Reply_to_oppositionReplyCal. Super. - 4th Dist.March 23, 201610 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 257 28 LAW OFFICES OF KERRY L. SORENSEN 22092 Cosala Mission Viejo, California 92691 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Telephone: (949) 702-2545 Superior Court of California, (16-102) County of Orange Attorney’s Bar No: 62857 05MG2048 at 11:12:00 Al Clerk of the Superior Court Attorney in Pro Se By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE KERRY L. SORENSEN, ) ) ) CASE NO: 30-2016-00842327 Plaintiff, ) ) REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR VS: ) AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER ) RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES ) SETS ONE AND TWO; REQUEST FOR PUI LAN LUK LAM, et al. ) CONTINUANCE ) . ) DATE: MAY 24, 2018 ) TIME: 1:30 p.m. ) DEPT: €-13 Defendants. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT As is more fully shown below, Defendant KENNETH LAM and his attorneys have once again resorted to their tactic of waiting until the very last minute to serve responses to discovery, or, in this case Supplemental Responses to discovery, in order to avoid hearings on Plaintiff’s motions. Because Defendant has waited until the last moment, Plaintiff does not have sufficient time to appropriately respond to Defendant’s opposition to the motion. Plaintiff, therefore, requests that the Court order that the hearing be continued to June 21, 2018, at which time Plaintiff has yet another motion to compel further responses scheduled. REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SETS ONE AND TWO; REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE -1- 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 1d 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’ S CONTINUING TACTICS OF AVOIDING HEARINGS ON MOTIONS Defendant failed to respond to discovery propounded on him in September, 2017. On December 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to the discovery, with a hearing date scheduled for January 10, 2018. Subsequent thereto, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the motion to March 1, 2018. Despite the fact that Defendant verified the responses to the discovery that was the subject of that motion on January 21, 2018, his attorneys did not serve the responses until February 22, 2018, only five court days before the hearing. The hearing was taken off calendar by the Court at the hearing of March 1, 2018. The instant motion to compel further responses involves the very same discovery that was the subject of the prior motion to compel. This motion was filed on April 2, 2018. The last day to file opposition to this motion was May 11, 2018. Using the same tactics as before, Defendant waited until May 11, 2018, to serve his Opposition and his Supplemental responses to the discovery. THE NECESSITY FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS HEARING Because May 11, 2018, was a Friday, Defendant’s Opposition and Supplemental responses were not received by Plaintiff until mid-day on May 14, 2018. Plaintiff’s Reply Brief is due no later than May 17, 2018. As is more fully shout in the attached Declaration of Kerry L. Sorensen, Defendant’s Supplemental responses to the discovery consist of new responses to 77 interrogatories. Three days is simply not enough time to prepare a proper Reply to Defendant’s Opposition, because a cursory review of the supplemental responses shows that a new Separate Statement will have to be prepared involving most, if not REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SETS ONE AND TWO; REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE -2- 10 11 ¥2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 all of the supplemental responses. For instance, a brief review of the responses show that more than 60 of the responses once again are nothing more than copy and paste responses which provide little to no information. In addition, by artful wording Defendant has managed to insert what amount to objections into more than 60 of the supplemental responses, even though Defendant long ago waived any objections to the interrogatories. Plaintiff estimates that a proper Reply to the Opposition will require an additional Separate Statement as to more than 60 interrogatories. A further reason for the necessity for this request for a continuance of this hearing is that the body of the Opposition and the Declaration of KENNETH LAM both contain what appear to be deliberately false statements. Plaintiff needs additional time in which to prepare a proper response to those deliberately false statements. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the hearing on this motion be continued to June 21, 2018. Dated: May 15, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF KERRY L. SORENSEN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SETS ONE AND TWO; REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE -3- 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 28 LAW OFFICES OF KERRY L. SORENSEN 22092 Cosala Mission Viejo, California 92691 Telephone: (949) 702-2545 (16-102) Attorney’s Bar No: 62857 Attorney in Pro Se SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE KERRY L. SORENSEN, CASE NO: 30-2016-00842327 Plaintiff; DECLARATION OF KERRY L. SORENSEN IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SETS 1 AND 2; REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE VS. PUI LAN LUK LAM, et al. Defendants. DATE: May 24, 2018 TIME: 1:30 p.ms DEPT: €=13 Sn a t in a i a A N P NP D WN N H i i I, Kerry L. Sorensen, declare and state as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all Courts of the State of California; I am the moving Plaintiff herein; and if sworn as a witness hereto, I could competently testify to the following facts: 2. I received Defendant’s Opposition to this motion, together with Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories on May 14, 2018, at approximately 11:30 a.m. 3. An initial review of the supplemental responses showed that a proper Reply to the Opposition would require the preparation and REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SETS ONE AND TWO; REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE -4- 1.0 11 1.2 13 14 15 le 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 277 28 filing of a Separate Statement as to most, if not all, of the supplemental responses. Some of the reasons for that are: a. More than 60 of the supplemental responses are simply copy and paste responses that provide little or no information. b. More than 60 of the supplemental responses contain not-so- hidden objections, even though all objections to the interrogatories have been waived. For instance, the vast majority of the supplemental responses begin with the statement: “Not applicable, as the Answer to Third Amended Complaint is moot,...” c. The majority of the responses contain the following: “This responding party has an inability to fully respond to this interrogatory at this time, as discovery to Plaintiff has just commenced. Plaintiff has not yet appeared for deposition.” Despite having appeared in this action more than 8 months ago, Defendant has never propounded any discovery on Plaintiff, nor has he set, or attempted to set, Plaintiff’s deposition. 4. A brief review of the body of the Opposition and the Declaration of KENNETH LAM showed that both the Opposition and the Declaration contain what appear to be deliberately false statements. Additional time is necessary to prepare a proper Reply to those false statements. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 15th day of May, 2018, at Mission Viejo, California. REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL SORENSEN INTERROGATORIES SETS ONE AND TWO; REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE -5- 10 1:1. 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2:1: 2:2 23 24 25 26 2 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Y SSh COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I reside in or am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My home or business address is 22102 Cosala, Mission Viejo, California 92691. On May 16, 2018, I served the foregoing document described as REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SETS ONE AND TWO; DECLARATION OF KERRY L. SORENSEN IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SETS ONE AND TWO; on all interested parties in said action by: (X) placing ( ) the original (X) a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: HARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO 2677 No Main Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, Ca. 92705 (x) I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Mission Viejo, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. : I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 16, : dsjion Vi i ifornia.
