Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply to Farmer Opposition of Lee Motion for Protective Order 3 24 09

Reply to Farmer Opposition of Lee Motion for Protective Order 3 24 09

Ratings: (0)|Views: 697 |Likes:
Published by j_ham6050
Reply to Opposition by Farmer
Reply to Opposition by Farmer

More info:

Published by: j_ham6050 on Apr 03, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/20/2010

pdf

text

original

 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281 
Plaintiff Steve Lee’s REPLY to Defendant Robert W. Farmer’s Opposition to Steve Lee’s Motion for Protective Order Restricting Discover and Request for Monetary Sanction
John J. Hamilton, Esq. (SBN 182095)39 Chadwick Irvine, CA 92618Voice: (949) 552-1170Fax: (949) 666-5003 Attorney for plaintiff,Steve LeeSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER STEVE LEE, an individual,Plaintiff,vs.JEANNE M. ROWZEE,ROBERT W. FARMER,JAMES R. HALSTEAD, a.k.a. JAMESHALSTEAD,SUSAN H. HALSTEAD, a.k.a. SUSANHALSTEAD,CORBIN & COMPANY, L.L.P., a limitedliability partnership,GAME PLAN JH, L.L.C., a.k.a. GamePlan JH, a.k.a. Game Plan, andDOES 1 through 50, inclusive,Defendants.
 __________________________________ 
ROBERT W. FARMER,Cross-complainant,vs.JEANNE M. ROWZEE et al.,Cross Claim Defendants.
 ____________________________ 
 ______ )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))Case No.:07CC03470
PLAINTIFF STEVE LEE’S REPLYTO DEFENDANT ROBERT W.FARMER’s OPPOSITION TO STEVELEE’s MOTION FOR PROTECTIVEORDER RESTRICTING DISCOVERYAND REQUEST FOR MONETARYSANCTIONS
[Objection to Declaration of Hellar-AnnHancock filed concurrently herewith]
 Assigned for all purposes to The HonorableCorey S. Cramin
; Dept. C-10Date:April 3, 2009Time:10:00 a.m.Dept. C-10Complaint filed:April 5, 2006Trial Date:None Set
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282 
Plaintiff Steve Lee’s REPLY to Defendant Robert W. Farmer’s Opposition to Steve Lee’s Motion for Protective Order Restricting Discover and Request for Monetary Sanction
I. I
NTRODUCTION
The matter before this court is plaintiff Steve Lee’s (“Lee”) Motion for a Protective Order Restricting Discovery – specifically, that Lee not be required to answer Special Interrogatoriesexceeding the 35 limit – and an Order imposing monetary sanctions against defendant Robert W.Farmer (“Farmer”) and its attorneys, Michelman & Robinson.The grounds for Lee’s Motion are specifically stated in the Notice of Motion and Motionon page 2 as:“1.Defendant Robert W. Farmer has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure(“CCP”) § 2030.050 based on the code requiring any party who is propounding or has propounded more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories to any other partyshall attach to each set of those interrogatories a declaration of necessity and thatdefendant Robert W. Farmer did not include a declaration of necessity with SetONE of Defendant Robert W. Farmer’s Special Interrogatories consisting of 102Special Interrogatories. Defendant did not comply with CCP § 2030.050 becausehe did not attach to each set of interrogatories a Declaration of Necessity. (Adeclaration of necessity was not attached to defendant Robert W. Farmer’s SpecialInterrogatories, Set One; but only attached to Set Two.) and/or,2.The declaration of necessity that accompanied defendant Robert W. Farmer’sSpecial Interrogatories, Set Two, does not substantially comply with CCP §2030.050 in that the declaration does not state a factor described in CCP §2030.040 as well as the reasons why the factor relied on is applicable to the instantlawsuit; and/or,3.Contrary to the representations made in the declaration of necessity thataccompanying only Set Two of defendant Robert W. Farmer’s SpecialInterrogatories, the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted(CCP § 2030.090(b)(2)); ***”(Notice of Motion and Motion, p.2, lines 10 - 28.)
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283 
Plaintiff Steve Lee’s REPLY to Defendant Robert W. Farmer’s Opposition to Steve Lee’s Motion for Protective Order Restricting Discover and Request for Monetary Sanction
II.Farmer’s Opposition Brief and Declaration of Hellar-Ann Hancock fails to meetPropounding Party’s Burden of Justifying more than 35 Special Interrogatories perCode of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 2030.040(b)
If for no other reason, this court should grant Lee’s Motion for the Protective Order  because neither Farmer’s Opposition Brief nor the accompanying Declaration of Hellar-AnnHancock does anything to meet Farmer’s burden of justifying more than 35 questions as required by Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 2030.040(b).CCP § 2030.090(b) provides that a motion for a protective order can be used to challengea “declaration of necessity” which is required to justify more than 35 interrogatories.CCP § 2030.040(b) states that: “If the responding party seeks a protective order on theground that the number of specifically prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.”In the matter before this court, today, responding party, Lee, seeks a protective order onseveral grounds – stated on the preceding page – including the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted. (See Notice of Motion and Motion, p.2, lines25-28: “3. Contrary to the representations made in the declaration of necessity thataccompanying only Set Two of defendant Robert W. Farmer’s Special Interrogatories, thenumber of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted (CCP § 2030.090(b)(2)).”)Lee’s motion for protective order effectively controverts the propounding party’s“declaration of necessity” and places the burden on the propounding party to justify more than35 questions. (See Weil & Brown, 2. California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial(Rutter Group, Rev. #1 2007, p. 8F-16, ¶ 8:955.)Defendant Farmer has responded to Lee’s motion for a protective order by an OppositionBrief and Declaration of Hellar-Ann Hancock.There is not a single sentence within Farmer’s Opposition Brief or within the Declarationof Hellar-Ann Hancock that justifies – or even addresses – why more than 35 questions arewarranted.

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Jay Volvolian liked this
bemehot liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->