Back to previous page: [LETTERHEAD] [DATE] MEET AND CONFER LETTER

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Back to previous page: [LETTERHEAD] [DATE] MEET AND CONFER LETTER"

Quentin Wiggins
6 years ago
Views:

1 Back to previous page: [LETTERHEAD] Sondra A. 123 Street City, CA [DATE] Re: A. v. G. Case No MEET AND CONFER LETTER Dear Ms. A.: On November 10, 2011, Mr. G. (Propounding Party) served the following discovery requests on you by first class mail in the above-referenced matter in regards to your complaint filed on June 27, 2011 against Propounding Party: Form Interrogatories General (Set One) Defendant Abe G.'s Special Interrogatories, Set One Defendant Abe G.'s Request for Production of Documents, Set One Defendant Abe G.'s Request for Admissions, Set One The responses to these discovery requests were due by December 15, On November 10, 2011, Propounding Party served the following discovery requests on you referencing Propounding Party s cross-complaint, which was filed against you in the abovereferenced matter: Form Interrogatories General (Set One) Cross-Complainant Abe G.'s Special Interrogatories, Set One Cross-Complainant Abe G.'s Request for Production of Documents, Set One Cross-Complainant Abe G.'s Request for Admissions, Set One The responses to these discovery requests were due on December 15, I am in receipt of your responses titled Plaintiff s Requests for Admissions, Set One and Plaintiff s Responses to Defendant s Special Interrogatories to Cross Complaint, Set No. One. Both of these sets indicate that they are in response to Propounding Party s cross-complaint against you and are dated by you on December 12, I am also in receipt of several documents sent by

2 you, but not referenced as to any particular discovery request that was propounded on you. I have received no other responses to the above-mentioned requests propounded on you by Mr. G.. California s pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side s evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119.) This letter serves as a good faith attempt to meet and confer to avoid the necessity of a motion to compel and for sanctions. PLAINTIFF S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS This section addresses your responses to Cross-Complainant Abe G.'s Request for Admissions, Set One as propounded in regards to the cross-complaint filed against you by Propounding Party. California Code of Civil Procedure states that: (a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP ) You failed to admit or deny, as required by statute, each and every request for admission (numbers 1 through 5). As to request numbers 1 and 2, without plainly stating that you deny the request for an admission, your answers may be understood to be denials, but do not so state. As to request number 3, you neither admit nor deny although you object to the request as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous without stating why. It may be understood that you denied a part of the request, although Propounding Party cannot guess at whether you have admitted or denied all or part of the request for admission. As to numbers 1, 2, and 3, please state whether you admit or deny each request in conformance with the Code of Civil Procedure As to request for admissions numbers 4 and 5, you object to the requests as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous, further qualifying that objection by stating that the word package is vague and unclear. This is not a valid objection. A party has a duty to answer if the nature of the information sought is apparent. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771.) Even if the question is 2

3 somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response [Citation.] (Id.) Here, there is nothing even slightly vague or unclear about the word package. As set forth in the definitions attached to Propounding Party s Requests for Admissions to which this objection was in response: Each word, term, or phase used in these Requests for Admissions is intended to have the broadest meaning permitted under the California Code of Civil Procedure. Terms not defined in these Requests for Admissions shall have their ordinary AND usual meaning. However, for your instruction, the ordinary and usual meaning of the word package is defined here as a bundle of something, usually of small or medium size, that is packed and wrapped or boxed; a parcel. (Dictionary.com) Please admit or deny those requests for admissions to which you objected in response to Cross-Complainant Abe G.'s Request for Admissions, Set One. Your responses to these requests for admissions are not verified. Any response to a discovery request must be verified and unsworn responses to requests for admissions are tantamount to no response at all. (Zorro, Inc. Co. V. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 CA3d 907.) Additionally, I bring to your attention California Code of Procedure (a) which states that failure to serve a timely response to a request for admissions waives any right to object to those requests and (c) which mandates monetary sanctions against you should Propounding Party move the court for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. PLAINTIFF S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO CROSS COMPLAINT This section addresses your responses to Cross-Complainant Abe G.'s Special Interrogatories, Set One as propounded in regards to the cross-complaint filed against you by Propounding Party. Special Interrogatory No. 1 asked you to identify the person you accompanied to Propounding Party s medical office in 2008 as described and alleged in the Cross-Complaint. You objected, without answering, to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome [sic] and further that you lack[] of sufficient information and knowledge to respond it accurately/completely due to significant time had passed [sic]. As discussed in the section above, in this context overbroad is not a valid objection. As to the request being unduly burdensome, it is unclear how providing the identity of a person, or as much of that identity as you can, is unduly burdensome. The person for whom Propounding Party seeks identity is plainly the person who Propounding Party alleges you accompanied, as this person s caretaker, to Propounding Party s medical office in early fall of (Cross Complaint, paragraph 6.) You accompanied only one such person to Propounding Party s medical office, there is nothing unduly burdensome in providing this person s identity. In order to sustain this objection, the objecting party must demonstrate that the questions are so unjust that they amount to oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961)56 Cal.2d 407, 419.) This objection requires a showing that the amount of work required to answer the question is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require answers. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court 3

4 (1968) 263 CalApp.2d 12, 19.) An objection to an interrogatory must set forth the specific ground for the objection. (Code of Civil Procedure (a).) Your basis for the objection is neither valid nor supported. Please provide the identity as requested of this individual to the extent possible. California Code of Civil Procedure states that: (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. (CCP ) Special Interrogatory No. 2 asked you identify all persons to whom you sent a letter written by you that was addressed: Hello Friends and Family as alleged and described in the Cross- Complaint. You again objected, without answering, on grounds that the request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous and unduly burdensome. As stated in the paragraph above, these objections are not valid objections in this context. You further objected to this interrogatory on the grounds that the request calls for document, if there was any, that the responding party lacks of sufficient information or knowledge due to there was a significant time had been passed or time limitation had expired [sic]. The objection is unintelligible but to the extent that you object because the interrogatory requested a document, please re-read the interrogatory; it asks you to identify persons, not produce a document. Your objections must be specific; the use of such boilerplate objections may subject you to sanctions. (Korea Data Systems Ltd. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.) Evasive answers or the posting of objections without a proper basis are also grounds for discovery sanctions. (Code of Civil Procedure (f).) Please provide a proper response to this interrogatory in conformance with the Code of Civil Procedure Finally, Special Interrogatory No. 3 asked you to identify all persons to whom you sent any documents obtained from Propounding Party s computer. You responded once again by objection and without answering on the basis that the request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, unwarranted [sic]. You further inappropriately objected because the request calls for person or thing that is not available with or in the control of this responding party as she never obtained any such document from propounding party s computer. Further this request calls for person or document that is not be calculated to lead to admissible evidence as result from guessing or unintelligent assuming of fact [sic]. While your objections are not entirely understood, the reasons the objections are unacceptable for the same reasons cited in my discussion regarding your responses to special interrogatories numbers one and two. 4

5 Misuses of the discovery process include... : [... ] (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. [...] (Code of Civil Procedure ) Please provide complete and straightforward responses to these special interrogatories as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure As was your responses to the requests for admissions, these responses are not verified. Unsworn responses to special interrogatories are tantamount to no response at all. (Zorro, Inc. Co. V. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 CA3d 907.) Additionally, I bring to your attention California Code of Procedure (a) which states that failure to serve a timely response to interrogatories waives any right to object to those interrogatories. You are also exposed to monetary sanctions should it be necessary to bring a motion to compel your responses. (Code of Civil Procedure (c).) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS You supplied several documents without any reference to Propounding Party s requests. Simply mailing documents does not comply with California statute. California Code of Civil Procedure requires that the response to a request for production of documents identify the responding party and propounding party, the set number to which the response pertains and that each item in the response bear the same number and be in the same sequence as the item in the demand to which it pertains. Therefore, these documents do not constitute any response whatsoever to either of Propounding Party s requests for production of documents. MISSING RESPONSES You have failed to provide any responses to the remaining discovery requests propounded on you as itemized at the beginning of this letter. These responses are overdue and therefore, should you respond, without leave of court, you have waived all objections. Furthermore, you may face monetary sanctions should Propounding Party file a motion to compel your responses. (Code of Civil Procedure , and ) In conclusion, it is your duty, as responding party, to respond in good faith and to the best of your ability to all discovery requests propounded upon you. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 771, 783.) Your responses are thus far evasive and may subject you to monetary sanctions if you do not properly respond to this attempt to meet and confer. (California Code of Civil Procedure ) If any aspect of this letter is not clear to you, or you dispute any of the demands made herein, please contact me immediately so that we can resolve these matters. Verified responses, which correct the deficiencies discussed herein, must be received by January [ ], 2012 or I will file a motion to compel and for sanctions. [Closing signature] 5

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Bob H. Joyce, (SBN 0) Andrew Sheffield (SBN ) LAW OFFICES OF LEBEAU THELEN, LLP 001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 00 Post Office Box 0 Bakersfield, California - (1) -; Fax (1) - Attorneys for DIAMOND