Leland, Morrissey & Knowles, LLP v. Bailey, Catherine et al

Judge Benson – Law & Motion – Wednesday, April 8, 2026 @ 9:00 AM

1-4. 20CV01781 Leland, Morrissey & Knowles, LLP v. Bailey, Catherine et al

EVENT: (1) Catherine Bailey’s Motion for Reconsideration to strike November 19, 2025 order deeming admissions admitted (Continued from 12/24/25 and 2/18/26) (2) Catherine Bailey’s Motion to Compel Responses a Second Time To Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories, and Appropriate Responses to Request for Admissions; with Request for Sanctions (Continued from 2/18/26) (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP 128.7 (Continued from 2/18/26) (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP 128.5 (Continued from 2/18/26)

Motion to Strike November 19, 2025 Order

The Court will hear from the parties and specifically from Ms. Bailey whether she was served with the discovery requests which were the subject of the November 19, 2025 hearing. The Court understands Ms. Bailey’s position that she was not served with the motion, but the Court’s question is whether she was served with the underlying discovery requests. The motion is a bit confusing because Ms. Bailey states in paragraph 1 “... did not receive any motion to deem admissions admitted or any discovery as admitted ...” [Emphasis Added] The Court’s initial impression of that statement is that Ms. Bailey never received the requests for admissions which were subject of the November 19, 2025 hearing.

However, paragraph 2 of the motion states “Sara Knowles representing Leland, Morrissey, and Knowles, LLP (LMK) has received two copies of the discovery she requested and the court has received two proofs of service. It makes no sense to “Deem the Admissions as Admitted” when several months ago, the court has received the copy, and has discussed it in both Tentative Ruling and Hearing.” Paragraph 5 continues “On November 13, 2024 ... (LMK) ... was mailed the discovery and documents she requested.

The proof of service was signed by Robert Bush. Please See Exhibit D Proof of Service signed by Robert Bush (Discovery mailed on 11/13/2024)” It appears to the Court (although the Court requires clarification from Ms. Bailey) that Ms. Bailey is confusing discovery requests (including requests for admissions) previously propounded by Ms. Knowles in 2024 with separate request for admissions propounded in 2025 which were the subject of the November 19, 2025 hearing. It goes without saying that discovery responses provided in 2024 are not relevant to whether separate responses to separate discovery requests propounded in September 2025 were provided.

In reviewing the 2024 discovery responses Ms. Bailey provided, the responses included interrogatories and requests for admissions. However, the requests for admissions propounded in 2024 are different than the request for admissions propounded in 2025. For example, according to Ms. Bailey’s 2024 responses, request for admission no.1 was “Admit that the Appeal, which is known as the Third District Court of Appeals, Case Number C089334, was settled by you.” Whereas, Request no. 1 to the 2025 request for admissions, labelled as “Set No.: Two”, states “Admit that as of September 9, 2020 that YOU (as used herein, “You” and “YOUR” includes you, your agents, your employees, your insurance companies, their agents, their employees, your attorneys, your accountants, your investigators, and anyone else acting on your behalf) owed Leland, Morrissey & Knowles, LLP the sum of $16,320.38.”