Preview
Case Number: 19-CIV-02595
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA
94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
LOUIS PAYCHECK vs. PUNIT K. SARNA, et al 19-CIV-02595
02/06/2020 9:00 AM
Motion to Compel Further
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom 8B
Courtroom Clerk: Ashmika Segran-Teo Courtroom Reporter: Valerie Cathey
Parties Present
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- Matter is called at: 9:22 am.
Attorney Richard Kelly appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Louis Paycheck.
Attorney Punit K. Sarna appeared on behalf of Defendant Punit Sarna.
Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted.
Case Events
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
A. Interrogatories
Interrogatory 17: GRANTED. In the context of litigation, addresses and job titles of percipient
witnesses are not private.
Interrogatories 18 and 26. GRANTED. It is not clear whether Plaintiff is withholding that
information regarding payment to individuals, as opposed to subcontractors. The response should
be supplement to identify payments to any individuals who were not paid through the
subcontractors who employed or hired them.
Interrogatory 22. DENIED. The interrogatory is unreasonably overbroad. As worded, the
interrogatory asks for an “identification” of every piece of paper relating to the work on the
property.
Interrogatory 25. GRANTED. Any amounts that third parties billed ( “charged”) Plaintiff for
1
Case Number: 19-CIV-02595
their work on the property does not invoke an employee privacy issue.
Interrogatory 57. GRANTED. The objection lacks merit. This interrogatory is not the same as
interrogatory 22.
Interrogatory 58. GRANTED. Plaintiff concedes, in his Opposing Separate Statement, that he
must amend his response.
B. Request for Production of Documents.
Request 1. GRANTED, in part; DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s Opposition contends that he has
already produced the responsive documents, but that is not reflected in the written response. The
response must be amended to state that Plaintiff will comply or has complied with the request.
However, Plaintiff’s supplemental response need not address “All other DOCUMENTS created
or received RELATING to said real property.” The Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection to that
portion of the request on the ground of vagueness.
Requests 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 18: GRANTED. A response must state whether party will
comply, lacks ability to comply, or object. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s
response merely identifies documents, but does not state that any documents will be produced.
Further, Plaintiff has suggested that instead of producing documents, he would permit Defendant
to conduct an on-site inspection, and that Plaintiff “is not interested in wasting his time for
several days looking for every single piece of paper.” (Letter from Kelly to Haulk, November
22, 2019 (Exhibit A to Decl. of Kelly.) There are two problems with this letter. First, the
document request designated Defendant’s counsel’s office as the site for production, and Plaintiff
did not object to the production site. Second, it implies that Defendant never made any attempt to
locate responsive documents. Plaintiff must supplement his response to state unequivocally
whether he will comply with the request and produce the documents for inspection. While
Plaintiff states that Defendant did not meet-and-confer on these requests and others that are the
subject of the motion to compel, but the letters each contain a discussion about the document
responses in general and refer to these deficiencies for all responses.
Request 3. GRANTED. The verified response states that Plaintiff has conducted a diligent search
but identifies no “subcontracts.” The RFP, however, asks for documents “related to”
subcontracts, which the response does not address.
Request 5. GRANTED. The objections for privacy are not explained. In addition, Plaintiff is
obligated to identify all documents being withheld under objection. Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Response must comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, subd.
(b) & (c).
Request 8. GRANTED. The response should be supplemented to indicate, under oath, that
Plaintiff has conducted a diligent search and inquiry.
Request 9. GRANTED. The request is not for subcontracts. Plaintiff’s response that “no
subcontracts exist” is evasive and not responsive.
Request 10. GRANTED. Plaintiff does not explain the privacy objection, so it is impossible for
the Court to evaluate. The response needs to be supplemented with an identification of all
responsive document that fall within that objection. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.240 (b).)
2
Case Number: 19-CIV-02595
Requests 12 and 14. DENIED. The response sufficiently states under oath that a diligent search
has been conducted, and no responsive documents have been found.
Requests 15, 16, and 17. GRANTED. The response is nonsensical. The response implies that
documents under Request No. 1 are responsive to this Request No. 15, but it’s not clear. The
response should be supplemented to clarify whether any documents other than those responsive
to Request 1 will be produced.
C. Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the filing of the documents,
but not their contents.
D. Sanctions.
Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay $1,460 to Defendant within
three (3) weeks after notice of entry of order.
E. Order
Plaintiff shall serve verified supplemental responses and produce responsive documents no later
than February 28, 2020, or three weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever
date is earlier.
Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s
signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the
ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules
of Court.
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
July 23, 2020 9:30 AM Mandatory Settlement Conference
Grandsaert, John L.
Courtroom 2D
August 03, 2020 9:00 AM Jury Trial
Master Calendar, -
3
Preview
Case Number: 19-CIV-02595 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order LOUIS PAYCHECK vs. PUNIT K. SARNA, et al 19-CIV-02595 02/06/2020 9:00 AM Motion to Compel Further Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom 8B Courtroom Clerk: Ashmika Segran-Teo Courtroom Reporter: Valerie Cathey Parties Present Exhibits Minutes Journals - Matter is called at: 9:22 am. Attorney Richard Kelly appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Louis Paycheck. Attorney Punit K. Sarna appeared on behalf of Defendant Punit Sarna. Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted. Case Events - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION A. Interrogatories Interrogatory 17: GRANTED. In the context of litigation, addresses and job titles of percipient witnesses are not private. Interrogatories 18 and 26. GRANTED. It is not clear whether Plaintiff is withholding that information regarding payment to individuals, as opposed to subcontractors. The response should be supplement to identify payments to any individuals who were not paid through the subcontractors who employed or hired them. Interrogatory 22. DENIED. The interrogatory is unreasonably overbroad. As worded, the interrogatory asks for an “identification” of every piece of paper relating to the work on the property. Interrogatory 25. GRANTED. Any amounts that third parties billed ( “charged”) Plaintiff for 1 Case Number: 19-CIV-02595 their work on the property does not invoke an employee privacy issue. Interrogatory 57. GRANTED. The objection lacks merit. This interrogatory is not the same as interrogatory 22. Interrogatory 58. GRANTED. Plaintiff concedes, in his Opposing Separate Statement, that he must amend his response. B. Request for Production of Documents. Request 1. GRANTED, in part; DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s Opposition contends that he has already produced the responsive documents, but that is not reflected in the written response. The response must be amended to state that Plaintiff will comply or has complied with the request. However, Plaintiff’s supplemental response need not address “All other DOCUMENTS created or received RELATING to said real property.” The Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection to that portion of the request on the ground of vagueness. Requests 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 18: GRANTED. A response must state whether party will comply, lacks ability to comply, or object. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s response merely identifies documents, but does not state that any documents will be produced. Further, Plaintiff has suggested that instead of producing documents, he would permit Defendant to conduct an on-site inspection, and that Plaintiff “is not interested in wasting his time for several days looking for every single piece of paper.” (Letter from Kelly to Haulk, November 22, 2019 (Exhibit A to Decl. of Kelly.) There are two problems with this letter. First, the document request designated Defendant’s counsel’s office as the site for production, and Plaintiff did not object to the production site. Second, it implies that Defendant never made any attempt to locate responsive documents. Plaintiff must supplement his response to state unequivocally whether he will comply with the request and produce the documents for inspection. While Plaintiff states that Defendant did not meet-and-confer on these requests and others that are the subject of the motion to compel, but the letters each contain a discussion about the document responses in general and refer to these deficiencies for all responses. Request 3. GRANTED. The verified response states that Plaintiff has conducted a diligent search but identifies no “subcontracts.” The RFP, however, asks for documents “related to” subcontracts, which the response does not address. Request 5. GRANTED. The objections for privacy are not explained. In addition, Plaintiff is obligated to identify all documents being withheld under objection. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response must comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, subd. (b) & (c). Request 8. GRANTED. The response should be supplemented to indicate, under oath, that Plaintiff has conducted a diligent search and inquiry. Request 9. GRANTED. The request is not for subcontracts. Plaintiff’s response that “no subcontracts exist” is evasive and not responsive. Request 10. GRANTED. Plaintiff does not explain the privacy objection, so it is impossible for the Court to evaluate. The response needs to be supplemented with an identification of all responsive document that fall within that objection. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 2031.240 (b).) 2 Case Number: 19-CIV-02595 Requests 12 and 14. DENIED. The response sufficiently states under oath that a diligent search has been conducted, and no responsive documents have been found. Requests 15, 16, and 17. GRANTED. The response is nonsensical. The response implies that documents under Request No. 1 are responsive to this Request No. 15, but it’s not clear. The response should be supplemented to clarify whether any documents other than those responsive to Request 1 will be produced. C. Request for Judicial Notice Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the filing of the documents, but not their contents. D. Sanctions. Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay $1,460 to Defendant within three (3) weeks after notice of entry of order. E. Order Plaintiff shall serve verified supplemental responses and produce responsive documents no later than February 28, 2020, or three weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever date is earlier. Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings July 23, 2020 9:30 AM Mandatory Settlement Conference Grandsaert, John L. Courtroom 2D August 03, 2020 9:00 AM Jury Trial Master Calendar, - 3