Hrg Plaintiff Chato Geronimos Motion To Compel Further Responses To Defendant Ruth Reed Rfa

Motion

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 12, 2018

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 10/1/2018 2:40 PM 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, Chato Geronimo, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY MONTEREY DIVISION DESIREE RIDDELL, et al. CASE NO. 18CV000324 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND VS. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S Defendants. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE SHERMAN UPSHAW, et. al. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500.00 FROM DEFENDANT RUTH REED AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD PAULA M. SHAW, ESQ., MCDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL Hearing: Dept.: 14 Time: 9:00 a.m. Date: November 30, 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 Chato Geronimo 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 January 25, 2016 at SR- 68 by Canyon Del Rey Blvd., Monterey, CA 93940. 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 12, 2018, Plaintiff Riddell Desiree 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 15, 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 17, 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 18, 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 19, 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 26, 2018 Plaintiff is a last and final attempt to meet and confer sent an email, to Defendants counsel, in an attempt to resolve the discovery issued without judicial intervention. (See Exhibit F, a true and correct copy of the e-mails, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) On September 26, 2018 Defendants informed Plaintiff’s that they will not be amending their discovery responses. (See Exhibit G, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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" I I" I I" 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 27" day of September, 2018. B&D LAW GROUP, APLC. be (AN Damiel D. Geoulla, Esq. Tina H. Abdolhosseini, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Chato Geronimo 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 12, 2018, Plaintiff Riddell Desiree 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 15, 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 17, 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 18, 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 19, 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.) 7 On September 26, 2018 Plaintiff is a last and final attempt to meet and confer sent an email, to Defendants counsel, in an attempt to resolve the discovery issued without judicial intervention. (See Exhibit F, a true and correct copy of the e-mails, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 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 8. On September 26, 2018 Defendants informed Plaintiff’s that they will not be amending their discovery responses. (See Exhibit G, a true and correct copy of the e-mails, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 0. There is 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 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. 10. 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. 11. Defendant’s failure to respond to any discovery has deprived Plaintiff and counsel of a meaning full evaluation of their claim. 12. 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 27% day of September, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. CAN Tina 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 __ Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq., SBN: 255800 B & D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025 TELEPHONE NO: (31 0)424-5252 FAX NO. (Optional): (310)492-5855 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional: Janie] @bdinjurylawgroup.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Desiree Riddell, et al” SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Monterey sTReeT ADDRESS: 1200 Aguajito Rd MAILING ADDRESS: 1200) Aguajito Rd CITY AND ZIP CODE: Monterey, 03940 BRANCH NAME: Monterey Division SHORTTITLE: Desiree Riddell, et al. v. Sherman Upshaw, et al. CASE NUMBER: REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION [XX] Truth of Facts [] Genuineness of Documents Requesting Party: Chato Geronimo Answering Party: Ruth Reed Set No.: Set One (1) 18CV000324 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 thatthe factis true or that the document is 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 at the 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 not intended 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. [X1 Each ofthe 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 Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. b (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) ( OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Page 10f 1 Code of Civil Procedure ey sme sly REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION §§ 94-95, 2033.010-2033.420, 2033.710 J udicial Council of California 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 NN O N n e B W oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS -- ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1 Plaintiff Chato Geronimo was injured as a result 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 01/25/2016 ) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2 Plaintiff Chato Geronimo did not contribute to the cause of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 3 Plaintiff Chato Geronimo ’s claim is not barred pursuant to Civil Code §3333.3 and/or Civil Code §3333.4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 4 Plaintiff Desiree Ridell ’s vehicle was damaged as a result of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 5 Plaintiff Chato Geronimo incurred at least $1.00 of economic damages as a result of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 6 Defendant Sherman Upshaw ’s negligence was a cause of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 7 Plaintiff Chato Geronimo was injured as a result of Defendant Sherman Upshaw ’s negligence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 8 Defendant Sherman Upshaw ’s negligence contributed at least one (1) percent toward causing the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 9 Defendant Sherman Upshaw ’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing 1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - SET ONE (1) 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 NN O N n e B W oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 10 Defendant Sherman Upshaw vehicle on 01/25/2016 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 11 Defendant Sherman Upshaw the three (3) minutes prior to the INCIDENT. struck Plaintiff Desiree Ridell ’s touched a cellular and/or mobile phone during 2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - SET ONE (1) 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 July 12, 2018, I served the foregoing documents described: Plaintiff Chato Geronimo’s Request For The Identification And Production Of Documents And Things To Defendant Ruth Reed - Set One, Plaintiff Chato Geronimo’s Request For Admissions To Defendant Ruth Reed - Set One, Plaintiff Chato Geronimo’s Form Interrogatories To Defendant Ruth Reed - Set One, Plaintiff Chato Geronimo’s Special Interrogatories To Defendant Ruth Reed - Set One on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Paula M. Shaw, Esq. McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell 1655 N. Main St., Ste. 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925)210-1366 _ X__ (BY MAIL) I caused the 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. _ X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction this service was made. Executed on the 12th day of July 2018 at Los Angeles, California. Katarina Lustenberger ¢ 10 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT RUTH REED (SET ONE) EXHIBIT B O e a N nn A W N - xX N A nn bs W R N = O V R N S A W N -= Do Paula M. Shaw, Esq. [SBN 116946] McDOWELIL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL 1655 N. Main Street, Suite 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 210-1300 Attorneys for Defendants SHERMAN UPSHAW and RUTH REED SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION DESIREE RIDDELL and CHATO No. 18CV000324 GERONIMO, DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR Plaintiffs, ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET v. ONE SHERMAN UPSHAW; RUTH REED; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. / PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, CHATO GERONIMO RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, RUTH REED SET NUMBER: ONE Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2033.210, Defendant RUTH REED (“responding party”) provides this response to the Request for Admission, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff CHATO GERONIMO (“propounding party.”) [11 111 111 DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 18CV000324 1 CO 0 N Y O N hh bh W N B O N N N N N em e m e m p m p m e m p t e t e k e t c o ~ 1 S N hn bh W O N = © NO 0 N N A W N -= OO PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This responding party has not fully completed the investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not fully completed the discovery in this action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents which are presently available to and specifically known to this responding party and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to such responding party. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts, and meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes and variations to the contentions herein set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which this responding party may later recall. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses arc made, legal research is completed and contentions are made. The answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known but should in no way be to the prejudice of this responding party in relation to further discovery, research or analysis. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. At all times material to this case, responding party has made reasonable and good faith efforts to obtain the information asked for by requesting party’s requests. 2. Responding party objects to each of these requests to the extent that it may be construed as requiring disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privileges. 3. In responding to these requests, responding party has made substantial efforts to locate and review relevant documents which might contain information responsive to requesting party’s requests. However, responding party and its attorneys have not completed discovery or preparation for trial, nor have they concluded their analysis of documents and information gathered to date. DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 18CV000324 2 CO 0 =~ O N wn BR W N 00 N n wn hh W N = O O N Y N R W N e o These responses, therefore, are based upon documents and information presently available to and reviewed by responding party and its attorneys. 4, It is possible that future discovery and independent investigation may supply additional facts, documents or information which may lead to additions to, changes in, and variations from the following responses. These responses are made without prejudice to responding party’s right to produce evidence at the time of trial based upon subsequently discovered facts, documents or information. 5. Responding party hereby objects to the subject requests on the grounds that they are compound, vague, ambiguous, over inclusive, under inclusive, burdensome and oppressive, vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this lawsuit and as such they are premised upon erroneous facts and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. RUTH REED was not physically present at the subject incident, nor does she have any personal knowledge about Plaintiff GERONIMO’s mental or physical capacities prior to, or subsequent to, the subject incident. Subject to the foregoing general objections, which objections are hereby incorporated in full and in each of its responses, responding party responds as follows: RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Plaintiff DESIREE RIDELL was injured as a result of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Objection is made to the phrase “injured” as it is overbroad, vague and unintelligible. Further objections are further made insofar as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the partics have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 183CV000324 3 OO 0 ~~ O N hn B W N e N O N NN N N N N N N mm mm e m e m e m em e d pe d p t 0 ~ N S N Wn BR W N = Oo Ww W N Y R W N N = O dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Plaintiff CHATO GERONIMO did not contribute to the cause of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Objections are further made insofar as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860). A reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to cnable this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Plaintiff's CHATO GERONIMO’s claim is not barred pursuant to Civil Code section 3333.3 and/or Civil Code section 3333.4. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 18CV000324 4 H O W ND O e N O N Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Objection, the request is compound. Further objections are made as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they arc reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Plaintiff DESIREE RIDELL’s [sic] vehicle was damaged as a result of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: Objection is made because the word “damaged” is overbroad and unintelligible. Objections are further made insofar as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860). DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 18CV000324 5 O e N N nn Rs W N - N N N N N N N N m= e m mm e m e m e m e m pe s ee e ee ~N S Y A W N = O Y N N S Y ld WwW NN = o No o0 A reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or rcadily obtainable is insufficient to cnable this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Plaintiff CHATO GERONIMO incurred at least $1.00 of economic damages as a result of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. §: Objection. This request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issucs as soon as they arc reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial arc therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Defendant SHERMAN UPSHAW?’s negligence was a cause of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Objections are further made insofar as this request is unintelligible with respect to the phrase “a cause of the INCIDENT.” Further objections arc made as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorncy- client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being DEFENDANT RUTH REEID’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 18CV000324 6 CS OO RX N N R W N = N N N N N O N N N N m m e m mm mm e m e m e m p m b e °K N N N R W ND = O O N S N As W N subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Plaintiff CHATO GERONIMO was injured as a result of Defendant SHERMAN UPSHAW 's negligence. RESPONSE TO REQUE T NO. 7: Objection is made to the phrase “injured” as it is overbroad, vague and unintelligible. Objections are further made insofar as this request is compound. Further objections are made insofar as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issucs as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, ct al; Case No.: 18CV000324 7 O e 1 S Y t h B W N e N O N R N N N N N N ee e m e e e m e e e e e d e k e s 0 ~ ~ O N hh hm W N = DS D e N N Ww ND = O Defendant SHERMAN UPSHAW’s negligence contributed at least one (1) percent toward causing the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: Objections are further made insofar as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Plaintiff SHERMAN UPSHAW’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Objections are further made insofar as this request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). DEFENDANT RUTH REED'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 183CV000324 8 WO 0 O R W N N N N N N N N N N m m e m p m mm mt m d pe d be d e d e d c d 1 O N n n RA L N = O N Y N Y R E L NN = o 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Defendant SHERMAN UPSHAW struck Plaintiff DESIREE RIDELL’s vehicle on 01/25/2016. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Objections are further made insofar as this request is unintelligible with respect to the phrase “struck Plaintiff DESIREE RIDELL’s vehicle.” Objections are further made insofar as the word “struck” implies malintent. The request is further vague and ambiguous as to time and location. Further objections are made insofar as the request is premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Defendant SHERMAN UPSHAW touched a cellular and/or mobile phone during the three (3) minutes prior to the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Objections are further made insofar Objection, the request is compound, seeks irrelevant information, and is vague and unintelligible as to the phrase “touched a cellular and/or mobile phone.” DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 18CV000324 9 o O a S N nn RR W N - N N N N N N N N N e e em em e e ee ee e e e m 0 hk L N = O O Re N Y Y R W N = O This request is additionally overbroad as to time, premature, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion, calls for a legal conclusion, and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The depositions of the parties have not been completed, plaintiff has not responded to written discovery, medical records are currently being subpoenaed, and expert witnesses have not yet been disclosed. Parties must be afforded some reasonable time in which to determine how best to present their cases at trial. Parties should only dispense with triable issues as soon as they are reasonably and confidently able to do so; premature admissions and premature litigation decisions for the sake of speeding preparation for trial are therefore not encouraged by courts. (See e.g. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 860). 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 this Responding Party to admit or deny the matter. Dated: August 9, 2018 McDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL Attorneys for Pefendants SHERMAN/AUPSHAW and RUTH REED DEFENDANT RUTH REED’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF CHATO GERONIMO, SET ONE Riddell v. Upshaw, et al; Case No.: 18CV000324 10 Ov 00 ~~ Oh Wh BA W N N O N BN O N N N N N O N r t mk h d b w p e e t E t e d b e e d 0 I A WV bh W N = OO YW O R N N O hs W N -- OO Riddell, et al. v. Upshaw, et al. Monterey County Superior Court No.: 18CV000324 VERIFICATION I, Ruth Reed, declare that: I am a defendant in the above-entitled matter. I have read the foregoing Defendant Ruth Reed’s Responses to Chato Geronimo’s Request for Admissions, Set One and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true, 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on] J 15 XK at - NAS | California, (RD Ruth Reed 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 17, 2018 VIA US MAIL & FACSIMILE: (925)210-1366 Paula M. Shaw, Esq. McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell 1655 N. Main St., Ste. 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 RE: Desiree Riddell, et al. v. Sherman Upshaw, et al. Court Case Number: 18CV000324 Our Client: Desiree Riddell Your Client: Sherman Upshaw Date of Loss: 01/25/2016 Our File Number: 14884 Dear Paula M. Shaw, Esq., We are in receipt of your client Sherman Upshaw and Ruth Reed’s responses to Plaintiff Desiree Riddell and Chato Geronimo’s discovery, set one. 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 3 Geoulla, Esq. DDG/kbv EXHIBIT D DAVID A, MCDOWELL PAULA M. SHAW PHAIDRA M. GARCIA BRIAN 5S. MIZELL SHELLEY O'CONNOR Wiliam T. MCLAUGHLIN I STEVEN M. FINCH MARISSA NEBENZAHL SINHA SUMAIR S. SANDHU GIANINA A. DIMITRIOU Liza C. MILANES PATEEL BOYAJIAN JoseEPH Kim ARNOLD W. HOLADAY NINA L. HAWKINSON MICHAEL J. KOWALSKI DANIEL E. HERNANDEZ REBECCA R. BROWN RAYELLE D. SABO CHRISTOPHER L. FATTON MorGAN W. HANSEN PATRICIA R. VALENZUELA Law OFFICE OF MCDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1655 N. MAIN STREET SUITE 370 WALNUT CREEK, CA 24596 TEL (225) 210-1300 Fax (923) 210-1266 HTTP. / / WWW. MCDOWELLLAW.COM September 18, 2018 Via Facsimile Only: (310) 492-5853 Daniel Geoulla, Esq. B & D Law Group 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Riddell/Geronimo v. Upshaw/Reed Monterey County Superior Court No.; 18CV000324 Insured: Upshaw, Sherman and Reed, Ruth Claim No: 05-7W84-961 Date of Loss: 01/07/2016 Dear Mr. Geoulla: SACRAMENTO QFFICE TEL (918) 564-9710 FRESNO OFFICE TEL (559) 237-7808 SUNNYVALE OFFICE TEL (408) 927-7250 ONTARIO OFFICE TEL (209) 460-8401 GLENDALE OFFICE TeL (818) 476-0057 I received your letter dated September 17, 2018 today. Your letter is an apparent attempt to meet and confer regarding our client’s responses to written discovery, sent to your office on August 16, 2018. Unfortunately, your letter is meaningless in its current state. Our clients provided your office with hundreds of pages of responses and documents, Your one-page letter simply states that defendants’ objections are “not well taken”, and “do not appear to be code compliant.” It fails to refer to any specific response by the defendants. If you have specific problems with defendants’ responses to written discovery, please feel free to articulate them. That way, we can address your concerns in a thoughtful manner, whic h is required by the Civil Discovery Act. : September 18, 2018 Page 2 In the interim, I want to point out that your previous employee, Arsen Karayan, spent ‘what must have been weeks of his time preparing objections to reasonable and tailored subpoenas issued by our office. Any lack of knowledge by the defense at this tire is a direct result of Mr. Karayan’s obstructionism. The defendants are not obligated to answer interrogatories or admissions where the answers necessarily require knowledge obtained by a review of records, the production of which has been stymied by your firm's efforts. We look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, MeDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL Morg . Hafise: MWH/ms 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 19, 2018 VIA US MAIL & FACSIMILE: (925)210-1366 Paula M. Shaw, Esq. McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell 1655 N. Main St., Ste. 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 RE: Desiree Riddell, et al. v. Sherman Upshaw, et al. Court Case Number: ~~ 18CV000324 Our Client: Desiree Riddell Your Client: Ruth Reed Date of Loss: 01/25/2016 Our File Number: 14884 Dear Paula M. Shaw, Esq., As a follow up to our letter dated September 17, 2018. These are the discovery issues we wish to discuss with you with regard to Defendant Ruth Reed’s Responses to Plaintiff Desiree Riddell and Chato Geronimo’s discovery (both identical), set one: Form Interrogatories, Set One: 2.1,7.1, 17.1 With regard to form interrogatory 2.1, you have failed to provide a response to subparts of the interrogatory. These are judicially council approved forms, and the information sought should be provided. Kindly provide a code compliant response. With regard to form interrogatory 7.1 the interrogatory asks you if you are claiming any loss to a vehicle as a result of the Incident, if so describe the property. You describe the property and then go on to say that you are not claiming property damage, as such your answer is contradictory, confusing and misleading. With regard to form interrogatory 17.1, firstly you have not numbered the requests, secondly you have asserted objections of premature, speculation and expert opinion. These are judicial council approved interrogatories which request basic information related to the incident which are not subject to work product or other meritless objections. 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.] Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to seek Defendant’s contentions as to liability and damages. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. In Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, the Court chastised the practice of asserting meritless and boilerplate “nuisance” objections and B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 FAX: (310) 492-5855 specifically took issue with counsel that take objection to legal terms of art that are defined by law and cannot be vague or ambiguous. See also, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 1093, where the court indicated that responses that do not provide meaningful information are inadequate. In Liberty, the court STRUCK Defendant’s answer for doing exactly what defendant has done here and failing to provide meaningful responses to discovery. A further response is necessary. Kindly provide a code compliant response. Special Interrogatories, Set One: 1-6 You have objected to the entire request and stated that Plaintiff has no personal knowledge. Objections based on the lack of personal knowledge are insufficient if access to knowledge is reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal. App.2d 318, 323. Additionally In answering discovery requests, a party must furnish information available from sources under the party's control. “(A party) cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771 (parentheses added); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles), supra (citing text). Kindly provide a code compliant response. Request for Admissions, Set One: 1-11 You have objected to each and every request for admission, these are simple and straight forward questions and Plaintiff deserves simple and straight forward answers. In Cembrook v. Superior 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. 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 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." 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.”] B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 You are in receipt of all of Plaintiff’s medical records, several of them that you have subpoenaed yourself, there is absolutely no reason why you are unable to provide simple and basic information. Additionally, a reasonably inquiry would reveal information answerable to these requests. Thus your responses and objections to each and every request appears to be in bad faith. We request you to kindly provide valid responses to the request for admissions. Request for Production of Documents, Set One: 3, 10-18 With regard to request for production no. 3 Your response states that no non privileged documents exist. This leaves the Plaintiff wondering whether there are certain documents in your possession that are privileged. If that is so, kindly provide a privilege log. 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.”] We are absolutely entitled to your contentions and knowing which documents are withheld and which are being produced. With regard to request for production of documents 10-18 you have objected to every request on the ground of attorney client privilege. 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. 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 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 B&D Law GRouUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 September 25, 2018 by 3:00 p.m. As you are aware, our Motion deadline is September 28, 2018, hoping we can resolve these simple discovery issues without judicial intervention. Thank you, B&D LAw Group, APLC Daffiel” Geoulla, Esq. DDG/kbv EXHIBIT ¥ | o l Gmail Khushboo Vasandani Riddell, Desiree v. Shrman Upshaw #18CV000324 Khushboo Vasandani, LLB Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:42 PM To: mhansen@mcdowelllaw.com Cc: tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com Hello Morgan, This is a follow up to our meet and confer letters dated September 17, 2018 and September 19, 2018 attached hereto for your reference. This is our final and last attempt to meet and confer with regard to the deficient responses. Kindly let us know if you will be providing us further responses, as our motion to compel deadline is September 28, 2018. Hoping we can resolve the identified issues without judicial intervention. Thank you, Khushboo B. Vasandani, LLM. Law Clerk B&D Law Group, APLC. 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 khushboo@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 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 IS 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 7 mc letter.pdf 240K mn MC letter 2- both def..pdf 859K MM Gmail Riddell, Desiree v. Shrman Upshaw #18CV000324 Morgan Hansen To: "Khushboo Vasandani, LLB" Cc: "tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com” Khushboo Vasandani Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM | received both letters and | am working on a response now. We don’t have records in this case because you prevented us from getting them. This resulted in no depositions yet of the plaintiffs. We won’t be amending our responses as we have no information to provide. A more detailed response is forthcoming. MORGAN WEST HANSEN MCDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL 1655 N. Main Street, Suite 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 210-1300 (925) 210-1366 (FAX) mhansen@mcdowelllaw.com ACM McDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL From: Khushboo Vasandani, LLB Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 3:42 PM To: Morgan Hansen Cc: tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com Subject: Riddell, Desiree v. Shrman Upshaw #18CV000324 [Quoted text hidden] | o l Gmail Khushboo Vasandani Riddell, Desiree v. Shrman Upshaw #18CV000324 Khushboo Vasandani, LLB Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:57 PM To: Morgan Hansen Cc: "tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com” Your email is confusing. You state that "you are working on a response” and then state "that you wont be amending your responses” and then further go on to state "a more detailed response is forthcoming". Are we to understand that you are not going to provide further responses and that you will provide a detailed reason via a meet and confer letter, as to your inability to do so. Please clarify so we may proceed as necessary. Thank you, Khushboo B. Vasandani, LLM. Law Clerk B&D Law Group, APLC. 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 khushboo@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 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 IS 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. [Quoted text hidden] | - | Gmail Khushboo Vasandani Riddell, Desiree v. Shrman Upshaw #18CV000324 Morgan Hansen Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM To: "Khushboo Vasandani, LLB" Cc: "tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com” A responsive letter. No further discovery responses. MORGAN WEST HANSEN MCDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL 1655 N. Main Street, Suite 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 210-1300 (925) 210-1366 (FAX) mhansen@mcdowelllaw.com MSOM McDoweLL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELI From: Khushboo Vasandani, LLB Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 3:58 PM To: Morgan Hansen Cc: tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com Subject: Re: Riddell, Desiree v. Shrman Upshaw #18CV000324 [Quoted text hidden] | - | Gmail Khushboo Vasandani Riddell/Geronimo v. Upshaw/Reed 4 messages Morgan Hansen Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:08 PM To: "khushboo@bdinjurylawgroup.com" Via E-mail: Khushboo Vasandani, LLB Via Facsimile: (310) 492-5855 Daniel Geoulla, Esq. B & D Law Group 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: Riddell/Geronimo v. Upshaw/Reed Monterey County Superior Court No.: 18CV000324 Insured: Upshaw, Sherman and Reed, Ruth Claim No: 05-7W84-961 Date of Loss: 01/07/2016 Dear Mr. Geoulla: Our office has not one but two letters from your firm as a follow up letter to your correspondence dated September 17, 2018. The letters address various alleged wrongs contained in our client’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. While it is wildly confusing to address two separate letters at the same time, perhaps this letter can help the meet and confer efforts between parties. First and foremost, your office provided objections to every single subpoena for a medical record, film, bill, and employment record, for each of the plaintiffs. This is in spite of the fact that your clients allege significant injuries and wage loss claims. Your office has asserted privileges for documents that I have obtained via subpoena or discovery for ten years. As a result of this impasse, the defense is not prepared to answer issues as to ultimate fact, whether through a response to form interrogatory or to a request for admission. This has delayed the depositions of plaintiffs, as well as any independent examinations. While this has been incredibly prejudicial to the defense, your clients must be equally frustrated at the pace of litigation thus far. Second, the person at your firm with whom I have been communicating with is Khushboo Vasandani, LLB. My understanding is that Ms. Vasandani is not an attorney - her e-mail signature from your firm indicates she is a “Law Clerk”. Despite that fact, my understanding is that she has been preparing your motions to quash/compel in this matter as well as taking the lead in meeting and conferring with our office. I must object to the use of a non-attorney to fulfill an attorney’s obligation under the Code of Civil Procedure. While Ms. Vasandani has been a delight to speak with, I suspect that when it comes time to file your motion, you will be unable to personally sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that states you have met and conferred appropriately. Form Interrogatory 7.1: asks if you attribute any property damage to the incident. This word is very different than the word claim, which shows up later in the interrogatory. Defendants’ current response is therefore very appropriate. Form Interrogatory 17.1 & Requests for Admissions: there is nothing to add here that has not already been said in defendants’ responses. Defendants cannot answer the Requests for Admissions because they lack nearly all of the information that they are entitled to obtain in discovery. A response to any of the Requests would be wildly premature and prejudicial at this time. You may seek information regarding defendants’ contentions as to liability and damages as soon as the defense is afforded an opportunity to develop these contentions. You would agree that, at a minimum, the E.R. records following the subject incident would be a critical catalyst in developing these contentions? The defense does not have these records because of your firm’s objections. Special Interrogatories: The defendants cannot answer questions to which they do not have answers. The defendants have been stymied from obtaining basic discoverable information. As a result, the plaintiffs’ depositions have not been taken and discovery continues to be delayed. Further, the form in which special interrogatories may be asked is governed exclusively by the Civil Discovery Act. The objections asserted by the defense quote directly from these code sections. Requests for Requests for Production of Documents: RFPD No. 10-18 all seek documents that have been prepared in anticipation of litigation, or which have been documented in communications between attorney and client. These letters, correspondence, notes, and reports will not be produced at any point in this litigation. Please note that if the responding defendants had any non-privileged documents in their possession, these documents would have been identified and produced. The defendants are not withholding any responsive, discoverable, documents. Please assign an attorney to communicate with me directly regarding these issues. Please have the attorney contact me in writing. I urge you to hold off on a motion to compel further responses at this time. If, after discovery is complete, you would like to provide supplemental requests, you are in your right to do so. I would anticipate that the responses would look different at that juncture, although I cannot predict the future. Very truly yours, McDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL Morgan W. Hansen MWH/ms MORGAN WEST HANSEN MCDOWELL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL 1655 N. Main Street, Suite 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 210-1300 (925) 210-1366 (FAX) mhansen@mcdowelllaw.com MSUM McDoweLL SHAW GARCIA & MIZELL Khushboo Vasandani, LLB To: "Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq." , tina@bdinjurylawgroup.com Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:30 PM Thank you, Khushboo B. Vasandani, LLM. Law Clerk B&D Law Group, APLC. 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 i o | Gmail Khushboo Vasandani Riddell/Geronimo v. Upshaw/Reed Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 7:12 PM To: Morgan Hansen Cc: "Tina H. Abdolhosseini, Esq." , "Khushboo Vasandani, LLB" Counselor, As a preliminary issue, I'm not sure starting off with an attack on my office or ethics is the right way to start a meet and confer process. I'm also not sure why you only emailed my assistant and not myself, specially in light of the content of your communication as well as the fact that | know you have my email and had no trouble using it in the past. With regard to your position on the discovery responses, we are entitled to the most full and complete answers your client can give at this time, despite whether you feel you can give a better concocted answer after looking at the medical records. To that end, I'm not sure what bearing the medical records would have on questions dealing with liability. Frankly, your response to our meet and confer attempts is merely just a hodgepodge of excuses for being evasive and hoping not to have to answer tuff questions about liability. We stand by our meet and confer letter. You have not provided us with anything persuasive. The Liberty Mutual case we reference in our letter seems to be on point with the situation here. If you have anything factual to provide that is supported with some sort of legal authority, | would welcome it. You will note that | have provided legal authority to support my positions. Otherwise, we once ask that you provide us with proper code and non-evasive compliant responses. We also ask that you not include frivolous objections. I look forward to hearing from you. PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW Thank you, Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. B&D Law Group, APLC. 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 424-5252 Fax: (310) 492-5855 daniel@bdinjurylawgroup.com www.bdinjurylawgroup.com Click Here To Call Our Office Now CONFIDENTIAL *****Any tax advice included in this written or electronic communication was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by any governmental taxing authority or agency, or to promote, market, or recommend any transaction or matter to another party***** This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. Additionally, this email may contain attorney-client privileged information, attorney work product information, and/or information protected under Federal HIPAA regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. THIS IS 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. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Khushboo Vasandani, LLB wrote: [Quoted text hidden] 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 the below indicated date, I served the foregoing documents described: ¢ Plaintiff Chato Geronimo’s Notice of Motion to Compel Defendant Ruth Reeds Responses to Admissions, Memorandum of Points and Authorities & Separate Statement ¢ Plaintiff Chato Geronimo’s Notice of Motion to Compel Defendant Ruth Reeds Responses to Request For Production, Memorandum of Points and Authorities & Separate Statement ¢ Plaintiff Chato Geronimo’s Notice of Motion to Compel Defendant Ruth Reeds Responses to Request For Special Interrogatories, Memorandum of Points and Authorities & Separate Statement I further declare that I served the above document(s) in this action on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Paula M. Shaw, Esq. McDowell Shaw Garcia & Mizell 1655 N. Main St., Ste. 370 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925)210-1366 _ 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. _ X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction this service was made. Executed on the 1st day of October, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. khuwshboo- vasondoni Khushboo Vasandani, LLM PROOF OF SERVICE