Party Discovery: RUFUS ALEXANDER VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Gordon & Rees LLP

101 West Broadway

Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN: 164463)
STEVEN SOBEL (SBN: 177210)

K.C. SWISHER (SBN: 245238)

KURT E. GILABERT (SBN: 178563)
GORDON & REES LLP

101 West Broadway

Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: (619) 696-6700

Fax: (619) 696-7124

Attorneys for Defendant
HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

APR 06 2011

Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE

RUFUS ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P) as

Reflected on Exhibits B, C, G, H, I, and DOES
1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST.

Ne ee ae ae ee Se ee ae ae eee

-l-

CASE NO. CGC-08-274719

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT HENNESSY INDUSTRIES,
INC.’S MOTION FOR ORDER
COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES AND FOR
SANCTIONS

[Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion;
Declaration of Kurt Gilabert; and [Proposed]
Order

Hearing Date: June 7, 2011

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Dept: 220

Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Complaint: July 1, 2008

Trial date: Not set

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC'S
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIESGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway

Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101

w

MEMORANDUM OF POIN' AUTHORITIES
L INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

On July 1, 2008, Plaintiff Rufus Alexander (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging that
Hennessy industries, Inc. (“Hennessy”), along with other defendants, were responsible for
Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and to his asbestos-related injury. Here, Hennessy propound to
Plaintiff Rufus Alexander Form Interrogatories, Set One, on October 22, 2010. (Declaration of
Kurt Gilabert (“Gilabert Dec!.”), 3.) Hennessy did not receive a response to the Form
Interrogatories, Set One, and sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on November 30, 2010.
(Gilabert Decl., { 4.) Plaintiff did not respond to the meet and confer letter. To date, Plaintiff
has not responded to the Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Gilabert Decl., § 5.)

Hennessy has spent two hours in preparing the documents related to this motion to
compel. Additionally, Hennessy anticipates that two hours will be spent reviewing the
opposition, preparing a reply and appearing at the hearing on the motion. Hennessy’s billing rate
is $215.00 and $40.00 for filing the motion. Thus, Hennessy requests $900.00

il. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Hennessy’s Motion For An Order Compelling Plaintiff To Provide Responses To
Form Interrogatories Should Be Granted

Section 2030.010 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party must
respond to interrogatories within thirty (30) days of being served. Under Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.290(b), the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order
compelling a response to the interrogatories. Parties that fail to respond to interrogatories waive
their right to object to any of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) propounding party
may move to compel responses to an inspection demand when the party to whom a demand is
directed fails to serve timely responses. Under section 2023.010(d) failure to respond to an
authorized discovery method is sanctionable conduct.

Here, Hennessy propound to Plaintiff Rufus Alexander Form Interrogatories, Set One, on
October 22, 2010. (Gilabert Decl., 43.) Hennessy did not receive a response to the Form
Interrogatories, Set One, and sent a meet and confer lefter to Plaintiff on November 30, 2010.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.'S
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lL
af 3”
Has
g= § 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ARCWOSTBGINOITI A

(Gilabert Decl., 4.) Plaintiff did not respond to the meet and confer letter. To date, Plaintiff
has not responded to the Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Gilabert Decl., { 5.)
Therefore, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide responses to Hennessy’s Form

Interrogatories, Set One, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.

B. Hennessy Is Entitled To Monetary Sanctions For Plaintiff's Failure To Provide
Responses To Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff's bad faith refusal to provide responses to Hennessy’s Form Interrogatories is
sanctionable conduct. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 subd. (d), failure to
respond fo an authorized discovery method is grounds for sanctions. The Discovery Act requires
that monetary sanctions be imposed against parties who unsuccessfully oppose a motion to
compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)

Defendant Hennessy anticipates that it will incur approximately $900.00 in attorney fees
and costs in connection with preparing and pursuing this motion. (Gilabert Decl. 6.)
Defendant Hennessy respectfully requests that this Court issue monetary sanctions in the amount
of $900.00 against Plaintiff Rufus Alexander.

Ti. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Rufus Alexander should be compelled to provide
responses, without objections to Hennessy’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within ten (10) days
of the hearing. Additionally, Hennessy respectfully requests that this Court order Plaintiff to pay
Hennessy $900.00 in sanctions.

Dated: April 6, 2011 GORDON & REES LLP

» KECLLE

Roger M. Mansukhani

Steven Sobel

K.C. Swisher

Kurt E. Gilabert

Attorneys for Defendant
HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.

-3-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.'S
MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES