Preview
FILED
Superior Court of California
Ted Arthur King County of Placer
8016 Dicus Court
Citrus Heights, CA 95621 SEP 21 2020
7 Z Jake Chatt
/~ le eazy Executive Officer & Clerk
tedisaking@yahoo.com By: K. aD Deputy
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
IN THE COUNTY OF PLACER
PLAINTIFF'S NAME, Case No.: S-CV-0042357
Plaintiff,
VS.
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED
DEFENDANT'S NAME, ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
Defendant, et.al. INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND
MONETARY SANCTIONS
DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
All other related matters DEPT: 3
TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020
TED ARTHUR KING, (hereafter “Plaintiff’), ANSWER’S to RUSSELL LEE TARVER,
20
(hereafter “Defendant”) and LYLE D. SOLOMON, attorney of record, (hereaftey
21
Representative’).
22
24
25
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -1
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND HIS
REPRESENTATIVE’S, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR
KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONS.
Defendant was the on-record pro se representative in this matter at times of Plaintiff
request for second set of Special Interrogatories. However, Defendant’s Representative should
also be subjected to sanctions accordingly as being a party to Defendant’s shenanigans behind
closed doors.
On or about March 4, 2020, Defendant’s Representative, called Plaintiff stating Defendant
will seek criminal elderly abuse charges against Plaintiff if he was to lose this civil matter, in casd
number S-CV-0042357.
Defendant files for an Elderly Domestic Violence Abuse case in California Superior Court
Sacramento County, case number 20D V01246.against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is issued a temporary
18
order of stay away in the middle of civil discovery proceedings.
19
20
21 Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings:
22 The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030(a) of the Code of
23
Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes 4
24
motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless itfinds that the one subject to thd
25
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
26
27 imposition of the sanction unjust (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2030.290(c)).
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -2
DEFENDANT REPRESENTATIVE’s DECLARATION: Pg. 8, Pg. 9, line 1-5.
Declaration by Attorney Lyle D. Solomon, as follows:
DECLARATION OF LYLE D, SOLOMON IN SUPPORT OF AWARD OF SANCTIONS
I,LYLE D. SOLOMON, declare:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in all the courts of the state of California and one of the
attorneys of record for Defendant/Cross-complainant Russell Lee Tarver,
2. Ifcalled to testify, Icould truthfully testify, of my personal knowledge of the matters set forth
herein.
10
3. On, or about August 14, 2020 I received a call from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King
11
informing me that he had filed the instant motion to compel responses to special interrogatories.
4. On, or about August 16, 2020 I received, by first class mail, the instant motion to compel
responses to special interrogatories from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King.
5. At no time prior to August 14, 2020 did I receive either by mail, phone or e-mail any request
from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King to meet and confer in regard to this motion to compel]
responses to special interrogatories.
19 6. As of the date of filing this Opposition I have expended four and a quarter (4.25) hours in
20
preparation of this opposition.
21
7. Ianticipate I will expend another one (1) hour reviewing plaintiff's reply brief, if any, preparing
22
for hearing and oral argument and attending the hearing on this motion. For a total of five and a
23
24 quarter (5.25) hours in opposing this motion to compel responses to special interrogatories and
25 preparing for and attending the hearing thereon.
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -3
8. My billing rate in this matter is two hundred-fifty dollars ($250.00) per hour, I have been
admitted to practice law in California for more than seventeen (17) years and this rate isthe normal
and customary rate of an attorney with my years of practice and experience in Placer County.
9. Therefore, based on my billing rate of two hundred-fifty dollars ($250.00) per hour, the
anticipated time expended of five and a quarter (5.25) hours, Defendant/Cross- complainant
Russell Lee Tarver. seeks $1,312.50 in sanctions from the plaintiff for the preparation of thig
opposition to his Motion.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and corrected, Executed on the 4" day of September, 2020 at Rocklin, California.
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Defendant representative states: “On, or about August 14, 2020 |]
received a call from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King informing me that he had filed the instant
motion to compel responses to special interrogatories.” Plaintiff never called defendant’s
Representative regarding filing motion to compel, in fact, the plaintiff only spoke to defendants
17
18 representative briefly, on or about August 21, 2020, regarding not signing their request fof
19 defendant’s preference motion on September 25, 2020 and unequivocally stating that this plaintiff
20
would oppose their motion and that he as his clients representative had until the twentieth of
21
September to have plaintiff's request for second set of Interrogatories ready and submitted to
22
plaintiff. Plaintiff signed STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE on August 14, 2020
23
24 but never had any conversation with defendant’s representative, on August 14, 2020.
25 Defendant’s representative further states: “At no time prior to August 14, 2020 did Ireceive
26
either by mail, phone or e-mail any request from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King to meet and
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -4
confer in regards to this motion to compel responses to special interrogatories.” This is true, but
defendant did have said motion sent to him, in May of 2020, after which proceeded to file Elderly
Abuse Restraint Order against this plaintiff.
DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE: Pg. 1, line 26-28.
“Plaintiff's Notice of Motion is inaccurate and defective. The notice states First, the address of the
courthouse located in Roseville on Justice Center Drive isincomplete,. There is no such address
on Justice Center Drive of 1082. Second, Department 3, the Courtroom to which the noticd
10
refers, is not located in Roseville.”
11
Pg. 2. Line 1-4. The defects in the notice of motion while not necessarily fatal, are indicative of
plaintiff's continuing disregard for the procedural rules related to his prosecution of this civil action.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Tarver voices his objection and opposition to plaintiffs motion td
compel on that, and other bases as detailed below.
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Defendant and his representative, on their own, SUBMIT an incorrect
19 address isnot fatal. However, contend that itis this Plaintiff that has somehow violated procedural]
20
rules, in the matter and state, “Defendant/Cross-Complainant Tarver voices his objection and
21
opposition to Plaintiffs motion to compel on that, and other bases as detailed below.”
22
23
24 TIMELINESS OF MOTION
25
THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 2, line 6-17:
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 - 5
“This matter was originally scheduled to begin jury trialon August 24, 2020, ten (10) days
after the date of Plaintiff's signature on the motion to compel. That trial date was vacated by the
Court in July and the parties stipulated to a new trial date on November 2, 2020. The parties
stipulation to a new trial date does not address the issue of re-opening or leaving discovery in thig
case open due to the original trial date being vacated. According to CCP § 2024.020(a) Except ag
otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete
discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard
on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. Subsection (b
10
further states “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the
11
trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” As such Plaintiff's motion to compe}
13 discovery responses is untimely and should be denied as such.”
14
15
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Universal Citation: CA Civ Pro Code § 2024.050 (2014) and any
other statue, except to dismiss Defendant’s case is moot. Defendant made an invalid attempt ta
have an Elderly Domestic Violence Abuse case, In the Superior Court of California, In the County
19 of Sacramento, case no. 20DV01246. During that attempt, the defendant was able to ascertain 4
20
temporary restraint order barring allcommunications to him in the matter of S-CV-0042357, based
21
on Plaintiff sending Defendant a settlement letter. The Defendant added false claims of Elderly
22
Abuse by the hands of Plaintiff on December 8, 2018 and for those reasons Plaintiff was barred
23
24 from institution to further confer under Section 2016.040, or any communication because of
25 Defendant’s false report of abuse in Superior Court of California, in Sacramento County, case no
26
20DV01246, for this reasons Defendants case should be dismissed.
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -6
THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 3, lines 1-23.
1.Special Interrogatories Dated April 20, 2020
Plaintiff had previously served Special Interrogatories Set 1,on June 20, 2019, consisting
of twelve (12) special interrogatories. Verified responses to special interrogatories set one were
timely served on plaintiff on July 18, 2019. Plaintiff made no motion to compel further
responses. On or about April 20, 2020 Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories Set 2 on
defendant/cross-complainant Tarver consisting of thirty-six (36) special interrogatories. CCP
$2030.030 provides,
10
‘(a) A party may propound to another party either or both of the following:
11
12 (1) Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject
13 matter of the pending action.
14 (2) Any additional number of official form interrogatories, as described in Chapter
15
17 (commencing with Section 2033.710), that are relevant to the subject matter of
16
the pending action.
17
18 (b) Except as provided in Section 2030.070, no party shall, as a matter of right,
propound to any other party more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories. Ifthe
20
initial set of interrogatories does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be
21
propounded in subsequent sets,
22
(c) Unless a declaration as described in Section 2030.050 has been made, a party
23
24 need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that
25 party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground
26
that the limit has been exceeded.”
21
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORI ES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE :
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 - 7
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Statue doesn’t require Plaintiff to motion for more responses with
another sets of Special Interrogatories, statue requires the limit of 35 Special Interrogatories
responses, set 1 or set 2, matters not as long as the set have been identified is the statures only
requirement. Defendant should have answered the first23 question and not exceeded any further
as required. CCP 2030.060(a) does not require to start with the next number, but with each set
start with consecutive numbers.
(a) A party propounding interrogatories shall number each set of interrogatories consecutively.
10
11
12 (b) In the firstparagraph immediately below the titleof the case, there shall appear the identity of
13 the propounding party, the set number, and the identity of the responding party.
14
15
(c) Each interrogatory in a set shall be separately set forth and identified by number or letter.
16
(d) Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall
be included with a set of interrogatories unless it has been approved under Chapter 17
20
(commencing with Section 2033.710 ).
21
(e) Any term specially defined in a set of interrogatories shall be typed with all letters capitalized
22
wherever that term appears.
23
24
25 (f) No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, of
26
disjunctive question.
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -8
(g) An interrogatory may not be made a continuing one so as to impose on the party responding
to ita duty to supplement an answer to it that was initially correct and complete with later acquired
information.
THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 3, line 24-28. Pg. 4, line 1-3:
Defendant/cross-complainant Tarver provided a response, with objections, to the second set of
special interrogatories served on April 20, 2020 on July 2, 2020. A motion to compel was
properly filed by plaintiff no later than forty-five (45) days after receipt of that response, sce
CCP §2030.300(c). Despite the intial timeliness of this motion itis also subject to the terms of
13 CCP § 2024.020(a) which required this motion to have been heard on or before the 15th day, before
14
the date initially set for the trial of the action, that date was August 24, 2020 merely ten
15
(10) days after the notice of motion is dated.. Therefore, this Court should find this motion to be
16
untimely.
17
18
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Special interrogatories served on April 20, 2020 and on July 2, 2020
20
the Defendant never provided one response to Plaintiff's propounding remaining 23 questions
21
instead he stated a deficiency in procedure without any response to questions whatsoever. This
22
Defendant and his Representative cannot reform their disregard of civil procedure under C.C.P}
23
24 2030.220 ,or the fact that Defendant, in the middle of a civil action, sought out an Elderly Abuse
25 case against Plaintiff, after alleged offense was investigated by Placer County District Attorney’s
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -9
Office, thus the intentional disruption of timely execution of civil procedure cannot be ignored and
this Defendant/ Cross-complaint case should be dismissed.
THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 4, lines 4-27:
2. Special Interrogatories Dated June 10, 2020
On June 10, 2020 Plaintiff served a third set of special interrogatories titled “Specia]
Interrogatories Set 2.” This set of interrogatories is in addition to and not labeled as
10 a replacement of the interrogatories served on April 2, 2020. As stated above this set
11
of interrogatories, now number three (3), is in excess of the statutory limit of thirty-
five (35), and does not include the required declaration for those interrogatories in
14
excess of thirty-five (35). In addition, this set of interrogatories is not numbered
15
16
sequentially but starts fresh at number one (1). Defendant/cross-complainant Tarver
provided a response, with objections, to the second set of special interrogatories
served on June 10, 2020 on July 2, 2020. A motion to compel was properly filed by
20 plaintiff no later than forty-five (45) days after receipt of that response, see CCP
21
§2030.300(c). The motion is also subject to the terms of CCP § 2024.020(a) which
22
23
required this motion to have been heard on or before the 15th day, before the date
24
initially set for the trial of the action, that date was August 24, 2020 merely ten (10
25
days after the notice of motion is dated.Based on the foregoing arguments as to
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -10
timeliness Defendant/cross complainant Tarver requests that Plaintiff's motion to
compel responses to special interrogatories, set 2 be denied in its entirety.
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Defendant and his Representative say, “Plaintiff served
a third set of special interrogatories titled “Special Interrogatories Set 2.” This set of
interrogatories is in addition to and not labeled as a replacement of the interrogatories
served on April 2, 2020. As stated above this set of interrogatories, now number
10
11 three (3),”. Under CCP 2030.060 interrogatories must be received as what their
titled. “Special Interrogatories Set 2.” not number three (3).
14
15
THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 5:
16
“motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer
17
18 declaration under Section 2016.040.
19
First, the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories on page three (3),
20
21
cites statutory and caselaw authority for this motion but fails to comply with the
22 statutes. A response to special interrogatories, set 2 was served on plaintiff who,
23
according to statute, was obligated to state in his motion particularly why those
24
25 responses were inadequate. Plaintiff fails to do so.
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT?’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -11
Second, Plaintiff's motion fails to make any statement as to the merit or generality
of any objections asserted in response to those interrogatories. Third, the statute
requires a declaration regarding attempts to meet and confer. Plaintiff's declaration
states, “On August 14, 2020, I had served the ‘meet and confer’...”. The service off
the meet and confer was the same date as the date on plaintiffs motion to compel
responses. Sending out a meet and confer letter along with a motion to compel does
not comply with the statutory requirement to meet and confer.
This opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to special
interrogatories is made after attempting to talk with Plaintiff and gain an
understanding of the motion itself, To date those conversations have not been
fruitful and have led to no resolution of either the issues allegedly raised in the
motion or in an attempt to gain an understanding of the purpose and intent of
Plaintiffs motion. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to special interrogatories
19
fails to comply with the statutory requirements for such a motion as detailed above.
20
21
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the basic procedural requirements in bringing this
22 motion to compel responses to interrogatories.
Therefore, Defendant/cross-complainant Tarver requests that Plaintiff's motion ta
24
25 compel responses to special interrogatories, set Two (2) be denied in its entirety.
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT?’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -12
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER:
Defendant and Representative state: “A response to special interrogatories, set 2 was
served on plaintiff who, according to statute, was obligated to state in his motion
particularly why those responses were inadequate. Plaintiff fails to do so.”
Under, DECLARATION OF TED ARTHUR KING IN SUPPORT FOR ORDER
COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS, line 3 states why Plaintiff motioned to compel
responses to second set Special Interrogatories. “3. I have not received any
response to my Special Interrogatories, set number 2 from
the responding RUSSELL LEE TARVER’s destination, instead plaintiff received
on two occasions excuses as to why he did not answer one question.”
Defendant and Representative state, “Third, the statute requires a declaration
17
18 regarding attempts to meet and confer.” Appellant will provide his copy of the
19
declaration regarding attempt to meet and confer at hearing when necessary;
20
21
Defendant’s Representative also states that there have been attempts to communicate
22 with Plaintiff. WELL THERE HASN’T! This Plaintiff is ready to have Defendant
23
answer his questions on the witness stand at trial, if necessary. The only
24
25 communication Plaintiff had with Defendant’s Representative was: On or about
26
March 4, 2020, Defendant’s Representative, called Plaintiff stating Defendant wilh
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 13
seek criminal elderly abuse charges against Plaintiff if he was to lose this civil
matter, in case number S-CV-0042357. This was the fruitful conversation I had
with Defendant’s Representative. Defendant files for an Elderly Domestic
Violence Restraint Order case against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is issued a temporary
order of stay away in the middle of civil proceedings. Elderly Domestic Violence
Abuse case, number 20DV01246 California Superior Court, County of
Sacramento.
Did Defendant act on his own understanding of the law?
STATEMENT
Defendant, and/or his Representative, had five months to answer Plaintiffs requested
interrogatories. Their tag team of, In Pro Per Defendant and Attorney for the Defendant, can not
be excused under C.C.P. 2030.220. Defendant, and/or his Representative, did not answer any off
18
Plaintiff's questions. C.C.P. 2030.220 is clear, (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories
19
20 shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding
21 party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the
extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient ta
23
respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good
24
faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except
25
26 where the information is equally available to the propounding party.
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORI ES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE :
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 14
Defendant, and/or his Representative, did not answer one response to Plaintiff's requested
second set Special Interrogatories, NOT ONE. Defendant’s Representative had both a motions ta
compel and a copy of Plaintiff's interrogatories mailed to his P.O. box on August 14, 2020, as an
officer of the court over the span of 17 years, as he stated in his clients opposition, he should have
had his client go over the question as required by law. Instead what do Defendant and hig
Representative do, SEEK SANCTIONS. So am I,with their case dismissed!! (Code Civ. Proc. §§
2023.030(a), 2030.290(c)).
Plaintiff has been asking for responses to his interrogatories for five months, the responses
will put an end to defendant’s cross-complaint in case number S-CV-0042357 and establish
defendant’s fraudulent practices, this is why they haven’t responded.
Defendant’s Representative stated, “At no time prior to August 14, 2020 did I receive either
by mail, phone or e-mail any request from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King to meet and confer
in regards to this motion to compel responses to special interrogatories.” He should not have
Plaintiff mailed them to the In Pro Per Defendant of record, at the time, Russell Lee Tarver.
Representative, Lyle D. Solomon statement say he was defendant’s legal representative
throughout his client’s discovery phase. The Defendant has no understanding of the law and would
20
not know the difference between Pro per, and Pro se, so Plaintiff believes he was.
21
This means that he has knowledge or isthe orchestrator of the noncompliance regarding
22
non-compliance of no responses to Plaintiff, Ted Arthur King, from Defendant and therefore
23
24 Defendant’s Representative, Lyle D. Solomon is a party to violations under CODE OF CIVIL
25 PROCEDURE SECTION 2030.210-2030.310, and Defendant/Cross-complainant’s civil case
26
under S-CV-0042357 should be dismissed and sanctions imposed.
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 15
Defendant and his Representative’s tag team shenanigans have come to the end of the road
Pay and Play time!
CONCLUSION
On, April 20, 2020, I served the following:
REQUEST FROM TARVER, ANSWERS TO: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 2, REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FORM INTERROGATORIES — GENERAL,
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS.
I received allrequest except interrogatories set2. The only thing Plaintiff has received
10
11 from the Defendant/Cross-complainant since my original request was, Defendant files for an
12 Elderly Domestic Violence Restraint Order case against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is issued a
13
temporary order of stay away in the middle of civil discovery proceedings, in:
14
Elderly Domestic Violence Abuse case, number 20D V01246 California Superior Court,
15
County of Sacramento.
16
17 For that reason, Defendant/Cross-complainant’s case in S-CV-0042357 should be
18 dismissed with sanctions imposed, in the interest of justice.
19
20
21
September 21, 2020
22
23
24
25
26
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 16
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
CASE #: SCV 0042357
On, September 21, 2020, Iserved the following:
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
On theparty(s) listedbelow by placing atrue copy thereof enclosed ina sealed envelope for collections and mailing
inthe United StatesPostal Service.
Partiesserved and address where they were served was asfollows:
10
11
LYLD D. SOLOMON, ESQ (SBN 226025)
12
PO BOX 1411
13
Rocklin, California 95677
14
15
Ideclare that |am aresident of oremployed inthe County of Sacramento California. |am over
16
the age of 18 yearsand not aparty to thewithin entitled cause.The address of my residence or
17
business is:
18
19
2929 El-Camino Avenue
20
Sacramento, California 95608
21
22
Ideclare under penalty of perjury of the lawsof the stateof California thatthe foregoing istrue
23
and correct and thatthis declarationwas executed on, September 21, 2020, atSacramento California.
24
2
—w
26
THOMAS DIXON
27
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL
28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 - 17
Preview
FILED Superior Court of California Ted Arthur King County of Placer 8016 Dicus Court Citrus Heights, CA 95621 SEP 21 2020 7 Z Jake Chatt /~ le eazy Executive Officer & Clerk tedisaking@yahoo.com By: K. aD Deputy IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, IN THE COUNTY OF PLACER PLAINTIFF'S NAME, Case No.: S-CV-0042357 Plaintiff, VS. ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED DEFENDANT'S NAME, ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL Defendant, et.al. INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONS DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020 TIME: 8:30 A.M. All other related matters DEPT: 3 TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 TED ARTHUR KING, (hereafter “Plaintiff’), ANSWER’S to RUSSELL LEE TARVER, 20 (hereafter “Defendant”) and LYLE D. SOLOMON, attorney of record, (hereaftey 21 Representative’). 22 24 25 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -1 COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE’S, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONS. Defendant was the on-record pro se representative in this matter at times of Plaintiff request for second set of Special Interrogatories. However, Defendant’s Representative should also be subjected to sanctions accordingly as being a party to Defendant’s shenanigans behind closed doors. On or about March 4, 2020, Defendant’s Representative, called Plaintiff stating Defendant will seek criminal elderly abuse charges against Plaintiff if he was to lose this civil matter, in casd number S-CV-0042357. Defendant files for an Elderly Domestic Violence Abuse case in California Superior Court Sacramento County, case number 20D V01246.against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is issued a temporary 18 order of stay away in the middle of civil discovery proceedings. 19 20 21 Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings: 22 The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.030(a) of the Code of 23 Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes 4 24 motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless itfinds that the one subject to thd 25 sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the 26 27 imposition of the sanction unjust (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2030.290(c)). ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -2 DEFENDANT REPRESENTATIVE’s DECLARATION: Pg. 8, Pg. 9, line 1-5. Declaration by Attorney Lyle D. Solomon, as follows: DECLARATION OF LYLE D, SOLOMON IN SUPPORT OF AWARD OF SANCTIONS I,LYLE D. SOLOMON, declare: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in all the courts of the state of California and one of the attorneys of record for Defendant/Cross-complainant Russell Lee Tarver, 2. Ifcalled to testify, Icould truthfully testify, of my personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. 10 3. On, or about August 14, 2020 I received a call from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King 11 informing me that he had filed the instant motion to compel responses to special interrogatories. 4. On, or about August 16, 2020 I received, by first class mail, the instant motion to compel responses to special interrogatories from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King. 5. At no time prior to August 14, 2020 did I receive either by mail, phone or e-mail any request from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King to meet and confer in regard to this motion to compel] responses to special interrogatories. 19 6. As of the date of filing this Opposition I have expended four and a quarter (4.25) hours in 20 preparation of this opposition. 21 7. Ianticipate I will expend another one (1) hour reviewing plaintiff's reply brief, if any, preparing 22 for hearing and oral argument and attending the hearing on this motion. For a total of five and a 23 24 quarter (5.25) hours in opposing this motion to compel responses to special interrogatories and 25 preparing for and attending the hearing thereon. 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -3 8. My billing rate in this matter is two hundred-fifty dollars ($250.00) per hour, I have been admitted to practice law in California for more than seventeen (17) years and this rate isthe normal and customary rate of an attorney with my years of practice and experience in Placer County. 9. Therefore, based on my billing rate of two hundred-fifty dollars ($250.00) per hour, the anticipated time expended of five and a quarter (5.25) hours, Defendant/Cross- complainant Russell Lee Tarver. seeks $1,312.50 in sanctions from the plaintiff for the preparation of thig opposition to his Motion. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and corrected, Executed on the 4" day of September, 2020 at Rocklin, California. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Defendant representative states: “On, or about August 14, 2020 |] received a call from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King informing me that he had filed the instant motion to compel responses to special interrogatories.” Plaintiff never called defendant’s Representative regarding filing motion to compel, in fact, the plaintiff only spoke to defendants 17 18 representative briefly, on or about August 21, 2020, regarding not signing their request fof 19 defendant’s preference motion on September 25, 2020 and unequivocally stating that this plaintiff 20 would oppose their motion and that he as his clients representative had until the twentieth of 21 September to have plaintiff's request for second set of Interrogatories ready and submitted to 22 plaintiff. Plaintiff signed STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE on August 14, 2020 23 24 but never had any conversation with defendant’s representative, on August 14, 2020. 25 Defendant’s representative further states: “At no time prior to August 14, 2020 did Ireceive 26 either by mail, phone or e-mail any request from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King to meet and 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -4 confer in regards to this motion to compel responses to special interrogatories.” This is true, but defendant did have said motion sent to him, in May of 2020, after which proceeded to file Elderly Abuse Restraint Order against this plaintiff. DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE: Pg. 1, line 26-28. “Plaintiff's Notice of Motion is inaccurate and defective. The notice states First, the address of the courthouse located in Roseville on Justice Center Drive isincomplete,. There is no such address on Justice Center Drive of 1082. Second, Department 3, the Courtroom to which the noticd 10 refers, is not located in Roseville.” 11 Pg. 2. Line 1-4. The defects in the notice of motion while not necessarily fatal, are indicative of plaintiff's continuing disregard for the procedural rules related to his prosecution of this civil action. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Tarver voices his objection and opposition to plaintiffs motion td compel on that, and other bases as detailed below. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Defendant and his representative, on their own, SUBMIT an incorrect 19 address isnot fatal. However, contend that itis this Plaintiff that has somehow violated procedural] 20 rules, in the matter and state, “Defendant/Cross-Complainant Tarver voices his objection and 21 opposition to Plaintiffs motion to compel on that, and other bases as detailed below.” 22 23 24 TIMELINESS OF MOTION 25 THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 2, line 6-17: 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 - 5 “This matter was originally scheduled to begin jury trialon August 24, 2020, ten (10) days after the date of Plaintiff's signature on the motion to compel. That trial date was vacated by the Court in July and the parties stipulated to a new trial date on November 2, 2020. The parties stipulation to a new trial date does not address the issue of re-opening or leaving discovery in thig case open due to the original trial date being vacated. According to CCP § 2024.020(a) Except ag otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. Subsection (b 10 further states “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the 11 trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” As such Plaintiff's motion to compe} 13 discovery responses is untimely and should be denied as such.” 14 15 PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Universal Citation: CA Civ Pro Code § 2024.050 (2014) and any other statue, except to dismiss Defendant’s case is moot. Defendant made an invalid attempt ta have an Elderly Domestic Violence Abuse case, In the Superior Court of California, In the County 19 of Sacramento, case no. 20DV01246. During that attempt, the defendant was able to ascertain 4 20 temporary restraint order barring allcommunications to him in the matter of S-CV-0042357, based 21 on Plaintiff sending Defendant a settlement letter. The Defendant added false claims of Elderly 22 Abuse by the hands of Plaintiff on December 8, 2018 and for those reasons Plaintiff was barred 23 24 from institution to further confer under Section 2016.040, or any communication because of 25 Defendant’s false report of abuse in Superior Court of California, in Sacramento County, case no 26 20DV01246, for this reasons Defendants case should be dismissed. 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -6 THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 3, lines 1-23. 1.Special Interrogatories Dated April 20, 2020 Plaintiff had previously served Special Interrogatories Set 1,on June 20, 2019, consisting of twelve (12) special interrogatories. Verified responses to special interrogatories set one were timely served on plaintiff on July 18, 2019. Plaintiff made no motion to compel further responses. On or about April 20, 2020 Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories Set 2 on defendant/cross-complainant Tarver consisting of thirty-six (36) special interrogatories. CCP $2030.030 provides, 10 ‘(a) A party may propound to another party either or both of the following: 11 12 (1) Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject 13 matter of the pending action. 14 (2) Any additional number of official form interrogatories, as described in Chapter 15 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710), that are relevant to the subject matter of 16 the pending action. 17 18 (b) Except as provided in Section 2030.070, no party shall, as a matter of right, propound to any other party more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories. Ifthe 20 initial set of interrogatories does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be 21 propounded in subsequent sets, 22 (c) Unless a declaration as described in Section 2030.050 has been made, a party 23 24 need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that 25 party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground 26 that the limit has been exceeded.” 21 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORI ES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE : OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 - 7 PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Statue doesn’t require Plaintiff to motion for more responses with another sets of Special Interrogatories, statue requires the limit of 35 Special Interrogatories responses, set 1 or set 2, matters not as long as the set have been identified is the statures only requirement. Defendant should have answered the first23 question and not exceeded any further as required. CCP 2030.060(a) does not require to start with the next number, but with each set start with consecutive numbers. (a) A party propounding interrogatories shall number each set of interrogatories consecutively. 10 11 12 (b) In the firstparagraph immediately below the titleof the case, there shall appear the identity of 13 the propounding party, the set number, and the identity of the responding party. 14 15 (c) Each interrogatory in a set shall be separately set forth and identified by number or letter. 16 (d) Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 20 (commencing with Section 2033.710 ). 21 (e) Any term specially defined in a set of interrogatories shall be typed with all letters capitalized 22 wherever that term appears. 23 24 25 (f) No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, of 26 disjunctive question. 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -8 (g) An interrogatory may not be made a continuing one so as to impose on the party responding to ita duty to supplement an answer to it that was initially correct and complete with later acquired information. THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 3, line 24-28. Pg. 4, line 1-3: Defendant/cross-complainant Tarver provided a response, with objections, to the second set of special interrogatories served on April 20, 2020 on July 2, 2020. A motion to compel was properly filed by plaintiff no later than forty-five (45) days after receipt of that response, sce CCP §2030.300(c). Despite the intial timeliness of this motion itis also subject to the terms of 13 CCP § 2024.020(a) which required this motion to have been heard on or before the 15th day, before 14 the date initially set for the trial of the action, that date was August 24, 2020 merely ten 15 (10) days after the notice of motion is dated.. Therefore, this Court should find this motion to be 16 untimely. 17 18 PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Special interrogatories served on April 20, 2020 and on July 2, 2020 20 the Defendant never provided one response to Plaintiff's propounding remaining 23 questions 21 instead he stated a deficiency in procedure without any response to questions whatsoever. This 22 Defendant and his Representative cannot reform their disregard of civil procedure under C.C.P} 23 24 2030.220 ,or the fact that Defendant, in the middle of a civil action, sought out an Elderly Abuse 25 case against Plaintiff, after alleged offense was investigated by Placer County District Attorney’s 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 -9 Office, thus the intentional disruption of timely execution of civil procedure cannot be ignored and this Defendant/ Cross-complaint case should be dismissed. THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 4, lines 4-27: 2. Special Interrogatories Dated June 10, 2020 On June 10, 2020 Plaintiff served a third set of special interrogatories titled “Specia] Interrogatories Set 2.” This set of interrogatories is in addition to and not labeled as 10 a replacement of the interrogatories served on April 2, 2020. As stated above this set 11 of interrogatories, now number three (3), is in excess of the statutory limit of thirty- five (35), and does not include the required declaration for those interrogatories in 14 excess of thirty-five (35). In addition, this set of interrogatories is not numbered 15 16 sequentially but starts fresh at number one (1). Defendant/cross-complainant Tarver provided a response, with objections, to the second set of special interrogatories served on June 10, 2020 on July 2, 2020. A motion to compel was properly filed by 20 plaintiff no later than forty-five (45) days after receipt of that response, see CCP 21 §2030.300(c). The motion is also subject to the terms of CCP § 2024.020(a) which 22 23 required this motion to have been heard on or before the 15th day, before the date 24 initially set for the trial of the action, that date was August 24, 2020 merely ten (10 25 days after the notice of motion is dated.Based on the foregoing arguments as to 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -10 timeliness Defendant/cross complainant Tarver requests that Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set 2 be denied in its entirety. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Defendant and his Representative say, “Plaintiff served a third set of special interrogatories titled “Special Interrogatories Set 2.” This set of interrogatories is in addition to and not labeled as a replacement of the interrogatories served on April 2, 2020. As stated above this set of interrogatories, now number 10 11 three (3),”. Under CCP 2030.060 interrogatories must be received as what their titled. “Special Interrogatories Set 2.” not number three (3). 14 15 THE DEFENDANT AND REPRESENTATIVE ARGUE, Pg. 5: 16 “motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer 17 18 declaration under Section 2016.040. 19 First, the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories on page three (3), 20 21 cites statutory and caselaw authority for this motion but fails to comply with the 22 statutes. A response to special interrogatories, set 2 was served on plaintiff who, 23 according to statute, was obligated to state in his motion particularly why those 24 25 responses were inadequate. Plaintiff fails to do so. 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT?’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -11 Second, Plaintiff's motion fails to make any statement as to the merit or generality of any objections asserted in response to those interrogatories. Third, the statute requires a declaration regarding attempts to meet and confer. Plaintiff's declaration states, “On August 14, 2020, I had served the ‘meet and confer’...”. The service off the meet and confer was the same date as the date on plaintiffs motion to compel responses. Sending out a meet and confer letter along with a motion to compel does not comply with the statutory requirement to meet and confer. This opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to special interrogatories is made after attempting to talk with Plaintiff and gain an understanding of the motion itself, To date those conversations have not been fruitful and have led to no resolution of either the issues allegedly raised in the motion or in an attempt to gain an understanding of the purpose and intent of Plaintiffs motion. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to special interrogatories 19 fails to comply with the statutory requirements for such a motion as detailed above. 20 21 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the basic procedural requirements in bringing this 22 motion to compel responses to interrogatories. Therefore, Defendant/cross-complainant Tarver requests that Plaintiff's motion ta 24 25 compel responses to special interrogatories, set Two (2) be denied in its entirety. 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT?’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 -12 PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER: Defendant and Representative state: “A response to special interrogatories, set 2 was served on plaintiff who, according to statute, was obligated to state in his motion particularly why those responses were inadequate. Plaintiff fails to do so.” Under, DECLARATION OF TED ARTHUR KING IN SUPPORT FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS, line 3 states why Plaintiff motioned to compel responses to second set Special Interrogatories. “3. I have not received any response to my Special Interrogatories, set number 2 from the responding RUSSELL LEE TARVER’s destination, instead plaintiff received on two occasions excuses as to why he did not answer one question.” Defendant and Representative state, “Third, the statute requires a declaration 17 18 regarding attempts to meet and confer.” Appellant will provide his copy of the 19 declaration regarding attempt to meet and confer at hearing when necessary; 20 21 Defendant’s Representative also states that there have been attempts to communicate 22 with Plaintiff. WELL THERE HASN’T! This Plaintiff is ready to have Defendant 23 answer his questions on the witness stand at trial, if necessary. The only 24 25 communication Plaintiff had with Defendant’s Representative was: On or about 26 March 4, 2020, Defendant’s Representative, called Plaintiff stating Defendant wilh 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 13 seek criminal elderly abuse charges against Plaintiff if he was to lose this civil matter, in case number S-CV-0042357. This was the fruitful conversation I had with Defendant’s Representative. Defendant files for an Elderly Domestic Violence Restraint Order case against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is issued a temporary order of stay away in the middle of civil proceedings. Elderly Domestic Violence Abuse case, number 20DV01246 California Superior Court, County of Sacramento. Did Defendant act on his own understanding of the law? STATEMENT Defendant, and/or his Representative, had five months to answer Plaintiffs requested interrogatories. Their tag team of, In Pro Per Defendant and Attorney for the Defendant, can not be excused under C.C.P. 2030.220. Defendant, and/or his Representative, did not answer any off 18 Plaintiff's questions. C.C.P. 2030.220 is clear, (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories 19 20 shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding 21 party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient ta 23 respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good 24 faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except 25 26 where the information is equally available to the propounding party. 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORI ES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE : OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 14 Defendant, and/or his Representative, did not answer one response to Plaintiff's requested second set Special Interrogatories, NOT ONE. Defendant’s Representative had both a motions ta compel and a copy of Plaintiff's interrogatories mailed to his P.O. box on August 14, 2020, as an officer of the court over the span of 17 years, as he stated in his clients opposition, he should have had his client go over the question as required by law. Instead what do Defendant and hig Representative do, SEEK SANCTIONS. So am I,with their case dismissed!! (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), 2030.290(c)). Plaintiff has been asking for responses to his interrogatories for five months, the responses will put an end to defendant’s cross-complaint in case number S-CV-0042357 and establish defendant’s fraudulent practices, this is why they haven’t responded. Defendant’s Representative stated, “At no time prior to August 14, 2020 did I receive either by mail, phone or e-mail any request from Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Ted King to meet and confer in regards to this motion to compel responses to special interrogatories.” He should not have Plaintiff mailed them to the In Pro Per Defendant of record, at the time, Russell Lee Tarver. Representative, Lyle D. Solomon statement say he was defendant’s legal representative throughout his client’s discovery phase. The Defendant has no understanding of the law and would 20 not know the difference between Pro per, and Pro se, so Plaintiff believes he was. 21 This means that he has knowledge or isthe orchestrator of the noncompliance regarding 22 non-compliance of no responses to Plaintiff, Ted Arthur King, from Defendant and therefore 23 24 Defendant’s Representative, Lyle D. Solomon is a party to violations under CODE OF CIVIL 25 PROCEDURE SECTION 2030.210-2030.310, and Defendant/Cross-complainant’s civil case 26 under S-CV-0042357 should be dismissed and sanctions imposed. 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 15 Defendant and his Representative’s tag team shenanigans have come to the end of the road Pay and Play time! CONCLUSION On, April 20, 2020, I served the following: REQUEST FROM TARVER, ANSWERS TO: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 2, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FORM INTERROGATORIES — GENERAL, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS. I received allrequest except interrogatories set2. The only thing Plaintiff has received 10 11 from the Defendant/Cross-complainant since my original request was, Defendant files for an 12 Elderly Domestic Violence Restraint Order case against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is issued a 13 temporary order of stay away in the middle of civil discovery proceedings, in: 14 Elderly Domestic Violence Abuse case, number 20D V01246 California Superior Court, 15 County of Sacramento. 16 17 For that reason, Defendant/Cross-complainant’s case in S-CV-0042357 should be 18 dismissed with sanctions imposed, in the interest of justice. 19 20 21 September 21, 2020 22 23 24 25 26 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30 A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2,2020 - 16 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CASE #: SCV 0042357 On, September 21, 2020, Iserved the following: ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2AND MONETARY SANCTIONS On theparty(s) listedbelow by placing atrue copy thereof enclosed ina sealed envelope for collections and mailing inthe United StatesPostal Service. Partiesserved and address where they were served was asfollows: 10 11 LYLD D. SOLOMON, ESQ (SBN 226025) 12 PO BOX 1411 13 Rocklin, California 95677 14 15 Ideclare that |am aresident of oremployed inthe County of Sacramento California. |am over 16 the age of 18 yearsand not aparty to thewithin entitled cause.The address of my residence or 17 business is: 18 19 2929 El-Camino Avenue 20 Sacramento, California 95608 21 22 Ideclare under penalty of perjury of the lawsof the stateof California thatthe foregoing istrue 23 and correct and thatthis declarationwas executed on, September 21, 2020, atSacramento California. 24 2 —w 26 THOMAS DIXON 27 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TED ARTHUR KING’S MOTION TO COMPEL 28 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET 2 AND MONETARY SANCTIONSDATE: OCTOBER 2, 2020TIME: 8:30A.M.DEPT: 3TRIAL DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2020 - 17