PAUL HENRY VS. ERIC YOUNG ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Friday, July 11, 2025, Line 8. DEFENDANT ANDREW LEWIS' Motion For Order Establishing Admissions And For Sanctions.

Defendant Andrew Lewis' motion for an order establishing admissions and for monetary sanctions is denied in its entirety. Plaintiff Paul Henry's request for monetary sanctions is also denied.

This is yet another motion in this case that should not have been filed. The conduct of the parties' counsel on both sides does not comport with what is expected of thoughtful attorneys who are desirous of resolving their clients' disputes in a civil, professional and cost-effective manner. Because both sides acted without substantial justification, no monetary sanctions are awarded.

Although Mr. Lewis surely knew, or at least should have known, that all or nearly all of his requests for admission would be denied, the requests still had some arguable utility and needed to be responded to seriously. Mr. Henry's initial objection-only responses were frivolous and not in good faith.

Mr. Lewis' assertion that the responses were due on June 10 lacks merit since it would require that the 2 days additional days for electronic service run from Sunday June 8, which is contrary to CCP 10 (every Sunday is a holiday) and 12a ("If the last day for the performance of any act ... is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to ... the next day that is not a holiday). Thus, the premise of this motion that the objection-only responses were untimely is in error. But even if not in error, Mr. Lewis should not have filed the motion the day after the deadline for the responses without any meet and confer effort.

Mr. Henry's first supplemental responses consisting of denials of every request without any objections show that Mr. Henry could and should have made such responses as his initial responses, which, had he done so, might have prevented the filing of this motion. Mr. Lewis' refusal to withdraw this motion by Mr. Smith is also troubling, as is both sides' inflated request for fees, especially the $8,000 sought by Mr. Henry based on a claimed 18 hours of work for opposition papers that should have taken significantly less than half that time.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/HEK) | |