Preview
KELLY LITIGATION GROUP, INC.
Richard M. Kelly, Esq. SBN 154504
Michael Mengarelli, Esq. SBN 215000
3 Lagoon Drive,
Redwood City, CA
Suite 225 FELEH)
94065 SAN MATEO COUNTY
Telephone: (650) 59 1 -2282
JAN 2 4 2019
Facsimile: (650) 591-2292
CHAUVEL & GLATT, LLP
@MQQUI&OJN
April S. Glatt, Esq. SBN 185708
Thomas J. Walsh, Esq. SBN 31 1862
66 Bovet Road, Suite 280
San Mateo, CA 94402
18 — GIV — 00846
Telephone: (650) 573-9500 SS
Separate Statement
Facsimile: (650) 573-9689
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross—Defendants,
J’Tifiinum
MATTHEW SQUIRES and NICOLE SQUIRES
650-573-9500
ImmmmI/mm
| IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNM
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
LLP
94402
CA
(UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION)
GLATT,
Mateo,
MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES, Case No.2 18CIV00846
& San Plaintiffs,
] SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
280
CHAUVEL
VS. OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
Suite
R.C. WEHIVIEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Road,
dba WEHIVIEYER CUSTOM HOMES; AGAINST CROSS-CONIPLAINANT
ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, an individual; ROBERT C. WEHNIEYER (OR ISSUE
Bovet
AMERCIAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
66
COIVIPANY; and DOES 1through 20, inclusive, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
Defendants.
Action Filed: February 20, 2018
WEHIVIEYER CONSTRUCTION,
ooqcxmthr—lcwwanIthHc
R.C. INC.,
dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES; Date: MWCDK 0/ [9.0/4
ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, JEFFREY BORDIN Time: 9:00 a.m. /
AND GREGORIO MARTINEZ, Dept: Law and Motion
Cross-Complainants, FAX
VS. BY
MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES, TURE
and ROES 1 through 10,
Cross—Defendants. SIGMA
1
SEPARATE STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT OF CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
Plaintiffs Matthew Squires and Nicole Squires (the “Squires”) submits this Separate Statement
in support of their Motion for Terminating Sanctions (or Issue Sanctions in the Alternative) and
Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”) Against Cross—Complainant Robeft C. Wehmeyer (“Cross—
Complainant” or “Wehmeyer”).
In compliance with Rule 3.1345(0) of the California Rules of Court, set forth below are: (1)
\DWQGKUIhMNH
the form and special interrogatories and requests for production Which require further responses and
production of documents; (2) Cross—Complainant’s objections and responses to each interrogatory and
request for production; (3) the reasons justifying terminating or issue sanctions; and (4) the text of any
relevant definitions or instructions required to understand each discovery request.
650-573-9500
SOUIRES’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESJTO WEHMEYER) — SET ONE
IDENTIFY and DESCRIBE IN DETAIL
r—tc
| Special Interrogatory No. 19: all facts that support
LLP
94402
YOUR allegation that “Cross-Defendants Squires recorded all conversations made by Cross-
WM
CA
GLATT,
Complainants named herein when they were in or about the Squires’ subject residence”, as alleged in
Mateo,
£ paragraph 28 of the CROSS—COMPLAINT.
& San
| Response to Special Interrogatory No. 19: I object to the Ifiterrogatory in that it seeks
280
CHAUVEL
\laux
Suite irrelevant information having no relationship or connection to the sole cause of action to which I am a
Road,
party and it is the exclusive subject matter of my claim. The Squires knowingly and intentionally
Bovet
eavesdropped and surreptitiously recorded my confidential conversations in violation of Penal Code §
66
632. The Interrogatory seeks
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
information Which has no tendency to lead to evidence in regard to the
Fourth Cause of Action, has no relationship to settlement of my claim pursuant to the Foufih Cause of
Action and provides no information for evaluating the Fourth Cause of Action of the Cross—Complaint
baNr-tcww
or preparing for trial in regard to the Fourth Cause of Action.
Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatory No. 19
h (from Squires’ 3rd Motion to Compel [originally filed 0n May 25, 2018]): “[P]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any unprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject of the pending action or
motions, but subject to the rule that ‘the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears
\leUI
2
00
SEPARATE STATENIENT 1N SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERIVIINATING SANCTIONS
AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAJNANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR IS SUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
H reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence.’ [Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010,
italicsadded by court]” Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 224, Cal. App. 4th 754, 761.
“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [citation omitted] Admissibility is not the test and
information, unless privileged, is discoverable if itmight reasonably lead to admissible evidence.”
©MQONUIAMN
Lipton v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1599, 1611 — 1612 (italics original). The Court of Appeal
‘continues by finding “[t]he phrase ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidencc’ makes itclear that the scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might
lead t0 other evidence that would be admissible at trial.‘Thus, the scope 0f permissible discovery is
one of reason,
650-573-9500
logic and common sense.’ These rules are liberally in favor of discovery.” Id. at 1612
] (italics original; internal citations omitted).
LLP
94402
It iswell established that discovery into a party’s contentions, including legal contentions, is
CA
GLATT,
proper and must be answered. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010 (request may demand that party “admit
Mateo,
& the truth of application of law t0 fact”); R & B Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2006) 140
San
| Ca.4th 327, 356; Rifkind v.' Sup. Ct. (1994) 22 Ca1.App.4th 1255, 1255-57 (deposition questions asking
280
CHAUVEL
Suite opponent “to state all facts, list all witnesses and identify alldocuments that support the affirmative
Road,
defenses he had asserted in his answer” would have been “entirely appropriate if‘
asked by
Bovet
interrogatories”). Therefore, a response is required. r
66 WQQUIBWNHG@W\IO\UIADJNHO
Reason
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
Why Sanctions Should Be Imposed for Special Interrogatory No. l9: This request
seeks documentation directly relevant to critical ‘issues in this action. The Court ordered production of
documents by August 20, 20 1 8. Joint Stipulation and Court Order on Plaintiff s First Motion to Compel
Discovery, Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Third Motion to Compel Discovery, executed
July, 24 2018 (“Order Compelling Discovery”), 113(b). Rather than comply, Wehmeyer has willfully
‘
disobeyed the Court’s order. Even after RCWC was sanctioned $50,746 on September 27, 2018,
RCWC continues to refuse to respond.
3
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMWATING SANCTIONS
AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS DI THE ALTERNATIVE)
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
California Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(d) authorizes this Court to imfiose
terminating sanctions against a party who fails toprovide discovery and for disobeying a court order to
provide discovery. See also, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2031.300. Wehmeyer’s misconduct
has caused serious prejudice to the Squires. Squires assert terminating sanctions are the most appropriate
sanction for
WWQOKUIBWNH
Wehmeyer’s continued discovery abuses. However, should this Court disagree, it should
order issue sanctions to remedy Wehmeyer’s misconduct and prevent an unfair trial.
Special Interrogatory No. 26: IDENTIFY allDOCUMENTS that support your Fourth Cause
of Action (Surreptitious Recording of Confidential Conversation, P.C. § 632
— As to Squires).
Response to Special Interrogatory No. 26: I object to this Interrogatory as seeking irrelevant
c information.
650-573-9500 My Fourth Cause of Action has nothing to do with who worked at the house or when I
| witnessed a person work on the Project. Such an Interrogatory does not lead to any evidence about the
NH
LLP
94402
Fourth Cause of Action, does not have any tendency to assist in the preparation for a trial0f the Fourth
CA
GLATT,
Cause of Action concerning a violation of a criminal statute that is in issue.
Mateo,
hm
Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatory N0. 26 (from
& San
| Squires’ 3rd Motion to Compel [originally filed on May 25, 2018]): It is well established that
280
CHAUVEL mm
Suite discovery into a party’s contentions, including legal contentions, isproper and must be answered. Code
Road,
\l Civ. Proc., § 2033.010 (request may demand that party “admit ... the truth of application of law to
Bovet fact”); R & B Auto C171, Inc. v.Farmers Group, Inc. (2006) 140 Ca.4th 327, 356; Riflcz'nd v. Sup. Ct.
NNNNNNNNNHHHr—tr—IHHHHH
66
(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1255-57 (deposition questions asking opponent “to state all facts, list all
chw
witnesses and identify all documents that support the affirmative defenses he had asserted in his answer”
would have been “entirely appropriate if asked by interrogatories”). “Each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward .. .[and] if the responding party does not have
N
OJ
personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but make a
reasonable attempt and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or
h
organizations.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subds. (a) and (c).Further, answers to interrogatories
are limited to: “(1) [a]n answer containing the information sought t0 be discovered”; “(2) [a]n exercise
ooqc'xUI
4
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERWATWG SANCTIONS
AGAINST CROSS—COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS 1N THE ALTERNATIVE)
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
0f the party’s option t0 produce writings”; and (3) [a]n objection to the particular interrogatory.” Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a);Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 178 Ca1.App.4th
1333, 1353 (“[t]rial courts have the power to require parties, upon pain of sanctions, t0 provide clear
responses to written interrogatories” [internal citations omitted]); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
Ca1.App.3d
WMQQUIfiWNH
771, 783 (“Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a
portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient . . .[and it is improper to provide a] deftly
worded conclusionary answers designed t0 evade a series 0f explicit questions”).
This response clearly does not even answer the question. A responsive answer is requested.
Reason Why Sanctions Should Be Imposed for Special Interrogatory N0. 26: This request
seeks documentation directly relevant to critical issues in this action.
650-573-9500
The Court ordered production of
documents by August 20, 2018. Order Compelling Discovery, ${3(b).Rather than comply, Wehmeyer
|
LLP
94402 has willfully disobeyed the Court’s order. Even after RCWC was sanctioned $50,746 on September
mthr-tc
CA
GLATT, 27, 2018,
r—th—tr—tHr—AH
RCWC continues to refuse to respond.
Mateo,
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(d) authorizes this Court to impose
& San
| terminating sanctions against a party who fails t0 provide discovery and for disobeying a court order to
280
CHAUVEL
16
Suite
provide discovery. See also, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2031.300. Wehmeyer’s misconduct
Road, has caused serious prejudice to the Squires. Squires assert terminating sanctions are the most appropriate
Bovet sanction for Wehmeyer’s continued discovery abuses. However, should this Court disagree, itshould
66
order issue sanctions to remedy Wehmeyer’s misconduct and prevent an unfair trial.
The following interrogatories have not been responded to at all:
Special Interrogatory No. 29: DESCRIBE IN DETAIL all steps YOU took to ensure the
"electronic recording device" you identified in paragraph 27 0fthe CROSS-COMPLAINT, as properly
installed 0n the PROPERTY.
Special Interrogatory No. 30: DESCRIBE IN DETAIL Where YOU installed, or supervision
of the installation of the "electronic recording device" you identified in paragraph 27 of the CROSS-
COMPLAINT.
5
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERIVIWATING SANCTIONS
AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
Reason Why Sanctions Should Be Imposed for Special Interrogatory No. 29 - 30: This
request seeks documentation directly relevant to critical issues in this action. The Court ordered
production of documents by August 20, 20 1 8. Order Compelling Discovery, 113 (b).Rather than comply,
Wehmeyer has willfully disobeyed the Court’s order. Even after RCWC was sanctioned $50,746 on
September 27, 2018,
\DWQONUIhOJNH
RCWC continues to refuse to respond.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(d) authorizes this Court to impose
terminating sanctions against a party who fails toprovide discovery and for disobeying a court order to
provide discovery. See also, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2031.300. Wehmeyer’s misconduct
has caused serious prejudice to the Squires. Squires assert terminating sanctions are the most appropriate
sanction for
650-573-9500
Wehmeyer’s continued discovery abuses. However, should this Court disagree, it should
| order issue sanctions t0 remedy Wehmeyer’s misconduct and prevent an unfair trial.
LLP
94402
Dated: January 23, 2019 CHAUVEL & GLATT, LLP
CA
GLATT,
&
Mateo,
San
l
By: %m
Thomas J.
WW
Walsh, Esq.
280 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Matthew & Nicole Squires
CHAUVEL
Suite
Road,
ooqathNchoochUI-BDJNi—lc
Bovet
66
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
6
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAJNANT ROBERT C. WEHIVIEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
Preview
KELLY LITIGATION GROUP, INC. Richard M. Kelly, Esq. SBN 154504 Michael Mengarelli, Esq. SBN 215000 3 Lagoon Drive, Redwood City, CA Suite 225 FELEH) 94065 SAN MATEO COUNTY Telephone: (650) 59 1 -2282 JAN 2 4 2019 Facsimile: (650) 591-2292 CHAUVEL & GLATT, LLP @MQQUI&OJN April S. Glatt, Esq. SBN 185708 Thomas J. Walsh, Esq. SBN 31 1862 66 Bovet Road, Suite 280 San Mateo, CA 94402 18 — GIV — 00846 Telephone: (650) 573-9500 SS Separate Statement Facsimile: (650) 573-9689 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross—Defendants, J’Tifiinum MATTHEW SQUIRES and NICOLE SQUIRES 650-573-9500 ImmmmI/mm | IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNM IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO LLP 94402 CA (UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION) GLATT, Mateo, MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES, Case No.2 18CIV00846 & San Plaintiffs, ] SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT 280 CHAUVEL VS. OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION Suite R.C. WEHIVIEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS Road, dba WEHIVIEYER CUSTOM HOMES; AGAINST CROSS-CONIPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, an individual; ROBERT C. WEHNIEYER (OR ISSUE Bovet AMERCIAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE) 66 COIVIPANY; and DOES 1through 20, inclusive, AND MONETARY SANCTIONS NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH Defendants. Action Filed: February 20, 2018 WEHIVIEYER CONSTRUCTION, ooqcxmthr—lcwwanIthHc R.C. INC., dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES; Date: MWCDK 0/ [9.0/4 ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, JEFFREY BORDIN Time: 9:00 a.m. / AND GREGORIO MARTINEZ, Dept: Law and Motion Cross-Complainants, FAX VS. BY MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES, TURE and ROES 1 through 10, Cross—Defendants. SIGMA 1 SEPARATE STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT OF CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE) AND MONETARY SANCTIONS Plaintiffs Matthew Squires and Nicole Squires (the “Squires”) submits this Separate Statement in support of their Motion for Terminating Sanctions (or Issue Sanctions in the Alternative) and Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”) Against Cross—Complainant Robeft C. Wehmeyer (“Cross— Complainant” or “Wehmeyer”). In compliance with Rule 3.1345(0) of the California Rules of Court, set forth below are: (1) \DWQGKUIhMNH the form and special interrogatories and requests for production Which require further responses and production of documents; (2) Cross—Complainant’s objections and responses to each interrogatory and request for production; (3) the reasons justifying terminating or issue sanctions; and (4) the text of any relevant definitions or instructions required to understand each discovery request. 650-573-9500 SOUIRES’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESJTO WEHMEYER) — SET ONE IDENTIFY and DESCRIBE IN DETAIL r—tc | Special Interrogatory No. 19: all facts that support LLP 94402 YOUR allegation that “Cross-Defendants Squires recorded all conversations made by Cross- WM CA GLATT, Complainants named herein when they were in or about the Squires’ subject residence”, as alleged in Mateo, £ paragraph 28 of the CROSS—COMPLAINT. & San | Response to Special Interrogatory No. 19: I object to the Ifiterrogatory in that it seeks 280 CHAUVEL \laux Suite irrelevant information having no relationship or connection to the sole cause of action to which I am a Road, party and it is the exclusive subject matter of my claim. The Squires knowingly and intentionally Bovet eavesdropped and surreptitiously recorded my confidential conversations in violation of Penal Code § 66 632. The Interrogatory seeks NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH information Which has no tendency to lead to evidence in regard to the Fourth Cause of Action, has no relationship to settlement of my claim pursuant to the Foufih Cause of Action and provides no information for evaluating the Fourth Cause of Action of the Cross—Complaint baNr-tcww or preparing for trial in regard to the Fourth Cause of Action. Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatory No. 19 h (from Squires’ 3rd Motion to Compel [originally filed 0n May 25, 2018]): “[P]arties may obtain discovery regarding any unprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject of the pending action or motions, but subject to the rule that ‘the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears \leUI 2 00 SEPARATE STATENIENT 1N SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERIVIINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAJNANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR IS SUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE) AND MONETARY SANCTIONS H reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence.’ [Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010, italicsadded by court]” Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 224, Cal. App. 4th 754, 761. “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [citation omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if itmight reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” ©MQONUIAMN Lipton v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1599, 1611 — 1612 (italics original). The Court of Appeal ‘continues by finding “[t]he phrase ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidencc’ makes itclear that the scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead t0 other evidence that would be admissible at trial.‘Thus, the scope 0f permissible discovery is one of reason, 650-573-9500 logic and common sense.’ These rules are liberally in favor of discovery.” Id. at 1612 ] (italics original; internal citations omitted). LLP 94402 It iswell established that discovery into a party’s contentions, including legal contentions, is CA GLATT, proper and must be answered. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010 (request may demand that party “admit Mateo, & the truth of application of law t0 fact”); R & B Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2006) 140 San | Ca.4th 327, 356; Rifkind v.' Sup. Ct. (1994) 22 Ca1.App.4th 1255, 1255-57 (deposition questions asking 280 CHAUVEL Suite opponent “to state all facts, list all witnesses and identify alldocuments that support the affirmative Road, defenses he had asserted in his answer” would have been “entirely appropriate if‘ asked by Bovet interrogatories”). Therefore, a response is required. r 66 WQQUIBWNHG@W\IO\UIADJNHO Reason NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH Why Sanctions Should Be Imposed for Special Interrogatory No. l9: This request seeks documentation directly relevant to critical ‘issues in this action. The Court ordered production of documents by August 20, 20 1 8. Joint Stipulation and Court Order on Plaintiff s First Motion to Compel Discovery, Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Third Motion to Compel Discovery, executed July, 24 2018 (“Order Compelling Discovery”), 113(b). Rather than comply, Wehmeyer has willfully ‘ disobeyed the Court’s order. Even after RCWC was sanctioned $50,746 on September 27, 2018, RCWC continues to refuse to respond. 3 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMWATING SANCTIONS AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS DI THE ALTERNATIVE) AND MONETARY SANCTIONS California Code 0f Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(d) authorizes this Court to imfiose terminating sanctions against a party who fails toprovide discovery and for disobeying a court order to provide discovery. See also, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2031.300. Wehmeyer’s misconduct has caused serious prejudice to the Squires. Squires assert terminating sanctions are the most appropriate sanction for WWQOKUIBWNH Wehmeyer’s continued discovery abuses. However, should this Court disagree, it should order issue sanctions to remedy Wehmeyer’s misconduct and prevent an unfair trial. Special Interrogatory No. 26: IDENTIFY allDOCUMENTS that support your Fourth Cause of Action (Surreptitious Recording of Confidential Conversation, P.C. § 632 — As to Squires). Response to Special Interrogatory No. 26: I object to this Interrogatory as seeking irrelevant c information. 650-573-9500 My Fourth Cause of Action has nothing to do with who worked at the house or when I | witnessed a person work on the Project. Such an Interrogatory does not lead to any evidence about the NH LLP 94402 Fourth Cause of Action, does not have any tendency to assist in the preparation for a trial0f the Fourth CA GLATT, Cause of Action concerning a violation of a criminal statute that is in issue. Mateo, hm Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatory N0. 26 (from & San | Squires’ 3rd Motion to Compel [originally filed on May 25, 2018]): It is well established that 280 CHAUVEL mm Suite discovery into a party’s contentions, including legal contentions, isproper and must be answered. Code Road, \l Civ. Proc., § 2033.010 (request may demand that party “admit ... the truth of application of law to Bovet fact”); R & B Auto C171, Inc. v.Farmers Group, Inc. (2006) 140 Ca.4th 327, 356; Riflcz'nd v. Sup. Ct. NNNNNNNNNHHHr—tr—IHHHHH 66 (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1255-57 (deposition questions asking opponent “to state all facts, list all chw witnesses and identify all documents that support the affirmative defenses he had asserted in his answer” would have been “entirely appropriate if asked by interrogatories”). “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward .. .[and] if the responding party does not have N OJ personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but make a reasonable attempt and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or h organizations.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220, subds. (a) and (c).Further, answers to interrogatories are limited to: “(1) [a]n answer containing the information sought t0 be discovered”; “(2) [a]n exercise ooqc'xUI 4 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERWATWG SANCTIONS AGAINST CROSS—COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS 1N THE ALTERNATIVE) AND MONETARY SANCTIONS 0f the party’s option t0 produce writings”; and (3) [a]n objection to the particular interrogatory.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a);Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 178 Ca1.App.4th 1333, 1353 (“[t]rial courts have the power to require parties, upon pain of sanctions, t0 provide clear responses to written interrogatories” [internal citations omitted]); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Ca1.App.3d WMQQUIfiWNH 771, 783 (“Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient . . .[and it is improper to provide a] deftly worded conclusionary answers designed t0 evade a series 0f explicit questions”). This response clearly does not even answer the question. A responsive answer is requested. Reason Why Sanctions Should Be Imposed for Special Interrogatory N0. 26: This request seeks documentation directly relevant to critical issues in this action. 650-573-9500 The Court ordered production of documents by August 20, 2018. Order Compelling Discovery, ${3(b).Rather than comply, Wehmeyer | LLP 94402 has willfully disobeyed the Court’s order. Even after RCWC was sanctioned $50,746 on September mthr-tc CA GLATT, 27, 2018, r—th—tr—tHr—AH RCWC continues to refuse to respond. Mateo, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(d) authorizes this Court to impose & San | terminating sanctions against a party who fails t0 provide discovery and for disobeying a court order to 280 CHAUVEL 16 Suite provide discovery. See also, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2031.300. Wehmeyer’s misconduct Road, has caused serious prejudice to the Squires. Squires assert terminating sanctions are the most appropriate Bovet sanction for Wehmeyer’s continued discovery abuses. However, should this Court disagree, itshould 66 order issue sanctions to remedy Wehmeyer’s misconduct and prevent an unfair trial. The following interrogatories have not been responded to at all: Special Interrogatory No. 29: DESCRIBE IN DETAIL all steps YOU took to ensure the "electronic recording device" you identified in paragraph 27 0fthe CROSS-COMPLAINT, as properly installed 0n the PROPERTY. Special Interrogatory No. 30: DESCRIBE IN DETAIL Where YOU installed, or supervision of the installation of the "electronic recording device" you identified in paragraph 27 of the CROSS- COMPLAINT. 5 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERIVIWATING SANCTIONS AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANT ROBERT C. WEHMEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE) AND MONETARY SANCTIONS Reason Why Sanctions Should Be Imposed for Special Interrogatory No. 29 - 30: This request seeks documentation directly relevant to critical issues in this action. The Court ordered production of documents by August 20, 20 1 8. Order Compelling Discovery, 113 (b).Rather than comply, Wehmeyer has willfully disobeyed the Court’s order. Even after RCWC was sanctioned $50,746 on September 27, 2018, \DWQONUIhOJNH RCWC continues to refuse to respond. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(d) authorizes this Court to impose terminating sanctions against a party who fails toprovide discovery and for disobeying a court order to provide discovery. See also, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2031.300. Wehmeyer’s misconduct has caused serious prejudice to the Squires. Squires assert terminating sanctions are the most appropriate sanction for 650-573-9500 Wehmeyer’s continued discovery abuses. However, should this Court disagree, it should | order issue sanctions t0 remedy Wehmeyer’s misconduct and prevent an unfair trial. LLP 94402 Dated: January 23, 2019 CHAUVEL & GLATT, LLP CA GLATT, & Mateo, San l By: %m Thomas J. WW Walsh, Esq. 280 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Matthew & Nicole Squires CHAUVEL Suite Road, ooqathNchoochUI-BDJNi—lc Bovet 66 NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH 6 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAJNANT ROBERT C. WEHIVIEYER (OR ISSUE SANCTIONS IN THE ALTERNATIVE) AND MONETARY SANCTIONS