Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV47167, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47167    Hearing Date: September 19, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Marcia Pellitteri, et al. vs. Krane & Smith APC, 20STCV47167

Motion

            Defendant Krane & Smith APC (Defendant) filed this motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories against Plaintiff Marcia Pellitteri (Plaintiff) on April 17, 2023. The motion has been continued several times because Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff would comply with the motion. However, as the status of Plaintiff’s compliance is currently unknown, the Court is proceeding with a ruling on the motion.

            Defendant’s motion indicates that it filed this motion because Plaintiff had engaged in discovery evasion and has made frivolous and inapplicable objections to Defendant’s discovery requests. Further, Defendant argues that its requests were appropriate and targeted and were for the purpose of getting Plaintiff to identify and state the facts underpinning various contentions in her complaint regarding Defendant’s alleged malpractice for the following topics:

·         that Defendants failed to bring claims on Pellitteri’s behalf (Interrogatory No. 90);

·         that Defendant failed to conduct necessary discovery (Nos. 91 and 92);

·         that Defendant failed to properly oppose and then failed to appeal the underlying court’s ruling on two (2) motions for attorney’s fees granted against Pellitteri (Nos. 93-100);

·         that Defendant failed to advise Pellitteri of the “benefits” of the Underlying Action (No. 104);

·         that Defendant’s actions violated a number of Rules of Professional Conduct (Nos. 110-115);

·         that the settlement terms of the underlying action were not agreeable to Plaintiff (Nos. 116-117); and

·         that Defendant state the amount of lost monetary recovery for the breach of the royalty agreement in the Underlying Action and the amount of lost profits (Nos. 118-119).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 92-100, 104, 110-115, and 116-119 were deficient because Plaintiff answers most of them by saying she cannot answer the interrogatory until an expert is consulted. Defendant also seeks $3,660 in sanctions against Plaintiff (9 hours of attorney work at $400 an hour and the $60 filing fee) for needing to bring this motion. (Brooks Decl., ¶ 21.)

Order

After reviewing the interrogatories at issue, the Court rules as follows:

Defendant’s motion is granted for Special Interrogatories Nos. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, and 119.

Defendant’s motion is denied for Special Interrogatory No. 104. Plaintiff’s answer was sufficient for this interrogatory.

Sanctions are granted against Plaintiff Pellitteri in the amount of $3,660 payable to Counsel for Defendants.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses to the interrogatories and to pay the sanctions within 20 days of service of this order.