Motion to Compel Further Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Case No.: 25STCV18365 Matter: Motion to Compel Further Responses Moving Party: Keith Custis and Custis Law, P.C Responding Party: Nina Jackson Notice: OK Ruling: The Motion is granted. Moving party to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative
ruling, please follow the instructions provided above. On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff Nina Jackson, a pro per litigant, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, and (4) fraudulent misrepresentation. Keith Custis and Custis Law, P.C. now seek to compel further responses from Plaintiff to their form interrogatories, sets one and two. Set One 1. General Employment History (FROIs 2.6, 2.7) Plaintiff’s supplemental response remains incomplete and relies impermissibly on "present recollection" without a showing of a "reasonable and good faith effort" to obtain the information via records under her control (e.g., tax returns, bank statements, emails).
Under CCP § 2030.220, a party cannot plead ignorance to information obtainable through such inquiries. Furthermore, Defendants identified specific discrepancies, such as an omitted employer (Kori’s Behavioral Center) and a date conflict regarding "LIFT Enrichment," that require clarification in a further verified response. There are also omitted addresses.
2. Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries (FROIs 6.4? 6.7) Plaintiff objects that these requests are unduly invasive. However, by filing a lawsuit alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty that seeks emotional distress damages, Plaintiff has placed her mental and emotional condition at issue. Defendants are entitled to discover the nature and extent of these alleged injuries.
3. Other Damages and Documents (FROIs 8.6? 8.8, 9.1, 9.2) Plaintiff’s responses to the 9.1 series are evasive, failing to provide substantive information regarding the amount of damages or the identity of persons to whom obligations were incurred. Plaintiff’s objections lack merit.
4. Incidents and Investigations (FROIs 11.1, 11.2, 17.1) These are standard form interrogatories relating to claims made and clarifications as to requests for admission as to which the response was not an unqualified admission. The objections lack merit and the responses are evasive.
5. Contract/Agreement Claims (FROIs 50.1? 50.4) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges specific misconduct regarding a settlement agreement (e.g., coercion and hidden clauses). Plaintiff must provide complete and straightforward responses to the 50.1 series regarding the agreement(s) at the heart of her claims. Set Two 1. Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries (FROIs 6.4? 6.7) Plaintiff’s primary objection is that these requests are unduly invasive. However, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint seeks damages for emotional distress arising from alleged legal malpractice. Under California law, when a plaintiff seeks such damages, they place their mental and emotional condition at issue. (See
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
2. Other Damages (FROIs 8.6? 8.8) These interrogatories seek information regarding lost income. Plaintiff’s responses to date have been evasive, stating she is still calculating or investigating. A party has a duty to provide the best information available at the time of the response.
3. Other Damages (FROIs 9.1, 9.2) These requests seek information about Plaintiff’s “other’ damages. Plaintiff’s objections lack merit. In sum, the Motion is granted. Plaintiff is sanctioned $1,000. Plaintiff is to provide further responses without objections to the interrogatories identified above within 20 days.
Moving party to give notice. Home -->)" -->