Preview
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC
1 BRADLEY S. WALLACE, ESQ. (SBN 243169)
bradley@wallacefirm.email
2 THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ. (SBN 297577)
thomas@wallacefirm.email
3 16000 Ventura Blvd., Suite 440
Encino, CA 91436
4 Tel: 818-476-5998
Fax: 818-476-5598
5
LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON SUA & ASSOCIATES
6 BRANDON SUA, ESQ. (SBN #291476)
sua@lawyer.com
7 1445 E. Los Angeles Ave.,
Simi Valley, CA 93063
8 Telephone: (805) 842-2000
Facsimile: (805) 842-2001
9
Attorney for Plaintiff, RENEE YANCHECK
Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440
12
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
13 )
RENEE YANCHECK, an individual; Case No.: 21CV00800
)
14 )
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE
) OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
15 )
vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
) ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR
16 ) SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OLD
SANDBAR RESTAURANT, a business
entity type unknown; and DOES 1 through ) TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC, AND ITS
17 ) COUNSEL CHRISTOPHER MCDONALD,
50, Inclusive.
) ZEANA ZOREIKAT, AND MURCHISON AND
18 ) CUMMING, LLP; DECLARATION OF
Defendants.
) THOMAS R. BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
19 )
)
20 ) Hearing Date: April 15, 2024
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
21 ) Dept.: SB5
)
22 )
)
23 )
)
24 )
)
25
26
27
28 1
PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R.
32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 TO THE COURT, DEFENDANT, AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 15, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
3 matter may be heard in Department SB5 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1100 Anacapa Street,
4 Santa Barbara, California. Plaintiff RENEE YANCHECK, (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court to grant
5 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, to which
6 Defendant OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC (“Defendant”) has posed only boilerplate objections.
7 This motion will be made pursuant to Code of §§ 2023.010, et seq., 2033.220, 2033.280,
8 2033.290, on the grounds that Defendants have posed general, meritless objections and refused to
9 respond to the above Requests for Admission.
Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598
10 Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court for an order compelling Defendant to
11 provide further verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, pursuant to
16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440
12 California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290.
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
13 In addition, the Court should impose monetary sanctions on Defendant OLD TOWN
14 HOSPITALITY, LLC and its counsel, Christopher McDonald, Zeana Zoreikat, and Murchison and
15 Cumming, LLP, in the amount of $1,060.00.
16 This Motion will be based upon this Notice, Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
17 Exhibits, Declaration of Thomas R. Burns, Esq., the pleadings, and records on file herein, and upon
18 such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the time of the hearing.
19
20
Dated: February 21, 2024, THE WALLACE FIRM, PC.
21
22
23 By: ____________________________________
BRADLEY S. WALLACE, ESQ.
24 THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, RENEE YANCHECK
25
26
27
28 2
PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R.
32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff suffered injuries when she slipped and fell in the Sandbar Restaurant owned by
4 Defendants herein. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant OLD
5 TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC (“Defendant”) including Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories,
6 Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. (Burns Decl.)
7 After extensions, Defendant served responses to each of the above written sets of discovery
8 on January 2, 2024. However, the responses merely contained identical boilerplate objections to each
9 and every discovery request, including the Requests for Admissions that are the subject of this
Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598
10 motion. (Burns Decl.; see, Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, and Exhibit B,
11 Defendants Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.)
16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440
12 On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred via email with defense counsel
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
13 pointing out that no substantive responses had been provided and requesting substantive further
14 responses to the discovery at issue by January 9, 2024. (Exhibit C.) Defendant, however, has never
15 responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence and has not provided any further responses.
16 (Burns Decl.)
17 As Defendant has ignored Plaintiff’s attempt to resolve the issue informally and has not
18 provided any further responses, an order compelling further responses is necessary.
19 II. FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE ORDERED ON THE DISCOVERY AT
20 ISSUE
21 The Code of Civil Procedure states that “the propounding party may move for an order
22 compelling a further response [to requests for admissions] if the propounding party deems that… [a]n
23 answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete…. [ or that a]n objection… is without merit
24 or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(a).) Thus, a motion to compel further responses is
25 warranted where a responding party provides evasive responses or makes objections that are “without
26 merit.” As set forth below, an order requiring further responses is required here because the
27 objections posed are general boilerplate objections, meritless, and frivolous.
28 Where a party objects to discovery requests
3 it must pose specific objections tailored to the
PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R.
32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 particular requests at issue. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.230.) A party is not allowed to rely on general
2 objections to discovery and an objection that is “too general” warrants a motion to compel further
3 response. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.290.) Identical boilerplate objections are the functional equivalent
4 of a blanket general objection. (Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098,
5 1125, aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other, unrelated, grounds at 13 Cal.5th 333.) As the court noted,
6 “mastery of the cut-and-paste feature to refuse to answer each individual request is functionally
7 indistinguishable from a blanket refusal.” (Ibid.) Thus, the courts have recognized that “the use of
8 ‘boiler plate’ objections” are “sanctionable” as an abuse of the discovery process. (Korea Data
9 Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516; see also, Burlington Northern &
Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598
10 Santa Fe Ry Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court (9th Cir.2005) 408 F.3d 1142 [boilerplate general objections
11 were insufficient to prevent waiver of privilege].)
16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440
12 Defendant here has not posed any specific objections tailored to the particular requests at
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
13 issue. Instead, it has posed identical boilerplate objections to each and every request. It is obvious
14 that Defendant’s objections are not made in the good faith belief that every single discovery request,
15 no matter how standard or innocuous is the subject to every possible objection. Rather, the objections
16 posed are simply an attempt to stonewall and delay litigation by preventing Plaintiff from obtaining
17 necessary discovery.
18 Accordingly, an order compelling further responses is necessary and should be granted.
19 III. PLAINTIFF MET AND CONFERRED PRIOR TO FILING THIS MOTION AND
20 THIS MOTION IS TIMELY
21 The responses herein were served by Defendant on January 2, 2024. (Exhibit B.) On receipt
22 of the all-objection responses, Plaintiff’s counsel immediately sent an email meeting and conferring
23 regarding the responses and requesting a that defense counsel advise by January 9. 2024 as to whether
24 further responses would be provided. (Exhibit C.)
25 Defense counsel did not respond to Plaintiff counsel’s email and failed to provide further
26 responses. As such, this motion became necessary.
27 ///
28 /// 4
PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R.
32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1 IV. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON DEFENDANT AND HER
2 COUNSEL
3 Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(d) states: “the court shall impose a monetary
4 sanction” for a party that unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses without
5 “substantial justification.” Furthermore, The Code of Civil Procedure defines the posing of meritless
6 objections, providing “evasive responses,” and obstructing discovery as “misuses of discovery the
7 discovery process” that subject one to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) As described above,
8 however, there was no justification of the Defendant and Defense counsel’s refusal to respond to
9 these simple discovery requests.
Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598
10 Monetary sanctions generally are intended to recover “the reasonable expenses, including
11 attorney’s fees, incurred… as a result of that conduct” that was the subject of the motion. (Code Civ.
16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440
12 Proc. § 2023.020.) Accordingly, the Court should impose monetary sanctions Defendant OLD
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
13 TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC and its counsel, Christopher McDonald, Zeana Zoreikat, and
14 Murchison and Cumming, LLP, in the amount of $1,060.00. (See Burns Decl.)
15 V. CONCLUSION
16 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order Defendant OLD
17 TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC, to serve further responses to each of the Form Interrogatories
18 propounded. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose $1,060.00 in monetary sanctions
19 against Defendant OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC and its counsel, Christopher McDonald,
20 Zeana Zoreikat, and Murchison and Cumming, LLP.
21
22 Dated: February 21, 2024, THE WALLACE FIRM, PC.
23
24
By: ____________________________________
25 BRADLEY S. WALLACE, ESQ.
26 THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff, RENEE YANCHECK
27
28 5
PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R.
32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ.
2
I, Thomas R. Burns, Esq., declare as follows:
3
1. I am an attorney at The Wallace Firm, PC, counsel of record for Plaintiff, RENEE
4
YANCHECK. I have firsthand personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. If called
5
and sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in
6
support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
7
Documents, Set One (“Motion”).
8
2. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant OLD TOWN
9
Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598
HOSPITALITY, LLC (“Defendant”) including Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories,
10
Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions.
11
3. After extensions, Defendant served responses to each of the above written sets of
16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440
12
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436
discovery on January 2, 2024. However, the responses merely contained identical boilerplate
13
objections to each and every discovery request, including the Requests for Admissions that are the
14
subject of this motion.
15
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Requests for
16
Admissions, Set One; Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Defendants
17
Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.
18
5. On January 2, 2024, I met and conferred via email with defense counsel pointing out
19
that no substantive responses had been provided and requesting substantive further responses to the
20
discovery at issue by January 9, 2024. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto Exhibit
21
C.
22
6. Defendant, however, has never responded to Plaintiff’s meet and c
Preview
THE WALLACE FIRM, PC 1 BRADLEY S. WALLACE, ESQ. (SBN 243169) bradley@wallacefirm.email 2 THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ. (SBN 297577) thomas@wallacefirm.email 3 16000 Ventura Blvd., Suite 440 Encino, CA 91436 4 Tel: 818-476-5998 Fax: 818-476-5598 5 LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON SUA & ASSOCIATES 6 BRANDON SUA, ESQ. (SBN #291476) sua@lawyer.com 7 1445 E. Los Angeles Ave., Simi Valley, CA 93063 8 Telephone: (805) 842-2000 Facsimile: (805) 842-2001 9 Attorney for Plaintiff, RENEE YANCHECK Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440 12 THE WALLACE FIRM, PC ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 13 ) RENEE YANCHECK, an individual; Case No.: 21CV00800 ) 14 ) Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE ) OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 15 ) vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ) ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR 16 ) SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OLD SANDBAR RESTAURANT, a business entity type unknown; and DOES 1 through ) TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC, AND ITS 17 ) COUNSEL CHRISTOPHER MCDONALD, 50, Inclusive. ) ZEANA ZOREIKAT, AND MURCHISON AND 18 ) CUMMING, LLP; DECLARATION OF Defendants. ) THOMAS R. BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 19 ) ) 20 ) Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. 21 ) Dept.: SB5 ) 22 ) ) 23 ) ) 24 ) ) 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. 32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 TO THE COURT, DEFENDANT, AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 15, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard in Department SB5 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1100 Anacapa Street, 4 Santa Barbara, California. Plaintiff RENEE YANCHECK, (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court to grant 5 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, to which 6 Defendant OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC (“Defendant”) has posed only boilerplate objections. 7 This motion will be made pursuant to Code of §§ 2023.010, et seq., 2033.220, 2033.280, 8 2033.290, on the grounds that Defendants have posed general, meritless objections and refused to 9 respond to the above Requests for Admission. Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court for an order compelling Defendant to 11 provide further verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, pursuant to 16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440 12 California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.290. THE WALLACE FIRM, PC ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 13 In addition, the Court should impose monetary sanctions on Defendant OLD TOWN 14 HOSPITALITY, LLC and its counsel, Christopher McDonald, Zeana Zoreikat, and Murchison and 15 Cumming, LLP, in the amount of $1,060.00. 16 This Motion will be based upon this Notice, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 17 Exhibits, Declaration of Thomas R. Burns, Esq., the pleadings, and records on file herein, and upon 18 such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the time of the hearing. 19 20 Dated: February 21, 2024, THE WALLACE FIRM, PC. 21 22 23 By: ____________________________________ BRADLEY S. WALLACE, ESQ. 24 THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, RENEE YANCHECK 25 26 27 28 2 PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. 32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff suffered injuries when she slipped and fell in the Sandbar Restaurant owned by 4 Defendants herein. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant OLD 5 TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC (“Defendant”) including Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, 6 Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. (Burns Decl.) 7 After extensions, Defendant served responses to each of the above written sets of discovery 8 on January 2, 2024. However, the responses merely contained identical boilerplate objections to each 9 and every discovery request, including the Requests for Admissions that are the subject of this Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598 10 motion. (Burns Decl.; see, Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, and Exhibit B, 11 Defendants Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.) 16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440 12 On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred via email with defense counsel THE WALLACE FIRM, PC ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 13 pointing out that no substantive responses had been provided and requesting substantive further 14 responses to the discovery at issue by January 9, 2024. (Exhibit C.) Defendant, however, has never 15 responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence and has not provided any further responses. 16 (Burns Decl.) 17 As Defendant has ignored Plaintiff’s attempt to resolve the issue informally and has not 18 provided any further responses, an order compelling further responses is necessary. 19 II. FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE ORDERED ON THE DISCOVERY AT 20 ISSUE 21 The Code of Civil Procedure states that “the propounding party may move for an order 22 compelling a further response [to requests for admissions] if the propounding party deems that… [a]n 23 answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete…. [ or that a]n objection… is without merit 24 or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(a).) Thus, a motion to compel further responses is 25 warranted where a responding party provides evasive responses or makes objections that are “without 26 merit.” As set forth below, an order requiring further responses is required here because the 27 objections posed are general boilerplate objections, meritless, and frivolous. 28 Where a party objects to discovery requests 3 it must pose specific objections tailored to the PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. 32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 particular requests at issue. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.230.) A party is not allowed to rely on general 2 objections to discovery and an objection that is “too general” warrants a motion to compel further 3 response. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.290.) Identical boilerplate objections are the functional equivalent 4 of a blanket general objection. (Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 5 1125, aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other, unrelated, grounds at 13 Cal.5th 333.) As the court noted, 6 “mastery of the cut-and-paste feature to refuse to answer each individual request is functionally 7 indistinguishable from a blanket refusal.” (Ibid.) Thus, the courts have recognized that “the use of 8 ‘boiler plate’ objections” are “sanctionable” as an abuse of the discovery process. (Korea Data 9 Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516; see also, Burlington Northern & Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598 10 Santa Fe Ry Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court (9th Cir.2005) 408 F.3d 1142 [boilerplate general objections 11 were insufficient to prevent waiver of privilege].) 16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440 12 Defendant here has not posed any specific objections tailored to the particular requests at THE WALLACE FIRM, PC ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 13 issue. Instead, it has posed identical boilerplate objections to each and every request. It is obvious 14 that Defendant’s objections are not made in the good faith belief that every single discovery request, 15 no matter how standard or innocuous is the subject to every possible objection. Rather, the objections 16 posed are simply an attempt to stonewall and delay litigation by preventing Plaintiff from obtaining 17 necessary discovery. 18 Accordingly, an order compelling further responses is necessary and should be granted. 19 III. PLAINTIFF MET AND CONFERRED PRIOR TO FILING THIS MOTION AND 20 THIS MOTION IS TIMELY 21 The responses herein were served by Defendant on January 2, 2024. (Exhibit B.) On receipt 22 of the all-objection responses, Plaintiff’s counsel immediately sent an email meeting and conferring 23 regarding the responses and requesting a that defense counsel advise by January 9. 2024 as to whether 24 further responses would be provided. (Exhibit C.) 25 Defense counsel did not respond to Plaintiff counsel’s email and failed to provide further 26 responses. As such, this motion became necessary. 27 /// 28 /// 4 PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. 32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 IV. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON DEFENDANT AND HER 2 COUNSEL 3 Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(d) states: “the court shall impose a monetary 4 sanction” for a party that unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses without 5 “substantial justification.” Furthermore, The Code of Civil Procedure defines the posing of meritless 6 objections, providing “evasive responses,” and obstructing discovery as “misuses of discovery the 7 discovery process” that subject one to sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) As described above, 8 however, there was no justification of the Defendant and Defense counsel’s refusal to respond to 9 these simple discovery requests. Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598 10 Monetary sanctions generally are intended to recover “the reasonable expenses, including 11 attorney’s fees, incurred… as a result of that conduct” that was the subject of the motion. (Code Civ. 16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440 12 Proc. § 2023.020.) Accordingly, the Court should impose monetary sanctions Defendant OLD THE WALLACE FIRM, PC ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 13 TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC and its counsel, Christopher McDonald, Zeana Zoreikat, and 14 Murchison and Cumming, LLP, in the amount of $1,060.00. (See Burns Decl.) 15 V. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order Defendant OLD 17 TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC, to serve further responses to each of the Form Interrogatories 18 propounded. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose $1,060.00 in monetary sanctions 19 against Defendant OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC and its counsel, Christopher McDonald, 20 Zeana Zoreikat, and Murchison and Cumming, LLP. 21 22 Dated: February 21, 2024, THE WALLACE FIRM, PC. 23 24 By: ____________________________________ 25 BRADLEY S. WALLACE, ESQ. 26 THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, RENEE YANCHECK 27 28 5 PLAINTIFF RENEE YANCHECK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OLD TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC AND ITS COUNSEL; DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. 32 BURNS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 1 DECLARATION OF THOMAS R. BURNS, ESQ. 2 I, Thomas R. Burns, Esq., declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at The Wallace Firm, PC, counsel of record for Plaintiff, RENEE 4 YANCHECK. I have firsthand personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. If called 5 and sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in 6 support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of 7 Documents, Set One (“Motion”). 8 2. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant OLD TOWN 9 Telephone: (818) 476-5998; Facsimile: (818) 476-5598 HOSPITALITY, LLC (“Defendant”) including Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, 10 Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. 11 3. After extensions, Defendant served responses to each of the above written sets of 16000 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE 440 12 THE WALLACE FIRM, PC ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 discovery on January 2, 2024. However, the responses merely contained identical boilerplate 13 objections to each and every discovery request, including the Requests for Admissions that are the 14 subject of this motion. 15 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Requests for 16 Admissions, Set One; Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Defendants 17 Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One. 18 5. On January 2, 2024, I met and conferred via email with defense counsel pointing out 19 that no substantive responses had been provided and requesting substantive further responses to the 20 discovery at issue by January 9, 2024. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto Exhibit 21 C. 22 6. Defendant, however, has never responded to Plaintiff’s meet and c