Preview
FI
ior Couft of California
Superounty { Placer
Shari Rosenthal (State Bar No. 123083)
slr@manningllp.com NOV 4\92018
Elizabeth A. Handelin (State Bar No. 275710) atters
Jake
eah@manningllp.com Executive Oifjcer & Clerk
MANNING & KASS By: S. Hub rd, Deputy
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor
&
Los Angeles, California 90017-3012
Telephone: (213) 624-6900
Ww
Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
Dn
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT EARL WYNMAN
YyY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
oo
COUNTY OF PLACER
THOMAS MONTAGUE HALL, Case No. SCV-0038758
enemies
up
Plaintiff,
TRESTER
DEFENDANT?’S OPPOSITION TO
Kass
V. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM
CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED
Law
RAMIREZ,
ROBERT EARL WYNMAN, and DOE
Manninc&
ATTONOENS at
DEFENDANTS 1-25 inclusive, Date: November 29, 2018
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. Location: Dept. 32
ELLROD,
Complaint Filed: 3/23/2016
BY FAX
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS
ADMITTED
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff habitually misrepresents the written word of others in order to create a fiction
which he uses to harass and annoy others by filing frivolous lawsuits and unfounded motions.
Plaintiff's claims against defendant are based on an arsenal of such misrepresentations, as is
every motion plaintiff files in this court. Here plaintiff misrepresents the requests he seeks to have
admitted.
The Court Can’t Deem These Facts Admitted. A court can only deem facts admitted
that a party has not responded to or where aparty has disobeyed a relevant court order. Defendant
has responded to the requests, and has not disobeyed a court order. The court has not even issued
an order with respect to this discovery. If aparty has denied a request without substantial
10
justification, he may be subject to penalty by having to pay fees and costs incurred by another in
11
ur
having to prove the fact true at trial,but cannot be forced to admit that fact. Thus, this motion to
12
TRESTER
deem facts admitted must be denied as a matter of law.
Kass
13
Invalidate Prior Objections: Plaintiff claims the service
AT Law
Subsequent Responses Can’t
14
RAMIREZ,
Manninc&
ES
of defendant’s subsequent responses was untimely and thus invalidated allobjections. However,
15
defendant’s objections were allpreviously asserted in defendant’s original responses timely
16
ELLROD,
served in 2016. Any timely objection cannot be later invalidated by any subsequent response.
17
Thus, where all objections in the subsequent responses either refer or repeat an objection filed in
18
the original 2016 responses, these objections are not waived, regardless of whether defendant’s
19
20 subsequent responses were timely or not.
Improper Motion for Summary Judgment: The purpose of requests for admission is to
21
simplify the number of issues at the time of trial.This motion effectively seeks to have the court
22
summarily rule on contested factual issues, which isimproper where defendant has not filed the
23
required motion for summary judgment. This motion cannot be couched in a discovery dispute.
24
25
II. RELEVANT FACTUAL SUMMARY
26
Plaintiff originally served requests on defendant in 2016. He refused to extend the
27
deadline and thus Mr. Suba on behalf of defendant, served timely responses with complete
28
1
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS
ADMITTED
objections that year. All current objections either refer or repeat those same objections asserted
—
with the original responses. This matter was stayed until September of 2017 when the court
olUCUOUlUlUMOUCUMUMN OWS
denied the first prong of defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. Since that time, the parties have been
involved in this tiresome discovery battle of which this court is already familiar. To date plaintiff
has failed to comply with several court orders. Most recently plaintiff completely ignored this
ODN
court’s September 13 order, in which the court clearly told defendant in that hearing that he was
to respond to all remaining discovery pursuant to the court’s first order from June 12, and was
given a deadline of 10 days to comply. He was also sanctioned an additional $6,000.00, for a total
of $9,000.00.
To date plaintiff has not provided further discovery responses to defendant, he has not
paid any of the sanctions he owes, he ignores all correspondence mentioning the court’s
met
responses to
up
September 13 order, and instead claims defendant has not provided adequate
ees
TRESTER
VY
plaintiff's own discovery. Defendant has already filed a third motion with respect to plaintiff s
Kass
WD
continued failures. In retaliation, plaintiff has filed two motions to compel and for sanctions.
Lay
RAMIREZ,
Manninc&
Fe
AT
attempts to force admissions on defendant for “facts” defendant clearly denied and
ATOMS
Plaintiff
rH
explained his reasons for each denial. Defendant explains how the problem could be corrected but
ELLROD,
Dn
this would defeat plaintiff's purpose. Plaintiff disingenuously attempted to meet and confer on
this issue, but then ignored everything in defendant’s response to plaintiffs letter.
ON
mm
OO
Ill. LAW AND ANALYSIS
RO
to requests for
Oo
A. The Court can’t deem facts admitted unless there is no response
admission or a party has clearly disobeyed a court order with respect to an order to compel
|Y§
RO
further responses.
Ne
KH
The Court must generally deny a motion to deem facts admitted, unless the court finds
Ye
KR
that the party failed to respond to the requests for admissions atall.' If aparty takes issue with the
Fe
KN
substance of these requests for admission responses, then defendant is limited to filing a motion
NW
KH
PO
ND
St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776.
Nw
' See
Co
mW
2
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS
ADMITTED
to compel further responses.” Thus, since defendant has responded here, until defendant clearly
disobeys a relevant court order, plaintiff doesn’t have a basis to request facts be deemed
Ww
admitted.* Defendant provided allinformation available to him in his responses. Plaintiff is
Ww
essentially asking this Court to summarily rule on these triable issues of facts without filing the
&
appropriate motion for summary judgment by couching the request in a discovery motion. This
a
practice is improper and is made in bad faith. Defendant also misses the point to requests for
DW
admission when claiming that his requests must be admitted based on a simple review of
nN
plaintiff's production. If this were true, the request for admission would not be necessary in the
Oo
firstplace, where the purpose of the request for admissions is to limit the number of issues to be
oO
10 resolved at the time of trial.
1]
wp
B. Defendant’s objections timely asserted in 2016 remain valid and cannot be waived by
12
[RESTER
subsequent supplemental or amended responses.
Kass
13
“{D]eficient objections or claims of privilege are not grounds for waiver, so long as a
ATTORNEYS aT Law
RAMIREZ,
14
Manninc&
party, such as the People here, made timely objections in their original response.’ Where a party
Is
has “timely objected on the grounds of privilege, [that party] preserved these objections,
ELLROD,
16
regardless of whether the objections were sufficiently detailed in [the] response.”° A subsequent
17
response cannot affect timely asserted objections; those objections will remain valid. Plaintiff
18
alleges defendant waived all objections because his supplemental responses were untimely.
ig
However, even if itwere true that the supplemental responses were untimely, those responses did
20
not assert new objections. All applicable objections had been originally asserted in 2016. Thus,
Zi
regardless of their timeliness, the objections raised in 2016 are still valid and cannot be waived.
22
Thus, plaintiff's argument with respect to waiver of defendant’s objections is incorrect.
23
Moreover, defendant does not rely on any objections anyway. He responded regardless of any
24
25
2 St.Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776.
26 3 St.Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776-777.
* People ex rel.Lockyer v.Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1060, 1075.
ZF v.Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1060, 1074.
> People ex rel.Lockyer
28
3
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS
ADMITTED
objections, and clearly explained why he was unable to admit certain requests. Thus, defendant’s
responses are timely.
C. Plaintiff's argument that his requests should obviously be admitted suggests plaintiff
could have easily provided the necessary information requested by defendant.
First, ifplaintiff's argument was true that these requests should obviously be admitted
AO
based on a cursory review of plaintiff's production, it would call into question why plaintiff did
BDO
not provide the specific document reference into the relevant requests for admission. If itwas as
NY
easy to locate as plaintiff claimed, then plaintiff would have had no problem specifically citing
Oo
the reference and asking defendant to authenticate the post or communications. Defendant clearly
oOo
told plaintiff that this reference was necessary for all applicable requests for admissions, and for
10
good reason where plaintiff commonly mischaracterized other people’s statements as he has even
11
done to this court. Itwas irrelevant to defendant how easy this would be for plaintiff to do. It
up
12
TRESTER
simply had to be done for defendant to be able to authenticate a request. If itwas so easy to locate
13
Kass
these references, then itshould have been no problem for plaintiff to draft adequate requests that
Sal Law
14
RAMIREZ,
being injected into defendant’s mouth lateron.
Manninc&
defendant could authenticate without words
15
AT
Moreover, the purpose behind requests for admission is to limit issues raised at trial.If,as
16
ELLROD,
plaintiff claims, the answers would obviously be admissions once a person briefly reviewed
17 need requests for admissions because itwould be
certain documents, and thus plaintiff would not
18 a request without substantial reason, and that
easy to prove the fact was true. If aparty has denied
19 the opposing party, then that opposing party
request later turns out to be proven true attrial by
can seek fees and costs related to having to prove that fact true. This obviously presumes
21
significant work with respect to a proof. If, as plaintiff suggests, these matters are so obvious,
Ze
then there would be no need for the requests for admission in the firstplace. Plaintiff cannot have
23
itboth ways; he cannot make an argument that would suggest the request is moot or unimportant,
24 the request
in an attempt to force defendant to admit something he does not want to admit. Either
25 requests
is not important or plaintiff must accept the fact that defendant does not agree that these
26 admit something that
are true. The Court also cannot impose plaintiff's will to force defendant to
27
itdoes not want to admit.
28
4
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS
ADMITTED
D. Sanctions are appropriate to compensate defendant for opposing this motion because
plaintiff filed an improper motion for summary judgment in bad faith and
mischaracterizes the court’s prior ruling in an attempt to misuse discovery processes.
Sanctions are proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 for misuse of
discovery processes where plaintiff is clearly requesting deemed admissions without substantial
justification and is thus attempting to obtain summary judgment from this court on disputed
factual contention. For a misuse of the discovery process, sanctions are warranted pursuant to
section 2023.010 et seq. Subsection (h) of section 2023.010 states that a misuse of the discovery
process includes: (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a
motion to compel or to limit discovery.” Here, plaintiff does not have substantial justification for
requesting this relief.The relief requires either no response from defendant or a showing that
up
defendant clearly disobeyed a court order with respect to further responses. Thus, sanctions
TRESTER
Kass
pursuant to this section are clearly warranted, and by awarding sanctions the court will limit the
ATTORNEXS at Law
RAMIREZ,
impact to defendant who has been forced to incur additional unnecessary litigation expenses in
Manninc&
order to oppose this meritless motion.
Defendant requests sanctions for 25 hours of work to oppose plaintiffs motion for a
ELLROD,
second time, and an additional 5 hours for time spent to travel up north to attend this hearing. The
reasonable rate for defense counsel, an eight year attorney in Los Angeles, is $629. The total for
this work is $18,870.00 based on this rate. Defendant requests the court award sanctions in this
amount, or alternatively in some lesser amount to at least partially compensate defendant for
having to incur further unnecessary litigation costs.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff filed this motion without any reasonable justification and in bad faith, where he
attempts to mislead the court and mischaracterize these relevant requests for admissions and
plaintiff's responses to date. Defendant requests $18,870.00 in sanctions to cover the costs
incurred for opposing this meritless motion and attending the hearing that inevitably must take
5
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS
ADMITTED
place from now on where plaintiff will otherwise try to mislead the court further if a hearing was
conducted over the phone.
Ww
DATED: November 16, 2018 MANNING & KASS
>
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
wont DH MN
Elizabeth Handelin
Shari Rosenthal
WYNMAN
oOo
Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT EARL
10
11
wp
12
TRESTER
Kass
13
Manninc
ATIORNENS aT Law
&
RAMIREZ,
14
15
ELLrop,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
6
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS
DEFENDANT’S
ADMITTED
Preview
FI ior Couft of California Superounty { Placer Shari Rosenthal (State Bar No. 123083) slr@manningllp.com NOV 4\92018 Elizabeth A. Handelin (State Bar No. 275710) atters Jake eah@manningllp.com Executive Oifjcer & Clerk MANNING & KASS By: S. Hub rd, Deputy ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor & Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Ww Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 Dn Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT EARL WYNMAN YyY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA oo COUNTY OF PLACER THOMAS MONTAGUE HALL, Case No. SCV-0038758 enemies up Plaintiff, TRESTER DEFENDANT?’S OPPOSITION TO Kass V. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED Law RAMIREZ, ROBERT EARL WYNMAN, and DOE Manninc& ATTONOENS at DEFENDANTS 1-25 inclusive, Date: November 29, 2018 Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. Location: Dept. 32 ELLROD, Complaint Filed: 3/23/2016 BY FAX DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff habitually misrepresents the written word of others in order to create a fiction which he uses to harass and annoy others by filing frivolous lawsuits and unfounded motions. Plaintiff's claims against defendant are based on an arsenal of such misrepresentations, as is every motion plaintiff files in this court. Here plaintiff misrepresents the requests he seeks to have admitted. The Court Can’t Deem These Facts Admitted. A court can only deem facts admitted that a party has not responded to or where aparty has disobeyed a relevant court order. Defendant has responded to the requests, and has not disobeyed a court order. The court has not even issued an order with respect to this discovery. If aparty has denied a request without substantial 10 justification, he may be subject to penalty by having to pay fees and costs incurred by another in 11 ur having to prove the fact true at trial,but cannot be forced to admit that fact. Thus, this motion to 12 TRESTER deem facts admitted must be denied as a matter of law. Kass 13 Invalidate Prior Objections: Plaintiff claims the service AT Law Subsequent Responses Can’t 14 RAMIREZ, Manninc& ES of defendant’s subsequent responses was untimely and thus invalidated allobjections. However, 15 defendant’s objections were allpreviously asserted in defendant’s original responses timely 16 ELLROD, served in 2016. Any timely objection cannot be later invalidated by any subsequent response. 17 Thus, where all objections in the subsequent responses either refer or repeat an objection filed in 18 the original 2016 responses, these objections are not waived, regardless of whether defendant’s 19 20 subsequent responses were timely or not. Improper Motion for Summary Judgment: The purpose of requests for admission is to 21 simplify the number of issues at the time of trial.This motion effectively seeks to have the court 22 summarily rule on contested factual issues, which isimproper where defendant has not filed the 23 required motion for summary judgment. This motion cannot be couched in a discovery dispute. 24 25 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL SUMMARY 26 Plaintiff originally served requests on defendant in 2016. He refused to extend the 27 deadline and thus Mr. Suba on behalf of defendant, served timely responses with complete 28 1 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED objections that year. All current objections either refer or repeat those same objections asserted — with the original responses. This matter was stayed until September of 2017 when the court olUCUOUlUlUMOUCUMUMN OWS denied the first prong of defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion. Since that time, the parties have been involved in this tiresome discovery battle of which this court is already familiar. To date plaintiff has failed to comply with several court orders. Most recently plaintiff completely ignored this ODN court’s September 13 order, in which the court clearly told defendant in that hearing that he was to respond to all remaining discovery pursuant to the court’s first order from June 12, and was given a deadline of 10 days to comply. He was also sanctioned an additional $6,000.00, for a total of $9,000.00. To date plaintiff has not provided further discovery responses to defendant, he has not paid any of the sanctions he owes, he ignores all correspondence mentioning the court’s met responses to up September 13 order, and instead claims defendant has not provided adequate ees TRESTER VY plaintiff's own discovery. Defendant has already filed a third motion with respect to plaintiff s Kass WD continued failures. In retaliation, plaintiff has filed two motions to compel and for sanctions. Lay RAMIREZ, Manninc& Fe AT attempts to force admissions on defendant for “facts” defendant clearly denied and ATOMS Plaintiff rH explained his reasons for each denial. Defendant explains how the problem could be corrected but ELLROD, Dn this would defeat plaintiff's purpose. Plaintiff disingenuously attempted to meet and confer on this issue, but then ignored everything in defendant’s response to plaintiffs letter. ON mm OO Ill. LAW AND ANALYSIS RO to requests for Oo A. The Court can’t deem facts admitted unless there is no response admission or a party has clearly disobeyed a court order with respect to an order to compel |Y§ RO further responses. Ne KH The Court must generally deny a motion to deem facts admitted, unless the court finds Ye KR that the party failed to respond to the requests for admissions atall.' If aparty takes issue with the Fe KN substance of these requests for admission responses, then defendant is limited to filing a motion NW KH PO ND St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776. Nw ' See Co mW 2 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED to compel further responses.” Thus, since defendant has responded here, until defendant clearly disobeys a relevant court order, plaintiff doesn’t have a basis to request facts be deemed Ww admitted.* Defendant provided allinformation available to him in his responses. Plaintiff is Ww essentially asking this Court to summarily rule on these triable issues of facts without filing the & appropriate motion for summary judgment by couching the request in a discovery motion. This a practice is improper and is made in bad faith. Defendant also misses the point to requests for DW admission when claiming that his requests must be admitted based on a simple review of nN plaintiff's production. If this were true, the request for admission would not be necessary in the Oo firstplace, where the purpose of the request for admissions is to limit the number of issues to be oO 10 resolved at the time of trial. 1] wp B. Defendant’s objections timely asserted in 2016 remain valid and cannot be waived by 12 [RESTER subsequent supplemental or amended responses. Kass 13 “{D]eficient objections or claims of privilege are not grounds for waiver, so long as a ATTORNEYS aT Law RAMIREZ, 14 Manninc& party, such as the People here, made timely objections in their original response.’ Where a party Is has “timely objected on the grounds of privilege, [that party] preserved these objections, ELLROD, 16 regardless of whether the objections were sufficiently detailed in [the] response.”° A subsequent 17 response cannot affect timely asserted objections; those objections will remain valid. Plaintiff 18 alleges defendant waived all objections because his supplemental responses were untimely. ig However, even if itwere true that the supplemental responses were untimely, those responses did 20 not assert new objections. All applicable objections had been originally asserted in 2016. Thus, Zi regardless of their timeliness, the objections raised in 2016 are still valid and cannot be waived. 22 Thus, plaintiff's argument with respect to waiver of defendant’s objections is incorrect. 23 Moreover, defendant does not rely on any objections anyway. He responded regardless of any 24 25 2 St.Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776. 26 3 St.Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 762, 776-777. * People ex rel.Lockyer v.Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1060, 1075. ZF v.Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1060, 1074. > People ex rel.Lockyer 28 3 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED objections, and clearly explained why he was unable to admit certain requests. Thus, defendant’s responses are timely. C. Plaintiff's argument that his requests should obviously be admitted suggests plaintiff could have easily provided the necessary information requested by defendant. First, ifplaintiff's argument was true that these requests should obviously be admitted AO based on a cursory review of plaintiff's production, it would call into question why plaintiff did BDO not provide the specific document reference into the relevant requests for admission. If itwas as NY easy to locate as plaintiff claimed, then plaintiff would have had no problem specifically citing Oo the reference and asking defendant to authenticate the post or communications. Defendant clearly oOo told plaintiff that this reference was necessary for all applicable requests for admissions, and for 10 good reason where plaintiff commonly mischaracterized other people’s statements as he has even 11 done to this court. Itwas irrelevant to defendant how easy this would be for plaintiff to do. It up 12 TRESTER simply had to be done for defendant to be able to authenticate a request. If itwas so easy to locate 13 Kass these references, then itshould have been no problem for plaintiff to draft adequate requests that Sal Law 14 RAMIREZ, being injected into defendant’s mouth lateron. Manninc& defendant could authenticate without words 15 AT Moreover, the purpose behind requests for admission is to limit issues raised at trial.If,as 16 ELLROD, plaintiff claims, the answers would obviously be admissions once a person briefly reviewed 17 need requests for admissions because itwould be certain documents, and thus plaintiff would not 18 a request without substantial reason, and that easy to prove the fact was true. If aparty has denied 19 the opposing party, then that opposing party request later turns out to be proven true attrial by can seek fees and costs related to having to prove that fact true. This obviously presumes 21 significant work with respect to a proof. If, as plaintiff suggests, these matters are so obvious, Ze then there would be no need for the requests for admission in the firstplace. Plaintiff cannot have 23 itboth ways; he cannot make an argument that would suggest the request is moot or unimportant, 24 the request in an attempt to force defendant to admit something he does not want to admit. Either 25 requests is not important or plaintiff must accept the fact that defendant does not agree that these 26 admit something that are true. The Court also cannot impose plaintiff's will to force defendant to 27 itdoes not want to admit. 28 4 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED D. Sanctions are appropriate to compensate defendant for opposing this motion because plaintiff filed an improper motion for summary judgment in bad faith and mischaracterizes the court’s prior ruling in an attempt to misuse discovery processes. Sanctions are proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 for misuse of discovery processes where plaintiff is clearly requesting deemed admissions without substantial justification and is thus attempting to obtain summary judgment from this court on disputed factual contention. For a misuse of the discovery process, sanctions are warranted pursuant to section 2023.010 et seq. Subsection (h) of section 2023.010 states that a misuse of the discovery process includes: (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” Here, plaintiff does not have substantial justification for requesting this relief.The relief requires either no response from defendant or a showing that up defendant clearly disobeyed a court order with respect to further responses. Thus, sanctions TRESTER Kass pursuant to this section are clearly warranted, and by awarding sanctions the court will limit the ATTORNEXS at Law RAMIREZ, impact to defendant who has been forced to incur additional unnecessary litigation expenses in Manninc& order to oppose this meritless motion. Defendant requests sanctions for 25 hours of work to oppose plaintiffs motion for a ELLROD, second time, and an additional 5 hours for time spent to travel up north to attend this hearing. The reasonable rate for defense counsel, an eight year attorney in Los Angeles, is $629. The total for this work is $18,870.00 based on this rate. Defendant requests the court award sanctions in this amount, or alternatively in some lesser amount to at least partially compensate defendant for having to incur further unnecessary litigation costs. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiff filed this motion without any reasonable justification and in bad faith, where he attempts to mislead the court and mischaracterize these relevant requests for admissions and plaintiff's responses to date. Defendant requests $18,870.00 in sanctions to cover the costs incurred for opposing this meritless motion and attending the hearing that inevitably must take 5 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS ADMITTED place from now on where plaintiff will otherwise try to mislead the court further if a hearing was conducted over the phone. Ww DATED: November 16, 2018 MANNING & KASS > ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP wont DH MN Elizabeth Handelin Shari Rosenthal WYNMAN oOo Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT EARL 10 11 wp 12 TRESTER Kass 13 Manninc ATIORNENS aT Law & RAMIREZ, 14 15 ELLrop, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 6 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTS DEFENDANT’S ADMITTED