LAW OFFICE OF GLENN E. STERN VS GIDEON FRIDMAN

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5734    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: W

LAW OFFICE OF GLENN E. STERN V. FRIDMAN

motion to compel further responses to cross-defendant’s special interrogatories

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: ****5734

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Glenn Stern dba Law Office of Glenn E. Stern

Responding Party: No opposition. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel says they couldn’t get a hold of Defendant/Cross-Complainant because the withdrawal order never supplied a number. This motion was mailed to his address in Woodland Hills.

Meet and Confer: Attempted. (Frank Decl. ¶¶13-15.)

BACKGROUND

On March 21, 2013, Plaintiff Glenn Stern (“Stern”) and Defendant Gideon Fridman (“Fridman”) entered into a Retainer Agreement in which Fridman retained Stern to represent Fridman in connection with litigation matters, including an action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo Case.”) Stern alleges that Fridman owes Stern the sum total of $168,227.50 for legal services rendered for work during trial and through the conclusion of the Wells Fargo Case. On May 23, 2017, Stern filed a Complaint against Fridman alleging:

1. Breach of Contract;

2. Common Count—Account Stated;

3. Common Count—Goods and Services Rendered; and

4. Common Count—Open Book Account

On November 29, 2018, Fridman filed a cross complaint. Fridman alleges that sixteen weeks prior to the start of trial, Stern told Fridman the fees would be $55,000 through trial. The parties negotiated the amount to $50,000 and Mr. Fridman paid the amount. Fridman stated he never was provided with any outstanding invoices, demands for payments, etc., putting him on notice of any outstanding balance. He alleges he did not know about outstanding fees until he was served with this lawsuit. He never saw invoices for the claimed amounts until such invoices were produced in discovery. Fridman terminated Stern shortly after the conclusion of the Wells Fargo Case, yet Stern, knowing Fridman is elderly and has suffered a stroke, is attempting to charge him fees for 2 years after the litigation was concluded.

The cross-complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3. Elder Abuse

4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

5. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

6. Violation of B&P Code 17200

7. Fraud

On May 17, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s (“Cross-Defendant”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the fourth and fifth causes of action without leave to amend. Defendant withdrew its third cause of action.

On April 6, 2020, Cross-Defendant filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Cross-Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One).

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Glenn E. Stern’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

Cross-Defendant moves for an order compelling Cross-Complainant’s further responses to Cross-Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Cross-Defendant argues the responses contain meritless and invalid objections.

No. 1: State each and every theory of liability as to party Stern on the cross-complaint filed by Fridman in this action.

No. 2: State each and every fact in support of each theory stated in the response to special interrogatory 1, first set, above.

No. 3: State the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has or may have knowledge of each fact stated in the response to special interrogatory 2, first set, above.

No. 4: Identify with sufficient particularity for a notice to produce each document, writing, and other tangible thing that supports each fact stated in the response to special interrogatory 2, first set, above.

Fridman objects to each interrogatory on the same grounds. Fridman objects to each interrogatory on the grounds “that it is vague and ambiguous, lacks foundation, speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, and is overly burdensome in time and scope. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory a[s] it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Indeed, Interrogatories are limited to matter within

permissible scope of discovery. California Code of Civil Procedure ; 2030.010(a). Defendant objects to this interrogatory as improperly seeking an abstract, summary and/or compilation.” (Separate Statement, No. 1-4.)

The court finds Fridman’s objections are without merit and Fridman did not meet his burden of justifying the objections. As argued by Cross-Defendant, such interrogatories are permissible. (See C.C.P. ;2030.010(b) (“An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”).) (See also Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281.) The four disputed interrogatories relate to legal theories and contentions as well as witnesses and documents applicable to the legal theories, and as such, the boilerplate objections are unwarranted.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Glenn E. Stern’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Cross-Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,290.00 from Plaintiff directly to Michael F. Frank, Cross Defendant’s counsel, for not properly responding to Cross-Defendant’s properly propounded special interrogatories. (CCP ;2030.300(d).)

The court finds sanctions are warranted. Fridman served objections without merit as contentions regarding legal theories and facts supporting such are classic interrogatory requests.

Counsel for Cross-Defendant declares they spent 3 hours researching and drafting the motion, 1 hour meeting and conferring, and another 3.5 hours is expected for reviewing the opposition, drafting a reply, and attending the hearing. However, Counsel declares four hours would be reasonable at their hourly rate of $550. Counsel also seeks $90 in filing fees.

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.