.
[removed picture of asshole lawyers, under threat of asshole lawyers being themselves]
Thirty-five days ago the defendants were provided notice that the plaintiff would be inspecting their property to verify the existence of business assets and business operations (
checklist here) on Friday, the 13th of August. Yesterday - the eve before the scheduled inspection - I still had not received any one of the three required responses, per CCP Section 2031.210: statement of compliance, representation of inability to comply, or an objection to the demand.
Tick, tick, tick... the last minute... of the last hour... of the last day... brinksmanship at its best... (or just playing "chicken"...)
Kinda reminds me of the preseason football game between the Cowboys and Raiders. Just last evening the
Barefoot Dirty Girls were hootin' and hollerin' during the fourth quarter when their heros finally got themselves on the scoreboard, and you shoulda heard the racket
Ravaged Red,
Guts[y] Green, and
Mellow Yellow put up when an interception was returned for another TD. And then the game-ending Hail Mary pass to the end zone was intercepted by their knights in shining black and silver armor at 9:07 p.m.
More Hail Mary's ensued (but not a single Mea Culpa) during the ritual eventide
burning of the roaches for the next hour, all accompanied by the sweet strains of soft rock KQOD Stockton, Mega 100.1, before retirement. (And, yes, the yard radio was on the entire time the Raiderettes-Senior Squad was inside the house dancing and cheering during the game.)
It is truly heart-wrenching to witness the depths of sadness and mourning and hopeless despair (requiring self-medication) the BDG's are experiencing during this most difficult time. Most awful was the fact that they could not
watch "live the game" in larger-than-life format because they missed the first delivery attempt of their really BIG Sony flat screen TV. And, on top of all that...
My attorney called this Friday morning with a “phone tag” message from opposing counsel yesterday. The inspection has been continued (postponed) due to some kind of ”cancer in the family.” (Probably one of their five or six dogs has an ovarian cyst; but, hey, everything on that property is cancerous
{shrug}.) It's grief beyond enduring when such a dread disease makes its sudden, deadly appearance precisely on day thirty-five of the latest legal f-u in a fifteen month span.
I'm guessing this is what passes for a "representation of inability to comply" with the demand for discovery in California juris-impudence. And bigger surprise, apparently opposing counsel is unavailable today. I’ll give them maybe another week to reschedule - before the September 1st hearing on the Motion to Amend - before seeking a Motion to Compel.
The funniest part of this sorry episode is that
two years ago I described the BDGs' operation as the
Cancerous Catering Company. Here is the relevant portion:
...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Please PAUSE reading here.
The case of unlawful use of residential property has been made. Let Allen & Brassey choose - relocate their business to a commercial zone, or, go out of business. Either way, they must remove all current and abandoned business assets and cease all business operations.
If you proceed, please understand that what follows does not alter the facts outlined above. The remainder of this narrative is a tragically comic documentary of the confused nonsense displayed by city and county personnel in dealing with the situation. Despite its entertainment value, the purpose of the following is to ensure the complete rehabilitation of 810 Fishback Street to its residential-only status by detailing all the "arms and legs" of this cancerous catering company that is to be removed from the property.
RESUME reading . . .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
...
Why in hell do I spend all this time and money on useless legal processes, if the matter of law I wanted submitted to the judge in the first place will wind up with him anyway without any more information than I had fifteen months ago? (Partial unsatisfactory answer:
Jarndyce and Jarndyce.)
What the California Code of Civil Procedure calls for (regarding the Civil Discovery Act):
Section 2019.010.
Any party may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:
(a) Oral and written depositions.
(b) Interrogatories to a party.
(c) Inspections of documents, things, and places.
(d) Physical and mental examinations.
(e) Requests for admissions.
(f) Simultaneous exchanges of expert trial witness information.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What I get from Allen & Brassey and their freebie attorney:
- Interrogatories: Allen & Brassey fired off interrogatories on plaintiff along with their Answer to the lawsuit Summons, yet responded to so few of the interrogatories on defendants as to make the exercise virtually worthless and unproductive. According to their counsel, every question was an invasion of privacy and unrelated to the lawsuit.
- Requests for admissions: Allen & Brassey responded to so few of the requests for admissions by defendants as to render that exercise worthless and unproductive. According to their counsel, every statement, if answered, was an invasion of privacy and unrelated to the lawsuit.
- Requests for admissions (Authentication of documents): Allen & Brassey refused on two separate occasions to admit the authenticity of ANY of the public documents bearing on the city's annexations, the defendants' property purchase, and various aspects of the defendants' business operation on that parcel. The only acknowledgment by defendants' counsel was a whiney-sounding, "There are too many of them." (No shit, Sherlock!)
- Oral and written depositions: No oral depositions of any parties have been taken. The only written document thus far is the affidavit of a retired city official - who supplied it upon my request, not the request of any "officer of the court." (The only other writing is my draft Declaration of Facts in support of my imminent motion for summary judgment.)
- Inspections of documents, things, and places: Thirty-five days ago the defendants were provided notice that the plaintiff would be inspecting their property to verify the existence of business assets and business operations (checklist here). On the eve before the scheduled inspection, I still have not received any of the three acceptable responses: statement of compliance, representation of inability to comply, or an objection to the demand. (See report in first of post.)
- I shall have to contemplate demanding Section 2019.010 (d) mental examinations on Lynda Allen and Theresa Brassey to see if they are dealing from "full decks" (without considering cannabis intoxication and impairment.)
No motion by defendants for a protective order against discovery demands, based on a meet and confer declaration by the attorneys, has ever been granted by the court - yet discovery drags on with questions unanswered, items not admitted, documents not authenticated... and no one seems to give a rat's ass. My attorney just shrugs and says, "Oh, well, we'll just get the judge to answer/admit/authenticate everything."
WTF?! Is this merely an attorney's full employment plan? I'm beginning to think plaintiff's attornies are no better than defendant's lawyers.
[pic removed]
{Oh! Did I already post that picture? I'm sorry. There must be too many aggressive sea-going garbage disposals, known as sharks, eating up people's livings. Why are they smiling...?}
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More CCP discovery references:
Section 2019.030.
(a) The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in Section 2019.010 if it determines either of the following:
(1) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
(2) The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.
(b) The court may make these determinations pursuant to a motion for a protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, 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.
Section 2031.010.
(a) Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapters 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010) and 3 (commencing with Section 2017.710), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling
documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.
(b) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf, to inspect and to copy
a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.
(c) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf, to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample
any tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.
(d) A party may demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf,
to enter on any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample
the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.
(e) A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf, to inspect, copy, test, or sample
electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom demand is made.
Section 2031.210.
(a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed
shall respond separately to each item or category of item
by any of the following:
(1)
A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.
(2)
A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.
(3)
An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.
.
