Preview
é;
3%”;fo
KEVIN J. GRAY, State Bar No. 142685
ALEXANDER PROMM, State Bar No. 3 18412
HARRINGTON, Foxx,
601 Montgomery Street,
DUBROW & CANTER,
Suite 800
LLP F 1 L E D
San Francisco, California 941 11
SAN MATEO COUNTY
-
'
‘
zg
-
Telephone: (415) 288—6600 QQT 1 2015
xoooqoxmhwmr-a({>
Facsimile; (415) 288-6618
Attorneys for Defendants
YEVGENTY KORAVITSYN,
ESFIR KOROVITSYNA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12 EMILIO LUNA FLORES, Case N0. 17CIVO3 004
13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
14 VS. OF MOTION T0 COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S
FURTHER RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL
15 YEVGENIY KORAVITSYN; ESFIR INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
KOROVITSYNA; and DOES 1TO 10 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
16 DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS
Defendants. REQUEST
17 ‘fl"_ ""‘—“ _‘” ‘\
.
—._——-—’ _..:
uP—Aglvwauna
Diate: (Ln. ‘0“? [—13 \L6_,
18 Memorandum and Authorities
of Points inSupp; Tlmel 9200 a.m.
1414872 '
Dept: Law and Motion
19_
Ill |l|||___4}————
lllllfllllllll
20 — — -—~ I. INTRODUCTION/FACTS
21 This is a motor vehicle accident brought by Plaintiff EMILIO LUNA FLORES against
22 Defendants YEVGENIY KORAVITSYN and ESFIR KOROVITSYNA including alleged injuries
23 plaintiff sustained in the motor vehicle accident.
24 On January 2, 201 8, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery including Form
25 Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Admissions; and Requests For
26 Production Of Documents. Plaintiffs verified responses to the written discovery were due 0n February 6,
27 2018.
28 On February 9, 201 8, Plaintiff‘s counsel served deficient but verified responses to Defendants’
AAH].5393\DISCOVERY\Crash file\Motion
to RPD and SPROGS
Comgel Funher Responses 2 -Memomndum—temp 1
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [N SUPPORT 0F MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL [NTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST
Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests For Production, Set One.
On March 1, 2018, our office sent a meet and confer letter concerning the deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s
responses and asked that the responses be amended by March 12, 201 8.
A Our office received no response, so on March 15, 2018, we sent another letter t0 Plaintiff‘s
counsel requesting the same information and giving them until March 22, 201 8 to respond or extend.
O\LII
On March 30, 201 8, we were served with amended responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set
One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests For Production, Set One.
On June 14, 201 8, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery including, Special
Interrogatories, Set Two and Requests For Production Of Documents, Set Two (Defendant's Written
10 Discovery is attached as Exhibit A to "Promm Deel.")
11 On July 10, 201 8, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant’s counsel with a motion to be relieved as
12 Counsel. This Motion stated that there had been a breakdown of the attomey—client relationship and that
13 Plaintiff’s counsel no longer had the cooperation of the Plaintiff.
14 On July 10, 201 8, Plaintiff’s counsel asked for an extension until September 2, 201 8 to provide
15 responses to written discovery which Defendant’s granted because of the upcoming motion out of
16 professional courtesy. (Defendant's Correspondence isattached as Exhibit B to "Promm Deel.")
17 On August 2, 201 8, Plaintiff‘s counsel served deficient unverified responses to Defendants’
18 Spécial Interrogatories, Set Two and Request For Production of Documents, Set Two.
19 On August 14, 201 8, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer to Plaintiff‘s Counsel to rectify
20 the deficiencies in these responses. (Defendant's Correspondence is attached as Exhibit C to "Fromm
21 Deel.") Because of the success ofPlaintiff‘s counsel’s motion to be relieved, on August 21, 201 8,
22 Defendant’s counsel sent the meet and confer directly to Plaintiff Flores and allowed him until
23 September 7, 2018 to respond to the meet and confer and amend his responses. (Defendant's
24 Correspondence is attached as Exhibit D to "Promm Deel.")
25 On September 7, 201 8, the now Pro Per Plaintiff Mr. Flores came into our office. He talked of
26 settlement of this case and asked to speak to Kevin Gray about settlement of the case. I told him that we
27 would give him until September 11, 2018 to talk with Kevin and settle or respond to our meet and confer.
28 On September 11, 201 8, Plaintiff contacted our office and told us that he would need his daughter
AAHI.5393\DISCOVERY\Cmsh file\Motionto Compel Further Resgonses RPD and SPROGS 2 - Memorandum-temp 2
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION T0
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST
to translate. We continued to try to coordinate settlement discussions with the plaintiff and his daughter,
however before we had a chance to engage in any discussions, Plaintiff informed our office that he had
retained new counsel.
To this date, Defendant’s counsel has not received verified, amended responses to our August 21,
201 8 meet and confer letter.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(c) provides that, if a propounding party
determines that further responses are warranted for itsinterrogatories, the party must move to compel
further responses within forty—five (45) days “of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental
10 verified response. .
..”
11 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.210, when responding to an
12 interrogatory, the responding party must either provide an answer containing the information sought,
13 exercise that party’s option to produce writings, or state an objection.
14 In addition, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230 states that the responding party must
15 “specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in
16 sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and identify, as readily as the responding party
17 can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.”
18 The responding party has a duty to provide an appropriate response when the nature of the
19 information sought is clearly apparent. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Ca1.App.3d 771, 783. “Each
20 answer in a response t0 interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information
21 reasonably available t0 the responding party permits.” See C.C.P. § 2030.220(a).
22 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a) states, in pertinent part, a “propounding party may
23 move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following
24 apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option
25 to produce documents under Section 2030.230 isunwarranted 0r the required specification of those
26 documents is inadequate; (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” As stated
27 herein and detailed in Defendants’ Separate Statement, Plaintiff’s responses are grossly deficient and
28 further responses are therefore warranted.
AAHI.5393\DISCOVERY\Cmsh file\Motion
to RPD and SPROGS
Comgel Funher Responses 2 -Memorandum-temp 3
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [N SUPPORT 0F MOTION T0
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) empowers the Court to impose a monetary
sanction (consisting of costs and attorney fees) against a pafly, counsel, or both, for engaging in conduct
that is a misuse of the discovery process. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 mandates that
A the following is considered a misuse of the discovery process: “(d) failing to respond or to submit to an
authorized method of discovery; (e) making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection
\IO\U'I
to discovery; (f)making an evasive response to discovery;. .
.(h) making or opposing, unsuccessfully and
without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.”
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a) permits a party to move to compel further
responses if (1) the party deems that the responses are evasive or incomplete; (2) the responding party
10 erroneously and improperly relied on Section 2030.230; and (3) an objection to an interrogatory is
11 without merit. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(d) states that “the coufl shall impose a
12 monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or
13 attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories,
14 unless itfinds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
15 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
16 In this action, if the Court finds that further responses should be compelled, Defendants are
17 entitled to monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for misusing the discovery
18 process. Plaintiff provided meritless objections and evasive and incomplete responses t0 Defendants’
19 Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests For Production, Set One.
20 Defendant counsel has expended $1050.00 in preparing this Motion to Compel Further Responses and
21 $60 to file this Motion. In addition, defense counsel anticipates expending 2 hours reviewing Plaintiff‘s
22 Opposition, preparing a Reply thereto, travelling to the hearing on this Motion, and appearing at the
23 hearing on this Motion. The reasonable value of counsel’s services is $175.00 per hour. Accordingly,
24 Defendant requests the court order $1460.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and‘his counsel.
25 Code of Civil Procedure Section 203 1.3 10 states as follows in pertinent part:
26 “(a) On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the party demanding an inspection may
27 move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of
28 the following apply:
AAH].5393\DISCOVERY\Crash file\Motion
toComgl Ramnses RPD and SPROGS
Further 2- Memorandum-temp 4
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST
***
“(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought
by the inspection demand.
(2) The motion shall be accompanied by ameet and confer declaration under Section 201 6.040.
* * *
“(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.01 O) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfiflly makes 0r opposes a motion t0
W
10 compel further response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
11 with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
12
13 111-
14 Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court GRANT their
15 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Documents and Special Interrogatories and issue
16 an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendants’ interrogatories November 2,
17 201 8. Further, Defendants respectfully requests that the Court issue an order of monetary sanctions
18 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel 0f record for the sum of $1460.00.
19
Dated: September 28, 201 8 HARRIN TON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP
20
21
By:
22
J.GRAY
ALEXANDER PROMM
23 Attorneys for Defendants
YEVGENIY KORAVITSYN,
24 ESFIR KOROVITSYNA
25
26
27
28
AAH1.5393\DISCOVERY\Crash file\Motion
to RPD and SPROGS 2 - Memumndum-temp 5
Compel Funher Responses
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION T0
COM PEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. Iam over the age of 1 8 and
not a party to the within action. My business address is 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 800, San
Francisco, California 941 1 1.
On
\OOOVONUI-AUJNp—a
September 28, 201 8 I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS’
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TOW; AND MONETARY
SANCTIONS REQUEST on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed
in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached service list:
[X] BY MAIL - Ideposited such envelope in the mail at San Francisco, California. The envelope
was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. Iam “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited
with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San
Francisco, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than
one (1) day afier date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[] BY PERSONAL SERVICE - Icaused such envelope to be delivered by a process server
employed by ProLegal Attorney Services.
[] VIA FACSIMILE- I faxed said document, to the office(s) of the addressee(s) shown above, and
the transmission was reported as complete and without error.
[] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Itransmitted a PDF version of this document by
electronic mail to the party(s) identified on the attached service list using the e-mail address(es)
indicated.
[ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - I deposited such envelope for collection and
delivery by
Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business
practices.
NNNNNNNNNHHHMwHHHH—A
I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing packages
for overnight delivery by Federal Express. They are deposited with a facility regularly
maintained by Federal Express for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
OOQQUl-hMNP‘ODOOflONLh-DWNHO
[] (State) I declare under penalty of pexjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
[] (Federal) Ideclare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at
whose direction the service was made.
Executed on September 28, 201 8, at San Francisco, California.
@fwm E JAREST
fi\cassf\aahi.5393\pos\proof of service request for production of documents set two.docx
PROOF OF SERVICE
SERVICE LIST
N EMILIO LUNA FLORES V YEVGENIY KORA VITSYN; ESFIR KOR0 VITSYNA and Does 1 t0 10
San Mateo County Superior Court Case No.: 17CIV03004
Arash Khorsandi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ARASH KHORSANDI,
PC
2960 Wilshire B1vd., Third Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel:
\OOOQQUIAUJ
310-277-7529
Fax: 3 1 0-388-8442
ak@arashlaw.com
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
f:\cnsesf\aahi.5393\pos\proofofservice request for production of documents set two.docx
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
é; 3%”;fo KEVIN J. GRAY, State Bar No. 142685 ALEXANDER PROMM, State Bar No. 3 18412 HARRINGTON, Foxx, 601 Montgomery Street, DUBROW & CANTER, Suite 800 LLP F 1 L E D San Francisco, California 941 11 SAN MATEO COUNTY - ' ‘ zg - Telephone: (415) 288—6600 QQT 1 2015 xoooqoxmhwmr-a({> Facsimile; (415) 288-6618 Attorneys for Defendants YEVGENTY KORAVITSYN, ESFIR KOROVITSYNA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 EMILIO LUNA FLORES, Case N0. 17CIVO3 004 13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 14 VS. OF MOTION T0 COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL 15 YEVGENIY KORAVITSYN; ESFIR INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND KOROVITSYNA; and DOES 1TO 10 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 16 DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS Defendants. REQUEST 17 ‘fl"_ ""‘—“ _‘” ‘\ . —._——-—’ _..: uP—Aglvwauna Diate: (Ln. ‘0“? [—13 \L6_, 18 Memorandum and Authorities of Points inSupp; Tlmel 9200 a.m. 1414872 ' Dept: Law and Motion 19_ Ill |l|||___4}———— lllllfllllllll 20 — — -—~ I. INTRODUCTION/FACTS 21 This is a motor vehicle accident brought by Plaintiff EMILIO LUNA FLORES against 22 Defendants YEVGENIY KORAVITSYN and ESFIR KOROVITSYNA including alleged injuries 23 plaintiff sustained in the motor vehicle accident. 24 On January 2, 201 8, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery including Form 25 Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Admissions; and Requests For 26 Production Of Documents. Plaintiffs verified responses to the written discovery were due 0n February 6, 27 2018. 28 On February 9, 201 8, Plaintiff‘s counsel served deficient but verified responses to Defendants’ AAH].5393\DISCOVERY\Crash file\Motion to RPD and SPROGS Comgel Funher Responses 2 -Memomndum—temp 1 DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [N SUPPORT 0F MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL [NTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests For Production, Set One. On March 1, 2018, our office sent a meet and confer letter concerning the deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s responses and asked that the responses be amended by March 12, 201 8. A Our office received no response, so on March 15, 2018, we sent another letter t0 Plaintiff‘s counsel requesting the same information and giving them until March 22, 201 8 to respond or extend. O\LII On March 30, 201 8, we were served with amended responses to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests For Production, Set One. On June 14, 201 8, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery including, Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Requests For Production Of Documents, Set Two (Defendant's Written 10 Discovery is attached as Exhibit A to "Promm Deel.") 11 On July 10, 201 8, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant’s counsel with a motion to be relieved as 12 Counsel. This Motion stated that there had been a breakdown of the attomey—client relationship and that 13 Plaintiff’s counsel no longer had the cooperation of the Plaintiff. 14 On July 10, 201 8, Plaintiff’s counsel asked for an extension until September 2, 201 8 to provide 15 responses to written discovery which Defendant’s granted because of the upcoming motion out of 16 professional courtesy. (Defendant's Correspondence isattached as Exhibit B to "Promm Deel.") 17 On August 2, 201 8, Plaintiff‘s counsel served deficient unverified responses to Defendants’ 18 Spécial Interrogatories, Set Two and Request For Production of Documents, Set Two. 19 On August 14, 201 8, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer to Plaintiff‘s Counsel to rectify 20 the deficiencies in these responses. (Defendant's Correspondence is attached as Exhibit C to "Fromm 21 Deel.") Because of the success ofPlaintiff‘s counsel’s motion to be relieved, on August 21, 201 8, 22 Defendant’s counsel sent the meet and confer directly to Plaintiff Flores and allowed him until 23 September 7, 2018 to respond to the meet and confer and amend his responses. (Defendant's 24 Correspondence is attached as Exhibit D to "Promm Deel.") 25 On September 7, 201 8, the now Pro Per Plaintiff Mr. Flores came into our office. He talked of 26 settlement of this case and asked to speak to Kevin Gray about settlement of the case. I told him that we 27 would give him until September 11, 2018 to talk with Kevin and settle or respond to our meet and confer. 28 On September 11, 201 8, Plaintiff contacted our office and told us that he would need his daughter AAHI.5393\DISCOVERY\Cmsh file\Motionto Compel Further Resgonses RPD and SPROGS 2 - Memorandum-temp 2 DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION T0 COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST to translate. We continued to try to coordinate settlement discussions with the plaintiff and his daughter, however before we had a chance to engage in any discussions, Plaintiff informed our office that he had retained new counsel. To this date, Defendant’s counsel has not received verified, amended responses to our August 21, 201 8 meet and confer letter. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(c) provides that, if a propounding party determines that further responses are warranted for itsinterrogatories, the party must move to compel further responses within forty—five (45) days “of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental 10 verified response. . ..” 11 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.210, when responding to an 12 interrogatory, the responding party must either provide an answer containing the information sought, 13 exercise that party’s option to produce writings, or state an objection. 14 In addition, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230 states that the responding party must 15 “specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in 16 sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and identify, as readily as the responding party 17 can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” 18 The responding party has a duty to provide an appropriate response when the nature of the 19 information sought is clearly apparent. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Ca1.App.3d 771, 783. “Each 20 answer in a response t0 interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information 21 reasonably available t0 the responding party permits.” See C.C.P. § 2030.220(a). 22 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.300(a) states, in pertinent part, a “propounding party may 23 move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following 24 apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete; (2) An exercise of the option 25 to produce documents under Section 2030.230 isunwarranted 0r the required specification of those 26 documents is inadequate; (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” As stated 27 herein and detailed in Defendants’ Separate Statement, Plaintiff’s responses are grossly deficient and 28 further responses are therefore warranted. AAHI.5393\DISCOVERY\Cmsh file\Motion to RPD and SPROGS Comgel Funher Responses 2 -Memorandum-temp 3 DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [N SUPPORT 0F MOTION T0 COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) empowers the Court to impose a monetary sanction (consisting of costs and attorney fees) against a pafly, counsel, or both, for engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 mandates that A the following is considered a misuse of the discovery process: “(d) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; (e) making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection \IO\U'I to discovery; (f)making an evasive response to discovery;. . .(h) making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a) permits a party to move to compel further responses if (1) the party deems that the responses are evasive or incomplete; (2) the responding party 10 erroneously and improperly relied on Section 2030.230; and (3) an objection to an interrogatory is 11 without merit. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(d) states that “the coufl shall impose a 12 monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or 13 attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 14 unless itfinds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other 15 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 16 In this action, if the Court finds that further responses should be compelled, Defendants are 17 entitled to monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for misusing the discovery 18 process. Plaintiff provided meritless objections and evasive and incomplete responses t0 Defendants’ 19 Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests For Production, Set One. 20 Defendant counsel has expended $1050.00 in preparing this Motion to Compel Further Responses and 21 $60 to file this Motion. In addition, defense counsel anticipates expending 2 hours reviewing Plaintiff‘s 22 Opposition, preparing a Reply thereto, travelling to the hearing on this Motion, and appearing at the 23 hearing on this Motion. The reasonable value of counsel’s services is $175.00 per hour. Accordingly, 24 Defendant requests the court order $1460.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and‘his counsel. 25 Code of Civil Procedure Section 203 1.3 10 states as follows in pertinent part: 26 “(a) On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the party demanding an inspection may 27 move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of 28 the following apply: AAH].5393\DISCOVERY\Crash file\Motion toComgl Ramnses RPD and SPROGS Further 2- Memorandum-temp 4 DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST *** “(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by ameet and confer declaration under Section 201 6.040. * * * “(d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.01 O) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfiflly makes 0r opposes a motion t0 W 10 compel further response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted 11 with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 12 13 111- 14 Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court GRANT their 15 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Documents and Special Interrogatories and issue 16 an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendants’ interrogatories November 2, 17 201 8. Further, Defendants respectfully requests that the Court issue an order of monetary sanctions 18 against Plaintiff and/or his counsel 0f record for the sum of $1460.00. 19 Dated: September 28, 201 8 HARRIN TON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER, LLP 20 21 By: 22 J.GRAY ALEXANDER PROMM 23 Attorneys for Defendants YEVGENIY KORAVITSYN, 24 ESFIR KOROVITSYNA 25 26 27 28 AAH1.5393\DISCOVERY\Crash file\Motion to RPD and SPROGS 2 - Memumndum-temp 5 Compel Funher Responses DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION T0 COM PEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; AND SANCTIONS REQUEST PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. Iam over the age of 1 8 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 941 1 1. On \OOOVONUI-AUJNp—a September 28, 201 8 I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS, SET TOW; AND MONETARY SANCTIONS REQUEST on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached service list: [X] BY MAIL - Ideposited such envelope in the mail at San Francisco, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. Iam “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day afier date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [] BY PERSONAL SERVICE - Icaused such envelope to be delivered by a process server employed by ProLegal Attorney Services. [] VIA FACSIMILE- I faxed said document, to the office(s) of the addressee(s) shown above, and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. [] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Itransmitted a PDF version of this document by electronic mail to the party(s) identified on the attached service list using the e-mail address(es) indicated. [ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - I deposited such envelope for collection and delivery by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business practices. NNNNNNNNNHHHMwHHHH—A I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing packages for overnight delivery by Federal Express. They are deposited with a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business. OOQQUl-hMNP‘ODOOflONLh-DWNHO [] (State) I declare under penalty of pexjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [] (Federal) Ideclare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on September 28, 201 8, at San Francisco, California. @fwm E JAREST fi\cassf\aahi.5393\pos\proof of service request for production of documents set two.docx PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST N EMILIO LUNA FLORES V YEVGENIY KORA VITSYN; ESFIR KOR0 VITSYNA and Does 1 t0 10 San Mateo County Superior Court Case No.: 17CIV03004 Arash Khorsandi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARASH KHORSANDI, PC 2960 Wilshire B1vd., Third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: \OOOQQUIAUJ 310-277-7529 Fax: 3 1 0-388-8442 ak@arashlaw.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 f:\cnsesf\aahi.5393\pos\proofofservice request for production of documents set two.docx PROOF OF SERVICE