CASE UPDATE - Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories
Defendant in pro per Maciora’s motion to compel plaintiff’s further responses to Form Interrogatories, Sets 1, 2, 5 and 6, 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 Form Interrogatories, Sets 1, 2, 5 and 6. Plaintiff opposes in part.
Analysis
Set One. Contrary to the opposition’s claim, this motion is not “moot” as to interrogatory 7.1 since Code of Civil Procedure §1005.5 provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served and since plaintiff did not serve its “amended response” to 7.1 well after the moving papers were served. Coupled with plaintiff’s failure to raise any other argument in connection with this interrogatory, the motion to compel is granted and plaintiff shall provide a verified further response to this interrogatory no later than 7/19/2019 (unless defendant Maciora agrees to a later date memorialized in writing). (To the extent plaintiff has already provided a further response to this interrogatory, it need not re-serve the response in order to comply with this ruling and to the extent moving defendant may contend plaintiff’s further response to this interrogatory is deficient for some reason, defendant may file and serve an appropriate motion after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process.)
The motion is denied as to interrogatory 12.1 since the person verifying the responses need not have personal knowledge to verify every aspect of every response.
Set Two. The motion is granted as to interrogatory 7.1 for the same reasons set forth above. Plaintiff shall provide a verified further response to this interrogatory no later than 7/19/2019 (unless defendant Maciora agrees to a later date memorialized in writing). (To the extent plaintiff has already provided a further response to this interrogatory, it need not re-serve the response in order to comply with this ruling and to the extent moving defendant may contend plaintiff’s further response to this interrogatory is deficient for some reason, defendant may file and serve an appropriate motion after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process.)
The motion is denied as to interrogatory 12.1 since Maciora’s own definition of the term “incident” makes this question fatally uncertain.
Set Five. The motion is granted as to interrogatory 7.1 for the same reasons set forth above. Plaintiff shall provide a verified further response to this interrogatory no later than 7/19/2019 (unless defendant Maciora agrees to a later date memorialized in writing). (To the extent plaintiff has already provided a further response to this interrogatory, it need not re-serve the response in order to comply with this ruling and to the extent moving defendant may contend plaintiff’s further response to this interrogatory is deficient for some reason, defendant may file and serve an appropriate motion after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process.)
The motion is denied as to interrogatory 12.1 since Maciora’s own definition of the term “incident” makes this question fatally uncertain.
Set Six. The motion is granted as to interrogatory 7.1 for the same reasons set forth above. Plaintiff shall provide a verified further response to this interrogatory no later than 7/19/2019 (unless defendant Maciora agrees to a later date memorialized in writing). (To the extent plaintiff has already provided a further response to this interrogatory, it need not re-serve the response in order to comply with this ruling and to the extent moving defendant may contend plaintiff’s further response to this interrogatory is deficient for some reason, defendant may file and serve an appropriate motion after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process.)
The motion is denied as to interrogatory 12.1 since Maciora’s own definition of the term “incident” makes this question fatally uncertain.
Conclusion
The motion is granted in part and denied in part. No sanctions were requested and no sanctions are awarded
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
