Motion-Secondary: LOUIS PAYCHECK vs. PUNIT K. SARNA, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1/7/2020
                         14EI,I.Y LITIGATION            GROUP,      INC.
                         RICHARD M.          1&ELLY, ESQ.        (SBN    I 54504)
                         MICHAEL MENGARELLI ESQ.                      (SBN 215000)
                         306 Lorton Avenue
                         Burlingame,      CA 94010
                         Tel:  650-591-2282
                         Fax:   650-591-2292

                         Attorneys     for Plainti f1 Ec Cross Defendant,
                         LOUIS     PAYCHECI&          dba
                         EUROPL'AN ENTERPRISES


                                         IN  THL'UPERIOR COURT OF TI-IE                      STATE OF       CALIFORNIA
                                                    IN AND I'OR THI!          COUNTY OF          SAN MATEO
                    10
                                                           UNLIMITED          CIVIL JURISDICTION


                    12   I.OUIS PAYCHECI&             dba EUROPEAN                      Case No.:     19  CIV   02595
                    13   ENTERPRISES,
                                                                                        [Proposed]    ORDER DENYING MOTION
                    14                              Plaintiff,                          TO   COMPEL SEEKING SANCTIONS
                                  vs.
                    15
                                                                                        Date:    February    6, 2020
                         PUNIT K.      SARNA.       et al.,
                    16                                                                  Time:    9:00  a.m.
                                                                                        Dept:   I; Hon.   Leland Davis, III,      Presiding
                    17
                                                    Defendants.


                         AND RELATED            CROSS-ACTION
                    19
                                  This   matter   came   regularly    by  noticed    motion to    compel     responses    to  Request    for
                    20
                         Production     of Documents       and   Special Interrogatories with sanctions           on February      6, 2020
                    21
                         in Dept.   I, Hon.   Leland Davis, III, Presiding.
                    22
                                  This   mater   having    been   submitted     on  moving     papers,    opposition    and   issuance    of
                    23
                         the Court's tentative ruling,        [which was uncontested],         the  Court finds    as  follows:
                    24
                                  Defendant      Sama's     Request     for  Judicial   Notice    is DENIED.        The   particular    court
                    25                                                                                                   and
                         orders    are   not   related   to   this  action,    are   irrelevant    and   immaterial             improperly
                    26                 'character'vidence in contradiction to Evidence Code                    (1101.
                         attempted
                    27            Defendant      Sama's     Motion    to  Compel      Request    for  Production      of Documents        and

                         Special    Interrogatories     with    sanctions    is  DENIED.         The    moving     party   failed   to  fully
                p
        K IlyVlp I p
             pc


                           ORDER DENTING MOTION TO COMPEL SEEKING SANCTIONS
                         comply     with  meet    and  confer    on  all issues   presented    in the  motion    regarding     Request    for
                         Production      ol  Documents       [C.C.P.    82016.040       2031.310(b)(2)].       Further,   the   court   finds
                     2
                         that  the  responding      party   made    and   offered   a  Code    compliant     effort  to  permit   the  party
                     3
                         making the     demand,     or  someone     acting   on  the  demanding party's        behalf,   to inspect and     to

                         copy   documents      that  are  in  the  possession,     custody,   or  control   of the   patty   on  whom     the
                         demand     is made    [C.C.P.   82031.010].
                                  Regarding      Special     Interrogatories,     Plaintiff    identified    the  persons     as   requested
                         under    Special   Interrogatories      17,  18,  25   and   26.   Special    Interrogatories     22   and   57  had
                         valid  objections     stated  since   identifying    every   piece   of paper with regard       to  a construction
                         site project    is deemed     an  unreasonable      and   undue    burdensome       interrogatory.     Further,    by
                   10   mcct   and   confer,   the  responding party      offered    -twice:   "my    client  is amenable to     a  full and
                   11   complete     onsite physical review       and   copying    of his project    file. He   is amenable to     copying
                        of all  matters you believe are pertinent.         A date/time can be        arranged    that works"     [See   Dec.
                        Haulk    Ex.  3]  and,    "I have   conferred    with   my   client   and  he  remains     open   and   invites  you
                   13

                   14   (or  personnel     from   your   office)  to  set up   an  appointment      to view    information     you   believe
                        would    ordinarily    be  found    in  a contractor's     project   file  at my   client   office"   tSee   Dec.   R
                        levelly   11.22.19    Confer].     Regarding      Special   Interrogatory      58,  the  responding     party   shall
                   16
                        amend    to  identify   the  diligent search     for the  information     sought within      10  days   of entry   of
                   17
                        this  order.
                   18
                                 The request for monetary          sanctions DENIED.
                   19
                                 SO   ORDERED,
                  20

                        Dated:
                  22
                                                                                     By:
                  23
                                                                                     Judge,   Superior Court of California
                  24                                                                 County    of San Mateo
                  25

                  26

                  27

                  28
      4liylCC
            liG  P
           4 PC

                                                                                 -2-
                         ORDER DENYINCy iylOTION TO COMPEL SEEKINO SANCTIONS