Opposition_to_motion_to_compel_

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.August 20, 2018

Electronically FILED by Syperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/01/2019 02:32 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by F. Ochoa,Deputy Clerk 1 | S. David Kozich, Esq. (SBN: 102765) Steven M. Dominguez, Esq. (SBN: 317516) 5 | LEGIS LAW, PC 2101 E. 4" Street, Suite 120A 3 Santa Ana, California 92705 Telephone: 714.656.4322 4 Facsimile: 714.252.4157 Email: sdominguez@legislaws.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 |M.LR.R. FOODS, INC 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA i IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES go = 0 CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS, INC. | Case No. BC718465 953 12 Plaintiff, BE gO 3 5 2 13 V. QL DEFENDANTS M.LR.R FOODS, INC.’S HEE 1a | SLLER.FOODE, MGs OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION Hw TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST 2 15 Defendants. FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF S. 16 DAVID KOZICH 17 Date: March 12, 2019 18 Time: 8:30 am Dept: 49 19 20 Defendant M.LR.R. FOODS INC., (“hereinafter “Defendant”) respectfully submits the 21 following memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion to to compel 22 53 | responses to request for production and motion for monetary sanctions brought by Plaintiff 74 | CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS, INC., (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). 25 | 1 26 27 I 28 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 1 LE GI S LA W, PC 21 01 E. 4T H ST RE ET , SU IT E 12 0A S A N T A AN A, CA 92 70 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION Defendant does not argue that it owes Plaintiff responses to discovery propounded. However, the Court should not impose any sanctions against Legis Law, PC (“hereinafter “Legis Law”) because Legis Law acted with substantial justification and the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. II SANCTIONS ARE UNJUST BECAUSE LEGIS LAW ACTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION AND THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE THE IMPOSITION OF THE SANCTION UNJUST “The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Code of Civ. Proc. Section 2031.300(c). The Court should not impose any sanction against Legis Law because Legis Law acted with substantial justification and the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Legis Law received Plaintiff's discovery requests on or about November 11, 2018 and immediately forwarded on or about November 15, 2018 to defendant. Legis Law’s communication in regards to the responses requested that Defendant respond to the requests no later than December 6, 2018; that way Legis Law could respond to Plaintiff by December 13, 2018. On December 13, 2018 Legis Law had still not received responses from Defendants even though Legis law had sent out previous reminders. On December 31, 2018, Legis Law received a meet and confer letter via US Mail from Mr. Love. Legis Law forwarded this letter to Defendants. Again Legis Law attempted to contact Defendants through email and through telephone. On January 9, 2019 Defendant finally produced responsive documents to the requests. Legis Law drafted Defendant’s responses and forward them back to Defendant for verification. As of March DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 2 LE GI S L A W , PC 21 01 E. 4T H ST RE ET , SU IT E 12 0A S A N T A AN A, CA 92 70 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1,2019 Legis Law has not received a signed verification from Defendant even after numerous attempts to retrieve it. As such, the circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust against Legis Law as Legis Law has not received verification from Defendant. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Motion for S. David Kozich, Esq. LEGIS LAW, PC Attorney for Defendants monetary sanctions on Legis Law be denied. Dated: March 1, 2019 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 3 LE GI S L A W , PC 21 01 E. 4T H ST RE ET , SU IT E 12 0A S A N T A AN A, CA 92 70 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2101 E. 4th Street, Suite 120A, Santa Ana California 92705 On March 1, 2019, I served the foregoing documents described as follows: DEFENDANTS M.LR.R FOODS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF S. DAVID KOZICH on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth below: SEE ATTACHED “SERVICE LIST” 0 (BY U.S. MAIL) 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 that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of despot for mailing in affidavit. Ul (BY FACSIMILE) - I transmitted via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth on the attached Telecommunications Cover Page(s) on this date before 5:00 p.m. UJ (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) - I transmitted a PDF version of this document by electronic mail to the party(s) identified on the attached service list using the e-mail address(es) indicated. [ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I personally delivered the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. X (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) - I placed the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with shipping prepaid, and depositing in a collection box for next day delivery to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below via. Executed on March 1, 2019, at Santa Ana, California I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ~~ Nancy Rodriguez LE GI S L A W , PC 21 01 E. 4T H ST RE ET , SU IT E 12 0A S A N T A AN A, CA 92 70 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Franklin J. Love 800 South Barranca Ave, Suite 100 Covina, CA 91723 SERVICE LIST