Preview
Thomas M. Hall, sbn 150960
P.O. Box 49820
Brentwood Village, CA 90049 = I L & D
Telephone: (310) 231-3475 Superior Court of California
County of Placer
Attorney for: Plaintiff, Thomas M. Hall NOV 15 2018
in propria persona Jake Chatters
Executive Officer& Clerk
agoza, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11 THOMAS MONTAGUE HALL, SS”
SS
Case No. SCV-0038758
12 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
ee
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
13 VS. TERMINATING SANCTIONS
ee
ee
14 ROBERT EARL WYNMAN, and DOE DATE: November 29, 2018
ee
DEFENDANTS 1-25 inclusive, TIME: 8:30 a.m.
ee
15 DEPT: : 43
ee
Defendants.
ee
16 Assigned to Michael W. Jones, Judge
ee
ee
17 SIGNATURES BY FAX
Num
18
19 Plaintiff Thomas M. Hall hereby opposes Defendant Robert E. Wynman’s motion for
20 terminating and other sanctions. As established by the Court’s record and the Declaration of
21 Elizabeth A. Handelin, Plaintiff is not in violation of the Court’s September 13, 2018 Order.
22 Defendant’s moving papers argue that itmay be necessary to once again continue the trial
a3 date. As the record shows continuing refusal by Defendant to provide substantive discovery
24 responses, and the pendency of two more discovery motions by Plaintiff, Defendant’s desire to
25 continue the trialdate may become a necessity.
26 Plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary and non-monetary sanctions on Defendant,
27 and his attorneys of record, Shari L. Rosenthal and Elizabeth A. Handelin and the lawfirm of
28 Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez Trester, LLP, for repeated failure to comply with statutory
1
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
218.wpd
C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111SCV-0038758
discovery requirements and with the Court’s Orders. As Defendant’s attorney, Elizabeth A.
Handelin acknowledges, in cases of ongoing, repeated misuse of the discovery process such as
Defendant has engaged in, non-monetary sanctions are appropriate.
CASE FACTS RELATED TO DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE
Plaintiff is not in violation of the Court’s September 13, 2018 Order, as clearly established by
a review of the discovery activity in this case, and in the Declaration of Elizabeth A. Handelin.
As recited in Defendant’s moving papers, and in the Court’s records, on June 12, 2018, the
Court ordered each party to produce substantive discovery responses. The Court expressly ordered
10 that Defendant provide verified, written responses, without objections.
11 In response to the Court’s orders, Plaintiff produce 438 pages of documents, as well as
12 substantive, verified interrogatory responses.
13 Despite the Court’s Order, Defendant produced thirty (30) pages of objections to Plaintiffs
14 special interrogatories. Subsequently, on August 23, 2013, the Court found that Defendant “failed to
15 comply” with the Court’s June 12, 2018 Order.'
16 On September 13, 2018, Defendant moved the Court for Plaintiff to produce further
17 discovery responses, including information that Defendant acknowledges already having. The
18 Court’s tentative ruling, later adopted as itsOrder, provided, in pertinent part:
19 The court grants defendant's request and compels plaintiff to provide further responses
20 and responsive documents, without additional objections, to special interrogatories nos.
21 31, 32 and request for production of documents nos. 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32 within 10
22 days of service ofthe signed order after hearing.
23 Defendant’s Points and Authorities artfully avoid quoting the Court’s specific language,
24 however this language appears in Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Elizabeth A. Handelin. Ms.
25 Handelin also declares that the Court repeated itsorder during the September 13, 2018 hearing, to
26 ensure that the parties understood the Court’s ruling.
27
Iplaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and for sanctions
28 is calendared for hearing on November 29, 2018.
2
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
SCV-0038758
Case\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4 Terminating Sancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd
C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCounty
As shown by Ms. Handelin’s declaration and exhibits, Defendant has not yet served any
signed order after hearing. Thus the 10 days after service of such an order has not yet begun to run,
and plaintiff isnot in violation of the Court’s unserved Order.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Cases cited by Defendant in support of his motion deal with situations in which a party has
repeatedly failed to comply with a Court’s discovery Orders. In this case, Plaintiff produced verified
responses and 438 pages of documents in response to the Court’s June 12, 2018 Order, (while
Defendant “failed to comply” with the Court’s June 12 Order to Defendant).
10 After the September 13, 2018 hearing, Defendant made a tactical decision to not serve a
ek signed Order, which the Court said would fix the timing for Plaintiff's supplemental responses. As
12 Defendant has not yet served any such signed Order, Plaintiff is not in violation of the unserved
13 Order.
14 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(e) and §2031.310() permit sanctions if a party has failed
15 to comply with an Order compelling further responses. In this case, the Court’s ruling was that the
16 timing of further responses was keyed to “service of the signed order after hearing”. No signed
17 Order after hearing has been served. Therefore, there is no statutory basis for the sanctions requested
18 by Defendant.
19 As Plaintiff has not been served with, and is not in violation of, a signed Order after the
20 September 13, 2018 hearing, sanctions for violating such an Order are not supported by statute or
21 any case decision. Sanctions on Defendant for bringing the motion are appropriate.
a2
23 SANCTIONS FOR BRINGING THIS MOTION ARE MANDATORY
24 Defendant argues that repeated failure to comply with discovery Orders opens the door to
29 non-monetary sanctions. In this case, Defendant has exhibited a pattern of misuse of the discovery
26 process, as described in Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010, and should be subject to non-monetary
27 sanctions.
28 In October, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendant with his second set of Special Interrogatories.
2
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
SCV-0038758
Case\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd
C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCounty
Thereafter, Defendant failed to respond or object to the Special Interrogatories, and to any of
Plaintiff's written or telephonic efforts to meet and confer about them. On June 12, 2018, the Court
ordered Defendant to provide written, verified responses, without objections.
In response to the Court’s Order, Defendant served thirty (30) pages of objections to
Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories. On August 23, 2018, the Court ruled that Defendant’s responses
“failed to comply” with the Court’s June 12, 2018 Order. Plaintiff's motion to compel further
responses iscalendared for hearing on November 29, 2018.
On April 29, 2018, Plaintiff served Defendant with Supplemental Requests for Admission
and Supplemental Form Interrogatories. Again, Defendant failed to respond within the statutory
10 time period. On September 7, 2018, Defendant served objections and equivocal responses to the
dl Requests for Admission. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer about getting substantive proper
12 admissions or denials, but Defendant declined. Plaintiff's motion to deem facts admitted is on
13 calendar to be heard November 29, 2018.
14 Defendant has simply stonewalled all of Plaintiff's discovery, throughout this case, while
15 Plaintiff has produced verified answers and more than 430 pages of documents in response to
16 Defendant’s discovery.
L'7 Defendant’s argument for sanctions is that the Court must take action to control discovery
18 conduct such as Defendant has engaged in. In response to Plaintiff's earlier discovery motions,
19 which were granted on June 12, 2018 and August 23, 2018, the Court declined to sanction
20 Defendant. This appears to have encouraged Defendant’s to continue his refusal to produce
21 discovery responses.
22 If Defendant’s argument isright, itis time for the Court to impose sanctions on Defendant
23 calculated to bring Defendant into discovery compliance.
24
25 CONCLUSION
26 The record of discovery compliance isundisputed. Plaintiff has produced extensive verified
27 discovery responses to Defendant’s discovery. Plaintiff isnot in violation of the Court’s September
28 13, 2018 ruling.
4
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
218.wpd
C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111SCV-0038758
In contrast, Defendant has defied the Court’s June 12, 2018 ruling, and has continued to
refuse to respond to Plaintiff's discovery, making untimely objections and failing to meet and confer.
Plaintiff requests that Defendant’s motion be denied and that Defendant and his attorneys of
record, Shari L. Rosenthal, Elisabeth A. Handelin and the lawfirm of Manning & Kass, Ellrod
Ramirez Trester, LLP be sanctioned with both monetary and non-monetary sanctions, sufficient to
compel discovery compliance.
DATED: November 13, 2018
By: Wye WK \N
Thomas M. Hall
Plaintiff, inpropria persona
10
11
LZ
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
8\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd SCV-0038758
C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\201
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is P.O. Box 49820 Brentwood Village,
California 90049.
On November 15, 2018, I served the following documents described as PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS by placing a
true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Shari L. Rosenthal (attorney for Defendant)
Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLP
801 S. Figueroa St., 15" FI.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
10
// By Mail: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California with
11 postage thereon fully prepaid.
12 I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Itis deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in
13 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is
presumed invalid ifthe postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
14 after the date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit.
15
// By Email: To Defendant at:
16
/X/ By Personal Service: | caused the delivery such envelope by hand to the addressee, at the
17 address stated above.
18 /X/ (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
19
20 // (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made.
2
Executed on November 15, 2018, at Los Angeles, California.
Tal IY
22
23
Nathan S. Hall
24
25
26
27
28 1
PROOF OF SERVICE
8\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd
C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\201
Preview
Thomas M. Hall, sbn 150960 P.O. Box 49820 Brentwood Village, CA 90049 = I L & D Telephone: (310) 231-3475 Superior Court of California County of Placer Attorney for: Plaintiff, Thomas M. Hall NOV 15 2018 in propria persona Jake Chatters Executive Officer& Clerk agoza, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 THOMAS MONTAGUE HALL, SS” SS Case No. SCV-0038758 12 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ee DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 13 VS. TERMINATING SANCTIONS ee ee 14 ROBERT EARL WYNMAN, and DOE DATE: November 29, 2018 ee DEFENDANTS 1-25 inclusive, TIME: 8:30 a.m. ee 15 DEPT: : 43 ee Defendants. ee 16 Assigned to Michael W. Jones, Judge ee ee 17 SIGNATURES BY FAX Num 18 19 Plaintiff Thomas M. Hall hereby opposes Defendant Robert E. Wynman’s motion for 20 terminating and other sanctions. As established by the Court’s record and the Declaration of 21 Elizabeth A. Handelin, Plaintiff is not in violation of the Court’s September 13, 2018 Order. 22 Defendant’s moving papers argue that itmay be necessary to once again continue the trial a3 date. As the record shows continuing refusal by Defendant to provide substantive discovery 24 responses, and the pendency of two more discovery motions by Plaintiff, Defendant’s desire to 25 continue the trialdate may become a necessity. 26 Plaintiff requests that the Court impose monetary and non-monetary sanctions on Defendant, 27 and his attorneys of record, Shari L. Rosenthal and Elizabeth A. Handelin and the lawfirm of 28 Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez Trester, LLP, for repeated failure to comply with statutory 1 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions 218.wpd C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111SCV-0038758 discovery requirements and with the Court’s Orders. As Defendant’s attorney, Elizabeth A. Handelin acknowledges, in cases of ongoing, repeated misuse of the discovery process such as Defendant has engaged in, non-monetary sanctions are appropriate. CASE FACTS RELATED TO DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE Plaintiff is not in violation of the Court’s September 13, 2018 Order, as clearly established by a review of the discovery activity in this case, and in the Declaration of Elizabeth A. Handelin. As recited in Defendant’s moving papers, and in the Court’s records, on June 12, 2018, the Court ordered each party to produce substantive discovery responses. The Court expressly ordered 10 that Defendant provide verified, written responses, without objections. 11 In response to the Court’s orders, Plaintiff produce 438 pages of documents, as well as 12 substantive, verified interrogatory responses. 13 Despite the Court’s Order, Defendant produced thirty (30) pages of objections to Plaintiffs 14 special interrogatories. Subsequently, on August 23, 2013, the Court found that Defendant “failed to 15 comply” with the Court’s June 12, 2018 Order.' 16 On September 13, 2018, Defendant moved the Court for Plaintiff to produce further 17 discovery responses, including information that Defendant acknowledges already having. The 18 Court’s tentative ruling, later adopted as itsOrder, provided, in pertinent part: 19 The court grants defendant's request and compels plaintiff to provide further responses 20 and responsive documents, without additional objections, to special interrogatories nos. 21 31, 32 and request for production of documents nos. 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32 within 10 22 days of service ofthe signed order after hearing. 23 Defendant’s Points and Authorities artfully avoid quoting the Court’s specific language, 24 however this language appears in Exhibit “A” to the Declaration of Elizabeth A. Handelin. Ms. 25 Handelin also declares that the Court repeated itsorder during the September 13, 2018 hearing, to 26 ensure that the parties understood the Court’s ruling. 27 Iplaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and for sanctions 28 is calendared for hearing on November 29, 2018. 2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions SCV-0038758 Case\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4 Terminating Sancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCounty As shown by Ms. Handelin’s declaration and exhibits, Defendant has not yet served any signed order after hearing. Thus the 10 days after service of such an order has not yet begun to run, and plaintiff isnot in violation of the Court’s unserved Order. LEGAL ANALYSIS Cases cited by Defendant in support of his motion deal with situations in which a party has repeatedly failed to comply with a Court’s discovery Orders. In this case, Plaintiff produced verified responses and 438 pages of documents in response to the Court’s June 12, 2018 Order, (while Defendant “failed to comply” with the Court’s June 12 Order to Defendant). 10 After the September 13, 2018 hearing, Defendant made a tactical decision to not serve a ek signed Order, which the Court said would fix the timing for Plaintiff's supplemental responses. As 12 Defendant has not yet served any such signed Order, Plaintiff is not in violation of the unserved 13 Order. 14 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(e) and §2031.310() permit sanctions if a party has failed 15 to comply with an Order compelling further responses. In this case, the Court’s ruling was that the 16 timing of further responses was keyed to “service of the signed order after hearing”. No signed 17 Order after hearing has been served. Therefore, there is no statutory basis for the sanctions requested 18 by Defendant. 19 As Plaintiff has not been served with, and is not in violation of, a signed Order after the 20 September 13, 2018 hearing, sanctions for violating such an Order are not supported by statute or 21 any case decision. Sanctions on Defendant for bringing the motion are appropriate. a2 23 SANCTIONS FOR BRINGING THIS MOTION ARE MANDATORY 24 Defendant argues that repeated failure to comply with discovery Orders opens the door to 29 non-monetary sanctions. In this case, Defendant has exhibited a pattern of misuse of the discovery 26 process, as described in Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010, and should be subject to non-monetary 27 sanctions. 28 In October, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendant with his second set of Special Interrogatories. 2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions SCV-0038758 Case\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCounty Thereafter, Defendant failed to respond or object to the Special Interrogatories, and to any of Plaintiff's written or telephonic efforts to meet and confer about them. On June 12, 2018, the Court ordered Defendant to provide written, verified responses, without objections. In response to the Court’s Order, Defendant served thirty (30) pages of objections to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories. On August 23, 2018, the Court ruled that Defendant’s responses “failed to comply” with the Court’s June 12, 2018 Order. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses iscalendared for hearing on November 29, 2018. On April 29, 2018, Plaintiff served Defendant with Supplemental Requests for Admission and Supplemental Form Interrogatories. Again, Defendant failed to respond within the statutory 10 time period. On September 7, 2018, Defendant served objections and equivocal responses to the dl Requests for Admission. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer about getting substantive proper 12 admissions or denials, but Defendant declined. Plaintiff's motion to deem facts admitted is on 13 calendar to be heard November 29, 2018. 14 Defendant has simply stonewalled all of Plaintiff's discovery, throughout this case, while 15 Plaintiff has produced verified answers and more than 430 pages of documents in response to 16 Defendant’s discovery. L'7 Defendant’s argument for sanctions is that the Court must take action to control discovery 18 conduct such as Defendant has engaged in. In response to Plaintiff's earlier discovery motions, 19 which were granted on June 12, 2018 and August 23, 2018, the Court declined to sanction 20 Defendant. This appears to have encouraged Defendant’s to continue his refusal to produce 21 discovery responses. 22 If Defendant’s argument isright, itis time for the Court to impose sanctions on Defendant 23 calculated to bring Defendant into discovery compliance. 24 25 CONCLUSION 26 The record of discovery compliance isundisputed. Plaintiff has produced extensive verified 27 discovery responses to Defendant’s discovery. Plaintiff isnot in violation of the Court’s September 28 13, 2018 ruling. 4 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions 218.wpd C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\2018\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111SCV-0038758 In contrast, Defendant has defied the Court’s June 12, 2018 ruling, and has continued to refuse to respond to Plaintiff's discovery, making untimely objections and failing to meet and confer. Plaintiff requests that Defendant’s motion be denied and that Defendant and his attorneys of record, Shari L. Rosenthal, Elisabeth A. Handelin and the lawfirm of Manning & Kass, Ellrod Ramirez Trester, LLP be sanctioned with both monetary and non-monetary sanctions, sufficient to compel discovery compliance. DATED: November 13, 2018 By: Wye WK \N Thomas M. Hall Plaintiff, inpropria persona 10 11 LZ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions 8\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd SCV-0038758 C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\201 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is P.O. Box 49820 Brentwood Village, California 90049. On November 15, 2018, I served the following documents described as PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Shari L. Rosenthal (attorney for Defendant) Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLP 801 S. Figueroa St., 15" FI. Los Angeles, CA 90017 10 // By Mail: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California with 11 postage thereon fully prepaid. 12 I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Itis deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in 13 the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid ifthe postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day 14 after the date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. 15 // By Email: To Defendant at: 16 /X/ By Personal Service: | caused the delivery such envelope by hand to the addressee, at the 17 address stated above. 18 /X/ (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 19 20 // (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. 2 Executed on November 15, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. Tal IY 22 23 Nathan S. Hall 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 8\D-Nov29-Mo4TerminatingSancs\P-Opp2Mo4TermSancs-111218.wpd C:\LOTH\Wynman\PlacerCountyCase\Discovery\DiscoveryMotions\201