MyECheck Inc (fka MYEC)

[PhenixBleu]

CASE UPDATE - Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Defendant in pro per Maciora’s motion to compel plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 2, is ruled on as follows.

Factual Background

This case is well known to the Court due to the inordinate amount of law & motion filings but in short, plaintiff MyECheck, Inc. (“MEC”) alleges its former CEO, defendant Zalunardo, falsified an employment agreement purportedly entitling him to MEC shares and that he purported to transfer these shares to defendant Maciora in 2015 and 2016, paying de minimis consideration because he knew the shares were fake. MEC further alleges Maciora and others maintain that a draft proposal to issue MEC shares to certain employees, which was never ratified, legitimizes the transfers to Maciora. It is further alleged that Maciora wrongfully obtained and disseminated MEC’s confidential information in violation of a non-disclosure agreement and in an attempt to extort money and stock from MEC and its officers.

According to MEC, Maciora has also harassed MEC’s shareholders, employees, auditors, business partners and investors to disrupt operations and to extort money but ultimately causing MEC shares to lose significant value and disrupting important business relationships.

The Court recently granted MEC’s attorneys’ motion to withdraw. Defendant Maciora now moves to compel MEC’s further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 2. Plaintiff opposes.

Analysis

Interrogatory Nos. 1-4, 9, 13-14, 29, 33-40, 49. Each of these interrogatories asks plaintiff to “[d]escribe in detail the reason why” a specified sum of money was on a specific date either wired from plaintiff’s bank account to a third party or was otherwise withdrawn from its bank account. In response, plaintiff merely stated that the reason was either to transmit the specified sum to the third party of to obtain cash in the specified amount. The Court finds plaintiff’s responses to each of these interrogatories to be evasive and incomplete so as to justify an order compelling further responses to Nos. 1-4, 9, 13-14, 29, 33-40 and 49.

Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7-8, 10-12, 15-24, 26-28, 30-32, 46-48, 50-51, 53-54, 57. Each of these interrogatories asks plaintiff to “[d]escribe in detail why” a charge of a specific sum of money from a third party appears on plaintiff’s bank account statement for a specified date. In response, plaintiff merely stated that the third party had charged plaintiff the amount specified. The Court finds plaintiff’s responses to each of these interrogatories to be evasive and incomplete so as to justify an order compelling further responses to same.Interrogatory Nos. 6, 42-45.

The motion is granted as to each of these interrogatories.

Although interrogatory No. 6 does not specify a particular time period, the Court finds no legitimate reason why plaintiff cannot provide and should not be required to provide the name of each landlord for the office located at 1743 Terracina Drive in El Dorado Hills over the last five years. Likewise, while interrogatory Nos. 42-45 merely refer to 1743 Terracina Drive without identifying the city, it is reasonably apparent these questions all refer to 1743 Terracina Drive in El Dorado Hills and therefore, plaintiff shall identify who owned the subject property in the years 2014-2017.

Interrogatory Nos. 55-56. The Court will sustain plaintiff’s objections to these interrogatories and, therefore, the motion is denied as to both of these interrogatories.

Conclusion

The motion is granted as to all special interrogatories except for Nos. 55-56. Where the motion is granted, plaintiff shall provide verified further responses no later than 7/19/2019 (unless defendant Maciora agrees to a later date memorialized in writing).
No sanctions were requested and no sanctions are awarded.