NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ~ FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS [DEFT] CRAIG DYKMAN LAW GROUP [DEFT] CRAIG DYKMAN [DEFT] THE DYKMAN LAW FIRM [DEFT] DYKMAN & WESTER, LLP
RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to certain inspection demands (Code Civ, Proc, § 2031.310) is granted as discussed below.

Plaintiff, a retired Mill Valley police officer who was injured on the job, has sued his former attorney alleging defendant’s incompetent representation caused him to be classified by his retirement benefits provider CalPERS, at a benefits level lower than he should have received had he received competent advice,

1. As part of his damages, plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the $10,000 he paid to outside “mitigation counsel" to advise him “regarding a potential writ of CalPERS’ refusal to change your retirement date pursuant to the WCAB order.” Plaintiff alleges he incurred these expenses after consulting with co