Preview
DAVrD R. GRIFFTTH, ESQ. (SBN- 170172)
1
JAMESON E.p. SHEEHAN, ESQ. (SBN 327287)
GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP
z
1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3
11/12/2020
3 Chico, Califomia 95928
Telephone: (530) 8 12-l 000
4 Facsimile: (530) 809-1 093
Email : dav id@davidgriffithlaw. com
5 j ameson@griffi thandhorn. com
6
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant,
1 RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY
8
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
o
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
11 WAYNE A. COOK, Trustee of the ) Case No. 20CV00905
Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust )
72 Dated 12129198, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
13 Plaintifl ) MOTION TO COMPEL FRUTHER
) RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
I4 VS ) AND MONETATRY SANCTIONS
15 )
EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually; )
I6 and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. )
NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING )
1-1 TRUST Dated November 8, 1998; )
DOES 1 through 10, )
18
)
Defendants. )
79
)
20 ) Date: December 16,2020
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
2I ) Dept.: TBA
22
Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY submits this Memorandum of Points
a2
and Authorities in support of the motion to compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.
.A
NIDEROST, an individual person, andlor his designated JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of
25 the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and successor trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST
26
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, to respond to provide further
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 responses to Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, I through 6, a misnumbered
duplicate 6 [sic], andT through 15, served herein on June 29,2020, without objections, and to
2
award monetary sanctions, as follows:
3
L. Introduction.
4
On June 29,2020, Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY served by mail
5
upon Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually, and as Trustee of THE
6 EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, Request
1 for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 6, a misnumbered duplicate 6 [sic], andT
B
through 15. The request contained a definition for the Responding Party as follows:
B. o'YOfJ" and YOUR" means and refers to Cross-Complainant EDWARD
9
F. NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST
10
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 and anyone acting
11
on his behalf including, without limitation, John Denton as Conservator of the
72 Estate of Edward F. Niderost and John Denton as Successor Trustee of the
13 Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998.
I4 [see Griffith Decl. fl 2; and Exhibit 6'1"]
The responses to the subject discovery were originally due 30, plus five days for mailing,
15
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $$$ 1013(a),2031.260(a) and2016.050, which was Sunday
I6
August 2,2020, so then falling to the next court day of August3,2020. fsee,Griffith Decl.'l|13]
L1
On August 21,2020, counsel for Cross-Complainant, Sara Knowles, advised Mr. Griffith
18 that she needed an additional extension of time to respond to the discovery until Monday August
I9 24,2020, which was granted, but no responses were received. [see Griffrth Decl. fl 4]
20
On September 15, 2020, Mr. Griffith had his offrce reach to Mrs. Knowles by email to
see if we could get responses to the subject discovery to avoid court intervention and there has
2I
been no response. [see Griffith Decl. tl5]
)a
On October 15,2020, JOHN DENTON, as the Conservator of the Estate of Cross-
23
Complainant EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST, and as the Successor Trustee of THE EDV/ARD F.
24 NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served deficient
25 responses to the subject discovery. There is no known conservatorship of the person of Cross-
z6 Complainant EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST and said Cross-Complainant as an individual person has
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 never provided any responses to the subject discovery.
The documents produced consist of 14 pages as follows:
2
Pages 1-3 Chico Enterprise Record, New Article, "Landmark Miller
3
Mansion Has been Sold"
4
Page 4 - Letter from Knowles dated June26,2020 to tenants.
5
Pages 5-6 - Order in Conservatorship dated Jvne 4,2020
6 Pages 7-8 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 17,2020
1 Pages 9-10 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 4,2020
I Pages Il-14 - Email Chain dated May 15, 2020 to June 15, 2020 between
Mr. Lushanko and Mrs. Knowles.
9
fsee Griffith Decl. fl 6, Exhibit $2"f
10
On October 16,2020, Mr. Griffith sent a meet and confer letter to Mrs. Knowles
11
outlining the deficient responses and requesting amended and further responses. [see Griff,rth
I2 Decl. fl 7, Exhibit'03"1
13 On October 28,2020, Mr. Griffrth sent another meet and confer communication to
attomey Mrs. Knowles requesting a response to the meet and confer of October 16,2020.lsee
L4
Griffith Decl. fl 8l
15
On October28,2020, Mrs. Knowles responded to Mr. Griffith advising that she would
16
get back to him on the meet and confer by November 6, 2020. [see Griffith Decl. fl 9]
71
At the time of filing this motion, there still has been no response from Mrs. Knowles. I
18 Griffith Decl. fl 101
I9 Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY has reasonably incuned the sum of
20 $1,830.00 bringing this motion. [see Griffith Decl. fl 11]
2. Relevant Law.
27
22 A. Obligation for Responding party and Counsel to Provide Complete and
23 Straightforward Responses.
z4 (1) Scope of Discovery. The scope of permissible discovery is very
25
broad lChildren's Hospitol Centrql Califurnia v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2014) 226 Cal. App.
26
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHOzuTIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
4th 1260, 12761. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
1
2
that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the
3 determination of any motion made in that action if the matter either is itself admissible in
4 evidence or appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
5
evidence [Code Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010].
6
(2) Content of Response to Inspection Demands. The party to whom a
'7
demand for inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling, has been directed must respond
B
separately to each item or category of item by any of the following [Code Civ. Proc. $
9
2031.210(a)l:
10
11
r d statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for
L2 inspection, copying by the date set for inspection under Code Civ. Proc. $
13 2031.030 (c).
T4 r d representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand
15
for inspection of a particular item or category of item.
I6
. An objection to the demand.
L1
(3) Good Faith Oblieation. A party must make a good faith effort in
18
obtaining documents responsive to the request. fRegency Health Services, Inc. v.
19
20 Superior Court (1998) 64 CA th1496,15051
27 "[T]he responding party must obtain and disclose information from
22 sources under its control (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 CA3d at782), as well as
23
information in the possession of its counsel (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189
24
CA2d 6,ll.. .)" (CJER, California Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings
25
Discovery (2d ed,2012) section 18.32,p 294; Regency Health Services, Inc. v.
26
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496,1504).
1
2
Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and
3 nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories. (Hunter v. Internationsl
4 Systems & Control Corp. (W.D. Mo. 1972) 56 F.R.D. 617, 631.) V/here the
5
question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the
6
information sought is wholly insufhcient. Likewise, aparty may not provide
1
deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit
8
questions. (In Re Professional Hockey Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa. 1974 63
9
F.R.D. 641,650-654.)
10
11 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771,782.
I2 (4) Partial or Incomplete Information Provided. Verification of the
13 answer is in effect a declaration that the party has disclosed all information which is
L4
available to him. If only partial answers can be supplied, the answer should reveal all
15
information then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he should set
L6
forth the efforts made to secure the informration. He cannot plead ignorance to
I1
information which can eb obtained from sources under his control. (See Cal. Civil
18
Discovery Practice, supra, $ 8.a8; DelMeo, Cal. Deposition and Discovery Practice,
19
20 supra, 9.01(a1); 4A Moore's Federal Practice, 5 33.26; Milner v. National School of
2I Health Technology (E. D. Pa.1977) 73 F.R.D. 628,632; Harlem River Con. Co., Inc. v.
22 Associated G. Of Harlen, Inc. (S.D.N.Y 1974) 64 F.R.D. 459, 463.)
23
(5) See my documents not proper. "[I]t is not proper to answer by
24
stating, "See my deposition," "See my Pleadings," or See the financial statement." (Deyo
25
v. Kilb ourne (197 8) 84 Cal.App . 3 d 7 7 I, 7 83 -7 84).
26
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
(6) Representation of Inability to Comply. A representation of
1
inability to comply with a particular demand for inspection must do the following [Code
2
J Civ. Proc. $ 2031.2301:
4 . Affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an
E
J
effort to comply with the demand.
6
. Specifu whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or
1
category of item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced,
8
or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control
o
of the responding party.
10
11
. Specifu the name and address of any natural person or organization known
I2 or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or control of the item or
13 category of item.
L4
A. Belated Responses Waives Obiections. Code of Civil Procedure sections
15
203I.300 authorizes the Court to compel a party to serve responses to requests for
L6
inspection of documents without objections.
I1
1B Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides, in pertinent part:
I9 If a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to serve a timely
response to it, the following rules apply:
20
2I (a) The party to whom the inspection demand is directed waives any
objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the
22 protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
2108.010). ...
23
(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling
response to the inspection demand.
25
If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has
26
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 directed fails to serve a timely response to it, that party waives any objection to the
including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Code Civ. Proc
2
2018.010 et seq. [Code Civ. Proc. $ 2031.300(a)]
3
In this case, the subject discovery was served on June 29,2020, with responses due
4 August 3,2020, and only def,rcient responses belatedly served on October 15, 2020, and
5 Cross-Defendant had to meet and confer and file a motion to compel. Further responses
to the subject discovery should be compelled without objection.
6
B. Authoritv to Compel Further Response. On receipt of a response to a
1
for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement
I compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply
9 inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or
10 general, that party may move for an order compelling a further response to the demand fCode Civ
Proc. $ 2031.310(a); see Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 902-9031
11
On October 15,2020,Mrs. Knowles and her client served belated and deficient
I2
to Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 15, served herein on June 29
13 2020, and good cause exist to order further compliant responses as more specifically set forth
L4 the Separate Statement filed and served herewith.
15
C. Monetary Sanctions Should be Imposed. In motion proceedings under Code Civ
Proc. $ 2031.010 et seq., for an order directing a response, further response, or compliance,
I6
court is required to impose a monetary sanction under Code Civ. Proc. $ 2023.030 against
71
party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless the court
1B that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstance
I9 make the imposition of the sanction unjust fCode Civ. Proc. SS 2031.060(h), (i),2031.300(c), (d
203r.31 0(h), 0), 2031.320(b), (d)l
20
3. Conclusion.
2L
For the foregoing reasons, Cross-Defendant request that the Court grant this motion
22 and compel Cross-Complainant EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST, individually, and his successor
23 trustee JOHN DENTORN, as the Successor Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, and JOHN DENTON, as the
24
Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, to provide further responses to Request for
25
Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 6, a misnumbered double 6, and 7 through 15,
26
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 served herein on June 29,2020, without objections, and to award monetary sanction against said
Cross-Complainant and his attomey of record in the amount of $1,830.00.
2
GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP
3
4
DATED: November 12, 2020.
5
DAVID R. GRIFFITH,
Attorney for Cro ss-Defendant,
6 RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY
1
I
9
10
11
I2
13
L4
15
I6
1_1
1B
19
20
2L
at
23
24
25
Zf)
I
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California, I am over the age of l8 years
and not aparty to the within action; my business address is1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico,
3 California 95928.
4 On this date, I served the foregoing document described as:
5 MEMORANDUM OF POINST AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DICOVERY AND
6 AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 Said document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a
8
Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Raymond L. Sandelman, Esq.
9
Leland, Morrisey & Knowles,LLP Attorney atLaw
1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 196 Cohasset Road, Suite225
10 Chico, CA95928 Chico, CA95926
Email : sknowles@Chicolawyer. com Email : Raymond@sandelmanlaw. com
11
Larry Lushanko, Esq.
I2 l24IE. Mission Road
Fallbrook, CA92028
13
Email : offi ce@lushankolaw. com
I4
15
I am familiar with our frrm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
with postage thereon fully prepaid at Chico, California in the ordinary course of business. I am
71 aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation
date or postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in
this declaration.
18
_X_ (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Chico, California. The envelope was
I9 mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid to the person at the address set forth above.
20 (By Electronic Mail) Such document was delivered by electronic mail to the persons at
_X_
the addresses set forth above.
2I
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
22 is true and correct. I further declare that I made the service set forth herein on the date set forth
below.
23
Executed on Novemb lL,2020,a1Chico, Califomia.
24
",
atr
.J
By
Steven Chamberlin
26
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AV/ARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
Preview
DAVrD R. GRIFFTTH, ESQ. (SBN- 170172) 1 JAMESON E.p. SHEEHAN, ESQ. (SBN 327287) GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP z 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3 11/12/2020 3 Chico, Califomia 95928 Telephone: (530) 8 12-l 000 4 Facsimile: (530) 809-1 093 Email : dav id@davidgriffithlaw. com 5 j ameson@griffi thandhorn. com 6 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, 1 RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY 8 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA o IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 11 WAYNE A. COOK, Trustee of the ) Case No. 20CV00905 Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust ) 72 Dated 12129198, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 13 Plaintifl ) MOTION TO COMPEL FRUTHER ) RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY I4 VS ) AND MONETATRY SANCTIONS 15 ) EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually; ) I6 and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. ) NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING ) 1-1 TRUST Dated November 8, 1998; ) DOES 1 through 10, ) 18 ) Defendants. ) 79 ) 20 ) Date: December 16,2020 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) Time: 9:00 a.m. 2I ) Dept.: TBA 22 Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY submits this Memorandum of Points a2 and Authorities in support of the motion to compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. .A NIDEROST, an individual person, andlor his designated JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of 25 the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and successor trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST 26 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, to respond to provide further 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 responses to Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, I through 6, a misnumbered duplicate 6 [sic], andT through 15, served herein on June 29,2020, without objections, and to 2 award monetary sanctions, as follows: 3 L. Introduction. 4 On June 29,2020, Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY served by mail 5 upon Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually, and as Trustee of THE 6 EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, Request 1 for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 6, a misnumbered duplicate 6 [sic], andT B through 15. The request contained a definition for the Responding Party as follows: B. o'YOfJ" and YOUR" means and refers to Cross-Complainant EDWARD 9 F. NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST 10 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 and anyone acting 11 on his behalf including, without limitation, John Denton as Conservator of the 72 Estate of Edward F. Niderost and John Denton as Successor Trustee of the 13 Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998. I4 [see Griffith Decl. fl 2; and Exhibit 6'1"] The responses to the subject discovery were originally due 30, plus five days for mailing, 15 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $$$ 1013(a),2031.260(a) and2016.050, which was Sunday I6 August 2,2020, so then falling to the next court day of August3,2020. fsee,Griffith Decl.'l|13] L1 On August 21,2020, counsel for Cross-Complainant, Sara Knowles, advised Mr. Griffith 18 that she needed an additional extension of time to respond to the discovery until Monday August I9 24,2020, which was granted, but no responses were received. [see Griffrth Decl. fl 4] 20 On September 15, 2020, Mr. Griffith had his offrce reach to Mrs. Knowles by email to see if we could get responses to the subject discovery to avoid court intervention and there has 2I been no response. [see Griffith Decl. tl5] )a On October 15,2020, JOHN DENTON, as the Conservator of the Estate of Cross- 23 Complainant EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST, and as the Successor Trustee of THE EDV/ARD F. 24 NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served deficient 25 responses to the subject discovery. There is no known conservatorship of the person of Cross- z6 Complainant EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST and said Cross-Complainant as an individual person has 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 never provided any responses to the subject discovery. The documents produced consist of 14 pages as follows: 2 Pages 1-3 Chico Enterprise Record, New Article, "Landmark Miller 3 Mansion Has been Sold" 4 Page 4 - Letter from Knowles dated June26,2020 to tenants. 5 Pages 5-6 - Order in Conservatorship dated Jvne 4,2020 6 Pages 7-8 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 17,2020 1 Pages 9-10 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 4,2020 I Pages Il-14 - Email Chain dated May 15, 2020 to June 15, 2020 between Mr. Lushanko and Mrs. Knowles. 9 fsee Griffith Decl. fl 6, Exhibit $2"f 10 On October 16,2020, Mr. Griffith sent a meet and confer letter to Mrs. Knowles 11 outlining the deficient responses and requesting amended and further responses. [see Griff,rth I2 Decl. fl 7, Exhibit'03"1 13 On October 28,2020, Mr. Griffrth sent another meet and confer communication to attomey Mrs. Knowles requesting a response to the meet and confer of October 16,2020.lsee L4 Griffith Decl. fl 8l 15 On October28,2020, Mrs. Knowles responded to Mr. Griffith advising that she would 16 get back to him on the meet and confer by November 6, 2020. [see Griffith Decl. fl 9] 71 At the time of filing this motion, there still has been no response from Mrs. Knowles. I 18 Griffith Decl. fl 101 I9 Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY has reasonably incuned the sum of 20 $1,830.00 bringing this motion. [see Griffith Decl. fl 11] 2. Relevant Law. 27 22 A. Obligation for Responding party and Counsel to Provide Complete and 23 Straightforward Responses. z4 (1) Scope of Discovery. The scope of permissible discovery is very 25 broad lChildren's Hospitol Centrql Califurnia v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2014) 226 Cal. App. 26 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHOzuTIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 4th 1260, 12761. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, 1 2 that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the 3 determination of any motion made in that action if the matter either is itself admissible in 4 evidence or appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 5 evidence [Code Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010]. 6 (2) Content of Response to Inspection Demands. The party to whom a '7 demand for inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling, has been directed must respond B separately to each item or category of item by any of the following [Code Civ. Proc. $ 9 2031.210(a)l: 10 11 r d statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for L2 inspection, copying by the date set for inspection under Code Civ. Proc. $ 13 2031.030 (c). T4 r d representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand 15 for inspection of a particular item or category of item. I6 . An objection to the demand. L1 (3) Good Faith Oblieation. A party must make a good faith effort in 18 obtaining documents responsive to the request. fRegency Health Services, Inc. v. 19 20 Superior Court (1998) 64 CA th1496,15051 27 "[T]he responding party must obtain and disclose information from 22 sources under its control (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 CA3d at782), as well as 23 information in the possession of its counsel (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 24 CA2d 6,ll.. .)" (CJER, California Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings 25 Discovery (2d ed,2012) section 18.32,p 294; Regency Health Services, Inc. v. 26 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496,1504). 1 2 Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and 3 nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories. (Hunter v. Internationsl 4 Systems & Control Corp. (W.D. Mo. 1972) 56 F.R.D. 617, 631.) V/here the 5 question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the 6 information sought is wholly insufhcient. Likewise, aparty may not provide 1 deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit 8 questions. (In Re Professional Hockey Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa. 1974 63 9 F.R.D. 641,650-654.) 10 11 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771,782. I2 (4) Partial or Incomplete Information Provided. Verification of the 13 answer is in effect a declaration that the party has disclosed all information which is L4 available to him. If only partial answers can be supplied, the answer should reveal all 15 information then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he should set L6 forth the efforts made to secure the informration. He cannot plead ignorance to I1 information which can eb obtained from sources under his control. (See Cal. Civil 18 Discovery Practice, supra, $ 8.a8; DelMeo, Cal. Deposition and Discovery Practice, 19 20 supra, 9.01(a1); 4A Moore's Federal Practice, 5 33.26; Milner v. National School of 2I Health Technology (E. D. Pa.1977) 73 F.R.D. 628,632; Harlem River Con. Co., Inc. v. 22 Associated G. Of Harlen, Inc. (S.D.N.Y 1974) 64 F.R.D. 459, 463.) 23 (5) See my documents not proper. "[I]t is not proper to answer by 24 stating, "See my deposition," "See my Pleadings," or See the financial statement." (Deyo 25 v. Kilb ourne (197 8) 84 Cal.App . 3 d 7 7 I, 7 83 -7 84). 26 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS (6) Representation of Inability to Comply. A representation of 1 inability to comply with a particular demand for inspection must do the following [Code 2 J Civ. Proc. $ 2031.2301: 4 . Affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an E J effort to comply with the demand. 6 . Specifu whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or 1 category of item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, 8 or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control o of the responding party. 10 11 . Specifu the name and address of any natural person or organization known I2 or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or control of the item or 13 category of item. L4 A. Belated Responses Waives Obiections. Code of Civil Procedure sections 15 203I.300 authorizes the Court to compel a party to serve responses to requests for L6 inspection of documents without objections. I1 1B Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides, in pertinent part: I9 If a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules apply: 20 2I (a) The party to whom the inspection demand is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the 22 protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2108.010). ... 23 (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the inspection demand. 25 If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has 26 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 directed fails to serve a timely response to it, that party waives any objection to the including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Code Civ. Proc 2 2018.010 et seq. [Code Civ. Proc. $ 2031.300(a)] 3 In this case, the subject discovery was served on June 29,2020, with responses due 4 August 3,2020, and only def,rcient responses belatedly served on October 15, 2020, and 5 Cross-Defendant had to meet and confer and file a motion to compel. Further responses to the subject discovery should be compelled without objection. 6 B. Authoritv to Compel Further Response. On receipt of a response to a 1 for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement I compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply 9 inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or 10 general, that party may move for an order compelling a further response to the demand fCode Civ Proc. $ 2031.310(a); see Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 902-9031 11 On October 15,2020,Mrs. Knowles and her client served belated and deficient I2 to Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 15, served herein on June 29 13 2020, and good cause exist to order further compliant responses as more specifically set forth L4 the Separate Statement filed and served herewith. 15 C. Monetary Sanctions Should be Imposed. In motion proceedings under Code Civ Proc. $ 2031.010 et seq., for an order directing a response, further response, or compliance, I6 court is required to impose a monetary sanction under Code Civ. Proc. $ 2023.030 against 71 party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion, unless the court 1B that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstance I9 make the imposition of the sanction unjust fCode Civ. Proc. SS 2031.060(h), (i),2031.300(c), (d 203r.31 0(h), 0), 2031.320(b), (d)l 20 3. Conclusion. 2L For the foregoing reasons, Cross-Defendant request that the Court grant this motion 22 and compel Cross-Complainant EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST, individually, and his successor 23 trustee JOHN DENTORN, as the Successor Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, and JOHN DENTON, as the 24 Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, to provide further responses to Request for 25 Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 6, a misnumbered double 6, and 7 through 15, 26 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 served herein on June 29,2020, without objections, and to award monetary sanction against said Cross-Complainant and his attomey of record in the amount of $1,830.00. 2 GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP 3 4 DATED: November 12, 2020. 5 DAVID R. GRIFFITH, Attorney for Cro ss-Defendant, 6 RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY 1 I 9 10 11 I2 13 L4 15 I6 1_1 1B 19 20 2L at 23 24 25 Zf) I MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California, I am over the age of l8 years and not aparty to the within action; my business address is1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico, 3 California 95928. 4 On this date, I served the foregoing document described as: 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINST AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DICOVERY AND 6 AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 Said document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a 8 Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Raymond L. Sandelman, Esq. 9 Leland, Morrisey & Knowles,LLP Attorney atLaw 1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 196 Cohasset Road, Suite225 10 Chico, CA95928 Chico, CA95926 Email : sknowles@Chicolawyer. com Email : Raymond@sandelmanlaw. com 11 Larry Lushanko, Esq. I2 l24IE. Mission Road Fallbrook, CA92028 13 Email : offi ce@lushankolaw. com I4 15 I am familiar with our frrm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for 16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Chico, California in the ordinary course of business. I am 71 aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration. 18 _X_ (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Chico, California. The envelope was I9 mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid to the person at the address set forth above. 20 (By Electronic Mail) Such document was delivered by electronic mail to the persons at _X_ the addresses set forth above. 2I I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 22 is true and correct. I further declare that I made the service set forth herein on the date set forth below. 23 Executed on Novemb lL,2020,a1Chico, Califomia. 24 ", atr .J By Steven Chamberlin 26 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND AV/ARD MONETARY SANCTIONS