In re Marriage of Kahn
Opinion
Opinion
background. They have been gleaned from various portions of the record. They were not necessarily before the trial court when it made any particular ruling.
3 II
THE TRIAL COURT‟S ORDER GRANTING TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Robert contends that the trial court erred by striking his responsive pleading and
entering his default.
A. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background.
1. The motion to compel.
On April 23, 2009, Jessie served Robert with form interrogatories and a request for
production of documents.
At the time, Robert was in propria persona. The next day, however, April 24,
2009, he retained Attorney Thomas M. Stefanelli. Nevertheless, on May 28, 2009, when
responses were due (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.260,
subd. (a) [document requests]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1013), Robert wholly failed to
respond.
On June 16, 2009, Stefanelli belatedly requested an extension of time. He told
Jessie‟s attorney, “ . . . I will be meeting with my client on . . . June 18, 2009. I will be
able to get you his responses to your discovery within a few days thereafter.” However,
he did not do so.