Motion to Compel Discovery with Sanctions in RALPH BASCH VS. LAW OFFICES OF KAPLAN & MACLELLAN ET AL| Trellis.Law

On September 30, 2019 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Basch, Ralph, and Does 1-25, Inclusive, Kaplan, Esq., Benjamin, Kaplan Esq., Benjamin E., Law Offices Of Kaplan & Maclellan, Maclellan, Douglas C., Maclellan, Esq., Douglas C., for PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
BRIAN SLOME, SB# 238134
2 E-Mail: Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com ELECTRONICALLY
JESSICA L. BEELER, SB# 268939
3 E-Mail: Jessica.Beeler@lewisbrisbois.com F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 County of San Francisco
4 San Francisco, California 94104-2872
Telephone: 415.362.2580 06/05/2020
Clerk of the Court
5 Facsimile: 415.434.0882 BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendants, Benjamin E. Kaplan,
Esq. and Douglas C. MacLellan, both
7 individually and doing business as the Law
Offices of Kaplan & MacLellan, erroneously sued
8 as an unknown business entity KAPLAN AND
MACLELLAN
9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

13 RALPH BASCH, individually, and in his CASE NO. CGC-19-579634
capacity as the executor of the estate of Christa
14 M. Basch and as the successor trustee of the DEFENDANTS BENJAMIN E. KAPLAN
Christa M. Basch Living Trust, AND DOUGLAS C. MACLELLAN
15 INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS
AS KAPLAN & MACLELLAN’S
16 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
17 vs. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
18 LAW OFFICES OF KAPLAN & INTERROGATORIES AND FOR
MACLELLAN, a business entity of unknown MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
19 type; BENJAMIN E. KAPLAN, ESQ., an PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF
individual; DOUGLAS C. MACLELLAN, RECORD UJVALA SINGH
20 ESQ., an individual; and DOES 1-25,
inclusive [Filed concurrently with Motions to Compel
21 Defendants. Responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests
for Admission, and Demands for Production]
22
[DISCOVERY]
23
Date: July 24, 2020
24 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302
25
Action Filed: September 30, 2019
26 Trial Date: March 15, 2021

28
LEWIS 4820-7940-9087.1
BRISBOIS 1
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 Defendants Benjamin E. Kaplan, Esq., and Douglas C. MacLellan, both individually and

2 doing business as the Law Offices of Kaplan & MacLellan, erroneously sued as an unknown

3 business entity (“Defendants”) will and hereby does move this Court, pursuant to (1) Code of

4 Civil Procedure section Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(b) and 2030.300(a), for an

5 Order compelling Plaintiff and responding party Ralph Basch (“Responding Party”) to serve

6 complete verified responses without objection to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, and

7 (2) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030, 2030.290(c), and 2031.300(c), for an

8 Order requiring Responding Party and his attorney of record Ujvala Singh, to pay, jointly and

9 severally, $1,824.00 in monetary sanctions to Defendants, both within seven (7) days after the

10 hearing on this Motion.

11 This Motion is made on the grounds that Responding Party has failed to respond to both

12 Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, and that this discovery dispute cannot be resolved

13 without this Court’s intervention.

14 DEFENDANTS REQUEST THAT THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

15 OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMANDS FOR DOCUMENTS BE

16 HEARD FIRST AMONG THE FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL BEING BROUGHT BY

17 DEFENDANTS

18 This Motion is one of four discovery motions to compel that Defendants’ counsel has set to

19 be heard together. Defendants seek to compel production of documents, as well as further

20 responses to the first sets of Demands for Production. Defendants also move to compel further

21 responses to their first sets of special interrogatories, first sets of form interrogatories, and first sets

22 of requests for admissions.

23 Defendants request that the motion to compel production of documents and for further

24 responses to Demands for Document be heard first, as it is the most straightforward, and will best

25 illustrate to the court the obstructionist and recalcitrant mindset of Responding Party’s attorney in

26 her stonewalling approach to discovery in this action. Defendants request that the court next hear

27 Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, followed by the

28 motions to compel further responses to form interrogatories, and then Defendants’ motion to
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 2
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 compel further responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admissions.

3 I. INTRODUCTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

4 Responding Party has failed to provide any substantive answer to any Special

5 Interrogatories. Instead, Responding Party responded solely with rote, boilerplate objections that

6 are without merit and too general. Counsel for Responding Party, Ujvala Singh (“Ms. Singh”) has

7 also never stated in any of her communications with defense counsel that she will agree to produce

8 any further substantive responses.

9 Following Defendants’ receipt of these improper responses, Defendants’ counsel engaged

10 in the “meet and confer” process in good faith. Defendants counsel sent Ms. Singh a detailed

11 letter setting forth argument supported by controlling legal authority as to why Responding Party’s

12 objections lacked merit, and were too general, and why further responses should be provided

13 which removed those meritless and too-general objections.

14 In Ms. Singh’s negative response, Ms. Singh made no attempt to counter, refute, or

15 distinguish the authorities raised by Defendants’ counsel, but instead was unyielding. She stated

16 in conclusory, unsupported fashion, or in some cases with fantastically contorted “logic”, that the

17 objections were “appropriate”. Basically Ms. Singh’s attitude that she was going to things “her

18 way”. Ms. Singh even made the ridiculous suggestion that she might incorporate all of the so-

19 called “General Objections” into the individual responses, irrespective of the fact that these so-

20 called “General Objections” each lacked merit. Ms. Singh made no offer to provide even a single

21 substantive response to any interrogatory.

22 Defense counsel has been forced by the recalcitrance of Respondent Party to incur the time

23 and expense of preparing and filing this Motion. Thus, not only should this Court order

24 Responding Party to provide responses, but Responding Party should be forced to pay sanctions

25 for utterly failing to cooperate and forcing Defendants to bring this Motion.

26 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

27 On September 30, 2019, Responding Party filed a complaint against Defendants for legal

28 malpractice. The causes of action relate to a claim that Defendants, as Responding Party’s
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 3
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 attorneys, allegedly missed a statutory deadline in an Ellis Act Proceeding involving Responding

2 Party’s tenant.

3 To discover the factual basis of Responding Party’s case, Defendants propounded to

4 Responding Party two sets of Special Interrogatories on December 18, 2019, together with other

5 formal discovery. (Declaration of Jessica Beeler (“Beeler Decl.”), ¶ 3, Ex. A.) One set was on

6 behalf of Douglas MacLellan, and the other was on behalf of Benjamin Kaplan (collectively,

7 “Special Interrogatories”). Based on the service date of December 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s responses

8 to Defendants’ initial written discovery were due January 24, 2020. Defendants’ counsel granted

9 Responding Party’s two requests for extensions of time to respond to the entirety of the formal

10 discovery served. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

11 Responding Party eventually served two sets of responses to the Special Interrogatories

12 (hereinafter, “the responses”), on February 10, 2020. (Beeler Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B.) The responses

13 consisted of objections only; none of them contained substantive answers.

14 On April 3, 2020, counsel for Defendants sent four meet and confer letters to Ms. Singh

15 concerning the different discovery propounded to Responding Party, one of which exclusively

16 addressed Defendants’ Special Interrogatories to Responding Party. (Beeler Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. C.)

17 The letter explained the basis for the present motion. It informed Ms. Singh that Defendants

18 intended to seek relief via motion, and seek sanctions, in further responses were not provided, and

19 unmeritorious objections were not withdrawn.

20 On April 18, 2020, Ms. Singh wrote a letter to defense counsel addressing the responses.

21 (Beeler Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D.) In the letter, counsel for Responding Party continued to argue that the

22 numerous objections were warranted, and neglected to offer to provide any further responses.

23 As a result, Defendant was left with no choice but to bring the instant Motion.1 This caused

25 1
On April 30, 2020, the San Francisco Superior Court issued General Order re Implementation of
Emergency Relief, providing that “March 18, 2020 to June 1, 2020, inclusive are deemed a
26 holiday for the purpose of computing time for filing papers with the court under Code of Civil
Procedure sections 12 and 12a, if the emergency conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
27 substantially interfere with the Public’s ability to file papers in a court facility on those dates. The
Court also “extend[ed] the time in which to respond to discovery including service of objections to
28
LEWIS (footnote continued)
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 4
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 Defendants to incur the time and expense of preparing and filing this Motion. (Beeler Decl., ¶ 8.)

2 Defendants have been prejudiced by Responding Party’s failure to respond in the discovery

3 process in that it has been unable to investigate the claims and alleged injuries and damages and

4 prepare its defense for trial. (Beeler Decl., ¶ 9.)

5 III. LAW AND ARGUMENT

6 Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

7 subject matter involved if the matter either itself is admissible in evidence or appears reasonably

8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010.) Information that

9 relates to a claim of any party is relevant to the subject matter of the action. (Ibid.) The

10 information at issue is clearly related to the subject matter and claims made by Plaintiff in this

11 action. (See concurrently filed Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Further

12 Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One.)

13 A. Further Full and Complete Verified Substantive Responses Without
Objections Must Be Provided to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-8
14

15 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires each interrogatory to be answered “as
16 complete and straight forward…as the information permits.” Section 2030.220 further requires an
17 interrogatory to be answered “to the extent possible” when it cannot be answered completely. If
18 Responding Party does not have sufficient information to answer an interrogatory, Section
19 2030.220 requires the party to state they do not have sufficient knowledge and to attest to the fact
20 that a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information was made. This includes making
21 a good faith inquiry to third party individuals where they are shown to be cooperating with the
22 party to the lawsuit. (Jones v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534,
23 552.) In the event a party to whom interrogatories have been propounded provides evasive or
24 incomplete answer(s) to a particular interrogatory or interrogatories, the propounding party may
25

26
discovery, or file motions for protective orders or to compel discovery pursuant to Code of Civil
27 Procedure sections 2016.010 et seq.” The first date upon which Defendants could file these
moving papers with the Court was June 2, 2020.
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 5
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 move for an order compelling a further response. (CCP § 2030.300(a).)

2 Moreover, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230, a party responding to an

3 interrogatory by identifying do specific writings from which the answer to the interrogatory may

4 be derived must provide “sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to

5 identify…the documents from which the answer may ascertained.”

6 Here, Responding Party has failed to meet the requirements of Section 2030.230.

7 Responding Party’s meritless objections must be disregarded.

8 For instance, Ms. Singh asserts that Special Interrogatory No. 1 is compound because it

9 seeks information regarding “each contract and/or agreement”. Ms. Singh admits in her April 18

10 letter that “Contracts are legally enforceable agreements”. In effect, Interrogatory No. 1 is only

11 asking about “each agreement”, of which contracts are merely a subset. Ms. Singh should provide

12 a response as to each agreement, including but not limited to those agreements that are contracts.

13 Ms. Singh’s objection to Special Interrogatory No. 2 is nonsensical. That Interrogatory

14 asks about “each contractual provision of any agreements “you” claim was breached. If Ms. Singh

15 asserts that there exist “agreements” between Responding Party and Defendants that do not have

16 contractual provisions, then they are outside the scope of the interrogatory. They do not make the

17 interrogatory compound or overbroad.

18 Ms. Singh’s objections to Interrogatories Nos. 3 through 8 as being “compound” are also

19 contrived and without merit. The fact that these omissions might give rise to more than one type

20 of legal claims does not make them compound.

21 None of these interrogatories asks anything about any legal claims or legal theory. None

22 of them asks for information which requires any expert opinion. They simply ask for factual

23 information regarding Defendants’ supposed failure to advise Responding Party.

24 Responding Party’s further assertions that certain interrogatories implicate attorney-client

25 privilege are not substantiated. An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a

26 certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An

27 interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that

28 relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 6
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. (Code Civ. Proc. §

2 2030.010, subd. (b).) A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from

3 sources under her control. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.) Information

4 regarding the basis for a party’s legal contentions is clearly discoverable when sought by written

5 interrogatory. (See Singer v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318.)

6 Ms. Singh further states that “the underlying action . . . necessarily includes many other

7 commercial transactions related to renting out and maintaining the rental property”. Ms. Singh

8 has not identified any supposed “commercial transactions”. Ms. Singh’s reference to “many other

9 commercial transactions” is pure speculation. Ms. Singh has failed to establish that there is any

10 confidential commercial information to be protected. Responding Party’s remedy would be to

11 seek a protective order in any event, not by way of objection

12 Next, Ms. Singh continues to assert that the interrogatories improperly seek expert opinion.

13 Attempting to ascertain legal contentions does not call for expert opinions. None of the

14 interrogatories implicate expert opinions because none of them concerns any contention regarding

15 the standard of care, or any other matter in which expert testimony may be necessary or

16 appropriate. Questions that touch on legal issues such as “whether a contract existed, whether

17 defendants breached it” are valid interrogatories to ask even of a lay Plaintiff, who is to answer

18 them with the assistance of his lawyer. (See Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th

19 1255, 1260-1261.)

20 The objections on the ground of “trade secrets” are completely without merit. There is

21 nothing in this litigation that has anything to do with trade secrets. “Trade secret” is defined under

22 the Uniform Trade Secrets Act at Civ. Code Section 3426.1(d) as:

23 [I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program,
device, method, technique, or process, that:
24
(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from
25 not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
26
(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
27 circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

28 This does not apply to any of the very basic requests Defendants have sought from
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 7
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 Responding Party, nor to the facts of the underlying case, which related to an Ellis Act eviction.

2 Finally, Ms. Singh fails to support her claim of third-party privacy rights with any showing

3 that any privacy rights of any actual third persons would be implicated. Ms. Singh’s statement in

4 her April 18, 2020, letter that “Mr. Basch is required to protect the privacy rights of the

5 beneficiaries” does nothing to show that any “privacy rights of third parties” are implicated in any

6 of the Special Interrogatories propounded. Defendants are entitled to a response as complete and

7 straight forward as the information permits. Instead of providing information that is within

8 Responding Party’s personal knowledge, he avoids responding to these valid inquires and has

9 failed to provide any complete and straight forward responses.

10 B. All Plaintiff’s Objections Stated as “General Objections” are Waived

11 Section 2030.210, subdivision (a) provides that the party to whom interrogatories have

12 been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory. Moreover,

13 the whole idea of so-called “general” objections to formal discovery, even if the general objections

14 were separately contained within each separate response, would by definition be “too general”,

15 and thus would constitute a ground for bringing a motion to compel further responses. (See §§

16 2030.300(a)(3).) Since all responses must be full and complete in themselves, “General

17 Objections” are not permitted.

18 This issue was briefed in Defendants’ April 3, 2020 letter to Ms. Singh with citation to

19 controlling authority. Responding Party has failed to present any contrary authority to the

20 controlling authority cited. Indeed, no contrary authority exists. No incorporation by reference

21 into each response is permitted, either. Since the general objections are not permitted, and there is

22 no provision for later incorporating objections by reference, the purported “General Objections”

23 have been waived.

24 C. Responding Party’s Objection to the Definition of “YOU” is Without Merit

25 Responding Party objected to the specially defined term “YOU” in Plaintiff’s responses to

26 each formal discovery device propounded.

27 “YOU” is defined to mean Plaintiff, and no one else. Plaintiff is specifically identified in

28 the Complaint as “Plaintiff RALPH BASCH, individually, and in his capacity as the executor of
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 8
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 the estate of Christa M. Basch and as the successor trustee of the Christa M. Basch Living Trust”.

2 There is no other Plaintiff aside from Plaintiff RALPH BASCH in all of the capacities in which he

3 is named as the Plaintiff.

4 This definition is not objectionable. This definition does not render any interrogatory,

5 objectionable on any ground. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 (a) authorizes “Any

6 party” to obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written

7 interrogatories to be answered under oath. Defendants have served Special Interrogatories on the

8 only other party to this action, Plaintiff Ralph Basch. The fact that “Plaintiff Ralph Basch” sued

9 Defendants “individually and in his capacity as the executor of the estate of Christa Mr. Basch and

10 as successor trustee of the Christa M. Basch Living Trust” does not alter the fact that he is but one

11 party.

12 Contrary to what Singh stated in her April 18, 2020, letter, there is no reference to Plaintiff

13 anywhere in the Complaint that specifies that Plaintiff is making any particular allegation, or

14 bringing any cause of action, in any particular capacity to the exclusion of any other capacity in

15 which he appears in this action. If Plaintiff believes that his response to any particular

16 interrogatory depends in any way on the particular capacity in which he appears in this action, or

17 that he is only capable of responding in certain capacities and not in other capacities, it is his duty

18 to so indicate in his response.

19 D. This Court Must Award Defendant’s Reasonable Costs and Attorneys’ Fees

20 Code of Civil Procedure §§2023.010, 2023.030, and 2030.290 specifically authorize this

21 Court to award Defendant monetary sanctions against Responding Party and his attorney based on

22 their conduct. Code of Civil Procedure §2023.030 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

23 “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any

24 other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and

25 after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in

26 conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process:

27 (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of

28 the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses,
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 9
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also

2 impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the

3 discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary

4 sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction.”

5 Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010(d) provides that “[f]ailing to respond or submit to an

6 authorized method of discovery” constitutes a misuse of the discovery process and is sanctionable.

7 In fact, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290(c) provides that this Court “shall impose a monetary

8 sanction . . . against any party . . . who unsuccessfully . . . opposes a motion to compel a response

9 to interrogatories.”

10 Responding Party’s complete stonewalling and maintenance of frivolous objections

11 constitutes discovery misuse and warrants sanctions. Defendants are not asking for outrageously

12 unrelated material. They simply seek to gather the most basic information regarding Responding

13 Party’s claims. Defendants provided Responding Party many opportunities and have extended

14 every professional courtesy in an effort to avoid bringing a motion to compel just to get basic

15 discovery and thus a basic understanding of the case. But Responding Party has still not provided

16 any meaningful substantive responses. The Beeler Declaration sets forth the attorneys’ fees and

17 costs that Defendants were unnecessarily forced to incur in bringing this motion as a result.

18 Counsel for Defendants spent 5.9 hours researching and drafting this Motion to Compel.

19 (Beeler Decl., ¶ 8.) Defendants anticipate an additional 2.5 hours will be spent reviewing and

20 replying to any opposition to this Motion, and attending the hearing. (Ibid.) Defendants’ counsel

21 charges an associate billable rate of $210.00 per hour on this matter. The filing fee for this Motion

22 is $60.00. (Ibid.) Accordingly, monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,824.00are hereby

23 requested to be imposed against Responding Party.

24 IV. CONCLUSION

25 Without the requested responses to written discovery, Defendants are unable to evaluate

26 Plaintiff’s claims or prepare their defenses. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully submit that the

27 Court should grant Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to the Special Interrogatories

28 at issue, and to award the monetary sanctions sought by this motion.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 10
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1

2 DATED: June 2, 2020 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

4
By:
5 Brian Slome
Jessica L. Beeler
6 Attorneys for Defendants Benjamin E. Kaplan,
Esq., and Douglas C. MacLellan, both individually
7 and doing business as the Law Offices of Kaplan
& MacLellan, erroneously sued as an unknown
8
business entity
9

18
19

28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 11
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE

2 Ralph Basch v. Law Offices of Kaplan & MacLellan, et al.

3 San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-19-579634

4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

5 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My
business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2872.
6
On June 2, 2020, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANTS BENJAMIN E.
7 KAPLAN AND DOUGLAS C. MACLELLAN INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS
AS KAPLAN & MACLELLAN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
8 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF
9 AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD UJVALA SINGH.

10 I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ralph Basch
12
Kevin J. Holl
13 J. Michael Matthews
Ujvala Singh
14 Gordon-Creed, Kelley, Holl & Sugerman, LLP
1901 Harrison Street, 14th Floor
15 Oakland, California 94612
Tel.: (415) 421-3100
16 Fax: (415) 421-3150
Email: holl@gkhs.com
17 Email: Matthews@gkhs.com
Email: singh@gkhs.com
18
19 The documents were served by the following means:

20  (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY) Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the
persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above based on notice provided on March 16, 2020
21 that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely,
not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No
22 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received
within a reasonable time after the transmission.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct.

25 Executed on June 2, 2020, at San Francisco, California.

27
Nancy Lew-Pham
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4820-7940-9087.1 12
BISGAARD DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
& SMITH LLP FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Case Info

Judge

Samuel K. Feng Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 05, 2020

Case Filing Date

September 30, 2019

County

Parties

BASCH, RALPH Plaintiff
DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE Defendant
KAPLAN, ESQ., BENJAMIN Defendant
KAPLAN ESQ., BENJAMIN E. Defendant
LAW OFFICES OF KAPLAN & MACLELLAN Defendant
MACLELLAN, DOUGLAS C. Defendant
MACLELLAN, ESQ., DOUGLAS C. Defendant
MATTHEWS, JAMES MICHAEL Attorney for the Plaintiff
SLOME, BRIAN Attorney for the Defendant
Jessica Beeler Attorneys for Defendants
Kevin Holl Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ujvala Singh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Barbara Allen Attorney
David Yu Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Discovery: RALPH BASCH VS. LAW OFFICES OF KAPLAN & MACLELLAN ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties