Preview
1 Erin E. Schroeder [C.S.B. No. 247064]
Justin S. Hanks [C.S.B. No. 323349]
2 HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK 12/8/2020
101 W. Broadway, Suite 600
3 San Diego, California 92101
(619) 232-1183 * (619) 696-5719 [facsimile]
4
Attorneys for Defendant JOE LODIGIANI
5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
9 NORTH BUTTE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
10 DANIELLE HOPKINS, ) CASE NO. 20CV01065 [Limited]
)
11 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM
) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
12 vs. ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
) COMPEL PLAINTIFF DANIELLE
13 JOE LODIGIANI, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, ) HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM
inclusive, ) AND SPECIAL
14 ) INTERROGATORIES (SETS ONE)
Defendants. ) AND FOR AWARD OF
15 ) MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,380.00 PURSUANT
16 TO C.C.P. §2030.290(c)
17 Motion Date: January 13, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
18 Dept: 1
Judge: Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger
19
Action Filed: May 22, 2020
20 Trial Date: None Set
21 Defendant JOE LODIGIANI submits the following Memorandum of Points and
22 Authorities in support of their Motion to Compel responses from Plaintiff DANIELLE
23 HOPKINS to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories (Sets One) and for an award of
24 monetary sanctions for the fees and costs incurred in bringing this Motion.
25 I.
26 INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
27 Plaintiff DANIELLE HOPKINS (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in Pro Per filed her Complaint
28 against Defendant JOE LODIGIANI (hereinafter “Defendant”) on May 22, 2020 alleging general
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
1
G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd
1 negligence and habitability related problems during Plaintiff’s tenancy in Defendant’s property.
2 (Declaration of Justin S. Hanks, ¶4). Defendant propounded and properly served written discovery
3 in the form of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of
4 Documents upon Plaintiff on September 30, 2020. (Hanks Decl., ¶5). Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery
5 responses were set to be due on November 4, 2020. (Hanks Decl., ¶6).
6 After not receiving any responses, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on
7 November 17, 2020, requesting objection free responses no later than November 25, 2020. (Hanks
8 Decl., ¶7). Defendant has no other way to contact Plaintiff, as she has not provided a telephone
9 number or email address to Defendant’s counsel after being requested to do so in a prior letter dated
10 September 18, 2020. (Hanks Decl., ¶8). To date, Defendant has not received any responses
11 whatsoever from Plaintiff to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, or Request for
12 Production of Documents. (Hanks Decl., ¶9).
13 Plaintiff’s responses will be well over one month late at the time this Motion is filed and
14 heard. Defendant needs Plaintiff’s answers to written discovery to obtain critical information
15 regarding alleged lease agreements, repair receipts, and Plaintiff’s contentions related to the subject
16 action. Without this information, the litigation of this action is at a standstill. Defendant drafted this
17 Motion after attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff.
18 Defendant now brings this Motion to Compel due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to any
19 written discovery. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the instant Motion in its
20 entirety and require Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form
21 and Special Interrogatories within 10 days of this Court’s Order.
22 II.
AN ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS
23 APPROPRIATE
24 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides in pertinent part:
25 If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the
following rules apply:
26
(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any
27 right to exercise the option to produce writings under § 2030.230,
as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based
28 on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
2
G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd
1 (commencing with § 2018.010).
2 (b) The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order
compelling responses to the interrogatories.
3 C.C.P. § 2030.290(a)(b).
4 In the instant case, Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, were properly served
5 on September 30, 2020 by mail. Responses to these interrogatories were due on November 4, 2020.
6 Defendants’ then sent a letter on March 9, 2020 to Plaintiff regarding the lack of responses. Plaintiff
7 has yet to provide any responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and Special
8 Interrogatories.
9 The requested responses are relevant to the issues involved in this litigation and concern
10 fundamental questions regarding the contentions asserted in Plaintiff’s pleadings. They also concern
11 fundamental questions regarding Plaintiff’s alleged damages and Defendant’s potential liability. In
12 accordance with “the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance
13 should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Pacific Tel. & Tel, Co, v. Superior
14 Court (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 161, 173. Further, under California Code of Civil Procedure, “any party may
15 obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved
16 in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears to be
17 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CCP § 2017.010.
18 Here, the information requested in Defendant’s interrogatories are relevant and necessary to
19 assess the claims Plaintiff has put at issue in this case. Plaintiff’s failure to provide any information
20 in response to these interrogatories is a misuse of the discovery process and a waste of Defendant’s
21 time and money. Defendants have tried to work with Plaintiff but has received no cooperation.
22 Unfortunately, Defendants require the Court’s assistance to allow the discovery process to continue
23 to move forward.
24 As such, Defendants respectfully request that the Court order Plaintiff to serve verified
25 responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories within
26 10 days of this Court’s Order.
27 ///
28 ///
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
3
G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd
1
2
III.
3
THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF
4 FOR HER MISUSE OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS
5
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process
6
include, but are not limited to:
7
(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery...;
8 (h) Opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a
motion to compel or to limit discovery...;
9 (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an
opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to
10 resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section
governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a
11 declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution
has been made.
12
C.C.P. § 2023.010(d)(h)(i).
13
In addition, the Legislature provides for the imposition of sanctions under Code of Civil
14
Procedure section 2030.290(c), which reads:
15
The Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
16 (commencing with section 2023.010) against any party, person, or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a Motion to Compel
17 a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
18 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
C.C.P. § 2030.290(c).
19
Defendant was forced to file this Motion because Plaintiff failed to respond to valid and
20
necessary discovery. Plaintiff has provided no justification for her failure to respond and has not
21
provided any responses to discovery despite the additional meet and confer time Defendant provided
22
to Plaintiff in the hope that Plaintiff would provide responses. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to
23
make a reasonable or good faith attempt to confer in person, by telephone or by letter with Defendant
24
in an attempt to informally resolve this dispute, exemplifying a misuse of the discovery process.
25
Plaintiff has disregarded the discovery process and misused the process to evade responding to any
26
of the interrogatories propounded upon her.
27
Defendants have and will incur reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees in connection with
28
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
4
G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd
1 bringing this Motion and the hearing thereon, totaling $1,380. (Hanks Decl., ¶ 10). Defendant
2 respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in that
3 amount.
4 V.
5 CONCLUSION
6 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff to
7 serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and
8 Special Interrogatories (Set One) 10 days of this Court’s order. The Defendant also respectfully
9 requests that the Court order Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of
10 $1,380 for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by the moving party in connection
11 with this proceeding.
12
13
Dated: December 7, 2020 HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK
14
15
16
17
AA
Erin E. Schroeder, Esq.
Justin S. Hanks, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant JOE LODIGIANI
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
5
G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd
Preview
1 Erin E. Schroeder [C.S.B. No. 247064] Justin S. Hanks [C.S.B. No. 323349] 2 HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK 12/8/2020 101 W. Broadway, Suite 600 3 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 232-1183 * (619) 696-5719 [facsimile] 4 Attorneys for Defendant JOE LODIGIANI 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 9 NORTH BUTTE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 10 DANIELLE HOPKINS, ) CASE NO. 20CV01065 [Limited] ) 11 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM ) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 12 vs. ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ) COMPEL PLAINTIFF DANIELLE 13 JOE LODIGIANI, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, ) HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM inclusive, ) AND SPECIAL 14 ) INTERROGATORIES (SETS ONE) Defendants. ) AND FOR AWARD OF 15 ) MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,380.00 PURSUANT 16 TO C.C.P. §2030.290(c) 17 Motion Date: January 13, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. 18 Dept: 1 Judge: Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger 19 Action Filed: May 22, 2020 20 Trial Date: None Set 21 Defendant JOE LODIGIANI submits the following Memorandum of Points and 22 Authorities in support of their Motion to Compel responses from Plaintiff DANIELLE 23 HOPKINS to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories (Sets One) and for an award of 24 monetary sanctions for the fees and costs incurred in bringing this Motion. 25 I. 26 INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 27 Plaintiff DANIELLE HOPKINS (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in Pro Per filed her Complaint 28 against Defendant JOE LODIGIANI (hereinafter “Defendant”) on May 22, 2020 alleging general DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1 G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd 1 negligence and habitability related problems during Plaintiff’s tenancy in Defendant’s property. 2 (Declaration of Justin S. Hanks, ¶4). Defendant propounded and properly served written discovery 3 in the form of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of 4 Documents upon Plaintiff on September 30, 2020. (Hanks Decl., ¶5). Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery 5 responses were set to be due on November 4, 2020. (Hanks Decl., ¶6). 6 After not receiving any responses, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on 7 November 17, 2020, requesting objection free responses no later than November 25, 2020. (Hanks 8 Decl., ¶7). Defendant has no other way to contact Plaintiff, as she has not provided a telephone 9 number or email address to Defendant’s counsel after being requested to do so in a prior letter dated 10 September 18, 2020. (Hanks Decl., ¶8). To date, Defendant has not received any responses 11 whatsoever from Plaintiff to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, or Request for 12 Production of Documents. (Hanks Decl., ¶9). 13 Plaintiff’s responses will be well over one month late at the time this Motion is filed and 14 heard. Defendant needs Plaintiff’s answers to written discovery to obtain critical information 15 regarding alleged lease agreements, repair receipts, and Plaintiff’s contentions related to the subject 16 action. Without this information, the litigation of this action is at a standstill. Defendant drafted this 17 Motion after attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff. 18 Defendant now brings this Motion to Compel due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to any 19 written discovery. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the instant Motion in its 20 entirety and require Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form 21 and Special Interrogatories within 10 days of this Court’s Order. 22 II. AN ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES IS 23 APPROPRIATE 24 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides in pertinent part: 25 If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: 26 (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any 27 right to exercise the option to produce writings under § 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based 28 on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 2 G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd 1 (commencing with § 2018.010). 2 (b) The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatories. 3 C.C.P. § 2030.290(a)(b). 4 In the instant case, Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories, were properly served 5 on September 30, 2020 by mail. Responses to these interrogatories were due on November 4, 2020. 6 Defendants’ then sent a letter on March 9, 2020 to Plaintiff regarding the lack of responses. Plaintiff 7 has yet to provide any responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and Special 8 Interrogatories. 9 The requested responses are relevant to the issues involved in this litigation and concern 10 fundamental questions regarding the contentions asserted in Plaintiff’s pleadings. They also concern 11 fundamental questions regarding Plaintiff’s alleged damages and Defendant’s potential liability. In 12 accordance with “the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance 13 should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Pacific Tel. & Tel, Co, v. Superior 14 Court (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 161, 173. Further, under California Code of Civil Procedure, “any party may 15 obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved 16 in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears to be 17 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CCP § 2017.010. 18 Here, the information requested in Defendant’s interrogatories are relevant and necessary to 19 assess the claims Plaintiff has put at issue in this case. Plaintiff’s failure to provide any information 20 in response to these interrogatories is a misuse of the discovery process and a waste of Defendant’s 21 time and money. Defendants have tried to work with Plaintiff but has received no cooperation. 22 Unfortunately, Defendants require the Court’s assistance to allow the discovery process to continue 23 to move forward. 24 As such, Defendants respectfully request that the Court order Plaintiff to serve verified 25 responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories within 26 10 days of this Court’s Order. 27 /// 28 /// DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 3 G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd 1 2 III. 3 THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF 4 FOR HER MISUSE OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS 5 Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process 6 include, but are not limited to: 7 (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery...; 8 (h) Opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery...; 9 (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to 10 resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a 11 declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made. 12 C.C.P. § 2023.010(d)(h)(i). 13 In addition, the Legislature provides for the imposition of sanctions under Code of Civil 14 Procedure section 2030.290(c), which reads: 15 The Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 16 (commencing with section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a Motion to Compel 17 a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other 18 circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. C.C.P. § 2030.290(c). 19 Defendant was forced to file this Motion because Plaintiff failed to respond to valid and 20 necessary discovery. Plaintiff has provided no justification for her failure to respond and has not 21 provided any responses to discovery despite the additional meet and confer time Defendant provided 22 to Plaintiff in the hope that Plaintiff would provide responses. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to 23 make a reasonable or good faith attempt to confer in person, by telephone or by letter with Defendant 24 in an attempt to informally resolve this dispute, exemplifying a misuse of the discovery process. 25 Plaintiff has disregarded the discovery process and misused the process to evade responding to any 26 of the interrogatories propounded upon her. 27 Defendants have and will incur reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees in connection with 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 4 G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd 1 bringing this Motion and the hearing thereon, totaling $1,380. (Hanks Decl., ¶ 10). Defendant 2 respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in that 3 amount. 4 V. 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff to 7 serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and 8 Special Interrogatories (Set One) 10 days of this Court’s order. The Defendant also respectfully 9 requests that the Court order Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of 10 $1,380 for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by the moving party in connection 11 with this proceeding. 12 13 Dated: December 7, 2020 HORTON, OBERRECHT & KIRKPATRICK 14 15 16 17 AA Erin E. Schroeder, Esq. Justin S. Hanks, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant JOE LODIGIANI 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DANIELLE HOPKINS’ RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 5 G:\CLIENTS\6566\Pleadings\Motions to Compel\MTC ROGGS\ROGS - P&A.wpd