sent to the persons at thq
email addresses listed below. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any|
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May l 0 , 2022, at Healdsburg,
California. Ca -
Ck S Vila,
Edward McCutchan
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
10Abel v. McCutchan, et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456
Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel
Richard Abel USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL - ONLY
707 Hahman Drive, #9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301
Tel: (707) 340-3894
E-Mail: pererel@gmail.com
Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland | McCutchan, Inc.; Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP,
B. Edward McCutchan, Jr.
Joseph S. Picchi, Esq. ELECTRONIC SERVICE - ONLY
Aaron T. Schultz, Esq.
Alexander Promm, Esq.
Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi
A Professional Corporation
2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398
Tel. No. (925) 930-9090
Fax No. (925) 930-9035
E-Mail: aschultz@glattys.com
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
il
Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, LLP 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907 Healdsburg, California 95448 Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 Attorneys for Defendant DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4 and JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RICHARD ABEL, an individual, CASE NO. SCV-263456 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE Plaintiff, vs. B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an individual; SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 ing Date: through 100, inclusive, Hearing Date Time: Dept.: 17 Defendants. Trial Date: October 7, 2022 emus meres Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable Arthur a. Wick Dept. 17 I FACTS The burden of proof under California Evidence Code section 500 is on the party to whose} case the fact is essential. In this action, plaintiff in propria persona Richard Abel (hereinafter “ABEL”), bears the burden of proof concerning his causes of action in his November 18, 2020 amended complaint in this action. ABEL was served with DOE 4 defendant Dale Davis’ and DOE 9 defendant Jacinda Duval’s first set of requests for admissions on March 11, 2022. (See accompanying declaration MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 1of Edward McCutchan, Exhibits “1” and “3” attached thereto). On or about April 3, 2022, ABEL responded to Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s first set of admissions with evasive responses and improper objections on matters that ABEL is well aware of and within his knowledge, control and possession pertaining to his claims in his November 18, 2020 amended complaint in this action and his participation in the Robert Zuckerman bankruptcy as stated in In re Robert Zuckerman 613 B.R. 707 (9" Cir. BAP 2020), a published decision. (See accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan, Exhibits “2” and “4” attached thereto). Thereafter, counsel for Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval sent ABEL “meet and confer letters” to resolve his evasive responses and improper objections to actual documents that are relevant to his perceived fabricated claims in this action that he authored. (See Exhibits “5,” “6,”and “9” attached to the accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan). Il ABEL’S ANSWERS TO DALE DAVIS’ ADMISSION REQUESTS ARE EVASIVE AND HIS OBJECTIONS TO UNANSWERED ADMISSION REQUESTS LACK A FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS A principal feature of the discovery act is that most discovery requests are self-executing and do not consume court time. A mere “objection” does nothing but invite a motion to compel. (Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal App. 3d 1097, 11110. CCP § 2033.290 provides the following: “On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION | TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 227 28 The primary purpose of requests for admissions is to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial. The basis for imposing sanctions ... is directly related to that purpose. Unlike other discovery sanctions, an award of expenses... is not a penalty, Instead, it is designed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a party in proving the truth of a requested admission . . . such that trial would have been expedited or shortened if the request had been admitted.” (Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4" 860, 865). As discussed below, and in Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s separate statement filed herewith, ABEL served evasive, nonresponsive answers, which included general and meritless objections to detailed requests as to his claimed assignments of former plaintiffs and the insolvency of debtor Robert Zuckerman in the Liebling v. Goodrich matter, a Sonoma County Superior Court action. Accordingly, the Court is authorized to compel further responses for the reasons stated below. C.C.P. Section 2033.220 provides the following: “(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA. DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL'S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 3the matter.” As stated in the accompanying Declaration of Edward McCutchan, and detailed in the Separate Statemen, included herewith, ABEL served evasive, nonresponsive answers, which included meritless objections to actual documents that ABEL authored and now refuses to admit because such documents demonstrate that he fabricated this lawsuit against all named defendants. “Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” CCP § 2030.220(a). As demonstrated in moving party’s Separate Statement, ABEL provided incomplete, deficient, nonresponsive, and evasive answers to Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s first requests for admissions on him. Requests for Admission. (See Exhibits “1,” “2,” “3,” and “4” to the accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan and he has failed to remedy the problems per Exhibits “5,” “6,” and “9” attached to the accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan. “Bach answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much off the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2030.220(b)). “The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources| reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (See Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322). In Cembrook v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco (1961) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 456 Cal. 2d 423, the Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why the responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at 430). “Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written requests. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783. “Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient.” (Ibid). Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (bid). Verification of the answers is in effect a declaration that the party has disclosed all information which is available to him or her. If only partial answers can be supplied, the answers should reveal all information then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he or she should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control. (Ibid. at 781-783). It is evident that ABEL failed to conduct an adequate investigation when responding to Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s separate first requests for admissions on him, including consulting all sources reasonably available to obtain the information (i.e., facts necessary to respond properly to the discovery requests). CCP § 2017.010 provides the following: Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in| accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 5may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property. CCP § 2033.230 further provides: (a) If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered. (b) If an objection is made to a request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. As demonstrated in Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s separate statement, ABEL improperly relies upon a myriad of boilerplate and meritless objections. Defendant interposed the| same general and boilerplate objections to nearly all of the moving parties’ admission requests without any effort to explain or identify how each objection applied to any particular question or part of a question. “If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.” CCP § 2033.230(a). As shown in moving parties’ separate statement, in the case of Dale Davis’ and Jacinda Duval’s admission requests upon him, ABEL has asserted objections as to only a portion of these requests and has failed to provide the remaining information requested to which no objections were asserted. i MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST ABEL ARE WARRANTED CONCERNING THIS MOTION CCP § 2033.290(b) provides that this motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 6declaration under Section 2016.040.” A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (CCP § 2016.040). Per the accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan, Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval sent three (3) separate meet and confer letters to ABEL outlining the deficiencies in his admission responses allowing additional days to remedy his deficient responses. “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing may impose ... sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...” CCP § 2023.030. “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to .. . (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery .. . (f) Making an evasive response to discovery... (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery... .” (CCP § 2023.010). “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2033.290(d). (Emphasis added). ‘These sanctions may be awarded under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or an opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1030(a)). In the present case, there is no excuse MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 727 28 or justification for ABEL’S refusal to provide further responses to the subject admission requests that contain documents that he authored that. The accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan herewith attests to the efforts expended on the part of this moving party to avoid this motion. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. (Do v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1213). It is evident from the facts presented that ABEL will not comply with this authorized method of discovery absent a court order and the imposition of sanctions of $ 2,847.50 requested in the accompanying declaration of Edward McCutchan, IV CONCLUSION Moving parties, Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval, request that this Court grant their motion to compel further verified responses by ABEL to their separate first set of requests for admissions either admitting or denying their requests within 45 days after notice of the order after hearing and order ABEL to pay Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval $2,847.50 in monetary sanctions payable to Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP to compel the further answers to the two separate sets of admissions on ABEL stated herein within 45 days after notice of the order after hearing. The detailed requests for admissions of DOE defendants, Dale Davis and Jacinda Duval on ABEL are specifically tailored to deal with his claimed assignments and if a former plaintiff in the Liebling action actually signed them and when (before the claimed plaintiff's were dismissed as a party in the Liebling action of before). Mf MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 8Date: May , 2022 SUNDERLAND | MeCUTCHAN, LLP Edward MgCutchan Attorneys for Defendant DALE DAVIE. DOE 4 JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 9PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my present address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg. California 95448. On May 16. 2022, I served the foregoing documents described as MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE on the parties b placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST By Regular U.S. Mail. The documents were placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practice for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated above. By personal service. I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s as stated above. By facsimile transmitted from (707) 433-0379. The document transmission was reported ag complete and without error. By email or electronic transmission. I caused the document to be sent to the persons at thq email addresses listed below. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any| electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May l 0 , 2022, at Healdsburg, California. Ca - Ck S Vila, Edward McCutchan MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 10Abel v. McCutchan, et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456 Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel Richard Abel USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL - ONLY 707 Hahman Drive, #9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301 Tel: (707) 340-3894 E-Mail: pererel@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland | McCutchan, Inc.; Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP, B. Edward McCutchan, Jr. Joseph S. Picchi, Esq. ELECTRONIC SERVICE - ONLY Aaron T. Schultz, Esq. Alexander Promm, Esq. Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi A Professional Corporation 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398 Tel. No. (925) 930-9090 Fax No. (925) 930-9035 E-Mail: aschultz@glattys.com MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ AND JACINDA DUVAL’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RICHARD ABEL’S COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE il