Pawlik v. Dupre

documents under the windshield wiper of a car registered to the defendant where defendant later found them. (Ibid.) Here, unlike in Crescendo, Mr. Lagunas did not announce his intention to serve court documents. He only informed Defendant that he had a “delivery.” This is insufficient. V.

Conclusion

The motion is GRANTED. Mr. Lagunas’ declaration establishes service of summons and complaint was not sufficient to effectuate personal service on Defendant. Therefore, this court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the Defendant such that the default judgment against her is void. Defendant is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

2. 25CV04007, Pawlik v. Dupre

I. Motion to Compel Further Responses – Special Interrogatories Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Ernesto Ongaro and Sons, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Interrogatory Nos. 41 through 59, without objections, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record in the amount of $4,260.00.

A. Complaint This lawsuit arises from a motor vehicle collision on November 27, 2023. Plaintiff alleges his car was T-boned by a vehicle driven by defendant Nathan Dupre (“Dupre”), while he was driving in the course and scope of employment for Defendant.

B. Special Interrogatories In opposition, Defendant states that based upon this court’s ruling on May 29, 2026, on the issue of Plaintiff’s discovery of surveillance, Defendant agrees to produce code-complainant discovery responses.

C. Sanctions Plaintiff seeks $4,260 in sanctions for having to bring this motion. CCP section 2030.300 requires sanctions unless this court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP section 2030.300(d).) Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees arguing that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests were objectively reasonable. This court disagrees.

Defendant’s position was that the surveillance materials at issue in the discovery requests were subject to the work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. However, the surveillance video and photos are not privileged. This was the exact scenario discussed in Suezaki v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, in which the appellate court determined the attorney’s private investigator’s surveillance video was not privileged. (Id., at pp. 177-178.) While Suezaki was decided prior to the current iteration of the statute outlying the work product privilege, the Suezaki court determined work product representing an attorney or the attorney’s agent’s impressions was not represented by surveillance video: “The films are not a graphic representation of the defendants, their activities, their mental impressions, anything within their knowledge, or of anything owned by them.

The films are representations of the plaintiff, not of the defendants.” (Suezaki, supra, at p. 177.) Only notes of the attorney or the attorney’s agent’s impressions of what is seen on the video or photos are privileged.

In addition, there is a need for the surveillance video and photographs both in order to protect against surprise, and in order to prepare for examination of the person who took the pictures. (Suezaki v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 172.) Plaintiff’s request for the surveillance videos and photos is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The material is not privileged. Defendant’s belief that the evidence was subject to the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege was not reasonable in light of the clear legal authority provided in Suezaki, supra.

Surveillance video and photos do not contain counsel’s thoughts, impressions, and defense strategy. Plaintiff’s attorney seeks sanctions in the amount of $4,260 based upon his hourly rate of $400. He states he spent 7.5 hours preparing the motion and engaging in meet and confer efforts. He anticipates spending another 3 hours preparing reply and attending the hearing. The court finds $2,700 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions on this motion based upon all of the circumstances of the parties’ discovery motions, meet and confer efforts, and the legal issues.

D.

Conclusion

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is directed to provide further responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Interrogatory Nos. 41 through 59, and to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,700, entered against Defendant and its counsel of record, within 20 days of the service of this order. While Plaintiff has provided a proposed order, it goes beyond the scope of this order by adding information not originally part of the interrogatories, by disallowing objections, and as it contains the wrong sanctions amount. With respect to objections, Plaintiff’s motion did not establish that Defendant waived its right to assert valid objections. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order consistent with this court’s ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

II. Motion to Compel Further Responses – Requests for Production Plaintiff Christopher Pawlik (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Ernesto Ongaro and Sons, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Request Nos. 22 through 32, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record in the amount of $5,460.00.

In opposition, Defendant states that it will produce the requested documents based upon this court’s May 29, 2026, ruling regarding the discoverability of the subject surveillance videos and photos. However, Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. The statute governing this motion also requires sanctions unless this court finds Defendant acted with substantial justification in objecting to the discovery requests. As discussed above with respect to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to its special interrogatories, this court finds Defendant did not act with substantial justification. This court finds $3,600 to be a reasonable sanction on this motion.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is directed to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Request Nos. 22 through 32, and to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,600, entered against Defendant and its counsel of record, within 20 days of the service of this order. While Plaintiff has provided a proposed order, it goes beyond the scope of this order by adding information not originally part of the discovery requests and it contains the wrong sanctions amount. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to provide a written order consistent with this court’s ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

4