Motion CompelCal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 22, 2020Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor 200V368605 Santa Clara - Civil D Harris Sutton Shapiro, Esq. SBN: 284084 W|LSH|RE LAW FIRM Electronically FIled 3055 Wilshire BIvd., 12th Floor EV Sutperg Czuréff CA, Los Angeles, California 90010 0”“ y ° a" a aras Tel; (213) 381-9988 on 5/14/2021 4:23 PM Fax: (213) 381_9989 Reviewed By: D Harris TelIerteam@wi|shirelawfirm.com Case #ZOCV368605 Envelope: 6450870 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ, an Case No.: 200v368605 individual; . . PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREz’s P'a'm'fis’ NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT ELITE TRANSPORTATION INc. To PROVIDE DESTINY TRANSPORTATION INQ, a FURTHER RESPONSES AND corporation; ELITE TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE To |NC., a corporatiqn; SAMUEL RAY SR DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; MARABILLA, an IUdIVIduaI; DOES 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND through 50’ '“C'US'Ve AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION 0F SUTTON SHAPIRo; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT 0F $1,810.00; [PROPOSED] ORDER VS. Defendants. Date: Time: Dept: TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on _, 2021 at_ a.m. in Department_ ofthe above-entitled court, Plaintiff ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court for an order compelling Defendant ELITE TRANSPORTATION INC. (“Defendant”) to provide further responses and documents in response to Plaintiffs’ Demands for Production, Set One. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Dept. 19 9:00am 9-9-21 9-9-21 9:00am 19 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor This motion is made on the ground that Defendant’s prior responses included meritless objections and were not code-compliant. This motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the attached Declaration of Sutton Shapiro, Esq., on the records and files in this action, and on such further evidence or argument that may be presented at the hearing of this matter. DATED: May 14, 2021 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM By: Wt Sutton ShapM), Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES l. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT FACTS This is an auto v. auto case arising from a rear-end collision that occurred on September 7, 2018, which resulted in significant injury to Plaintiffs. On November 10, 2021, Plaintiff ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ (“Plaintiff”) served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant ELITE TRANSPORTATION INC. (“Defendant”). (Exhibit 1.) On February 19, 2021, Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories. (Exhibit 2.) On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. (Exhibit 3.) Amongst the issues identified in Plaintiff’s letter, was the fact that Defendant responded to Special Interrogatories, Set One with meritless objections, evasive responses, and failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure. On March 26, 2021, after not receiving a reply, Plaintiff followed up with Defendant and asked whether further responses were forthcoming. In response, Defendant stated, “Yes, further responses will be provided. Why don’t we meet and confer via telephone[?]” (Exhibit 4, emails (emphasis added).) During the call, Defendant stated that it would provide further responses by April 9, 2021. On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff notified Defendant that he had not received further responses on April 9th. Despite this, Plaintiff stated, “I don’t recall another extension being granted; however, if you need more time, we are agreeable to mutual H extensions. Defendant represented that he had injured his back, was unable to sit at a desk and work, and requested an additional week to provide further responses. Plaintiff granted Defendant a two-week extension in a good faith effort to accommodate Defendant and informally resolve the matter. Further responses would be due on April 23, 2021. On April 26, 2021, having received no further responses, Plaintiff followed up again: “Greg: | know you have been injured, but further discovery was due Friday. Do 3 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor you need more time?” Defendant did not respond to this email, and has not provide further responses, necessitating the filing of this motion. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court (1) order Defendant to serve further responses that strike improper objections and comply with the Code, and (2) award monetary sanctions in the amount of $1 ,810.00 against Defendant and/or its counsel, BURNHAM BROWN, jointly and severally, for misuse of the discovery process. l|. LEGAL STANDARD A response to a demand for production can be any of the following: a statement of compliance, a representation of inability to comply, and/or valid objections. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210.) A statement of compliance must state whether all responsive and non-privileged documents within the party’s possession, custody, or control will be produced. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.220.) A representation of inability to comply must “affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand,” must specify whether the non- compliance is because “the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party”, and identify any person or organization known or believed to be in possession of responsive documents. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031 .230 (emphasis added).) If a responding party objects to the production of a document on the basis of privilege or work product protection, then “the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031 240(c)(1).) A propounding party may file a motion seeking an order compelling a responding party to provide further responses where a propounding party determines that (1) a statement of compliance is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) objections to an inspection demand are without merit or too general. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031 .310(a)(1), (2), 4 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor (3).) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying further responses. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031 .310(b)(1).) California courts have long recognized a policy of liberality when it comes to discovery matters. Discovery provisions are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. (Flagship Theaters of Palm Des. v. Century Theaters (201 1) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1366, 1383.) All doubts about discovery are resolved in favor of disclosure. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 1113.) California Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 provides: [A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The phrase “relevant to the subject matter” is broader than relevancy to the issues which determines admissibility of evidence at trial. (Bridgeston-Firestone Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1384, 1391-92.) Admissibility at trial is not the test. (See Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301.) A party may discover irrelevant matters so long as their revelation may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Dodge, Warren & Peters Insurance Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1414, 1421.) The scope of discovery is not limited to the pleadings. (Anti- Defamation League of B’nai B’rith v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1072, 1095) Ill. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION. There is good cause to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Demands for Production. The responses identified in the concurrently filed Separate Statement include meritless objections and fail to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure in one or more respects. More to the point, Defendant has not produced a single document pursuant to their responses to Plaintiff’s Demands for Production. 5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor For example, Demand No. 1 requires the production 0f “[a]ny and all DOCUMENTS which establish that YOU are not liable for propounding party’s injuries.” Instead of substantively answering the question, Defendant objected that the request was premature, and the information sought protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. These objections are meritless. This discovery is not premature. This case was filed on July 21, 2020, and Plaintiff propounded this discovery on November 10, 2020. This is a simple auto v. auto accident case-Defendant has had ample time to investigate its case. The request does not request disclosure of privileged communications or protected work product. If Defendant is withholding responsive documents on such grounds, it is required to provide a privilege log sufficiently detailed to allow the Court to assess any claim of privilege or work product protection. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.240(c)(1).) Without this information, the Court and Plaintiff are left to guess whether responsive documents exist but are being withheld on privilege or work product grounds. Defendant’s response to Demand for Production No. 1 is representative of her responses to the other subject Demands for Production, which are replete with meritless objections, fail to respond substantively, and fail to comply with the requirements of the Discovery Act. Plaintiff addresses each particular response in the concurrently filed Separate Statement. IV. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR MISUSE OF THE DISCOVERY PROCESS. The Court should award monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or her counsel for failure to oppose this Motion with substantial justification and misuse of the discovery process. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 .300(c) provides: 6 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor [T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully . . . opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. “Substantial justification” is defined as a justification that is weII-grounded in both law and fact. (Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 743.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a) provides: The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Per Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010, misuses of the discovery process include: (d) Failinq to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discoverv. (e) Makinq. without substantial iustification. an unmeritorious obiection to discoverv. (f) Makinq an evasive response to discoverv. (h) Makinq or opposing. unsuccessfullv and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. The Court must sanction Defendant and her counsel because they lacked substantial justification in opposing this Motion. Defendant’s counsel knew or should have known that Defendant’s objections were meritless and that the responses did not comply with the requirements of the Discovery Act. Furthermore, it is a misuse of the discovery process to serve non-responsive and non-compliant responses to Demands for Production, and to persist in doing so even after opposing counsel has engaged in good faith meet and confer efforts to informally resolve the issue. Defendant made unmeritorious objections to the subject demands without substantial justification and refused to provide proper responses thereto. Defendant and her counsel have, therefore, failed to submit to an authorized method of discovery and should be sanctioned. 7 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Plaintiffs incurred four (4) hours preparing the moving papers for this Motion and meeting and conferring with defense counsel. In addition, another two (2) hours will be required to review the Opposition, conduct research, engage in further meet and confer efforts, and draft the Reply. Two (2) more hours are expected to be spent preparing and appearing for oral argument on this matter. The motion cost Sixty Dollars ($60.00) to file. Plaintiffs therefore requests sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00. (Sutton Dec. 1111 7-10). V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court (1) order Defendant to serve further responses that strike all meritless objections and comply with all Code requirements, (2) order Defendant to produce all responsive and non-privileged documents in her possession, custody, or control, and (3) award monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00 against Defendant and/or her counsel, LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN C. MOORE, jointly and severally. DATED: May 14, 2021 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM Wt Sutton ShaBiro, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor DECLARATION OF SUTTON SHAPIRO, ESQ. I, Sutton Shapiro, Esq., declare: 1. | am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am an attorney with the Wilshire Law Firm, attorneys for Plaintiffs herein. The following facts are within my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, | could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of Plaintiffs’ Proof of Service to Demands for Production, Set One. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of Defendant’s Proof of Service to their responses to Plaintiff’s Demands for Production. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter dated March 11, 2021. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 are true and correct copies of meet and confer email communications between Plaintiffs and Defendants. 6. Plaintiff granted multiple extensions to allow Defendant ample opportunity to provide complete code-compliant responses to this discovery. Despite this, Defendant failed to provide such responses, instead relying on meritless objections and or responses that fail to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure in one or more respects. This motion was timely filed.m 7. Attorneys working on this motion have spent three (3) hours to date in drafting this motion and meeting and conferring with defense counsel. In addition, | anticipate | will spend another two (2) hours to review the Opposition, conduct research, engage in further meet and confer efforts, and draft the Reply. | will spend an additional two (2) hours preparing and appearing for oral argument on this matter. The total attorney’s time sought in this motion is seven (7) hours. 8. The total attorney’s fees are $1,750.00 computed as 7 hours x $250.00/hour. 9 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010- 1 137 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. The filing fee is $60.00. 10. Hence, Plaintiffs’ sanctions request is $1 ,810.00. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct. Executed on May 14, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. XML Sutton Shab/iro, Esq. 10 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ, an Case No.: 200V368605 individual; . . [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’s P'a'm'fis’ MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT ELITE VS. TRANSPORTATION INc. To PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES AND DESTINY TRANSPORTATION INC., a DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE T0 corporation; ELITE TRANSPORTATION DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE INC., a corporation; SAMUEL RAY SR MARABILLA, an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Defendants. THE COURT, AFTER HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVING REVIEWED ALL MOVING PAPERS, MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: 1. Defendant ELITE TRANSPORTATION INC. is ordered to serve further responses to Plaintiff ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S Demands for Production that strike improper objections and are code-compliant; she is further ordered to produce all non- privileged documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Demands for Production. 2. Defendant and/or her counsel of record, LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN C. MOORE, are sanctioned in the amount of $1,810.00, jointly and severally, for lacking substantial justification in opposing this motion and misuse of the discovery process. 3. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT: 11 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION Los Angeles, CA 90010-1137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Judge of the Superior Court 12 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMEPL FURTHR RFP RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION EXHIBIT 4 From: iumniham T0: WW;mum Cc: Amalig Flores Subject: RE: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 3:53:30 PM Attachment: ' Have two weeks. Your responses are now due 4/23, and my last day to provide notice of a motion to compel is 5/14. Sutton Shapiro Trial Attorney Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: 121 5) 381-9988 EzLfiflZ T011 Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: glmgn@flilshir§lamfirm,99m Web: wmflflilshirglaflfimggm "The highest compliment we can receive is the referral ofyourfriends andfamily." FIDE TIAL EMAIL TRA MI I I This message and (any attachments hereto) 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 intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, 0r disclose its contents to anyone. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail ifyou have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Any review, use, distribution 0r disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain Viruses. 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 for damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose t0 us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the full extent of the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Film, PLC and its lawyers do not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes 0f limitations or other deadlines for your potential case. From: Gregory McCormick Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:18 PM To: Stephanie Fierro Cc: Sutton Shapiro ; Amalia Flores Subject: Re: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Ms. Feirro, Your generosity is greatly appreciated, | have unfortunately sustained a back injury and am unable to sit at a desk and work. May we try another week? Thankyou Sent from my iPhone On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:37 AM, Stephanie Fierro wrote: Dear Counsel: | have that the Defendant’s further responses were due on Friday, April 9, 2021. And | do not show we received further responses. Idon’t recall another extension being granted; however, if you need more time, we are agreeable to mutual extensions. Please advise. Stephanie Fierro Litigation Assistant Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire B1Vd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: 12 l 3) 38 1-2988 ExLZfiI Toll Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: figrro@wilshirelawfi:m.ggm Web:M *Not licensed or admitted to practice law "The highest compliment we can receive is the referral ofyourfriends andfamily." This message and (any attachments hereto) 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. Ifyou are not the intended recipient 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. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence 0f Viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late 0r incomplete, or contain Viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents 0f this message, which arise as a result 0f e-mail transmission, nor does the sender accept liability for damage caused by any Virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and Will be protected to the full extent 0f the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and its lawyers d0 not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement With the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for your potential case. From: Gregory McCormick Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 8:32 AM To: Stephanie Fierro Subject: Re: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Yes, further responses will be provided. Why don't we meet and confer via telephone. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2021, at 8:27 AM, Stephanie Fierro wrote: Dear Counsel: Please advise if further responses will be provided responsive to Plaintiff’s meet and confer. Thankyou, Stephanie Fierro Litigation Assistant Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire B1Vd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: - Toll Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax. (213) 381 -9989 Email: lgrrg@wil§hir§1awfirm,ggm Web. mmishimlamfimmm *Not licensed or admitted to practice law "The highest compliment we can receive is the referral ofyourfriends andfamily." FIDE TIAL EMAIL TRA MI I I This message and (any attachments hereto) 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 intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, or disclose its contents to anyone. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail ifyou have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain Viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents 0f this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, nor does the sender accept liability for damage caused by any Virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email Will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the full extent of the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and its lawyers d0 not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for your potential case. From: Stephanie Fierro Sent: Thursday, March ll, 2021 6:11 PM To. :dgwn.gy@burnhambrgwn ng rg genrg@bu nhambmwn.ggm; Gregory McCormick Cc: Sutton Shapiro Subject: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Dear Counsel: Attached, please find Plaintiff’s Meet and Confer Letters addressed to Defendant, Destiny Transportation, Elite Transportation, and Samuel Ray Marabilla. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Thankyou, Stephanie Fierro Litigation Assistant Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: 1213! 381-9988 Eztfifil Toll Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: f1 rr i1 hir 1 firm Web: m *Not licensed or admitted to practice law "The highest compliment we can receive is the referral ofyourfriends andfamily." 111 zNFIDENTIAL EMAIL TRANSMISSI; 2N & WARNIMQ: This message and (any attachments hereto) 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. Ifyou are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, or disclose its contents to anyone. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail ifyou have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of Viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure 0r error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain Viruses. 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 for damage caused by any Virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the full extent 0f the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and its lawyers do not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement With the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other deadlines for your potential case. Stephanie Fierro From: Sutton Shapiro Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 4:54 PM To: Gregory McCormick; Stephanie Fierro Cc: Amalia Flores Subject: RE: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Greg: | know you have been injured, but further discovery was due Friday. Do you need more time? Sutton Shapiro Trial Attorney Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire B1Vd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: (213) 381-9988 Ext.342 T011 Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: sutton@wilshirelawfirm.com Web: www.wilshirelawfirm.com whkhkhvwfrp sdp hqwz h qu uhfhlyh Jyvkhmimicri |rxu juhqgvdqg jdp 14 k DIWILSHIRE LAW FIRM PLC WE WALK SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH OUR CLIENTS IN PURSUIT 6F jUS'I'ICE BEST amt?“ TOPIO jpp50 m B 1m“ ‘ ’ ’ ‘ “‘m r - Amicanmma ~- m f, est EI‘Smmw 0an3| Advocates ' Ifiioi Ilfllilll A (EIIEEIIDH fil’ AHIIDI KID "Eulllifllfi DI Ell! DI "DIE Wlllfllll IA" III“ Ill'fllll'i CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL TRANSMISSION & WARNING: This message and (any attachments hereto) contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual na It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the inte recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, 0r disclose its contents t0 anyone. Please notify the s< immediately by e-mail ifyou have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Any review distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments fc presence 0f Viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed t0 be secure or error-free as information could be interce corrupted, 10st, destroyed, arrive late 0r incomplete, 0r contain Viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errc omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, nor does the sender accept lial for damage caused by any Virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and Will be protl to the full extent of the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and its lawyers d0 not represent you unti have signed a retainer agreement With the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes 0f limitations or deadlines for your potential case. From: Gregory McCormick Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 1:18 PM To: Stephanie Fierro Cc: Sutton Shapiro ; Amalia Flores Subject: Re: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Ms. Feirro, Your generosity is greatly appreciated, | have unfortunately sustained a back injury and am unable to sit at a desk and work. May we try another week? Thank you Sent from my iPhone On Apr 14, 2021, at 11:37 AM, Stephanie Fierro wrote: Dear Counsel: | have that the Defendant’s further responses were due on Friday, April 9, 2021. And | do not show we received further responses. | don’t recall another extension being granted; however, if you need more time, we are agreeable to mutual extensions. Please advise. Stephanie Fierro Litigation Assistant Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire B1Vd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: (213) 381-9988 Ext.261 T011 Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: fierro@wilshirelawfirm.com Web: www.wilshirelawfirm.com -Qrwdfl'1qvhg rudgp th vr SLdfvflfl'l (biz %thkb'khvwfrp sdp hqwz h qu Lbflflyh vakh Li'uhuiori |rxu jlflhqgvdqg jdp Id B CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL TRANSMISSION & WARNING: This message and (any attachments hereto) 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 2 rules. Ifyou are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, or disclose its contents t0 anyone. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail ifyou have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Any review, use, distribution 0r disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of Viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, 10st, destroyed, arrive late 0r incomplete, or contain Viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errors 0r omissions in the contents of this message, Which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, nor does the sender accept liability for damage caused by any Virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected to the full extent 0f the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and its lawyers d0 not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement With the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes 0f limitations or other deadlines for your potential case. From: Gregory McCormick Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 8:32 AM To: Stephanie Fierro Subject: Re: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Yes, further responses will be provided. Why don't we meet and confer via telephone. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2021, at 8:27 AM, Stephanie Fierro wrote: Dear Counsel: Please advise if further responses wi|| be provided responsive to Plaintiff’s meet and confer. Thank you, Stephanie Fierro Litigation Assistant Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire B1Vd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: (213) 381-9988 Ext.261 T011 Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: fierro@wilshirelawfirm.com Web: www.wilshirelawfirm.com -Qrwdfl1qvhg rudgp lmhg w: SLdfvflflq cdz thhklwwfrp s® hqwz h qum vakh Lhzihufiori Irxu jlflhqgvdqg jdp Ii B CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL TRANSMISSION & WARNING: This message and (any attachments hereto) contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. It may also be privileged 0r otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, or disclose 3 its contents t0 anyone. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail ifyou have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence 0f Viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late 0r incomplete, or contain Viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errors 0r omissions in the contents 0f this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, nor does the sender accept liability for damage caused by any Virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose t0 us by email Will be kept in strict confidence and Will be protected to the filll extent of the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and its lawyers do not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes 0f limitations or other deadlines for your potential case. From: Stephanie Fierro Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 6:11 PM To: tdownev@burnhambrown.com; rgreene@burnhambrown.com; Gregory McCormick Cc: Sutton Shapiro ; Amalia Flores Subject: Arturo Ivan Olivarez vx. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Dear Counsel: Attached, please find Plaintiff’s Meet and Confer Letters addressed to Defendant, Destiny Transportation, Elite Transportation, and Samuel Ray Marabilla. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Stephanie Fierro Litigation Assistant Wilshire Law Firm, PLC 3055 Wilshire B1Vd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Direct Tel: (213) 381-9988 Ext.261 T011 Free: (800) 52-CRASH Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: fierr0@wilshirelawfirm.com Web: www.wilshirelawfirm.com -Qrwdfl*1qvhg rudgp lmhg w: SLdfuflfl‘l coiz M(h kb'khvwfrp sdp hqwz h qu uhflflyh vakh thl'mflori |rxu J'1flhqgvdqg J'dp H B CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL TRANSMISSION & WARNING: This message and (any attachments hereto) 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. Ifyou are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, copy this e-mail, 0r disclose its contents t0 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. Any review, use, distribution 0r disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence 0f Viruses. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure 0r error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 4 destroyed, arrive late 0r incomplete, or contain Viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errors 0r omissions in the contents of this message, Which arise as a result 0f e-mail transmission, nor does the sender accept liability for damage caused by any Virus transmitted by this email. If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and Will be protected t0 the full extent of the law. Please be advised that Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and its lawyers d0 not represent you until you have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes 0f limitations 0r other deadlines for your potential case. EXHIBIT 1 OLOOONOUCI'l-th-‘h 444-344.; CDU'I#QJN-‘ 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12‘“ Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010-1 137 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLc N N N M N N M N N -\ -¥ -¥ 00 N O) O‘I -b (JO N -\ O LO 00 N PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, state that | am employed in the aforesaid County, State of California; | am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90010. On November 10, 2020, | served the foregoing PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER THINGS T0 DEFENDANT ELITE TRANSPORTATION INC., SET NO. 1 on the interested parties (a) as addressed and (b) by one of the methods of service set forth below: Thomas M. Downey, Esq. Raymond A. Greene, III, Esq. Gregory H. McCormick, Esq. BURNHAM BROWN A Professional Law Corporation 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 444-6800 Fax: (510) 835-6666 Email: tdownev@burnhambr0wn.com rqreene@burnhambrown.com qmccormick@burnhambrown.com Attorneys for Defendants, Destiny Transporiation, lnc., Elite Transportation, Inc., and Samuel Ray Marabilla, Sr. ( ) BY MAIL: l enclosed the above documents in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid and placed for collection and mailing on the above date in accordance with ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and that the correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary course of business pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(3). ( ) BY FAX: A copy of said document(s) were also delivered by facsimile transmission to the addressee pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(e). ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE: | hand-delivered or caused said document(s) to be hand delivered to the office of the addressee using an attorney service and/or messenger, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 101 1. ( ) BY EXPRESS MAIL: | caused said document(s) to be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier providing overnight delivery pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(0). (X) BY ELECTRONIC MAIL (E-MAIL): | caused said document(s) to be delivered electronically to the addressee(s) identified above with an e-mail address pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(9). | declare under the penalty of perjury und r the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 10, 2020, at Lo ,I’An Siefiharzfi’e Fierro 13 PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION - SET ONE EXHIBIT 2 Re: Arturo Ivan Olivarez V. Destiny Transportation, Inc., et a1. Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court Action No: 20CV368605 PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am over the age of 18, not a party to the above-entitled action, and am an employee of Burnham Brown Whose business address is 1901 Harrison Street, 14th Floor, Oakland, Alameda County, California 94612 (mailing address: Post Office Box 119, Oakland, California 94604). On February 19, 2021, I served the following document(s) in the following manner(s): SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT LIST E E-MAIL: By transmitting a true copy, by electronic transmission to the persons at the e- mail address(es) listed based on notice provided on February 19, 2021 that during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after time after the transmission. Sutton Shapiro, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff WILSHIRE LAW FIRM ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: sutton@wilshirelawfirm.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATE: February19,2021 K; Q rsg EDIQLLBkOODGOOD PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO. 20CV368605 DOCUMENT LIST o DEFENDANT SAMUEL RAY MARABILLA, SR.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER THINGS, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT ELITE TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER THINGS, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT DESTINY TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER THINGS, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT SAMUEL RAY MARABILLA, SR.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT ELITE TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT DESTINY TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT ELITE TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT DESTINY TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE o DEFENDANT SAMUEL RAY MARABILLA, SR.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF ARTURO IVAN OLIVAREZ’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE 4842-9382-1649, v. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO. 20CV368605 EXHIBIT 3 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Wilshirelawfirm.com Colin M. Jones, Esq. A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Gail Richardson, Esq. Robert Dart, Esq. Jon Teller, Esq. Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA Daniel DeSantis, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq March 11, 2021 SENT VIA E-MAIL Thomas M. Downey, Esq. Raymond A. Greene, III, Esq. Gregory H. McCormick, Esq. BURNHAM BROWN A Professional Law Corporation 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 444-6800 Fax: (510) 835-6666 Email: tdownev@burnhambrown.com rqreene@burnhambrown.com qmccormick@burnhambrown.com Attorneys for Defendants, Destiny Transportation, Inc., Elite Transportation, Inc., and Samuel Ray Marabil/a, Sr. MEET AND CONFER ON DISCOVERY RESPONSES Arturo Ivan Olivarez vs. Destiny Transportation, Inc. Dear Counsel: Please consider this is a meet and confer request regarding the responses of Defendant Elite Transportation, |nc.’s to Form Interrogatories, set 1, Request for Productions of Documents, set 1, and Special Interrogatories set 1. In short, many of the responses to the interrogatories were improper and/or were evasive. Furthermore, many of the Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Demand for Production of Documents or things were also non-compliant with civil code of procedure. | have outlined below the issues that need to be addressed, specifically, in your discovery responses. If supplemental responses are not received in our office by 5:00 p.m. by March 25, 2021, we will have no option but to file a motion to compel further responses. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS A. Plaintiffs Have A Right to Conduct Discovery. “‘lt is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 (§ 2016 et seq.) that civil discovery be essentially self-executing. [Citation.]’” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291 .) A self-executing discovery system is “one that operates without judicial involvement.” (/d.) In order to promote that self-executing system, the Discovery Act requires 1 Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, Colin M. Jones, Esq. Daniel DeSantis, Esq. PLC A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Gail Richardson, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Tel: (213) 381-9988 Robert Dart, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Fax: (213) 381-9989 Jon Teller, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. wilshirelawfirm.com Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq “that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution.” (Townsend v. Super. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) Discovery rights in California are intentionally expansive in order to “take the ‘game’ element out of trial preparation” and to “do away ‘with the sporting theory of litigation-namely, surprise at the trial.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct.(1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376; see also Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 694, 712, n. 8 (discovery process is “designed to eliminate the element of surprise”).) “Under the discovery statutes, information is discoverable if it is unprivileged and is either relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to reveal admissible evidence.” (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 655.) The “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” standards are to be applied liberally. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) Consistent with these purposes, the California Supreme Court has often declared that discovery statutes are to be construed broadly in favor of disclosure, so as to uphold the right to discovery whenever possible. (Greyhound, supra, 56 Cal.2d at pp. 377-378; Emerson Elec. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107-1 108.) “Matters sought are properly discoverable if they will aid in a party’s preparation for trial.” (Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 987.) Evasive responses to discovery requests are impermissible. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 [“[A] party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer.”].) B. Boilerplate Objections Are Improper. You have included a host of boilerplate objections in response to each item of discovery, none of which contains an explanation as to how the objection applies to the request or interrogatory. Boilerplate objections are improper and result in a waiver of any unstated valid ground for objection. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial. § 8:1476 [“Blanket objections (e.g., ‘all documents sought are irrelevant and immaterial’ are ineffective and likely to result in a waiver of any valid ground for objection....”]; Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516 [pointing out that the Code of Civil Procedure calls for “specific responses” to each discovery demand and disapproving of “boilerplate” objections]; Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (the objection of “vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible... is a ‘nuisance’ objection” and does not justify a failure to respond)” cf., Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal. App. 4th 373, 377 (in which the trial court found Manzetti's objections that requests were “vague and 2 Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, Colin M. Jones, Esq. Daniel DeSantis, Esq. PLC A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Gail Richardson, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Tel: (213) 381-9988 Robert Dart, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Fax: (213) 381-9989 Jon Teller, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. wilshirelawfirm.com Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq ambiguous” to be frivolous and without merit). Please strike these improper objections from your supplemental responses. Defendant’s boilerplate objections are improper on their face in that they, for the most part, lack sufficient explanatoryjustification. (See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.230(b) [with respect to requests for production, “[i]f an objection is made to a request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response.”; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220(a) [with respect to interrogatories, “each answer shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available permits.”].) ll. FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 1 Respondent’s responses to FORM INTERROGATORY 3. 7 The Defendant failed to answer the interrogatory in a straightforward manner. In addition, the Defendant failed to answer each subsection of the interrogatory as required. Please provide a further response that is straightforward and that answers each subsection of the interrogatory if applicable. Defendant’s responses to FORM INTERROGATORY 7. 1-7.3 The Defendant’s response to each interrogatory included a boilerplate objection and made a point that the Defendant is not claiming any property damage. However, each interrogatory seeks information about sustained property damage, and not if a property damage claim is being claimed. Please provide a complete response each Form Interrogatory enumerated above. Defendant’s responses to FORM INTERROGATORY 12.2 Form Interrogatory 12.2 inquiries if “YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BELHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT”. The Defendant’s response of “Defendant has not presently conducted any interviews” is evasive. Is the Defendant looking to take an interview sometime in the future? Or, does the Defendant have knowledge of ANYONE else who may have been interviewed? Please provide a straightforward and non-evasive answer to the interrogatory. Defendant’s responses to FORM INTERROGATORY 12.4 The Defendant’s response was incomplete and evasive. The Defendant failed to answer each subsection of the Interrogatory which is required. The response was also evasive 3 Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, Colin M. Jones, Esq. Daniel DeSantis, Esq. PLC A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Gail Richardson, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Tel: (213) 381-9988 Robert Dart, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Fax: (213) 381-9989 Jon Teller, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. wilshirelawfirm.com Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq because it does not allow Plaintiff to determine if the Defendant has any knowledge of any other photographs that were not identified. Furthermore, upon review of the Traffic Collision Report, no photographs were taken by CHP. Please identify where said photographs have been identified and/or please produce the photographs. Please provide a response in which each subsection is responded to, and please identify if any other photographs exist to the best of Defendant’s knowledge. In addition, please state where the CHP photos have been identified. Defendant’s responses to FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6 The Defendant’s response was evasive and incomplete. The Defendant’s response was as follows, “The Traffic Collison Report was prepared by the California Highway Patrol which is equally available to the Asking Party.” This response does not allow Plaintiff to clearly assess if any other report was made besides the Traffic Collision Report. Please provide a complete and non-evasive response to the interrogatory. Defendant’s responses to FORM INTERROGATORY 12. 7 The Defendant’s response was evasive and incomplete. The Defendant’s response was as follows, “Responding party refers to the Traffic Collision Report”. This response does not allow Plaintiff to clearly assess if any other report was made besides the Traffic Collision Report. Please provide a complete and non-evasive response to the interrogatory. ||l. Request for Production of Documents Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1 through 7, 1 1, 12, 31, 32 The Defendant did not provide any response to the above request. The objections raised were meritless and improper. The Defendant has an obligation t0 answer each request in a complete and straightforward manner. The Plaintiff is entitled to the Defendant’s defense, and Plaintiff has the right to conduct discovery. The Defendant’s responses were evasive and non-compliant with C.C.P. If no records exist, please include the necessary language in each of Defendant’s responses to the enumerated demands. Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, Colin M. Jones, Esq. Daniel DeSantis, Esq. PLC A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Gail Richardson, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Tel: (213) 381-9988 Robert Dart, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Fax: (213) 381-9989 Jon Teller, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. wilshirelawfirm.com Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq In reference to No. 31-32, documents relating to the maintenance or repair of the semi- truck are relevant to Plaintiff’s case. As noted above, the Defendant has an obligation to make a good faith effort to respond to each interrogatory and to answer in the most straightforward way as possible. If documents do exist or may exist, please indicate if the Defendant will comply with the demand in whole or in part. Please also include a statement if all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production. Please provide code-compliant responses. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 34, 35, 37 Relating to No. 37, specifically, please provide a code complaint response. If documents do not exist, please ensure t0 provide the necessary language to indicate that the Defendant has made a good faith effort in searching for said records. Please provide a code-compliant response. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 9, 26, 27, 29, 30, 49 The Defendant’ response t0 the above listed Requests were non-code compliant. T0 what extent is the Defendant complying with Plaintiff’s request? Furthermore, the Defendant identified the Traffic Collision Report, but did not produce said report. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 16, 1 7, 22, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 53 The Defendant’s responses were as follows: “Defendant will produce all non-privileged responsive documents”. If the Defendant is withholding privileged documents, then they must identify the documents and provide a privilege log. Note: The Defendant did not raise a privilege objection to Requests No. 16, 17, 22. Please revise the Defendant’s responses and provide clear and straightforward responses to the above listed requests. Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, Colin M. Jones, Esq. Daniel DeSantis, Esq. PLC A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Gail Richardson, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Tel: (213) 381-9988 Robert Dart, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Fax: (213) 381-9989 Jon Teller, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. wilshirelawfirm.com Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 23, 24, 28, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 Please consider this a meet and confer effort by Plaintiff to obtain any and all documents responsive to this request. Please state what the issue is with Plaintiff’s request. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 33 Plaintiff has a right to conduct discovery and the request was sufficiently narrowed to avoid invading the Defendant’ right to privacy. Please answer the interrogatory with a code- compliant response. Lastly, please produce the Defendant’s production as Plaintiff did not receive any documents responsive to Plaintiff Requests. IV. Special lnterrogatories Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories No. 1 The interrogatory was as follows: “For each person that YOU or anyone acting on YOUR Behalf claim contributed in any way to the occurrence of this INCIDENT, state all facts upon which YOU base such contentions”. The Defendant’s response was as follow: “At this time, Defendant objects on the basis it is in the process of conducting reasonable and good faith efforts to obtain the information responsive to this instant Interrogatory, discovery, investigation and reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request are ongoing. Because discovery is in its infancy Defendant lacks sufficient information or knowledge to respond to this interrogatory. The Plaintiff is entitled to know the Defendant’s defense. At this time, initial discovery has been exchanged and the Defendant has had ample amount of time to review and or obtain necessary documents and photographs regarding the incident. Please provide a further response. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, The Defendant has stated that the person most knowledgeable is temporarily unavailable. When will the Defendant be able to obtain said information? Plaintiff will grant an extension of time to allow the Defendant to obtain the requested information. 6 Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, Colin M. Jones, Esq. Daniel DeSantis, Esq. PLC A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor Gail Richardson, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Tel: (213) 381-9988 Robert Dart, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Fax: (213) 381-9989 Jon Teller, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. wilshirelawfirm.com Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq In regards to Special Interrogatories Nos. 6-8, please state the issue with the interrogatories. Please advise. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 9, 46, 47, 56-58 The Defendant did not produce any documents and their response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request No. 39 does not identify the documents that were produced responsive to the request. Request Nos. 46-47 refers to personal file documents which were supposed to be produced; however, plaintiff does not have said production. Please identify the documents responsive t0 N0. 9, and Nos.56-58 and please produce the Defendant’s production as soon as possible. Please provide a response to each interrogatory. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 22, 23, 24, 52, 53, 54, 55 The Defendant’s responses to the above listed interrogatories do not answer the interrogatories. In their response, the Defendant stated that the person most knowledgeable is temporarily unavailable. Plaintiff will grant an extension to fully respond to this interrogatory if needed. When will the Defendant’s have access to the information requested? Please advise. V. Motion to Compel As noted throughout this letter, we believe Defendant must provide supplemental responses. Plaintiff must move to compel the further responses to all the above-mentioned sets of discovery by April 7, 2021, which gives us time to meet and confer in good faith should it be necessary. | am available either by email or by telephone. To that end, please provide supplemental responses by March 25, 2021. Should Defendant need additional time to provide supplemental responses, please contact me t0 discuss as we would require a mutual extension to our motion to compel deadline. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. | look forward to hearing from you soon concerning these issues. Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd, 12‘“ Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 wilshirelawfirm.com Bobby Saadian, Esq. JD/MBA Colin M. Jones, Esq. A, Ilyas Akbari, Esq. Gail Richardson, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Roben Dart, Esq. Jon Teller, Esq. Sutton A. Shapiro, Esq. Daniel B. Miller, Esq. Hazel Chang, Esq Daniel DeSantis, Esq. Tae ij, Esq. Peter Cho, Esq. Gregory Stuck, Esq. Nicol Hajjar, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. Erik Harper, Esq. Johnny Ogata, Esq. As a conclusion, we hope that this letter helps narrow the issues and determine what, if any, motions to compel further responses are necessary. Since Iy, Sutton A. Shapi , sq. Sutton@wi|shire awfirm.com
