Judge Monica Bachner, Case 21STCV29170 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV29170, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b). All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 21STCV29170 Hearing Date: October 14, 2022 Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

EDWARD LYMAN III,

vs.

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VORLUCK LLP, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV29170

Hearing Date: October 14, 2022

Defendant Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Edward Lyman III to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is granted. Further responses are to be provided within 15 days.

Defendant Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Edward Lyman III to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is granted. Further responses are to be provided within 15 days.

Defendant Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Edward Lyman III to provide further responses to Request for Production (Set One) is granted. Further responses are to be provided within 15 days.

Defendant Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Edward Lyman III to provide further responses to Request for Admissions (Set One) is granted. Further responses are to be provided within 15 days.

Defendant Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP’s unopposed request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced total amount of $1,240, payable within 30 days.

Defendant Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP (“Kaufman”) (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Edward Lyman III (“Lyman”) (“Plaintiff”) to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 2.3-2.7, 2.11-2.13, 6.1-6.7, 8.1-8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 10.1-10.3, 12.1, 12.6, 14.1, 17.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.4, and 50.6. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1-65. Defendant also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,810.00. (Notice of Motion Interrogatories pg. 2.)

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Request for Production (Set One) Nos. 1-25. Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and his attorneys of record in the amount of $2,310.00. (Notice of Motion RFP pg. 2.)

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to Request for Admissions (Set One) Nos. 1-3, 5-7, 21, and 22. Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and his attorneys of record in the amount of $1,810.00. (Notice of Motion RFA pg. 2.)

Background

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in the instant action against Kaufman, Courtney E. Curtis, Esq. a/k/a. Courtney Curtis-Ives, Esq. (“Curtis”), Barry Z. Brodsky, Esq. (“Brodsky”), and Andrew J. Waxler, Esq. (“Waxler”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for violation of the Consumer Privacy Act, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition, and conversion. (See FAC.) Plaintiff alleges he was employed as an associate attorney at Walzer Melcher LLP (“WM”) and pursued a whistleblower action (“Whistleblower Action”) against WM after he had been terminated from WM. (FAC ¶¶10-11.)

Nine days after Plaintiff filed the Whistleblower Action, Plaintiff was sued in a crossclaim by a former client for malpractice. (FAC ¶12.) Plaintiff contacted WM’s insurance carrier, CNA Insurance (“CNA”) for CNA to provide Plaintiff with an attorney. (FAC ¶13.) Plaintiff informed CNA of his pending Whistleblower Action against WM. (FAC ¶13.) CNA agreed that there was a conflict of interest between Plaintiff and WM, and that CNA would provide Plaintiff with his own attorney to defend him against the malpractice crossclaim. (FAC ¶13.) CNA reassured Lyman they would maintain confidentiality with him and not share information with WM. (FAC ¶13.) On October 23, 2019, KDV partner, Curtis, contacted Plaintiff to represent him and reassured Plaintiff that KDV only represented him and would not share Plaintiff’s confidential information with WM. (FAC ¶14.) Plaintiff alleges he agreed to be represented by KDV based on Curtis’ representations, reassurances, and the advertisement on KDV’s website concerning their legal services. (FAC ¶14.)

Plaintiff shared highly sensitive confidential information with KDV, including legal strategies, work product, analysis, notes, and direct evidence relating to the Whistleblower Action, the malpractice crossclaim, and how both cases were interrelated. (FAC ¶15.) Plaintiff also shared with KDV highly confidential, sensitive, and privileged information including detailed reports and evidence he had provided to the State Bar of California, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. (FAC ¶16.) A week after Lyman disclosed confidential information to Curtis, she emailed him in passing that one of KDV's co-managing partners, Brodsky, had a pre-existing and continuing relationship with Christopher C. Melcher of WM. (FAC ¶17.) Curtis advised Plaintiff that she and WM did not think it was a problem. (FAC ¶17.) Plaintiff alleges KDV disclosed Plaintiff’s confidential and attorney-client privileged information, including work product, directly to WM. (FAC ¶19.) On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff fired KDV amid a mediation in the malpractice crossclaim and immediately demanded KDV provide him with his entire client file. (FAC ¶21.)

Plaintiff alleges on August 7, 2020, Defendants emailed Plaintiff a hyperlink to download two .zip files, which contained only portions of his client files. (FAC ¶22.) Plaintiff did not know at the time the hyperlink was unencrypted and linked to the .zip files, which Defendants had uploaded to a popular public filesharing service. (FAC ¶22.) The .zip files contain over 750mb worth of Plaintiff’s client files, which are unencrypted and unredacted. (FAC ¶22.) Plaintiff alleges the .zip files presently remain on the public filesharing website, which anyone can freely download without a login or password. (FAC ¶22.) The .zip files contain Plaintiff’s personal identifying information, including his social security number. The .zip files contain over 6,000 pages of confidential attorney-client privileged communications between Plaintiff and KDV. (FAC ¶22.) The .zip files contain highly sensitive and confidential communications Plaintiff made to the State Bar, Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, and FBI, including the detailed documentation and notes. (FAC ¶22.)

Plaintiff alleges on August 6, 2021, he first discovered the .zip files were exposed to the public, did not require an encrypted link to access them, were not encrypted, did not require a login or password to download the .zip files, and did not require password to open the .zip files. (FAC ¶23.) Plaintiff immediately notified KDV and the public file sharing website and requested that they immediately remove the .zip files. (FAC ¶23.) Plaintiff alleges the public file sharing website states that they cannot remove the .zip files, only KDV can. (FAC ¶23.)

On December 13, 2021, KDV and Brodsky propounded first sets of Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) upon Plaintiff via U.S. mail. (Decl. of Hokana ¶3.) On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff served responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admissions (Set One) by KDV. KDV argues Plaintiff’s “responses” consisted primarily of objections without substantive responses. (Decl. of Hokana ¶5, Exh. D.) On February 24, 2022, KDV attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff. (Decl. of Hokana ¶7, Exh. F.) Plaintiff failed to provide further verified responses to any of KDV’s discovery requests, and has not requested additional time to provide further responses. (Decl. of Hokana ¶8.) KDV filed the instant motions on March 22, 2022. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and KDV filed its notice of non-receipt of opposition on October 6, 2022.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.3-2.7

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff: (2.3) If Plaintiff had a driver’s license at the time of the incident, and if so, state: (a) the state or other issuing entity; (b) the license number and type; (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. (2.4) If Plaintiff had any other permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle, and if so, state: (a) the state or other issuing entity; (b) the license number and type; (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. (2.5) State: (a) Plaintiff’s present residence address; (b) Plaintiff’s residence address for the past five years; and (c) the dates Plaintiff lived at each address. (2.6) State: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of Plaintiff’s present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment Plaintiff has had from five years before the incident until today. (2.7) State: (a) the name and address of each school or other academic or vocational institution Plaintiff attended, beginning with high school; (b) the dates Plaintiff attended; (c) the highest grade level Plaintiff completed; and (d) the degrees received.

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) harassing, (2) the definition of “incident” is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad and renders the entire interrogatory complex and compound, (3) the action is not for personal injury, (4) make-work, (5) unduly burdensome, (6) privacy rights, (7) irrelevant, (6) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (8) already in KDV’s possession, custody, and control. In its separate statement, KDV maintains it propounded Judicial Council Form Interrogatories upon Plaintiff conducting a general investigation regarding information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, allegations, injuries, and damages. Basic profile information is relevant to the investigation of all the aforementioned categories. Privacy and confidence considerations are not implicated for such general information. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 1-4.) With respect to Plaintiff’s educational history available on the State Bar’s website, KDV maintains public availability further demonstrates that privacy and confidence considerations are not implication when, as admitted by Plaintiff, such information is available through the State Bar directory, but such information is not verified as Plaintiff’s discovery responses are to be. (Form Interrogatories SS, pg. 9.)

Considering KDV’s need for Plaintiff’s basic profile information, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff had a driver’s license at the time of the incident, had any other permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle, maintains a current place of residence, is presently employed, and attended educational institutions and received degrees, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.11-2.13

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff: (2.11) If at the time of the incident he was acting as an agent or employee for any person? If so, state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of that person; and (b) a description of his duties. (2.12) At the time of the incident, did he or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the incident? If so, for each person state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number; (b) the nature of the disability or condition; and (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the incident. (2.13) Within 24 hours before the incident, did you or any person involved in the incident use or take any of the following substances: alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or medication of any kind (prescription or not)? If so, for each person state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number; (b) the nature or description of each substance; (c) the quantity of each substance used or taken; (d) the date and time of day when each substance was used or taken; (e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken; (f) the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of each person who was present when each substance was used or taken; and (g) the name, address, and telephone number of any health care provider who prescribed or furnished the substance and the condition for which it was prescribed or furnished.

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in the context of this action with respect to the definition of “incident”, (2) not a personal injury action, (3) seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine, (4) violates his rights of privacy, and (5) seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. KDV maintains it propounded Judicial Council Form Interrogatories upon Plaintiff conducting a general investigation regarding information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, allegations, injuries, and damages. Basic profile information, including medical-type conditions, medications used to treat medical conditions, or ingested substances that may have contributed to the incidents at issue is relevant to the investigation of all the aforementioned categories. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 10-14.)

Considering KDV’s need for Plaintiff’s basic profile information, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff was acting as an agent or employee for any person, if he or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the incident, and within 24 hours before the incident, use or ingest substances including alcoholic beverages, marijuana, or other drug or medication of any kind (prescription or not), Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.1-6.7, 10.1-10.3

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff: (6.1) If he attributes any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the incident. (6.2) Identify each injury he attributes to the incident and the area of his body affected. (6.3) If he still has complaints that he attributes to the incident, and if so, for each complaint state: (a) a description;

(b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and (c) the frequency and duration. (6.4) If he received any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil procedure sections 2034.210 – 2034.310) or treatment from a health care provider for any injury he attributes to the incident, and if so, for each health care provider state: (a) the name, address, and telephone number; (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment; (c) the dates he received consultation, examination, or treatment; and (d) the charges to date. (6.5) If he has taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that he attributes to the incident? If so, for each medication state: (a) the name; (b) the person who prescribed or furnished it; (c) the date it was prescribed or furnished; (d) the dates he began and stopped taking it; and ([e]) the cost to date. (6.6) If there are any other medical services necessitated by the injuries that he attributes to the incident that were not previously listed (for example, ambulance, nursing, prosthetics)? If so, for each service state: (a) the nature; (b) the date; (c) the cost; and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each provider. (6.7) Has any health care provider advised him he may require future or additional treatment for any injuries that he attributes to the incident? If so, for each injury state: (a) the name and address of each health care provider; (b) the complaints for which the treatment was advised; and (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment. (10.1) At any time before the incident did he have any complaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the incident? If so, for each state: (a) a description of the complaint or injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; and (c) the name, address, and telephone number of each health care provider whom you consulted or who examined or treated you. (10.2) All physical, mental, and emotional disabilities he had immediately before the incident. (10.3) At any time after the incident did he sustain injuries of the kind for which he is now

claiming damages? If so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state: (a) the date and the place it occurred; (b) the name, address, and telephone number of any other person involved; (c) the nature of any injuries you sustained; (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each health care provider he consulted, or who examined or treated hum; and (e) the nature of the treatment and its duration.

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) seeking testimony, (2) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad with regards to the “incident,” (3) vague and ambiguous as to scope, time, and place, (4) violates his medical rights to privacy and physician-patient privilege, psychotherapist-patient privilege, and United States and California constitutions, and (5) cumulative. KDV maintains it propounded interrogatories upon Plaintiff conducting a general investigation regarding information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, allegations, injuries, and damages. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered emotional injuries from the incidents at issue by way of the complaint and has issued legitimate requests seeking information regarding the alleged injuries in order to evaluate claimed injuries, damages, and prepare any defenses thereto. KDV maintains that any claimed ambiguity has been created by Plaintiff’s pleading. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 15-25, 41-45.)

Considering KDV’s need to conduct a general investigation regarding information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, allegations, injuries, and damages in order to evaluate claimed injuries, damages, and prepare any defenses, and that Plaintiff still has complaints that he attributes to the incident, received any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil procedure sections 2034.210 – 2034.310) or treatment from a health care provider for any injury he attributes to the incident, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff attributes any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the incident or sustained any immediately before, attributes injuries to the incident and identifies areas of his body affected, has taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that he attributes to the incident, and has been advised by a health care provider he may require future or additional treatment for any injuries that he attributes to the incident, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 8.1-8.8

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff: (8.1) If he attributes any loss of income or earning capacity to the incident. (8.2) (a) The nature of his work; (b) his job title at the time of the incident; and (c) the date his employment began. (8.3) The last date before the incident that he worked for compensation. (8.4) His monthly income at the time of the incident and how the amount was calculated. (8.5) The date he returned to work at each place of employment following the incident. (8.6) The dates he did not work and for which he lost income as a result of the incident. (8.7) The total income he lost to date as a result of the incident and how the

amount was calculated. (8.8) If he will lose income in the future as a result of the incident, and if so: (a) the facts upon which he bases this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how long he will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) seeking expert testimony, (2) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad with regards to the “incident,” (3) vague and ambiguous as to scope, time, and place, and (4) not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. KDV maintains these requests are necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and monetary damages, and prepare any defenses thereto, and any claimed ambiguity has been created by Plaintiff’s pleading. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 26-36.)

Considering KDV’s need to need to conduct a general investigation regarding information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, allegations, injuries, and request for monetary damages to evaluate claimed injuries, damages, and prepare any defenses, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff attributes any loss of income or earning capacity to the incident, the nature of his employment at the time of the incident, the total income he lost to date as a result of the incident and how the amount was calculated, and if he will lose income in the future as a result of the incident, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 9.1, 9.2

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff: (9.1) If there are any other damages he attributes to the incident? If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount; and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each person to whom an obligation was incurred. (9.2) If any documents support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document.

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in the context of this action, and renders the entire interrogatory complex and compound, (3) the action is not for personal injury or contract, and (4) seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. KDV maintains Plaintiff alleges that he suffered monetary damages related to the incidents at issue and refuses to provide any information regarding these alleged damages, their bases, or any other particular, and these requests are necessary to evaluate Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages, and prepare any defenses thereto. KDV maintains Plaintiff’s objection that his claim does not involve a breach of contract claim is baseless, as are his privilege objections. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 38-40.)

Considering KDV’s need to need to conduct a general investigation regarding information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, allegations, injuries, and request for monetary damages to evaluate claimed injuries, damages, and prepare any defenses, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff attributes any other damages to the incident, and if any documents support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 12.1, 12.6,

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff: (12.1) State the name, address and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the incident or the events occurring immediately before the incident; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the incident; (c) who heard any statements made about the incident by any individual at the scene; and (d) who he or anyone acting on his behalf claim has knowledge of the incident. (12.6) Was a report made by any person concerning the incident? If so, 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 name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the original or a copy of the report.

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in the context of this action, and renders the entire interrogatory complex and compound, (3) the action is not for personal injury, (4) seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, and (5) objects on grounds of privacy. KDV maintains it seeks to discover all percipient witnesses to Plaintiff’s actions and such persons are necessary for the evaluation of this matter, and the requested information makes express exclusion of any witnesses who would be protected from disclosure at this time. Defendant seeks all discoverable documents memorializing the incidents alleged by Plaintiff herein. KDV maintains all information sought in this request is discoverable, even if requiring Plaintiff to create a privilege log with respect to the production of the documents themselves. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 46-48.)

Considering KDV’s need to discover all percipient witnesses to Plaintiff’s actions and such persons are necessary for the evaluation of this matter, and the requested information makes express exclusion of any witnesses who would be protected from disclosure at this time, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff can identify and provide the contact information for witnesses the incident or the events occurring immediately before the incident; who made any statement at the scene of the incident; who heard any statements made about the incident by any individual at the scene; and who he or anyone acting on his behalf claim has knowledge of the incident and can identify a report made concerning the incident and the details of who created it and the original report’s location, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Form Interrogatory No. 14.1

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff: If he or anyone acting on his behalf contend that any person involved in the incident violated any statue, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the incident? If so, identify the name, address, and telephone number of each person and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to this request as: (1) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in the context of this action, and renders the entire interrogatory complex and compound, (3) the action is not for personal injury, (4) seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, and without waiving objections, responds as “Yes, read the verified complaint.” KDV maintains this interrogatory seeks specific information regarding Plaintiff’s allegations in this regard, including which parties specifically are alleged to have violated some ordinance and the specific ordinances violated. Such information is necessary to fully investigate and evaluate Plaintiff’s claims of alleged tortious conduct. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 49-50.)

Considering KDV’s need for specific information regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of tortious acts against numerous defendants, including various statutory and regulatory provisions, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff can identify the name, address, and telephone number of each person and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatory.

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

This interrogatory asks Plaintiff: If his response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission. If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which he bases his response; (c) state the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all documents and other tangible things that support his response and state the name, address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to this request as: (1) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in the context of this action, and renders the entire interrogatory complex and compound, (3) the action is not for personal injury, and (4) seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. KDV maintains Plaintiff failed to provide any material response to Interrogatory 17.1, including the recital of facts, identification of documents, and identification of persons, despite an outright denial of the corresponding Request for Admission, and such information is necessary to fully investigate and evaluate Plaintiff’s claims of alleged tortious conduct. (Form Interrogatories SS, pg. 51.)

Considering KDV’s need to fully investigate and evaluate Plaintiff’s claims of alleged tortious conduct, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff provided an unqualified admission, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatory.

Form Interrogatories Nos. 50.1, 50.2, 50.4, and 50.6.

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff: (50.1) For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) identify each document that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; (b) state each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to that provision and the date that part of the agreement was made; (c) identify all documents that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; (d) identify all documents that are part of any modification to the agreement and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; (e) state each modification not in writing, the date and the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to the modification, and the date the modification was made; (f) identify all documents that evidence any modification of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each

person who has the document. (50.2) Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each breach, describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement. (50.4) Was any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement, release, accord and satisfaction, or novation? If so, identify each agreement terminated, the date of termination, and the basis of the termination. (50.6) Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous.

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in the context of this action, and renders the entire interrogatory complex and compound, (3) the action is not for personal injury, and (4) seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. KDV maintains it seeks information regarding Plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract as set forth in the FAC, and the bases on which such is alleged. KDV maintains this interrogatory seeks basic information underlying the formation and existence of a contract which would give rise to such. (Form Interrogatories SS, pgs. 57-61.)

Considering KDV’s need for basic information underlying the formation and existence of a contract, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. To the extent Plaintiff can identify each document that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; state each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to that provision and the date that part of the agreement was made; identify all documents that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; identify all documents that are part of any modification to the agreement and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document; state each modification not in writing, the date and the name, address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to the modification, and the date the modification was made; and identify all documents that evidence any modification of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the document, if there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings, if any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement, release, accord and satisfaction, or novation, and if any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous, Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-35

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff details pertaining to Plaintiff’s instant case, the Whistleblower Action, and the malpractice crossclaim, as well as Plaintiff’s allegations against KDV and damages. (Special Interrogatories SS, pgs. 71-74.)

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (2) attorney-client privilege, (3) confidentiality, (4) privacy, (5) overbroad, and (6) subject to Plaintiff’s anticipated joint stipulation of a protective order. KDV maintains it seeks information regarding Plaintiff’s contentions and damages alleged in the FAC and the special interrogatories request information addressing specific paragraphs in the FAC, underlying factual contentions, and identification of materials related to Plaintiff’s claims. Further, KDV maintains Plaintiff has failed to seek a protective order and, despite KDV drafting a proposed stipulated protective order to expedite the process of discovery, has failed to respond to KDV’s proposed stipulated protective order. (Special Interrogatories SS, pgs. 75-76.)

Considering KDV’s need for specific information underlying factual contentions and damages, and identification of materials related to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Special Interrogatories Nos. 36-65

KDV’s special interrogatories Nos. 36-65 exceed the maximum number of special interrogatories allowable under C.C.P. § 2030.030. (C.C.P. § 2030.030(a).) However, KDV states it has served concurrently with its special interrogatories a declaration of counsel noting the need for additional discovery pursuant to C.C.P. §§2030.040 and 2030.050. (Special Interrogatories SS, pg. 80; C.C.P. §2030.030(c).) Considering KDV’s need for specific information underlying factual contentions, and identification of materials related to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responsive supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Requests for Production Nos. 1-25

These requests for production (RFPs) ask Plaintiff to produce: (1) an unredacted copy of the complaint, (2) all communications between Plaintiff and Brodsky, (3) all communications between Plaintiff and Waxler, (4) all communications between Plaintiff and Curtis, (5) all communications between Plaintiff and WM, (6) all communications between Plaintiff and KDV, (7) all documents pertaining to [FAC] ¶10, (8) all pleadings filed in the case of Lyman v. Walzer Melcher, LLP (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV32486), (9) all discovery Plaintiff served or received in the case of Lyman v. Walzer Melcher, LLP (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV32486), (10) a copy of the face page of all depositions taken in the case of Lyman v. Walzer Melcher, LLP (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV32486), (11) a copy of all pleadings filed in the case of FBP West Holdings, et. al v. Chiteishvili et al (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV18457), (12) all discovery Plaintiff served or received in the case of FBP West Holdings, et. al v. Chiteishvili et al (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV18457), (13) the face page of all depositions taken in the case of FBP West Holdings, et. al v. Chiteishvili et al (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV18457), (14) all documents related to Plaintiff’s notification of CNA Insurance of the existence of the claims made against Plaintiff by Kristina Chiteishvili, (15) all documents related to Plaintiff’s communications with CNA Insurance that Plaintiff believed there was a conflict of interest between him and WM, (16) all documents related to Plaintiff’s claim that CNA Insurance assured Plaintiff it would maintain confidentiality with Plaintiff and not share information with WM, (17) all documents related to Plaintiff’s contention that KDV had a “joint pecuniary interest” with WM, (18) all documents related to Plaintiff’s contention that KDV had a “joint pecuniary interest” with Christopher Melcher, (19) all documents related to Plaintiff’s contention that KDV had a “joint pecuniary interest” with Peter Walzer, (20) all documents related to Plaintiff’s contention that KDV had a conflict of interest it was required to disclose to Plaintiff, (21) all documents related to Plaintiff’s contention that KDV disclosed his confidential attorney-client communications to WM, (22) all documents related to Plaintiff’s contention that KDV disclosed his attorney work product to WM, (23) all documents relating to Plaintiff’s contention in [FAC] ¶20 that Defendants refused to follow his instructions, (24) all documents relating to Plaintiff’s contention in [FAC] ¶20 that Defendants provided misleading legal advice, and (25) all documents relating to Plaintiff’s contention in [FAC] ¶20 that Defendants provided incompetent legal advice. (Request for Production SS, pgs. 2-36.)

In his initial response, Plaintiff objected to these requests as: (1) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (2) attorney-client privilege, (3) confidentiality, (4) privacy, (5) overbroad, (6) subject to Plaintiff’s anticipated joint stipulation of a protective order; and (7) harassing. (Request for Production SS, pgs. 2-36.) KDV maintains its requests seek documents specifically related to Plaintiff’s allegations, at this time there is no protective order, and such documents are necessary for Defendant to investigate the integral claims of Plaintiff that confidentiality was not maintained giving rise to several causes of action alleged. (Request for Production SS, pgs. 2-38.) Moreover, as this matter arises from claims of professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing associated an underlying legal malpractice suit in which Defendant was providing representation to Plaintiff. There is no privilege as to communications to an issue of breach by the lawyer or by the client of a duty arising out of the lawyer-client relationship. (Evidence Code §958)

Considering KDV’s need for specific information underlying factual contentions, and identification of materials related to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds KDV is entitled to an order compelling further production. Plaintiff is ordered to produce responsive supplemental responses.

Requests for Admissions Nos. 1-3

These requests for admissions (RFAs) ask Plaintiff to admit: (1) KDV was engaged by CNA to represent him in a malpractice case, (2) CNA was the professional errors and omissions insurer for WM, and (3) KDV never charged him for legal services. (Request for Admission SS, pgs. 2-4.)

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as vague and ambiguous. KDV maintains the requests seek basic information regarding the retention of Defendant in the representation of Plaintiff and how the representation came to be and the contractual provision of legal services to Plaintiff. The information sought is entirely relevant to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned claims and Defendant’s development of defenses thereto. (Request for Admission SS, pgs. 2-4.)

Considering KDV’s need for basic information regarding Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds KDV is entitled to admissions. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses.

Requests for Admissions Nos. 5-7

These requests for admissions (RFAs) ask Plaintiff to admit: (5) WM terminated his employment, (6) KDV did not report to WM regarding KDV’s defense of Plaintiff in the Chiteishvili case, and (7) Plaintiff represented Chiteishvili while he was employed by WM. (Request for Admission SS, pgs. 5-8.)

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as (1) vague and (2) not reasonably calculated. KDV maintains the requests seek basic information regarding Plaintiff’s employment and relevant facts investigating Plaintiff’s claims of a conflict of interest. The information sought is entirely relevant to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned claims and Defendant’s development of defenses thereto. (Request for Admission SS, pgs. 5-8.)

Considering KDV’s need for basic information regarding Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds KDV is entitled to admissions. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses.

Requests for Admissions Nos. 21 and 22

These requests for admissions (RFAs) ask Plaintiff to admit: (21) no person, other than Plaintiff, accessed his client file through the “filesharing service” referred to in [FAC] ¶18, and (22) no person, other than Plaintiff, viewed his client file using the “filesharing service” referred to in [FAC] ¶18. (Request for Admission SS, pgs. 9-10.)

In his initial responses, Plaintiff objected to these requests as not reasonably calculated. KDV maintains the requests seek basic information regarding Plaintiff’s claims his confidential information was posted online. The information sought is entirely relevant to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned claims and Defendant’s development of defenses thereto. (Request for Admission SS, pgs. 9-10.)

Considering KDV’s need for basic information regarding Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds KDV is entitled to admissions. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses.

Sanctions

Defendant requests an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorneys of record in the amount of $2,810.00 as to form and special interrogatories, $2,310.00 as to requests for production, and $1,810.00 as to requests for admission. Counsel for Defendant declares his hourly rate is $250.00 and expended seven hours preparing the documents pertaining to special and form interrogatories and incurred the filing fee of $60.00. Counsel for Defendant declares he expended six hours preparing the documents pertaining to the request for production and incurred the filing fee of $60.00. Counsel declares he expended four hours preparing the documents pertaining to the request for admissions and incurred a filing fee of $60.00. Defendant is granted a total award of sanctions of $1,240.

Dated: October ____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court