Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01237623, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories

2. Motion to Compel Production filed by ESA Management, LLC on 5/27/22
3. Order to Show Cause re: Failure to Appear

Defendant ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC seeks an order compelling Plaintiff ELLIOTT MCKENZIE to provide full and complete responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant also seeks sanctions in the amount of $3210 per motion.

As to RPDS, CCP§2031.310(a)(3), “On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that” …an “objection in the response is without merit….” [CCP§2031.310(a)(3).]

As to the Form Rogs, pursuant to CCP§2030.300(a)(3), “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that” …and “objection to an interrogatory is without merit….” [CCP§2030.300(a)(3).]

Responses to the herein discovery was due within 30 days from the date the discovery was served. See e.g. CCP§2030.260(a). Failing to respond within the time limit waives most objections. [Id.]

Here, 3/4/2022 MP served the within discovery on Plaintiff. [Decl. of Heather Hamby¶3, Ex. A. ] Although Plaintiff claims to have mailed the responses by 4/9/2022, responses were not received until 4/27/2022 (by mail). [Id¶¶6-8.]

Plaintiff objected to the discovery on the basis that Defense Attorney, Heather Hamby is impersonating an attorney. [Id¶9, Ex. F.] Even if this were true (which there is no admissible evidence before the Court suggesting it is), Plaintiff fails to provide any argument as to how this relieves him from responding to the propounded discovery. See for example, CCP§2030.220(a),(b) which requires that each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible”.

Despite sending a meet and confer explaining that she is not impersonating an attorney; and providing Plaintiff additional time to provide responses (Id.¶11, Ex. G), Plaintiff did not respond.

In Opposition to these motions, Plaintiff stands by his objection that Attorney Heather Hamby is impersonating an attorney, and is actually a Ukrainian-American actress, Vera Farmiga. However, he has not sustained his burden to justify the objection.

As stated, there is no evidence before the Court that a) Heather Hamby is impersonating an attorney; or b) that the discovery responses were timely mailed. Attorney Hamby has submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury that the allegations are without merit. [Decl. of Hamby¶10.]

The Court notes that while Plaintiff is in pro per, pro per litigants are not entitled to special exemptions from the California Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure. [See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.]

Tentative Ruling: The motions to compel further full and complete responses, without objections are GRANTED. Responses are due within 30 calendar days of service of notice of ruling.

Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the amount of $1120, to be paid to Defendant, ESA Management, LLC,  within 30 days.

Defendant to provide notice.