Robert Alexander Saurman vs. Gnirob Capital Corporation

Motion in Limine

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 24, 2015

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 THE SIMON LAW GROUP, LLP Robert T. Simon (SBN: 238095) Greyson M. Goody (SBN: 292527) 34 Hermosa Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Tel: (855) 855-8910 Fax: (310) 914-5401 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 06/20/2018 at 01:32:00 PI Clerk of the Superior Court By Jorge A Gomez, Deputy Clerk ROBERT ALEXANDER SAURMAN & ROBERT STEVEN SAURMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ROBERT ALEXANDER SAURMAN, individually and as Executor of the Estate of KATHLEEN MARIE SAURMAN, and ROBERT STEVEN SAURMAN, individually Plaintiff, Vs. GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation, individually and dba PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING, DAVID M. BONADONNA, DIANAL. BONADONNA, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 30-2015-00784439-CU-PO-CIC [Unlimited Jurisdiction] PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TOPRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 25, 2018 in Dept. C-21 of this Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, Plaintiffs will move this Court for an issuance off the following orders in limine: I) An order prohibiting Defendant, Defendant’s counsel, witnesses, or experts, from offering any opinion, or from making any reference or mention at any time during trial that the hospital and/or doctors who rendered aid to The Decedent are responsible for her death; and 1- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 2) An order requiring the attorneys for all parties to instruct their witnesses of the] court's exclusionary order on this motion; and 3) An order requiring the attorney for Defendant, prior to making any references, comments, or assertions concerning such matters, to approach the bench and make an offer of proof to the court so that the court, prior to any presentation of the above- referenced evidence to the jury, can make a preliminary determination of the relevancy and admissibility thereof. This motion is based upon Evidence Code, sections 350 and 352. The motion is further based upon the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such argument and evidence as may be presented prior to or af the hearing of this matter. DATED: June 20, 2018 THE SIMON LAW GROUP. LLP AZ By:__ ft r——y/ : Brandon J. Simon, Esq. iy Attorneys-for Plaintiff 2- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Plaintiffs bring this motion in limine pursuant to California Evidence Code section 350 and 352, as well as California jury instructions and case law seeking to exclude any argument from Defendants or their experts that the hospital and/or doctors that rendered aid to The] Decedent are responsible for her death. I. INTRODUCTION This is a wrongful death action filed by Robert Alexander Saurman (“Mr. Saurman”) on behalf of his late mother, Kathleen Marie Saurman (“The Decedent”). The Decedent tripped and fell over a defective stair while dining at Pelican Isle Restaurant and Bar. She was taken to the emergency room with a fractured hip where she ultimately passed away. Defendants will attempt to argue at time of trial that they should not be responsible for The Decedent’s death due to medical malpractice or medical negligence on behalf of the hospital. However, CACI Jury Instruction No. 3929 (Subsequent Medical Treatment or Aid) clearly states that the original tortfeasor is on the hook for any additional harm that occurred while medical aid was being rendered (even if said medical aid was negligently performed). Defendants cannot put forth this defense unless there is testimony from a qualified standard of] care expert which states that the hospitals actions fell below the standard of care (i.e. malpractice). There is no testimony of the like in this case. The only purpose of putting forth this argument would be to confuse the jury and cause them to speculate. It would risk resulting in a verdict inconsistent with the uncontroverted expert testimony. Thus, it must be excluded. In addition, as is outlined extensively in Plaintiff's motion in limine number 6, Defendants specifically stated in response to “contention” form interrogatory number 15.1 that they had no facts, witnesses, or evidence supporting their numbers 11, 12 affirmative defenses that a non-party was responsible for The Decedent’s fall and/or injuries. (See Exhibit “A” for copy of Defendants’ Answer and Responses to Form Interrogatories). They are thus barred from bringing this defense at time of trial. 1 3- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 II. ARGUMENT A. Medical Negligence/Malpractice Is An Affirmative Defense Which Defendants Must State To The “More Likely Than Not” Standard Medical causation in a personal injury action “must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based [on] competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. [Citations.] ... A possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action. This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted to the jury.” Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402-403., emphasis added). Defendants have the burden to establish alternate causes. Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 23, 33. “A defendant bears the burden of proving affirmative defenses and indemnity cross-claims. Apportionment of noneconomic damages is a form of equitable indemnity in which a defendant may reduce his or her damages by establishing others are also at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Placing the burden on defendant to prove fault as to nonparty tortfeasors is not unjustified or unduly onerous.” Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361, 369 (emphasis added). Thus, proffering an expert opinion that there is some theoretical possibility the negligent act could have been a cause-in-fact of a particular injury is insufficient to establish causation. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 775-776 [expert testimony positing a “mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of] the court to direct a verdict’ ’]; accord, Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472,487.) “Obviously, if the original tortfeasor is liable for injuries or death suffered during the course of the treatment of injuries suffered in the accident, the original tortfeasor is liable for injuries or death suffered during transportation of the victim to a medical facility for treatment of the injuries resulting from the accident.” Anaya v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4t, -4- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 971, 975. “While it is true the original tortfeasor is liable for additional harm (even death) resulting from the negligent care and treatment of the original injury by physicians and hospitals, such liability is not limited to negligently caused additional harm or that caused by malpractice.” Hastie v. Handeland (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 599, 604-605. In order for The Defense to argue that the hospital or the doctors are liable for the death of The Decedent, they must prove on a more likely than not basis that the hospital or the doctors committed medical malpractice. There is absolutely no expert testimony that supports the position that the hospital or the doctors who rendered aid to The Decedent following the incident committed malpractice or that their care fell below the operative standard of care. In fact, Defendants did not even retain an expert in the field of standard of medical care. Thus, this argument cannot be put forth in front of the jury. The Defense has not met their burden to approve their affirmative defense. This would undoubtedly risk a verdict inconsistent with the evidence and would as the layperson jurors may reach conclusions that medical experts did not even reach. B. Defendants Specifically Stated In Responses to Contention Interrogatories They Had No Facts, Evidence, Witnesses to Support Medical Negligence/Malpractice The discovery statutes were enacted to prevent surprise at trial, not cause it. Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376. These statutes were intended, among other things, to assist the parties and the trier of fact in ascertaining the truth; to encourage settlement by educating the parties as to the strengths of their claims and defenses; to expedite and facilitate] preparation and trial; to prevent delay; and to safeguard against surprise. Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal. App.4t™ 1289, 1294 (emphasis added). If at trial Defendant can use information, documents, items, witnesses, records, tangible things and evidence not identified or produced in response to formal discovery requests, such acts would violate the policy underlying California’s discovery statutes and create great surprise at trial. Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 asked Defendant to identify the facts, witnesses, and documents, supporting each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in its Answer. Defendant's answer to this interrogatory is insufficient and does nof -5- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 address each subpart. Defendant has the burden of proof on its affirmative defenses and Plaintiff is entitled to discover the basis for these affirmative defense. Burke v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 281-282; Evidence Code § 500. Defendant can be compelled to disclose the evidence supporting each such claim or contention. E.g., “State the facts on which you base your contention (or allegation)...” Burke, supra, 71 Cal.2d at 281-282; C.C.P. § 2030.010(b) (“An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer . . . would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.”). A party may be compelled to state his or her contentions as to the manner in which the other party was “negligent” and the facts supporting this contention. It makes no difference that the facts were obtained entirely through investigations by that party's attorney. Southern Pac. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Fuller) (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 195, 197-199. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. C.C.P. § 2030.220. Interrogatories are designed to permit discovery of all facts presently known to a defendant upon which it predicates its defenses, and no reason appears why such an interrogatory should not be permitted . . . where . . . the Answer consists solely of a disfavored overbroad general denial which gives the plaintiff] no guidance whatsoever regarding what specific matters legitimately are at issue and warrant discovery. Burke, supra, 71 Cal.2d at 285 (emphasis added). This is the exact case here. As such, Defendant’s must be barred from using any such evidence at trial. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and in the interest of justice, Plaintiffs ask that this court exclude any argument that The Decedent’s death was due to medical malpractice. DATED: June 20, 2018 THE SIMON LAW GROUP. LLP I A / Branden J. Simon, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff -6- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 EXHIBIT “A” 7 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH I la ig ht OW 0 0 ~ 1 O N hh Bb W N N O N N N N N N N O N = o m et e m e m e m e d ee ee 0 0 ~~ O N Wn bh W N R O YW 0 0 N D WwW ND e o Kevin R. Crisp (Bar No. 97504) kerisp@hbblaw.com Gregory M. Smith (Bar No. 259971) gsmith@hbblaw.com HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.542.2000 Facsimile: 213.542.8100 Attorneys for Defendants GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION dba PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING, DAVID M. BONADONNA, and DIANA L. BONADONNA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ROBERT ALEXANDER SAURMAN, Case No. 30-2015-00784439-CU-PO-CIC individually and as Executor of the Estate of KATHLEEN MARIE SAURMAN, and | RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL ROBERT STEVEN SAURMAN, CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE individually, WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFEF’S FORM Plaintiffs, INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Vv. The Hon. Hon. Deborah Servino Dept. C22 GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Action Filed: April 24, 2015 California Corporation, individually and dba PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING, DAVID M. BONADONNA, DIANA L. BONADONNA, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF ROBERT ALEXANDER SAURMAN RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING SET NO.: ONE 1 5149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528.1 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) | Ja ig ht © 0 0 ~~ O&O wn HB» WwW ND N O N RN N N N N N N m m Ee e e ee e e e s 0 0 0 O N WL bh W N ~~, O O WV O N I N N R A W D — O O Defendant Gnirob Capital Corporation dba Pelican Isle Waterfront Dining hereby responds to plaintiff's Form Interrogatories pursuant to section 2030.0 10, et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure without prejudice to further discovery and without waiver of any of its objections. Said responses of defendant are rendered based upon the tangible things present in its possession at the time of the preparation of these responses. Discovery including, but not limited to, depositions and medical examinations, has not yet been completed which may yield further tangible things yet unknown. Discovery, as provided | by statute, stipulation and investigation by this responding party, its attorneys and agents, will continue throughout the pretrial activities, the trial, and afterwards. Defendant specifically reserves its right to and including the time of trial, to adduce any evidence from any source which may hereafter be discovered as well as any testimony from witnesses whose identities may hereafter be discovered. Defendant has not yet completed its investigation and discovery, and if any information cannot be provided in these responses, this responding party reserves the right to apply for relief so as to permit the insertion of the omitted information. These introductory comments shall apply to each and every response and shall be incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in each and every response herein. RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses). RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: Defendant David Bonadonna, assisted by his counsel, Kevin Crisp, of Haight, Brown & Bonesteel. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: Are you a corporation? If so, state: (a) The name stated in the current articles of incorporation; 2 5149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771598 1 WATERER ANT NITNTNG TO PT ATNTIFE’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OW 60 ~ N O&O Wn WwW ND = V O N N N N N N N N ee e e e s e e e m m e ® 2 A U h A W N = © WV 0 N N O Wn W N = O (b) All other names used by the corporation during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; (c) The date and place of incorporation; (d) The ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and (¢) Whether you are qualified to do business in California. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: Yes. a. Gnirob Capital Corporation b. Not applicable. c. February 26, 2014; California d. 16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2: Are you a partnership? If so, state: (a) The current partnership name; (b) All other names used by the partnership during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; (c) Whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what jurisdiction; (d) The name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and (¢) The ADDRESS of the principal place of business. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3: Are you a limited liability company? If so, state: (a The name stated in the current articles of organization; (b) All other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each was used; (c) The date and place of filing of the articles of organization; 3 $149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 117715281 WATERERONT DINING TO PLAINTIEFE’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OO 0 0 NN AN Wn be W N N O N O N O N R N R N N e e e m e s e e e e = © J O A th BA W N ~~ © VW 0 0 N O Wn W N —= O (d) The ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and (¢) Whether you are qualified to do business in California. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4: Are you a joint venture? If so, state: (a) The current joint venture name; (b) All other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; (c) The name and ADDRESS of each joint venturer; and (d) The ADDRESS of the principal place of business. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5: Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state: (a) The current unincorporated association name; (b) All other names used by the unincorporated association during the pas t 10 years and the dates each was used; and (c) The ADDRESS of the principal place of business. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6: Have you done business under a fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each fictitious name state: (@ The name; (b) The dates each was used; (c) The state and county of each fictitious name filing; and (d) The ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 4 $149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528.1 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OO 0 N N O N Wn R W N N N O N N O N N O N N N DN e m e t md p t e t e d e t p b 0 ~~ O N Wn bh W N = O O YW 0 N N N PRE W N —= OO RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6: Yes. a. Pelican Isle b. Approximately 9 or 10 years. c. Defendant does not recall. d. Same as above. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7 Within the past five years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? If so, for each license or registration: - (2) Identify the license or registration; (b) State the name of the public entity; and (¢) State the dates of issuance and expiration. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7: Yes. a. — b. The State of California, corporations no. C3649203; State of Nevada, corporations no. C2671271; liquor license no. 47419166; business license no. A253352. c. Current; business license August, 2016; liquor license 12/31/16. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: (a) The kind of coverage; (b) The name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (¢) The name, ADDRESS and telephone number of each named insured; (d) The policy number; (¢) The limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; 5 5149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528.1 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OO 0 0 3 O N Wn hb W N N O N N D R N N N N ND e e ee e s ee ee e l e s © 2 O O L h B W RN = O WV O N Y R W S —- Oo (d) The policy number; (¢) The limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; (f) Whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurance company; and (2) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: a. General Liability b. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company c. Gnirob Capital Corporation d. SISAM 03388-14 e. $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 aggregate f. No to defendant’s knowledge. g. Defense counsel can obtain a copy of the policy and will provide it. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual; (a) Who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) Who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) Who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) Who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). 6 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528.1 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Ha ig ht OO 0 0 ~ 1 O&O Ww» Hh W N - N O N O N R N R N N RN N N N me e s m e e s e e e e © 2 A WK HA W N HR O O WV 0 0 N N O " A W N = O O RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1 a. Jose Luis Villasenor, 16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, may be contacted through defense counsel; Jesse Perez; persons in plaintiff's party. b. Persons in plaintiff’s party c. See a. and b., above. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) The date of the interview; and (c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2 Defense counsel Kevin Crisp has spoken with Mr. Villasenor on several occasions, if that is considered an “interview.” The only date specifically identifiable at this time is August 11, 2015. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) The date the statement was obtained; and (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy. 7 51490000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 117715281 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht O 60 ~~ O N wv HH WL NN - N O N O N N D O N RN R R N D e e e s e e em oO N N hh B W R Rm, © WV N W A W N Oo RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff's injuries? If so, state: (a) The number of photographs or feet of film or videotape; (b) The places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped; (c) The date the photographs, films, or videotapes. were taken; (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs, films, or videotapes; and (¢) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4 Defendant has photographs and a video of the scene of the INCIDENT, but not of plaintiff’s injuries. a. 99 still photos; short video b. The restaurant interior and exterior c. 7/28/2015 d. Kevin Crisp; Matt Nardella, 5415 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim Hills, CA 92807-2022, 714 701-9180. e. Copies are in the possession of Haight, Brown & Bonesteel and are be ing produced to plaintiff. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210-2034-310) con cerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state: 3 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528.1 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OW 0 ~ N O&O Wn ps W N N O N RN N N ND N D = em e e e e e e e e e e 0 — A W h A W N R= O O YW O N O Wn R W N = O (a) The type of (i.e., diagram reproduction, or model); (b) The subject matter; and (c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has it. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) The name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) The date and type of report made; (¢) The name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.7: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state: (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210-2034.310); and (b) The date of the inspection. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.7 Yes. Kevin Crisp, July 28, 2015, August 11, 2015 and several occasions subsequently. 9 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528.1 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I Ja ig ht OW 0 ~~ & Ln B W W Nd N O O N O R N N N N R N N e e e e e e e es 0 WN O h BA W N O R , OO VW 0 0 N N W A W N —- Oo FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.1: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF conducted surveillance of any individual involved in the INCIDENT or any party to this action? If so, for each surveillance state: (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual or party; (b) The time, date, and place of the surveillance; (c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who conducted the surveillance; and (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of any surveillance photograph, film, or videotape. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.1 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.2: A ee ee ee tt ees Has a written report been prepared on the surveillance? If so, for each wr itten report state: (a) Thetitle; (b) The date; (¢) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individua l who prepared the report; and (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13.2 Not applicable. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.1: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, id entify the 10 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771898 1 WATEDRER ANT PINTNG TO PI AINTIEF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht YO 0 0 ~~ A Wn pA WwW N = N O N O N N N R N N N e e e s e e e s e e s e © 2 O h A W N O R , O O WV N e Wn R W N = O O name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.1 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.2: Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: (@ The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) The statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; (c) Whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, if so, the plea entered; and (d) The name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.2 Not to defendant’s knowledge. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative de fense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things which support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, a nd telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 11 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771892 1 ATED ER ANT MINING TO PI AITNTIFE'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) | Ja ig ht O© 0 0 ~~ O&O Wh HH WwW N N = N O N O R N N O R R N R N R e e e s e e e s 2 0 A R A W = O WV N W N R W NN = O RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1 Defendant generally denied plaintiff’s allegations as permitted by the Code of Civi l Procedure. As to affirmative defenses 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, defendan t is currently unaware of facts to support them. Discovery is continuing. As to defenses 2, 3, 4 and 8, defendant responds as follows: a. The plaintiff was not injured as a result of a dangerous condition on defendan t’s property. Defendant had no notice of the alleged dangerous conditions plaintiff alle ges. The stair or stairs in question were obvious and apparent, and have been safely bee n used by customers and employees since the restaurant started operation. b. David Bonadonna, Jesse Perez, Jose Luis Vallasenor-nieto. c. Photographs of the scene. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.1: Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, c ontributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for - each PERSON: (a) State the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (¢c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that s upport your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing, RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.1 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2: Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT? If so: (a) State all facts upon which you base your contention; 12 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN IS LE 11771898 1 NATED DR ANT DINTNG TO PLAINTIFE’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht O© 00 2 O v wn bh Ww W WN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) State the names, ADDRESS, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (¢) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.3: Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not caused by the | INCIDENT? If so, for each injury: (a) Identify it; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.3: Not applicable. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.4: Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the INCIDENT? If so: (a) Identify each service; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and 13 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 1177189 1 WA TED ED ANT DINING TO PT. ATNTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I Ja ig ht OO 00 NN O A Ww» Bb WwW ND N O N O R N O R N R R R N N e e e s e s e m e m Oo N A Lh A W N = O O V © N O N A W N = CQ (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.4 "Not applicable. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.5: Do you contend that any of the costs of services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed as damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not necessary or unreasonable? If so: (a) Identify each cost; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, ADDRESS, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.5 Not applicable. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.6: Do you contend that any part of the loss of earnings or income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case was unreasonable or was n ot caused by the INCIDENT? If so: (a) Identify each part of the loss; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PER SONS who have knowledge of the facts; and 14 $149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORA TION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771 280 1 7 A TTT ED ANT INTINE TA PT ATNTIFE’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I Ja ig ht [S Y N O N O N O N D R N RN R N R = e e e e e e e s ee e e 0 = A A t h A W N = © WV 0 N N W Rh W N = O © 0 NN ON Lu A W N (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.6 ‘Not applicable. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.7: Do you contend that any of the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case was not caused by the INCIDENT? If so: (a) Identify each item of property damage; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.7 Not applicable. FORM INTERROGATORIES 16.8 Do you contend that any of the costs of repairing the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were unreasonable? If so: (a) Identify each cost item; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. 15 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771€9% 1 WI ATED ED ANT RINTNG TO PT ATNTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OO 6 0 ~~ O N vn BH W N N O N O N R N N N N N N e e e e e s e s e e 0 a A Uh HA W N = © WV 0 N N O Wn A W D = Oo RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.8 Not applicable. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.9: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT (for example, insurance bureau index reports) concerning claims for personal injuries made before or after the INCIDENT by a plaintiff in this case? If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) The source of each DOCUMENT; (b) The date each claim arose; (c) The nature of each claim; and (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.9: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.10: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT concerning the past or present physical, mental, or emotional condition of any pl aintiff in this case from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER not previously identified (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310)? If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; (b) A description of each DOCUMENT; and (c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 16.10: Only those documents provided by plaintiff's counsel, pertaining to the decedent’s hospitalization. 16 5149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11797169 1 WI ATED ED ANT INTNA TA DT ATNTIER’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Ja ig ht OW 00 3 & Ww» Hh W D D N O N O R N O N R N R N N R = em e s e e e e Bo W A hh B E L N = , © VW ® N n R W N D = O FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) State the number of the request; (b) State all facts upon which you base your response; (¢) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSON S who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: No. a. Request No. 1 b. The requested “fact” is not true; Defendant does not own the premis es. a o o P a p oc ® c d. a. b. David Bonadonna. This is a matter of public record. Requests Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 16 Defendant did not cause or contribute to the incident. David Bonadonna, Jesse Perez, Jose Luis Villasenor-nieto Photographs produced to plaintiff. Request Nos. 5 and 7 Plaintiff fell. Discovery is continuing. . Jose Luis Villasenor-nieto Photographs produced to plaintiff. Request No. 9 See factual explanation in the response to the request. Additionally, the s tep surface does reflect light, making it appear a different color. Cc. S149-0000025 21mm AAD 1 David Bonadonna 17 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE Ar A Tm TT AL TT RATA TA DT ATNTIRE'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) f la ig ht OW 0 0 1 o n wn B W P O O N R R N D N N N R = e e e s e e e e Bo 2 h A W R N = O O WV 0 N N R W N — oO d. See photographs produced to plaintiff a. Request No. 10 b. Plaintiffs are asking Defendant to admit something that is not true. Defendant is unaware of any other injury occurring at this place. | ¢. David Bonadonna d. None a. Request No. 11 b. Defendant was not aware of a dangerous condition on its premises. The stair or stairs in question have not proved to be a hazard in many years of use by a large number of people. David Bonadonna a o None. Request No. 12 oc ® See response above regarding Request No. 11 David Bonadonna d. None. e a. Request No. 13 b. Defendant accepts the general statement of duty; it disputes the contention that there was a dangerous condition to warn of. | ¢. David Bonadonna d. None. a. Request No. 14 b. Defendant is not aware of a dangerous condition as alleged that contributed to this incident. c¢. David Bonadonna d. Photographs as produced to plaintiff. a. Request No. 21 18 $149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 12771270 1 7 A TED TD ANT IWANITNC TA PT ATNTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OVO 00 1 ON t h bh W N N O N O N R N R N R e e e s e s e e e e m e oo J A Kh BA W N = © WV 0 N n A W N = o b. Defendant offered to call paramedics and the decedent’s party declined, indicating that they did not require help handling the decedent’s injury. c¢. Jose Luis Villasenor-nieto; Jesse Perez. d. None a. Request No. 23- b. Defendant does not agree with the suggestion that its video system ensures the safety of patrons. c. David Bonadonna. d. None. a. Request No. 24 b. Defendant does not have video of the incident at this time. c. David Bonadonna d. None. a. Request No. 25 b. As explained in the response to plaintiffs’ demand for production, the video system is on a continuous loop, eventually re-recording over older content. Defendant was unaware that the plaintiff or her relatives were blaming it for this fall. Defenda nt received no request for preservation of any video from plaintiffs or their counsel. David Bonadonna Ba A None Request No. 27 = Pp The lighting strip was on. Jose Luis Villasenor-nieto, Jesse Perez. e o None. Request No. 28 es B The bar tables and the dining tables are not the same height. ¢. David Bonadonna d. Photographs produced to plaintiff. 19 §149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11mm E2Al 1 17 A TTD AANTT VIANNA TA DIT ATNTIFR'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) f la ig ht OW 0 0 ~ ~ O N wn = WwW N o e R O N O N N N R R N N e e em e s e s e e e s 0 N h BA L R N =m Oo OV Oo N N R W N = O F F o R oc e a Request No. 29 Defendant does not want people injured on its premises. David Bonadonna None Request Nos. 30 and 31 The requested “facts” are not true. Defendant has and had no such photographs. David Bonadonna None a. Request No. 33 e co I a. b. The measurements of the stair risers are as indicated in the response. Defense counsel; consultant Photographs produced to plaintiff Request No. 34 and 35 The description and measurements are not accurate. Defense counsel; consultant Photographs produced to plaintiff Request No. 38 The request is a misstatement of the law. Plaintiff is suggesting a duty of absolute safety, whereas the duty is to use reasonable care to keep pr operty in reasonably safe condition. oc » 8 © a o a. b. $149-0000025 117171870 1 The legislature. The courts. CACI 1001 and case law supporting it. Request Nos. 39, 42, 43, 44 Defendant is unaware of the occurrence of what it is being asked to a dmit. David Bonadonna None. Request No. 41 Not applicable. 20 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 17 A TED TD ANT INTNA TO PT ATNTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I la ig ht OW 0 ~~ O N wn ~~ WwW N D = N O R D N D N N N N = ee e e e e e m © ~_ N A LU BHA WW ND = © WV 0 0 NN A Vv Bh W N = O ¢. Defendant. d. Not applicable. Dated: January 21, 2016 HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP on Hel Tom R. Crisp Gregory M. Smith Attorneys for Defendants GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION dba PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING, DAVID M. BONADONNA, and DIANA L. BONADONNA 21 5149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 117715281 WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Ha io ht HAIGHT: NO 0 a Oh th H W ND = N O N R O R N N N R N R e e ee es ed I E ~) AN L h H W O N QO vO 0 0 <2 [= wn of Ww ND — oo of ND oo From: +15625023232 Page: 1/1 Date: 1/29/2016 12:33:16 PM 20160128_123316_00011 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE "I bave read the foregoing RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) and know its contents. 1 am an officer of Gnirob Capital Corporation dba Pelican Isle Waterfront Dining, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and 1 Inake this verification for that reason. I am informed and belicve and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 29, 2016, at Sunset Beach, California. David Bonadonna ON Baadirne Print Name of Signatory ignature -§149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528.1 WATERFRONT DINING TQ PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) f la ig ht WO © N A WU A W O N es N N D N D N N N N N O N mt em em t em p e t pe d pe d je 0 ~~ O N Un bh W N = O W 0 0 N N N R W = o PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ROBERT ALEXANDER SAURMAN, et al. v. GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION, et al. Case No. 30-2015-00784439-CU-PO-CJC At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed-in the County of Los ALEeleS, Stang of California.-My business address is 555 South Flower Street, Forty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. On January 29, 2016, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) on the interested parties in this action as follows: Jeffrey S. Dawson, Esq. The Simon Law Group, LLP Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Dawson Robert T. Simon, Esq. 9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 210 Greyson M. Goody, Esq. Irvine, CA 92618 34 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (949) 861-2191 Facsimile: ( a4 861-2190 Telephone: 310-914-5400 Attornevs for Plaintiffs Facsimile: 310-914-5401 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 29, 2016, at Los Angeles, California. S149-0000025 RESPONSE OF GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION DBA PELICAN ISLE 11771528. WATERFRONT DINING TO PIATNTIFE’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ROBERT ALEXANDER SAURMAN, No.: 30-2015-00784439-CU-PO-CJC individually and as Executor of the Estate of | [Unlimited Jurisdiction] KATHLEEN MARIE SAURMAN, and ROBERT STEVEN SAURMAN, individually [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TOPRECLUDE ARGUMENT Vs. FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL GNIROB CAPITAL CORPORATION, a AND/OR DOCTORS WHO California Corporation, individually and dba | RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT PELICAN ISLE WATERFRONT DINING, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DAVID M. BONADONNA, DIANAL. DEATH BONADONNA, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. The Honorable Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2, for an order precluding argument from Defendants or their experts that the hospital and/or doctors who rendered aid to The Decedent are responsible for her death, orders as follows: GRANTED: YES NO JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT -8- PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 217 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. My business address is 34 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. On June 20, 2018 I served the following document(s): PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH & [PROPOSED] ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy of each document thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Robert S. Rucci, Esq. Angela M. Powell, Esq. Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP. 402 West Broadway, Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 Tele: 619.595.5583 Fax: 619.595.7873 Attorneys for Defendants X) BY MAIL. I am readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know that the] correspondence was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope] was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date in the United States mail at Hermosa Beach, California. 0) BY FACSIMILE: By use of facsimile machine number (310) 914-5401, I served a cop} of the within document(s) on the above interested parties at the facsimile numbers listed above. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. The transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. () BY ELECTRONIC MAIL. I caused the above referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the above-named person(s) Executed on June 20, 2018, Hermosa Beach, California. (X) (State) I declare under penalty or Sd under the laws of the State of] California that the above is true and correet. = Jp Rene Galvez 9. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT FROM DEFENDANTS OR THEIR EXPERTS THAT THE HOSPITAL AND/OR DOCTORS WHO RENDERED AID TO THE DECEDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER DEATH