Preview
LAW OF
OFFICES
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
65o CALIFORNIA STREET, 26‘” FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 08—2615
F I L E D
981 -721 O
T: (41 5) -
F: 391 -6965
(41 5)
SAN MATEfi COUNTY
MATTHEW D. DAVIS (State Bar #141986)
mdavis@walkup1awofi'ice.com
coooq'oucnfiwwr—l
SPENCER J. PAHLKE (State Bar #250914)
sp ahlke@wa1kup1awoffice.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
BRICEIDA LOPEZ AND JOSE SOLIS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an individual, JOSE Case No. 18CIV01696
SOLIS, an individual,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF BRICEIDA LOPEZ’S
V. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
MONETARY DISCOVERY
PAUL BONIFACIO, an individual, SANCTIONS AGAINST
MARGARET HYUN, an individual, DEFENDANT AMERIGAS
AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., a business PROPANE, L.P. [AMERIGAS]
entity, AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC, a '
corporation, AMERIGAS, INC., a Date: 5, 3/ I q
corporation, and DOES
NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—AHr—IHr—ar—AHr—II—I
ONE through Time: 9:00 a.m.
ONE-HUNDRED, inclusive, Dept: Law & Motion
Defendants. Filed Concurrently With NOTICE OF
mQOECflIkCONHowmflOUUACONl—‘O
MOTION AND MOTION; SEPARATE
STATEMENTS ISO MOTION;
DECLARATION .OF MATTHEW D.
DAVIS ISO MOTION; PROPOSED
ORDER; AND PROOF OF SERVICE
Filed Concurrently with Motion to
Compel Further Response to Requests
for the Production of Documents and
Things and Motion to Compel Further
fifigw‘bmfi Responses to Special Interrogatories
Memorandum
1730983
M
of Pain t s
an m
u ori t fies in
s u pr
Action Filed: April 6, 2018
Trial Date‘ N°Vemb“ 18’ 2°19
I (HWMWHMW"WH ll
MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. 1801V01696
H TABLE OF CONTENTS
N figflsl
$.03
I.
‘
INTRODUCTION 4
.................................................................................................
II. RELEVANT ISSUES 4
............................................................................................
OT
III. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL MET-AND-CONFERRED WITH
AMERIGAS’S COUNSEL BEFORE BRINGING THIS MOTION ..................... 5
a
IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................
6 _
Q
A. PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN PREJUDICED. 6
.................................................
m
B. Sanctions Should Be Awarded Against AmeriGas. 6
..................................
w
V. CONCLUSION 7
..... .................................................................................................
‘
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHr—Ar—I
ooqozmgoowHocoooqozowppwwr—Ao
2
MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. ISCIV01696
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
‘
Statutes
‘CCP 2016.640 ................................................................................................................
5
§
coooqcvcnpbcowr—A
CCP § 6
2023.010(d)—(f) .......................................................................................................
CCP § 6
2023.030(a).... .........................................................................................................
CCP § 6
2030.290(a) ............................................................................................................
CCP § 2031.310(h) 6
...........................................................................................................
NNNNNNNNMHHHHHHHHHr—a
ooqoacnpkoamr-Iocoooqacnuxoomr—to
3
MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. ISCIV01696
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Briceida Lopez moves for an award of $13,000 in discovery sanctions
against defendant AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (“AmeriGas”) for failing to respond t0
discovery, for making unmeritorious/objections, and for making evasive responses t0
wmQCECJ‘lr-ROONf—l
discovery. This motion is made concurrently With Lopez’s motion t0 compel AmeriGas
to provide further responses special interrogatories (first set), and Lopez’s motion to
compel AlgeriGas t0 make further responses to her requests for production of
documents and things (first set).
II. RELEVANT ISSUES
Lopez and co-plaintiff Jose Solis sustained burn injuries in a propane fire that
suddenly erupted as they cleaned a Tahoe vacation house on March 17, 2018. Ms.
Lopez suffered third degree burns to 70% of her body, including her entire face. Mr.
Solis suffered third degree burns to about 25% of his body. The fire occurred during a
heavy snowstorm and investigating fire officials concluded that propane leaked from
cracked pipes in the propane system immediately outside of the house. (Davis Decl.
at 1H] 2, 5 and Exhibit 1.)
NNNNNNNNHr—In—Ir—II—Ar—IHHr—Ir—I
AmeriGas supplied the propane t0 the house. AmeriGas is “the nation’s largest
retail propane marketer, serving approximately 1.8 million customers in a1_150 states
flmUlfiCJONI—‘OQWQGDOIHKOONHO
from approximately 1,900 distribution locations.” (Davis Decl. at 1H} 3, 6 and Exhibit
z and Exhibit_3.)
The operative complaint, filed on September 20, 2018, alleges that AmeriGas
repeatedly violated Placer County’s propane safety ordinance. That ordinance
mandated that residential propane systems in high snowfall areas, such as the
subject vacation house, meet certain safety standards that are intefided to prevent
cracked pipes and dangerous propane leaks. The ordinance also mandated that
propane vendors, such as AmeriGas, inspect residential propane systems on an
annual basis to ensure that they meet the high snowfall safety standards. The
28 ordinance makes it illegal for a propane vendor to supply propane to a home if that
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KEILY
8L SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4
26 FLO
MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
650 CALITFHORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS -
CASE NO. 1801V01696
residence’s propane system does not meet the ordinance’s high snowfall safety
standards. The complaint alleges that the propane system at the vacation house
violated the ordinance’s safety standards, that AmeriGas never inspected the house’s
propane system, and that AmeriGas instead repeatedly delivered propane to thel
house. The complaint alleges that AmeriGas’s Violations of the ordinance were a
coooqozoxppoampa
substantial factor in causing the cracked pipes, the propane leak, the resulting fire
and plaintiffs’ injuries, and that AmeriGas faces negligence per se liability. (Davis
Decl. at fl 7 and Exhibit 4 at 1W 13-15, 37-39.)
On November 28, 2018, Lopez on AmeriGas special interrogatories, set one. On
December 10, 2018, Lopez served on AmeriGas requests for the production 0f
documents. AmeriGas did not timely respond to either the Special interrogatories or
the document requests. AmeriGas also provided responses that contained
unmeritorious objections. AmeriGas also made evasive responses to discovery. (See
concurrently filed motion to compel further responses t0 plaintiffs first set of request
for the production 0f documents and things, and motion to compel further responses
to plaintiffs first set of special interrogatories.)
COUNSEL MET-AND-CONFERRED WITH AMERIGAS’S
NNNNNNNNr—IHHHHHn—ap—ar—tr—I
III. PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL BEFORE BRINGING THIS MOTION
flfimfiWNHowmQ®Cflr§wNHO
Lopez’s counsel complied with their obligation to meet-and-confer and attempt
an informal resolution of this dispute before filing this motion. CCP § 2016.040. On
March 7, 2019, Lopez’s counsel sent a 14-page meet-and-confer letter, With
attachments, to counsel for AmeriGas that specified why the company’s responses to
special interrogatories and document requests were deficient. The letter asked
AmeriGas to agree to plaintiffs demands by March 12, and to provide supplemental
responses and produce responsive documents by March 18. (Davis Decl. at 1H} 7-8 and
Exhibit 5.)
AmeriGas’s counsel did not timely respond to the meet-and-confer letter.
Instead, on March 18, AmeriGas’s counsel sent a one-paragraph email stating, “We
28
LAW OFFICES OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KEuY
81 SCHOENBERGER 5
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
650 CALIFORNIA STREET
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
981-7210
(415)
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. 1801V01696
Will provide our response [to the letter] within the next week.” As of the service 0f
this motion, AmeriGas has neither provided supplemental responses nor produced
additional documents. (Davis Decl. at 1I 8 and Exhibit 6.)
IV. DISCUSSION
A.
COWQOEOIp-BOONH
PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN PREJUDICED.
Lopez’s counsel intended the subject interrogatories and document requests to
be the “first wave” of discovery in this complex, major injury case. Lopez’s counsel
plans to propound follow-up discovery and take depositions based on AmeriGas’s
responses and the documents. Lopez may also move to amend the complaint,
depending on the evidence discovered. AmeriGas’s delay in responding to the first
wave of discovery, and its failure to provide substantive responses and documents,
has impeded her ability to prepare for the November trial. (Davis Decl. at 1}9.)
B. Sanctions Should Be Awarded Against AmeriGas.
Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond to an authorized
method of discovery; making, Without substantial justification, an unmeritorious
objection to discovery; and making an evasive response t0 discovery. CCP §
2023.010(d)-(f). As shown in the concurrently filed motions, AmeriGas has engaged in
“Va
such misuses 0f the discovery process. The court may impose monetary sanction
flQOIfiODNi—‘OQOWQOUOIIRODNHO
NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
conduct.” CCP § 2023.030(a). With respect to motions to compel responses to
interrogatories and document requests, the court “shall” impose such monetary
sanctions “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted With substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust.”
CCP §§ 2030.290(c) (interrogatories) and 2031.310(h) (document requests).
Lopez’s counsel has spent 16 hours on the meet and confer process and in
making these motions. (Davis Decl. at 1110.) Assuming AmeriGas opposes the
28 motions, and the matter goes to hearing, Lopez’s counsel estimates that he will spend
LAW OFFICES 0F
WALKUP, MELODIA. KELLY
SLSCHOENBERGER 6
MPA ISO MOTION TO
A PROF ESSIONAL CORPORATION
650 CALIFORNIA STREET COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERRCGATORIES AND
26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
(415) 981-7210
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS -
CASE NO. 1801V01696
another 10 hours on this matter. (Id. at fl 10.) Lopez’s counsel has been awarded
hourly fees of $650 in previous litigation. (Davis Decl. at fl 11 and Exhibit 7.) Lopez
asks the court to award hourly fees of $500 and to impose sanctions in the amount of
$13,000 against AmeriGas ($500 X 26 hours).
coooqovcnuncow'r—n
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Briceida Lopez respectfully requests this
court to grant her motion and order sanctions in the amount of $13,000 be awarded
against AmeriGas and in favor of Lopez.
Respectfully submitted.
Dated: March mm .WALKUP, MELdDIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
1357241
MATTHEW TDAWS
SPENCER J.
Q
PAHLKE
VALERIE N. ROSE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRICEIDA LOPEZ AND JOSE SOLIS
wmmwmmwmr—IHHHI—Ar—Ar—ar—ap—IH
qmmgwwHommqmmfiri—ao
28
LAW OF
OFFICES
WALK‘UP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER 7
MPA iSO MOTION TO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
650 CALIFORNIA STREET
26TH FLOOR
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
981-7210
(415)
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS -
CASE NO. ISCIV01696
Preview
LAW OF OFFICES WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 65o CALIFORNIA STREET, 26‘” FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 08—2615 F I L E D 981 -721 O T: (41 5) - F: 391 -6965 (41 5) SAN MATEfi COUNTY MATTHEW D. DAVIS (State Bar #141986) mdavis@walkup1awofi'ice.com coooq'oucnfiwwr—l SPENCER J. PAHLKE (State Bar #250914) sp ahlke@wa1kup1awoffice.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BRICEIDA LOPEZ AND JOSE SOLIS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an individual, JOSE Case No. 18CIV01696 SOLIS, an individual, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF BRICEIDA LOPEZ’S V. MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF MONETARY DISCOVERY PAUL BONIFACIO, an individual, SANCTIONS AGAINST MARGARET HYUN, an individual, DEFENDANT AMERIGAS AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., a business PROPANE, L.P. [AMERIGAS] entity, AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC, a ' corporation, AMERIGAS, INC., a Date: 5, 3/ I q corporation, and DOES NNNNNNNNNr—Ir—AHr—IHr—ar—AHr—II—I ONE through Time: 9:00 a.m. ONE-HUNDRED, inclusive, Dept: Law & Motion Defendants. Filed Concurrently With NOTICE OF mQOECflIkCONHowmflOUUACONl—‘O MOTION AND MOTION; SEPARATE STATEMENTS ISO MOTION; DECLARATION .OF MATTHEW D. DAVIS ISO MOTION; PROPOSED ORDER; AND PROOF OF SERVICE Filed Concurrently with Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for the Production of Documents and Things and Motion to Compel Further fifigw‘bmfi Responses to Special Interrogatories Memorandum 1730983 M of Pain t s an m u ori t fies in s u pr Action Filed: April 6, 2018 Trial Date‘ N°Vemb“ 18’ 2°19 I (HWMWHMW"WH ll MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. 1801V01696 H TABLE OF CONTENTS N figflsl $.03 I. ‘ INTRODUCTION 4 ................................................................................................. II. RELEVANT ISSUES 4 ............................................................................................ OT III. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL MET-AND-CONFERRED WITH AMERIGAS’S COUNSEL BEFORE BRINGING THIS MOTION ..................... 5 a IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 6 _ Q A. PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN PREJUDICED. 6 ................................................. m B. Sanctions Should Be Awarded Against AmeriGas. 6 .................................. w V. CONCLUSION 7 ..... ................................................................................................. ‘ NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHr—Ar—I ooqozmgoowHocoooqozowppwwr—Ao 2 MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. ISCIV01696 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) ‘ Statutes ‘CCP 2016.640 ................................................................................................................ 5 § coooqcvcnpbcowr—A CCP § 6 2023.010(d)—(f) ....................................................................................................... CCP § 6 2023.030(a).... ......................................................................................................... CCP § 6 2030.290(a) ............................................................................................................ CCP § 2031.310(h) 6 ........................................................................................................... NNNNNNNNMHHHHHHHHHr—a ooqoacnpkoamr-Iocoooqacnuxoomr—to 3 MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. ISCIV01696 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Briceida Lopez moves for an award of $13,000 in discovery sanctions against defendant AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (“AmeriGas”) for failing to respond t0 discovery, for making unmeritorious/objections, and for making evasive responses t0 wmQCECJ‘lr-ROONf—l discovery. This motion is made concurrently With Lopez’s motion t0 compel AmeriGas to provide further responses special interrogatories (first set), and Lopez’s motion to compel AlgeriGas t0 make further responses to her requests for production of documents and things (first set). II. RELEVANT ISSUES Lopez and co-plaintiff Jose Solis sustained burn injuries in a propane fire that suddenly erupted as they cleaned a Tahoe vacation house on March 17, 2018. Ms. Lopez suffered third degree burns to 70% of her body, including her entire face. Mr. Solis suffered third degree burns to about 25% of his body. The fire occurred during a heavy snowstorm and investigating fire officials concluded that propane leaked from cracked pipes in the propane system immediately outside of the house. (Davis Decl. at 1H] 2, 5 and Exhibit 1.) NNNNNNNNHr—In—Ir—II—Ar—IHHr—Ir—I AmeriGas supplied the propane t0 the house. AmeriGas is “the nation’s largest retail propane marketer, serving approximately 1.8 million customers in a1_150 states flmUlfiCJONI—‘OQWQGDOIHKOONHO from approximately 1,900 distribution locations.” (Davis Decl. at 1H} 3, 6 and Exhibit z and Exhibit_3.) The operative complaint, filed on September 20, 2018, alleges that AmeriGas repeatedly violated Placer County’s propane safety ordinance. That ordinance mandated that residential propane systems in high snowfall areas, such as the subject vacation house, meet certain safety standards that are intefided to prevent cracked pipes and dangerous propane leaks. The ordinance also mandated that propane vendors, such as AmeriGas, inspect residential propane systems on an annual basis to ensure that they meet the high snowfall safety standards. The 28 ordinance makes it illegal for a propane vendor to supply propane to a home if that LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KEILY 8L SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4 26 FLO MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND 650 CALITFHORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. 1801V01696 residence’s propane system does not meet the ordinance’s high snowfall safety standards. The complaint alleges that the propane system at the vacation house violated the ordinance’s safety standards, that AmeriGas never inspected the house’s propane system, and that AmeriGas instead repeatedly delivered propane to thel house. The complaint alleges that AmeriGas’s Violations of the ordinance were a coooqozoxppoampa substantial factor in causing the cracked pipes, the propane leak, the resulting fire and plaintiffs’ injuries, and that AmeriGas faces negligence per se liability. (Davis Decl. at fl 7 and Exhibit 4 at 1W 13-15, 37-39.) On November 28, 2018, Lopez on AmeriGas special interrogatories, set one. On December 10, 2018, Lopez served on AmeriGas requests for the production 0f documents. AmeriGas did not timely respond to either the Special interrogatories or the document requests. AmeriGas also provided responses that contained unmeritorious objections. AmeriGas also made evasive responses to discovery. (See concurrently filed motion to compel further responses t0 plaintiffs first set of request for the production 0f documents and things, and motion to compel further responses to plaintiffs first set of special interrogatories.) COUNSEL MET-AND-CONFERRED WITH AMERIGAS’S NNNNNNNNr—IHHHHHn—ap—ar—tr—I III. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL BEFORE BRINGING THIS MOTION flfimfiWNHowmQ®Cflr§wNHO Lopez’s counsel complied with their obligation to meet-and-confer and attempt an informal resolution of this dispute before filing this motion. CCP § 2016.040. On March 7, 2019, Lopez’s counsel sent a 14-page meet-and-confer letter, With attachments, to counsel for AmeriGas that specified why the company’s responses to special interrogatories and document requests were deficient. The letter asked AmeriGas to agree to plaintiffs demands by March 12, and to provide supplemental responses and produce responsive documents by March 18. (Davis Decl. at 1H} 7-8 and Exhibit 5.) AmeriGas’s counsel did not timely respond to the meet-and-confer letter. Instead, on March 18, AmeriGas’s counsel sent a one-paragraph email stating, “We 28 LAW OFFICES OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KEuY 81 SCHOENBERGER 5 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MPA ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 981-7210 (415) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. 1801V01696 Will provide our response [to the letter] within the next week.” As of the service 0f this motion, AmeriGas has neither provided supplemental responses nor produced additional documents. (Davis Decl. at 1I 8 and Exhibit 6.) IV. DISCUSSION A. COWQOEOIp-BOONH PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN PREJUDICED. Lopez’s counsel intended the subject interrogatories and document requests to be the “first wave” of discovery in this complex, major injury case. Lopez’s counsel plans to propound follow-up discovery and take depositions based on AmeriGas’s responses and the documents. Lopez may also move to amend the complaint, depending on the evidence discovered. AmeriGas’s delay in responding to the first wave of discovery, and its failure to provide substantive responses and documents, has impeded her ability to prepare for the November trial. (Davis Decl. at 1}9.) B. Sanctions Should Be Awarded Against AmeriGas. Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery; making, Without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; and making an evasive response t0 discovery. CCP § 2023.010(d)-(f). As shown in the concurrently filed motions, AmeriGas has engaged in “Va such misuses 0f the discovery process. The court may impose monetary sanction flQOIfiODNi—‘OQOWQOUOIIRODNHO NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” CCP § 2023.030(a). With respect to motions to compel responses to interrogatories and document requests, the court “shall” impose such monetary sanctions “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted With substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c) (interrogatories) and 2031.310(h) (document requests). Lopez’s counsel has spent 16 hours on the meet and confer process and in making these motions. (Davis Decl. at 1110.) Assuming AmeriGas opposes the 28 motions, and the matter goes to hearing, Lopez’s counsel estimates that he will spend LAW OFFICES 0F WALKUP, MELODIA. KELLY SLSCHOENBERGER 6 MPA ISO MOTION TO A PROF ESSIONAL CORPORATION 650 CALIFORNIA STREET COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERRCGATORIES AND 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 (415) 981-7210 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. 1801V01696 another 10 hours on this matter. (Id. at fl 10.) Lopez’s counsel has been awarded hourly fees of $650 in previous litigation. (Davis Decl. at fl 11 and Exhibit 7.) Lopez asks the court to award hourly fees of $500 and to impose sanctions in the amount of $13,000 against AmeriGas ($500 X 26 hours). coooqovcnuncow'r—n V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Briceida Lopez respectfully requests this court to grant her motion and order sanctions in the amount of $13,000 be awarded against AmeriGas and in favor of Lopez. Respectfully submitted. Dated: March mm .WALKUP, MELdDIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 1357241 MATTHEW TDAWS SPENCER J. Q PAHLKE VALERIE N. ROSE Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRICEIDA LOPEZ AND JOSE SOLIS wmmwmmwmr—IHHHI—Ar—Ar—ar—ap—IH qmmgwwHommqmmfiri—ao 28 LAW OF OFFICES WALK‘UP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 7 MPA iSO MOTION TO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 650 CALIFORNIA STREET 26TH FLOOR COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 981-7210 (415) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - CASE NO. ISCIV01696