Plaintiff Sarah Mosbys Mtc Further Responses To Rfa

Motion

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 6, 2017

B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY Superior Court of California, County of Monterey On 10/5/2018 10:40 AM By: Melanie Oliverez, Deputy Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. (SBN: 255800) Michael B. Geoola, Esq. (SBN: 235365) Tina H. Abdolhosseini, Esq. (SBN: 316093) B & D LAW GROUP, APLC. 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 424-5252 Facsimile: (310) 492-5855 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Sandra Valois & Sarah Mosby SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY MONTEREY DIVISION SANDRA VALOIS, CASE NO. 17CV001381 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF SARAH MOSBY'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND VS. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANT ISMAEL AVINA’S Defendants. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE ISMAEL AVINA, et. al. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500.00 FROM DEFENDANT ISMAEL AVINA AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD JOHN S. BURTON, ESQ & LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. BURTON PC Hearing: Dept.: 15 Time: 9:00 A.M Date: November 9, 2018 TO THIS COURT, ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Sarah Mosby hereby submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration and Exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions as follows:- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on April 19, 2015 at US- 101 near CA-156, Salinas CA 93907. Plaintiff’s and the Defendant herein have met and conferred; however despite several discussions between counsel, and various meet and confer attempts, and the case laws that Plaintiff’s counsel provided to Defendants Counsel, Defendant had refused to amend their response. Therefore it is apparent that further attempts to meet and confer will not be fruitful, making this motion necessary. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff propounded to Defendant Request for Admissions, Set One (hereinafter “RFA’S”), via USPS mail. (See Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of the Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on Defendant by Plaintiff, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) On August 16, 2018 Defendant served its responses by mail. (See Exhibit B, a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFA’S, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). On September 26, 2018, as the Defendant’s responses to the RFA’S were insufficient and non-code-compliant, Plaintiff sent her first meet and confer letter requesting further responses to the RFA’S (See Exhibit C, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) On September 26, 2018, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. (See Exhibit D, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff sent her second meet and confer letter to Defendant, identifying the issues and requesting further responses to the RFA’S. (See Exhibit E, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) On September 28, 2018 Defendants informed Plaintiff’s that they will not be amending their discovery responses. (See Exhibit F, a true and correct copy of the e-mails, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) Thus, Defense Counsel has made it clear that Defendant does not intent to amend their response without a Court order. PLAINTIFF has reached an impasse and it does not seem that any more meeting and conferring can be beneficial to the parties. PLAINTIFF has no choice but to bring the instant Motion. Good Cause exists to bring the instant Motion because the responses are not code- compliant and Defendant’s objections are not valid or proper. PLAINTIFF is entitled to the responses to these discovery requests so that she can be prepared for the arbitration. III. ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE RESPONSES ARE INADEQUATE A. The Court May Compel A Party To Provide Further Answers To Discovery (Requests For Admissions) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2033.290, on receipt of a response to a request for admissions, the party propounding the request may move for an order compelling further response to the request if the answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete, or if an objection to the request is without merit or too general. Furthermore, Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220 provides that each answer shall be as complete and straightforward as possible and shall admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, deny so much of the matter involved in the request as untrue, and specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the response the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. If lack of information or knowledge is the reason 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for failure to admit all or part, then that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. Moreover, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.230 provides that when an objection is asserted it must state the specific grounds and the party must still answer the remainder of the request. B. Plaintiff Is Entitled To Meaningful Responses To Discovery The legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial. Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Plaintiff is entitled to know what Defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is also entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 109 [Court strikes Defendant’s answer and entered their default for failing to provide meaningful responses to discovery.] Moreover, Request for Admissions are meant to uncover undisputed factual issues. Shepard & Morgan v. Lee & Daniel (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 848, 885. They also serve to establish uncontroverted facts learned from other discovery, which saves time and expense of proof at trial. Fredericks v. Kontos Industries (1987) 189 Cal. App.3d 272, 276. They are not discovery devises in the traditional sense and most objections that may apply to an interrogatory or production demand do not apply to a request for admissions. Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 884-887; International Harvester v. Superior Court (1969), 273 Cal.App.2d 652, 655. Any necessary objection or explanation should be reserved for the concomitant responses to FROG 17.1 and not asserted as an “objection” to the request for admission. Burch v. Gombos (2000), 82 Cal.App.4th 352, 358-359.In Cembrook v. Superior 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 4 2 4 - 5 2 5 2 ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court (1961), 56 Cal.2d 423, 429-430, the court explains in detail that Requests for Admissions are not subject to objections like other types of discovery. In Cembrook the Court explained: “The claims of ambiguity, calling for opinion and conclusion, and those other objections summarized above, have been discussed in the other decisions filed this day. They were there found to be untenable. The reasons set forth in those cases for holding such objections unsound when applied to other discovery procedures, are peculiarly applicable to requests for admissions... For this reason, the fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment.” Cembrook v. Superior Court 56 Cal.2d at 429 [Emphasis Added].” The same objections and issues that Defendant has raised here were addressed in Cembrook. The Court in Cembrook goes on to explain that an objection is not a substitute to an inability clearly to admit or deny a request for admission: “This is not a ground for objection and certainly does not constitute a sound reason for sustaining the objection. As quoted above, section 2033 provides that a party served with requests for admission may deny as well as admit, and that a denial shall fairly meet the substance of the request. The section is even more explicit. As if underscoring the error of the trial court in sustaining Sterling's objections, the section also provides that the request may be answered by a sworn statement "setting forth in detail the reasons why [the party served with requests] cannot truthfully admit or deny ...," and that "when good faith requires that a party deny only a part or a qualification of a matter ... he shall specify so much of it as is true and deny only the remainder...... “By objecting to the requests as a whole, without some attempt to admit or deny in part, and by making no attempt to answer with an explanation of its inability, it failed to show the "good faith" required by the statute. Consequently the trial court erred in sustaining its objections to the requests, in toto. Some of the requests are obviously relevant and void of ambiguity. If other reasons exist that make Sterling unable to reply, Plaintiff is entitled to a sworn statement from Sterling setting forth those reasons in good faith.” Cembrook v. Superior Court 56 Cal.2d at 429-430 [Emphasis Added]. In the instant case, Defendants have done exactly what the court in Cembrook chastised the Defendant for having done. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements, Defendant is hiding 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 behind objections in order to avoid answering the questions. The fact of the matter is that the admissions sought are all true and Defendant knows it. They just don’t want to admit it without putting up a fight, but they also want to not be subject to the ramifications for failing to admit true facts under Civil Procedure Code §2033.420. The Court should OVERRULE and STRIKE all the objections asserted by Defendant and to the extent that the substantive answers are deficient or non-responsive, this Court should order that Defendant provide further code compliant responses, under oath. C. Defendants should also be ordered to provide further responses to Concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1 in line with the further responses to the Requests for Admissions. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code §§2030.220, Defendants had an obligation to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible and to conduct a reasonable inquiry to other persons or organizations. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code §§2030.300, Defendant also should be ordered to fix his responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 to fully and properly respond to all the subparts and to: (1) provide actual facts in subpart (b) including all facts in their possession or obtainable after doing a reasonable inquiry; (2) provide the names and contact information for all persons who have knowledge in subpart (c); and (3) identify all documents or things in subpart (d). Defendant has failed to adequately do so and they should be compelled to do so. I" 1 I" 1 I" 1 I" 1 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 IV. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE JUSTIFIED SINCE DEFENDANT HAD AMPLE TIME TO RESPOND AND HAD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR FAILURE TO RESPOND. When a motion is brought pursuant to Civil Procedure Code §2030.290, the code allows the Court to not impose sanctions only if it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Civil Procedure Code §2030.290(c). “Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to authorized discovery, providing evasive discovery responses, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, unsuccessfully making or opposing discovery motions without substantial justification, and failing to meet and confer in good faith to resolve a discovery dispute when required by statute to do so.” [Citation.] (In re Marriage of Michaely (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 802, 809”. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer to no avail. Plaintiff has not received sufficient responses to the discovery. Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to reach an informal resolution to these discovery issues and communicated with Defense Counsel’s office numerous times, to no avail. The Plaintiff has incurred $2,100.00 in bringing these motions ($350/hour for 6 hours preparing these motions, the points and authorities, and two Separate Statements, and an anticipated 2 hours replying to any oppositions and appearance time of 1 hour for the hearing on this motion) and $120.00 in costs for a total of $3,210.00. Courts in this county have awarded private Plaintiff’s counsel amounts in excess of $350.00 per hours and the undersigned has been awarded this much by Courts in this county the past. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is only asking for $2,500.00 in sanctions inclusive of the filing costs. Plaintiff requests that this Court award $2,500.00 payable to Plaintiff’s Counsel of record, as a sanction and in compensation for having to bring this motion. However, Plaintiff defers to the wisdom of this Court in setting the amount of the sanctions. I I 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 V. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant should be ordered to promptly serve full and complete further responses to the discovery requests without objection and any objections in its responses should be ordered and deemed stricken. In addition, Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel should be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s Counsel in the amount of $2,500.00 Respectfully submitted this 4™ day of October, 2018. B&D LAW GROUP, APLC. By: CA SS Daa@ D. - Geoulla, Esq. Tina H. Abdolhosseini, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Sarah Mosby 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF TINA H. ABDOLHOSSEINI, ESO I, Tina H. Abdolhosseini, Esq., declare that: I. I am an attorney at law, admitted to practice in California. I am a member in good standing of the California State bar. I represent Plaintiff, at all times relevant herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff propounded to Defendant Request for Admissions, Set One (hereinafter “RFA’S”), via USPS mail. (See Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of the Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded on Defendant by Plaintiff, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 3. On August 16, 2018 Defendant served its responses by mail. (See Exhibit B, a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff's RFA’S, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). 4. On September 26, 2018, as the Defendant’s responses to the RFA’S were insufficient and non-code-compliant, Plaintiff sent her first meet and confer letter requesting further responses to the RFA’S (See Exhibit C, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 5. On September 26, 2018, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’ s meet and confer letter. (See Exhibit D, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 6. On September 27, 2018, Plaintiff sent her second meet and confer letter to Defendant, identifying the issues and requesting further responses to the RFA’S. (See Exhibit E, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 7s On September 28, 2018 Defendants informed Plaintiff’s that they will not be amending their discovery responses. (See Exhibit F, a true and correct copy of the e-mails, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 8. There is an impasse and it does not seem that any more meeting and conferring 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. B & D L A W G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 2 0 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 can be beneficial to the parties. Plaintiff has no choice but to bring this instant motion. Good Cause exists to bring this instant motion because the responses are not code-compliant and the objections are not valid or proper. Plaintiff is entitled to the responses to these discovery requests so that he can be prepared for upcoming trial. 9. Plaintiff needs the answers to these requests and any documents that are responsive to our requests for production to investigate the matters far in advance of trial. Additionally, this information in advance of being able to take a deposition of Defendants and potential witnesses. 10. Defendant’s failure to respond to any discovery has deprived Plaintiff and counsel of a meaning full evaluation of their claim. 11. I have incurred $2,100.00 in bringing these motions ($350/hour for 6 hours preparing these motions, the points and authorities, and two Separate Statements, and an anticipated 2 hours replying to any oppositions and appearance time of 1 hour for the hearing on this motion) and $120.00 in costs for a total of $3,210.00. Courts in this county have awarded private Plaintiff’s counsel amounts in excess of $350.00 per hours and the undersigned has been awarded this much by Courts in this county the past. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is only asking for $2,500.00 in sanctions inclusive of the filing costs. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4 day of October, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. CAN Ting fl. Abdolhosseini, Esq. Declarant 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT & DISC-020 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY | Arsen Karayan, Esq., SBN: 296258 B & D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025 TELEPHONE NO: (31())424-5252 FAX NO. (optional): (310)492-5855 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): grsen @bdinjurylawgroup.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Sarah Mosby SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Monterey STREET ADDRESS: 1200 Aguajito Rd MAILING ADDRESS: 1200 Aguajito Rd CITY AND ZIP CODE: Monterey, 93940 BRANCH NAME: Monterey Division SHORT TITLE: go dra Valois, et al. v. Ismael Avina, et al. CASE NUMBER: REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION [XX] Truth of Facts [|] Genuineness of Documents Requesting Party: Sarah Mosby Answering Party: Ismael Avina Set No.: Two (2) 17CV001381 INSTRUCTIONS Requests for admission are written requests by a party to an action requiring that any other party to the action either admit or deny, under oath, the truth of certain facts or the genuineness of certain documents. For information on timing, the number of admissions a party may request from any other party, service of requests and responses, restrictions on the style, format, and scope of requests for admission and responses to requests, and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections 94-95, 1013, and 2033.010-2033.420 and the case law relating to those sections. An answering party should consider carefully whether to admit or deny the truth of facts or the genuineness of documents. With limited exceptions, an answering party will not be allowed to change an answer to a request for admission. There may be penalties if an answering party fails to admit the truth of any fact or the genuineness of any document when requested to do so and the requesting party later proves that the factis true or that the documentis genuine. These penalties may include, among other things, payment of the requesting party’s attorney’s fees incurred in making that proof. Unless there is an agreement or a court order providing otherwise, the answering party must respond in writing to requests for admission within 30 days after they are served, or within 5 days after service in an unlawful detainer action. There may be significant penalties if an answering party fails to provide a timely written response to each request for admission. These penalties may include, among other things, an order that the facts in issue are deemed true or that the documents in issue are deemed genuine for purposes of the case. Answers to Requests for Admission must be given under oath. The answering party should use the following language atthe end of the responses: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing answers are true and correct. (DATE) (SIGNATURE) These instructions are only a summary and are notintended to provide complete information about requests for admission. This Requests for Admission form does not change existing law relating to requests for admissions, nor does it affect an answering party’s right to assert any privilege or to make any objection. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION You are requested to admit within 30 days after service, or within 5 days after service in an unlawful detainer action, of this Requests for Admission that: 1. [XJ Each of the following facts is true (if more than one, number each fact consecutively): [XT] Continued on Attachment 1 2. [1 The original of each of the following documents, copies of which are attached, is genuine (if more than one, number each document consecutively): [1 Continued on Attachment 2 Arsen Karayan, Esq. b An (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure, J udicial Council of California RE QUE STS FOR ADMISSION §§ 94-95, 2033.010-2033.420, 2033.710 DISC-020 [Rev. January 1, 2008] American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com B & D L A W G R O U P AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M o N I c A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 AN Ln BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that Plaintiff Sarah Mosby [“Plaintiff” or “Propounding Party] was a passenger in a vehicle DRIVEN by Plaintiff Sandra Valois in front of you on the date of the INCIDENT. (For the purposes of these requests, all references to “INCIDENT” includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach giving rise to this action or proceeding, including but not limited to the accident that occurred on or about April 19, 2015.) (For the purposes of these requests, all references to “YOU” and “YOUR?” as used herein includes Defendant Ismael Avina and includes any agents, attorneys, investigators, representatives or employees acting on his behalf.) (For the purposes of these requests, all references to “DRIVING” as used herein includes the operation of a “motor vehicle” or “motorcycle,” as set forth within California Vehicle Code §§ 400, 415.) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that Plaintiff Sarah Mosby was a passenger in a vehicle DRIVEN by Plaintiff Sandra Valois at or near Salinas, California, on the date of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that YOU were DRIVING at or near Salinas, California, on the date of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that Plaintiff Sandra Valois was not at fault for the said INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that Plaintiff Sarah Mosby was not at fault for the said INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that YOU failed to keep a safe distance between the vehicle of Plaintiff Sarah Valois and YOUR vehicle. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO PLAINTIFF SARAH MOSBY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - SET TWO (2) B & D L A W G R O U P AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M o N I c A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 AN Ln BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that YOU rear ended the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Sandra Valois on the date of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you were intoxicated during the time of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you were driving under the influence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that YOU were driving while you were intoxicated. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that YOU are responsible for the said INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that YOUR negligence caused the said INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that YOUR negligence was the sole cause of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Mosby. Admit that YOU are responsible for the property damages incurred by Plaintiff Sarah REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Mosby. Admit that YOU are responsible for the bodily injury sustained by Plaintiff Sarah 2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO PLAINTIFF SARAH MOSBY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - SET TWO (2) EXHIBIT B [66843-1-47] JOHN S. BURTON, ESQ. #060715 Law Offices of John S. Burton PC 55 River Street, Suite 230 Santa Cruz, California 95060 Telephone: (831) 425-5023 Fax: (831) 427-3159 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, ISMAEL AVINA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY SANDRA VALOIS; AND SARAH Case No. 17CV001381 MOSBY, ISMAEL AVINA’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FROM SARAH MOSBY, SET NO. TWO Plaintiffs, VS. INCLUSIVE, Complaint Filed: April 18. 2017 ‘Trial Date: TBA Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ISMAEL AVINA; AND DOES | TO 100.) ) ) ) ) ) AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) ) PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, SARAH MOSBY RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, ISMAEL AVINA SET NUMBER: Two Defendant, ISMAEL AVINA, responds to the requests for admissions served on him by Plaintiff, SARAH MOSBY as follows: 12. Admit. 13. Responding party objects to this Request on the grounds that the same is vague and ambiguous as to the term “near.” Without waving the aforementioned objections. or any of them, and in a good faith attempt to respond to this Request as it is best understood. responding party responds as follows: Responding party admits that Ms. Mosby was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Ms. Valois approximately 20 miles from Salinas, California on the date of the incident. ! AVINA’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FROM MOSBY, SET NO. TWO to 10 11 14. Responding party objects to this Request on the grounds that the same is vague and ambiguous as to the term “near.” Without waving the aforementioned objections, or any of them, and in a good faith attempt to respond to this Request as it is best understood, responding party responds as follows: Responding party admits that he was driving approximately 20 miles from Salinas, California on the date of the incident. 15. Denied. 16. A reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this Request has been made and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable responding party to admit or deny this Request. 17. Denied. 18. Admit. 19. Denied 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 22. Responding party’s investigation and discovery concerning the incident is currently incomplete and is ongoing. Specifically, responding party has yet to take the depositions of either plaintiff. Sandra Valois or Sarah Mosby. or the independent witness, Jeff Ashton. At this time, and based upon a reasonable inquiry concerning the subject matter of this Request, responding party admits that he is at least 1% responsible for causing the incident. 23. Responding party's investigation and discovery concerning the incident is currently incomplete and is ongoing. Specifically. responding party has yet to take the depositions of either plaintiff, Sandra Valois or Sarah Mosby, or the independent witness, Jeff Ashton. At this time, and based upon a reasonable inquiry concerning the subject matter of this Request. responding party admits that he is at least 1% negligent and responsible for causing the incident. 24. Denied. 235. Responding party objects to this Request on the grounds that the same assumes facts not in evidence, i.e., that Ms. Mosby is making a claim for property damage. As responding party is not aware of any such claim for property damage, he is unable to respond to this Request. 5 AVINA'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FROM MOSBY, SET NO. TWO 26. Responding party's investigation and discovery concerning the incident is currently incomplete and is ongoing. Specifically. responding party has yet to take the depositions of cither plaintiff, Sandra Valois or Sarah Mosby, or the independent witness, Jeff Ashton. At this time, and based upon a reasonable inquiry concerning the subject matter of this Request, responding party admits that he is at least 1% responsible for the bodily injury sustained by Sarah Mosby. Dated: August ¢ ,2018 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. BURTON PC IN [fA JOHN S. BURTON torney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, ISMAEL AVINA ~ AVINA’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FROM MOSBY, SET NO. TWO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, say: 1 am the defendant in the above-entitled action; that [ have read the within RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS FROM SARAH MOSBY. SET NO. TWO, and know the contents thereof: that the same is true of my own knowledge. except as to the matters which are therein stated upon my information or belicf. and as to those matters. | believe it to be true. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 3 12-15 , 2018, at Da biwas , California. wv hs W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case Name: Valois, et al. Avina, et al. Case No.: 17CV001381 File No.: 66843-1-47 PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP §1013a, 2015.5 I certify and declare as follows: I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to this action. My business address is 55 River Street, Suite 230, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, which is located in the County where the mailing described below took place. On the date set forth below, 1 served a copy of the within ISMAEL AVINA’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS FROM SARAH MOSBY, SET NO. TWO on the parties in this action, by the following means: X (BY MAIL) [am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I deposited such envelopes to be placed for collection and handling via Federal Express following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing correspondence for Federal Express. On the same day that material is placed for collection, it is picked up by Federal Express at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. (BY FAX TRANSMISSION) By transmitting a true copy thereof from sending facsimile machine telephone number (831) 427-3159 to the following parties at the receiving facsimile machine numbers shown below. The transmission was completedat ___ Mon , reported as complete and without error, and the transmission report attached was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused cach such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) noted below. (E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or agreement of the parties to accept service by mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the person at the e-mail address(es) below. | did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 1 declare under penalty of perjury ung€r the Taws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this de aration was : , 2018, at Santa Cruz, California. A De SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST I wh Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. B & D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 daniel@bdinjurylawgroup.com (310) 424-5252/FAX (310) 492-5855 Nancy S. Allard, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHAHIN KARIM 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 845 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 (925) 977-1400/ FAX (925) 937-2385 Attorney for Plaintiffs, SANDRA VALOIS and SARAH MOSBY Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, SANDRA VALOIS EXHIBIT C B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 September 26, 2018 VIA US MAIL & FACSIMILE: (831)427-3159 John S. Burton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. BURTON & ASSOCIATES 55 River Street Ste 230 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 RE: Sandra Valois, et al. v. Ismael Avina, et al. Court Case Number: 17CV001381 Our Client: Sandra Valois Your Client: Ismael Avina Date of Loss: 04/19/2015 Our File Number: 14677 Dear John S. Burton, Esq., We are in receipt of your clients’ responses to our discovery, set two for Plaintiff Sandra Valois and Sarah Mosby. Please consider this our attempt to meet and confer. The objections are not well taken and the responses appear to be deficient and not code compliant. The responses must be full and complete with as much information and possible. The responses must include “meaningful” substantive information. See, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 1093. Moreover, the objections are not well taken. These are proper questions and we are entitled to full and complete responses. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355; Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429. Your responses do not appear to be code compliant. We ask that you call our office to discuss the responses further. Alternatively, you just can provide further responses that are full and complete and code compliant without the improper objections. The courtesy of your call is requested within five (5) days. Thank you, B&D Law Group, APLC ( Abdolhosseini, Esq. THA/KBV EXHIBIT D 10/5/2018 Gmail - Valois, et al. v. Avina Faxed Letter of September 26, 2018 | l Gmail Jessica Geoola Valois, et al. v. Avina Faxed Letter of September 26, 2018 3 messages Susan Heydt Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:53 PM To: Jessica Geoola , Daniel Geoulla Our office received a faxed letter from your office of today’s date regarding the above case. Specifically, it is from Mr. Abdolhosseni (sp?). The print on this letter is barely legible. Will you please e-mail a copy asap as | understand there is a deadline. Thank you. Sue Susan R. Heydt Legal Assistant to John S. Burton LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. BURTON PC MONTEREY BAY MEDIATION 55 River Street, Suite 230 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 425-5023 Fax: (831) 427-3159 sheydt@JohnSBurton.com JSB Jessica Geoola Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:10 PM To: sheydt@johnsburton.com Cc: Daniel Geoulla , Tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com Good afternoon Susan, Tina has taken over the handling of this file and | have CC'd her in this email. [Quoted text hidden] Best Regards, Jessica R. Geoola Legal Secretary to Daniel Geoulla, Esq. B&D Injury Law Group APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 424-5252 ext. 291 Fax: (310) 492-5855 jessica@bdinjurylawgroup.com www.bdinjurylawgroup.com CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL TRANSMISSION & WARNING: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity, federal HIPAA, and/or other legal rules. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, or disclose its contents to anyone. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, nor does the sender accept liability damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. THIS EMAIL IS NOT A FORMAL COMMUNICATION. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED NO COMMUNICATION IN THIS EMAIL SHALL BE BINDING, OR CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE. | DO NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS EMAIL. | RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE CONTENTS, AND MEANINGS, OF THIS EMAIL AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. 2 attachments ] BY imageod1 jg image001.jpg 9K Susan Heydt Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:11 PM To: Jessica Geoola Cc: Daniel Geoulla , "Tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com" Thank you Jessica. Sue https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=4877cd79d6&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1612708678701306242&simpl=msg-f%3A16127086787... 1/2 EXHIBIT E B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 September 27, 2018 VIA US MAIL & FACSIMILE: (831)427-3159 John S. Burton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. BURTON & ASSOCIATES 55 River Street Ste 230 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 RE: Sandra Valois, et al. v. Ismael Avina, et al. Court Case Number: 17CV001381 Our Client: Sandra Valois Your Client: Ismael Avina Date of Loss: 04/19/2015 Our File Number: 14677 Dear John S. Burton, Esq., As a follow up to our September 26, 2018 letter these are the discovery issues we wish to discuss with you: With regard to Ismael’s Responses to Sandra Valois: Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two: 2.6 You have failed to respond to the subparts of the said interrogatories. These are judicially council approved forms, and the information sought should be provided. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is also entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 109 [Court strikes Defendant’s answer and entered their default for failing to provide meaningful responses to discovery.] A code compliant response must be provided. Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Two: 21-25 With regard to request for admission no’s 21-25 you have provided a standard response to all the requests, as such your response is not code compliant and unresponsive to the questions being asked. These are simple and straight forward questions and Plaintiff deserves a simple and straight forward answer. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 they stand on each issue related to this case. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is also entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 109 [Court strikes Defendant’s answer and entered their default for failing to provide meaningful responses to discovery.] Furthermore each matter that the requesting party seeks to have the responding party admit must "be separately stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2). The statement of the fact to be admitted "should be in simple and concise terms" so that it "can be denied or admitted with an absolute minimum of explanation or qualification." Loucas v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham), No. 14-15010, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 672, 16 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2015). The responding party should be able to answer "yes, no, the answerer does not know, or a very simple direct explanation given as to why he cannot answer." Defendant contends that they are at least 1% liable? How is that responsive?. The legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial.” Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Special Interrogatories, Set Two: 3-7 With regard to request numbers 3-7 you refer us to other responses, this is not code compliant and unresponsive. If the question requires reference to some other document, then the document should be identified and its contents summarized so that the answer by itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. Weil and Brown Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2009) §8:1049 citing. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771(pdf). With regard to Ismael Avina’s responses to Sarah Mosby Responses to Form Interrogatory, Set Two: 2.6, 12.6, 16.1 & 17.1 With regard to request no. 2.6 you have failed to respond to the subparts of the said interrogatories. These are judicially council approved forms, and the information sought should be provided. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is also B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 109 [Court strikes Defendant’s answer and entered their default for failing to provide meaningful responses to discovery. ] With regard to 12.6 you have objected to this request on the grounds of privilege and then stated that you are unaware of non-privileged documents. These are judicial council approved forms and there is nothing privileged about the said request. Under California law, the objecting party has the burden of justifying its objections when the propounding party requests that the Court order further responses. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. This requires the Defendant to proceed through each objection and demonstrate that the objection has merit. Under CCP § 2023.010, it is a misuse of discovery to make unmerited objections. Moreover, facts do not become privileged or work product merely upon transmission to an attorney. A party must disclose facts known to his or her lawyer, even if the party has no personal knowledge of such facts. Smith v. Sup. Crt (Alfred) (1961) 189 Cal. App.2d 6. With regard to request no. 16.1 you make a reference to 15.1 this is not a code compliant response, as stated above if the question requires reference to some other document, then the document should be identified and its contents summarized so that the answer by itself is fully responsive to the interrogatory. Weil and Brown Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2009) §8:1049 citing. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771(pdf). With regard to 17.1 you again refer us to another document being the responses to admissions, please respond appropriately; for the sake of brevity Plaintiff will not repeat the aforementioned case law. Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Two: 16 The said request is inquiring whether Plaintiff Sarah Mosby was not at fault for the incident, these are simple and straight forward questions and Plaintiff deserves a simple and straight forward answer. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is also entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 109 [Court strikes Defendant’s answer and entered their default for failing to provide meaningful responses to discovery.] Furthermore each matter that the requesting party seeks to have the B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 responding party admit must "be separately stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2). The statement of the fact to be admitted "should be in simple and concise terms" so that it "can be denied or admitted 1 with an absolute minimum of explanation or qualification." Loucas v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham), No. 14-15010, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 672, 16 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2015). The responding party should be able to answer "yes, no, the answerer does not know, or a very simple direct explanation given as to why he cannot answer." Additionally, the legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial.” Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Please provide a proper response. Responses to Special Interrogatory, Set Two: 8 In your response you contend that you are not in possession and control of Sarah Mosby’s medical bills, we have provided Ms. Mosbys medical records which do contain bills, served in our discovery responses in 2017. Thus it is incomprehensible as to why your responses states otherwise. Kindly provide a proper response. Responses to Production of Documents, Set Two (for both Plaintiff’s): You have objected to each and every request and stated that the documents have been previously produced without identifying which documents you are referring to. A party responding to requests for productions has two duties: - First, they have a duty to provide a responses (statement of compliance) that identifies (1) which responsive documents exist, (2) which documents no longer exist (and why), and (3) what documents never existed. CCP §2031.230. This obligation includes conducting a reasonable inquiry B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 into sources within their possession, sources within their custody, and sources within their control. This duty applies regardless of whether they intend to produce the documents or not. This duty applies regardless of whether they assert some sort of privilege. CCP §2031.240. Finally, this duty applies regardless of whether the actual documents are in their possession and regardless of whether the documents are equally available or burdensome to produce. CCP §§ 2031.220 & 2031.230. - Second, they have a separate duty to produce the documents. CCP §§ 2031.220 & CCP §2031.280. Your responses do not appear to be code compliant. We ask that you call our office to discuss the responses further. Alternatively, you just can provide further responses that are full and complete and code compliant. The courtesy of your responses are expected no later than by October 2, 2018, 3:00 p.m. As you are aware, our Motion deadline is October 5, 2018, we wish to resolve these simple discovery issues without judicial intervention. Thank you, B&D Law Group, APLC a H. Abdolhosseini, Esq. THA/KBV EXHIBIT ¥ Ny Law Offices of John S. Burton PC <5 55 River Street, Suite 230 www.JohnSBurton.com ~~. oF Santa Cruz, California 95060 Telephone: (831) 425-5023 Fax: (831) 427-3159 September 28, 2018 Tina H, Abdolhosseini. Esq. B & D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Valois, et al v. Avina, et al. Our File No.: 66843-1-47 Dear Ms. Abdolhosseini: I am in receipt of your letter dated September 27, 2018 regarding discovery responses. The purpose of this letter is to meet and confer regarding the issues raised there. [ am expediting my response in view of my absence from the office on October 2 (which is next Wednesday) for depositions ih" Sacramento and Santa Rosa. Before addressing each category of issues contained in your letter, I wish to raise the following points: First, this case is riot set for trial. We havea trial setting conference set for December 18,2018. The resulting trial date from that conference will be in the late summer, 2019 time frame. Therefore, while your overriding concern that plaintiffs be apprised of defendant’s contentions for purposes of trial is certainly appropriate, we are nowhere near a trial; date. Second, despite out best efforts, as of this date no depositions have been taken. The depositions of plaintiffs Ms. Mosby and Ms. Valois and witness Jeff Ashton are set for October 29. The deposition of defendant Avina is scheduled for October 30. Until those depositions are taken and concluded, none of the parties, yours included, can be expected to have formulated all of their contentions, particularly concerning liability. We will know a lot more after those depositions are taken. Third, Monterey County, where I have actively practiced for 37 years, does not look favorably upon discovery motions, particularly where it is form over substance. Fourth, I take responding to written discovery very seriously. | did so in responding to.the eight * sogond” sets 30 written discovery Submitted to Mr. Avina. ’ EE FADOCUSBI66843\CORRESPONDENCECOUNSEL\VABDOLHOSSEINLOOI .wpd Tina H, Abdolhosseini. Esq. September 28, 2018 Page 2 Finally, Ms. Valois and Ms. Mosby served identical discovery to Mr. Avina. With a couple of exceptions, the responses to each are identical. Therefore, [ am responding to most categories jointly. I address those responses which differ separately. With the above in mind, please permit me to respond to the categories of responses raised in your September 27, 2018 letter. Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two:.2.6 (Both Plaintiffs) It appears that your point is that I did not respond by formatting the response with the sub-parts. This is form over substance. My client’s response is full and complete and contains all information requested in the interrogatory. No further response will be provided. Responses to requests for Admissions, Set Two: 21-25 (Both Plaintiffs) Please see page 1 of this letter as to the second point. I suspect that most attorneys responding to these requests on behalf of defendants would either flatly deny or indicate that he or she could not respond based upon current information. I went a step further by conceding that Mr. Avina is at least 1% negligent in causing the accident. These are full and complete responses based upon current information. No further responses will be provided. Special Interrogatories, Set Two: 3-7 (Both Plaintiffs) Plaintiff has asked the same questions in two different formats, form interrogatories and special interrogatories. The responses to special interrogatories incorporate the responses to form interrogatories asking the same question. This is form over substance. No further responses will be provided. Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two: 12.6, 16.1 and 17.1 (Plaintiff Mosby) I have responded to 12.6 as follows: “Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it requests reports from my attorney to my insurance company, which are absolutely privileged under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving the aforementioned objections or any of them, defendant responds as follows: Iam not aware of any non-privileged reports.” I am not required to identify each of my reports to Mr. Avina’s insurance company. Those are the reports to which I object. Other than those, there are no reports. That is what the response to the interrogatory says. In view of this, no further response will be provided. As to 16.1, you have asked the same question in 15.1 as to the Fourth Affirmative defense and again in 16.1. The response is appropriate. It incorporates answer 15.1 as to the FADOCUSB\6684 \CORRESPONDENCECOUNSEL\ABDOLHOSSEIN]L001 wpd Tina H, Abdolhosseini. Esq. September 28, 2018 Page 3 Fourth Affirmative Defense. No further responses will be provided. As to 17.1, I expect that you refer to the responses related to RFA’s 13 and 14. The only real issue is as to the term “near”. Your should be aware that the accident did not occur even in Monterey County. It occurred in San Benito County at a location probably 20 miles from Salinas I leave it to your interpretation if that is “near” Salinas. Mr. Avina goes on to admit that Ms. Valois (#13) and Mr. Avina (#14) were driving a vehicle approximately 20 miles from Salinas. In 17.1, as to these two RFA’s, I refer to these specific responses which are full and complete as to themselves This is clearly asking for form over substance. No further responses will be provided. Responses to Request for Admission, Set Two: 16 (Plaintiff Mosby) Defendant’s response is as follows: “A reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this Request has been made and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable responding party to admit or deny this Request.” Please see the first page of this letter, points one and two. Whether defendant contends she is negligent or not is yet to be determined. Without having taken the depositions of Ms. Mosby and Ms. Valois, how can defendant be expected to have formulated any contention concerning Ms. Mosby’s fault or lack thereof? No further response will be provided. Responses to Special Interrogatory, Set Two: 8 (Plaintiff Mosby) We do not have Ms. Mosby’s Howell billing information. Her charged medical expenses are not particularly helpful and are irrelevant. I spoke to Mr. Karayan about this and he indicated he would get that to me as soon as possible. If you wish, I will amend that answer once I have that information. Responses to Request for Production of Documents. Set Two: (Both Plaintiffs) With all respect, I dc not believe any court will require me to produce a second time any documents which I have previously produced or that you already have and waste time, energy and paper doing so. This includes th€ two IME reports from Dr. Ferro (#’s 17, 22) or the photos and repair estimates regarding all vehicles (#'s 18, 19, 20, 21,22, and 24) or to duplicate all of the medical records either provided by your office or obtained through subpoena in this case. In view of the foregoing, no further responses will be provided. I believe this addresses all issues raised in your letter. If I have omitted anything, please let me know. FADOCVUSB\66843\CORRESPONDENCE\COUNSEL\ABDOLHOSSEINI.001.wpd Tina H, Abdolhosseini. Esq. September 28, 2018 Page 4 The goal in this matter is to attempt to seek a resolution. After the depositions on October 29 and 30, we will learn what happened and you will have all of the information I will have. We, along with Ms. Allard, can then seek to resolve this case at the court directed mediation on November 20. Again, our next court date is December 18 for trial setting for a likely date in late summer, 2019. I thank you for your attention to the foregoing. Please contact me discuss further if you wish to further meet and confer regarding these issues. Very truly yours, Tu 7 Let NN / JOHN'S. BURTON JSB:aty F:\DOCUSB\6684\CORRESPONDENCE\COUNSEL\ABDOLHOSSEINL.001 wpd B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M o N I c A B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 Lo s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, state of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025. On October 5, 2018, I served the foregoing documents described: Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to Compel, Memorandum of Points and Authorities & Separate Statement on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: John S. Burton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. BURTON & ASSOCIATES 133 Mission Street, Suite 102 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 __X__ (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles County, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. __X__ (BY FIRM PRACTICE) I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. (BY FACSIMILE) I caused all of the pages of the above entitled documents to be sent to recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the respective telephone numbers indicated above. _ X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on the 5th day of October 2018 at Los Angeles, California. khushboo vasandani Khushboo Vasandani, LLM PROOF OF SERVICE