Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

Ophelia adame,

Plaintiff,

the shamsi law firm a professional corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV02341

Hearing Date: May 17, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel further responses

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

This action involves a legal malpractice action brought by Plaintiff Ophelia Adame (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants The Shamsi Law Firm a Professional Corporation (“Shamsi Firm”) and attorney Shahab Sean Shamsi (“Mr. Shamsi”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff alleges that the underlying action involved a slip-and-fall incident that occurred on September 23, 2020 at a Cardenas Market. She alleges that she promptly retained the legal services of Shamsi Firm on September 29, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to act as an advocate who would fight on her behalf and allow her to focus on her recovery. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to obtain and/or safeguard actual evidence, effectively abandoned their client rather than pursue her claims, and let the statute of limitations run on the underlying matter. Plaintiff alleges that she did not discover Defendants’ failure to properly represent her until July 2023. Plaintiff alleges that on July 18, 2023, Defendants delivered to Plaintiff a letter purportedly dated November 29, 2022 wherein they notified her that they decided not to pursue the case on her behalf and that she should seek the advice of other counsel regarding the applicable statute of limitations.

The complaint, filed October 10, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) legal malpractice; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty.

B. Motions on Calendar

On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed 3 motions to compel further responses: (1) for Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”) against Shamsi Firm; (2) for FROGs against Mr. Shamsi; and (3) Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”) against Defendants.

On May 6, 2024, Defendants filed opposition briefs.

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untimely reply brief.

DISCUSSION

A. FROGs against Shamsi Firm

Plaintiff moves to compel Shamsi Firm’s further responses to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, 15.1, and 17.1.

FROG No. 12.1 asks Shamsi Firm to state the name, address, and telephone number of each individual who (a) witnessed the incident/events occurring immediately before or after the incident; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the incident; (c) who heard any statement made about the incident at the scene; and (d) who Shamsi Firm/anyone acting on its behalf claims to have knowledge of the incident. Shamsi Firm objected to the FROG that it was vague, overbroad, lacked foundation, called for speculation as to the incident, sought attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product, and invaded the right of privacy. Without waiving objections, Shamsi Firm responded that if the incident was the slip-and-fall at the market, then Plaintiff was accompanied by a male companion whose name and contact information were not known, there is a video of the incident, and a copy of the market employee’s report is included in the RPD production. The FROG defines the “incident” as “the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged tortious acts, negligence, and/or breach of fiduciary duty giving rise to the action.” Plaintiff seeks a further response, arguing that the incident did not involve the underlying slip-and-fall, but rather Shamsi Firm’s legal representation of Plaintiff arising from the slip-and-fall. The Court will order a further response to FROG No. 12.1 so that Shamsi Firm’s response will be directed towards the allegations of the complaint in this action regarding the legal malpractice claims brought against it. The motion is granted as to FROG No. 12.1.

FROG No. 12.3 asks whether Shamsi Firm or anyone acting on its behalf obtained a written/recorded statement from any individual concerning the incident and, if so, for each statement state: (a) contact information of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) contact information of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the contact information of each person who has the original statement or copy. FROG No. 12.6 asks if a report made by any person concerning the incident and, if so, to state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the person who made the report; (b) the date and type of report made; (c) the contact information of the person for whom the report was made; and (d) the contact information of each person who has an original or copy.

Shamsi Firm objected to Nos. 12.3 and 12.6 on similar grounds as above. It responded to No. 12.3 by stating that documents obtained from Cardenas Market regarding its investigations will be produced. It responded to No. 12.6 by listing individuals from Cardenas Market. For the same reasons discussed above, the Court will order a further response to FROG Nos. 12.3 and 12.6 so that the “incident” refers to the allegations of the legal malpractice complaint and not the underlying slip-and-fall.

FROG No. 15.1 asks Shamsi Firm to identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in the pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which it bases the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the contact information of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all documents and other tangible things that support it denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the contact information of the person who has each document. Shamsi Firm objected that discovery is not complete such that it is impossible to state which of Plaintiff’s allegations are material, the FROG is vague, seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, Shamsi Firm has asserted several affirmative defenses that may later become relevant, and it is unreasonably burdensome to identify every relevant document. It responded without waiving objections that the FROG calls for speculation as to what pleading is being referred to so it will refer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, then it lists its affirmative defenses. The Court will order a further response to No. 15.1. Shamsi Firm should clearly state the facts upon which it is basing its denials and/or special or affirmative defenses. Further, subparts (b) and (c) should be completely responded to with contact information and identification of documents. Shamsi Firm has not substantiated how responding to No. 15.1 would be burdensome. The motion is granted as to No. 15.1.

FROG No. 17.1 asks if Shamsi Firm’s response to each RFA served with the FROGs is an unqualified admission and, if not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the RFA number; (b) state all facts upon which the response is based; (c) state the contact information of all persons with knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all documents that support the response and contact information of persons who has each document/thing. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks further responses as to RFA Nos. 20, 22, 26, and 28. The Court has reviewed Shamsi Firm’s responses and finds that they are code compliant as they respond to each subpart of the FROG regarding its affirmative defenses at issue. Thus, the motion is denied as to FROG No. 17.1.

The motion to compel Shamsi Firm’s further responses is granted as to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, and 15.1 and denied as to No. 17.1.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $6,930 against Shamsi Firm for bringing the three motions. Shamsi Firm seeks $2,300 against Plaintiff for filing the opposition. The Court will award Plaintiff $2,300 on this motion against Shamsi Firm, plus $60 in filing fees.

B. FROGs against Mr. Shamsi

Plaintiff moves to compel Mr. Shamsi’s further responses to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, and 15.1.

The issues in this motion are essentially identical to those raised in the motion directed against Shamsi Firm. For the same reasons discussed above, the motion to compel Mr. Shamsi’s further response is granted as to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, and 15.1.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $6,930 against Mr. Shamsi for bringing the three motions. Mr. Shamsi seeks $2,300 against Plaintiff for filing the opposition. The Court will award Plaintiff $2,300 on this motion against Mr. Shamsi, plus $60 in filing fees.

C. RPD against Defendants

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants’ further responses to RPD No. 1.

RPD No. 1 seeks Defendants’ entire file pertaining to the underlying matter. Defendants responded that the file was previously provided on July 18, 2023 to Plaintiff and on September 20, 2023 to counsel. Defendants objected that the RPD was burdensome and oppressive, and that Plaintiff recently produced the same file in response to Defendants’ RPD. Without waiving objections, Defendants produced bates stamped documents SHAMSI0000001-SHAMSI00000470. Plaintiff seeks a further response, arguing that the Jul 18, 2023 documents that were informally produced on July 18, 2023 and the pdf documents that were informally produced to her counsel on September 20, 2023 were not identical. In opposition, Defendants argue that they subpoenaed Cardenas Market and so Defendants produced bates stamped documents SHAMSI00000471-SHAMSI000000492, but that these documents were not identified as responsive such that they were not a part of the client file. They also argue that they found one native form of an email, which they produced on April 4, 2024. Defendants argue that they have complied with the RPD such that no further response need be compelled.

The Court overrules Defendants’ objections that the RPD is burdensome and oppressive as its appears that Defendants can easily comply with the RPD request. Further, Plaintiff has established good cause for the production of the file as she states that the prior production of the documents resulted in two non-identical copies of the documents. While Defendants have produced documents responsive to the RPD, Defendants should again produce documents in a complete manner regarding the entirety of the file to the underlying matter. It appears that documents were recently found in April 2024 and that there are discovery/subpoenaed documents that Defendants also possess for the underlying matter. All of these documents should be produced in one complete file for Plaintiff’s review.

The motion is granted as to RPD No. 1.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Ophelia Adame’s motion to compel Defendant The Shamsi Law Firm a Professional Corporation’s further response is granted as to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, and 15.1 and denied as to No. 17.1. Defendant The Shamsi Law Firm and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,360 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff Ophelia Adame’s motion to compel Defendant Shahab Sean Shamsi’s further response is granted as to FROG Nos. 12.1, 12.3, 12.6, and 15.1. Defendant Shahab Sean Shamsi and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,360 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order for this motion.

Plaintiff Ophelia Adame’s motion to compel Defendants The Shamsi Law Firm a Professional Corporation and Shahab Sean Shamsi’s further response is granted as to RPD No. 1. Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,360 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order for this motion.

Defendants are ordered to provide further responses within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this order.

DATED: May 17, 2024 ___________________________

John Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court