Miranda Mclemore vs. Roque Center, Inc.Motion to Compel DiscoveryCal. Super. - 4th Dist.November 4, 2016o w A B W N e N N N N N N N N O N e m m e e m m m pe d m d m m e m m m e s « 0 9 S n n d h W N O E D Y N N R B W O N e m o > Daniel A. Gibalevich, Esq., SBN: 217116 Rachel E. Fishenfeld, Esq., SBN: 270310 Ashley G. Soto, Esq., SBN: 303318 DAG LAW FIRM, APC 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1440 Los Angeles, California 90048 Telephone: (323) 930-2020 Facsimile: (323) 930-2225 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MIRANDA MCLEMORE, individually and as ) CASE NO.: 30-2016-00885188-CU-NP-CJC Successor in Interest of MARY MCLEMORE; ) GREYSON MCLEMORE, a minor by and ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO through his guardian ad litem, MIRANDA ) COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY MCLEMORE;individually and as Successor in } DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH’S TO Interest of MARY MCLEMORE; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ASHLEY G. SOTO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT THEREOF Plaintiffs, ROQUE CENTER, INC., a California Motion Date: April 18, 2018 Corporation; MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, Time: 1:30 p.m. LLC,a California Corporation; NISHANT Dept: C22 KUMAR,an individual; and DOES 1-100, RES ID: 72760921 Inclusive; Trial Date: November 5, 2018 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )Defendants. TO THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 19, 2018 at 1:30p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department C-22 of the above-entitled court located at 700 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Plaintiff, Miranda McLemore, will and hereby does move for the following: 1. For an order compelling Defendant Kevin Granich to provide further verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and produce responsive documents, within ten (10) days; and -1- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS N e 3 W Y b m W N N O N N N N O N O N O N O R m m e m e m e m e m e w m m e e e m e e W W N S n n R W R N m m D Y ® t R m W O N e m o > 2. For an order assessing monetary sanctions against Defendant Kevin Granich and its attorney ofrecord, Maryam Danishwar, Esq., jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,460.00. This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310. The request for sanctions is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 and 2031.310. This motion is made on the grounds that the Plaintiff timely and properly served Defendant with her Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Defendant’s statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, the Defendantfailed to produce all of the requested documents, and there is no justification for the Defendant continuing to avoid production of the requested documents. Plaintiff’s counsel made good faith attempts to resolve this matter, but Defendant and its attorney of record have failed to provide further responses and failed to produce all ofthe requested documents. This motion and request will be based upon this notice; all pleadings, records and files in this action; the attached memorandum of points and authorities, declaration and exhibits; and such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion. AF DATED: February 28, 2018 DAG LAWFIRM, APC 4 re-— 3 rere ZL7 A LTPn Ashley G' Soto, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff -2- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS o e N X R W O N N O N M O N O N N O N O N B R m m e e e m k d e w m m e k e m e w e t R W N N R d B W N E S C N S W R W N e m MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This is a case of dependent adult abuse and wrongful death against two substance abuse facilities and a physician who failed to attend to the custodial and medical needs of decedent, Mary McLemore. Plaintiffs are decedent’s spouse and child. Plaintiff has brought claims against Defendants for wrongful death, dependent adult neglect, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff Miranda McLemore propounded her Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant, Kevin Granich. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One is attached to the Declaration of Ashley Soto as Exhibit “A.” Defendant’s response was due on July 28, 2017. Plaintiff graciously granted an extension to August 11, 2017. Plaintiff did not receive the discovery responses. On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email notifying Defendant’s counsel that the responses had never been received. A copy ofthe responses were emailed to Plaintiffs counsel on October 3, 2017 with a proofof service date of August 11, 2017. No verifications were included. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One are attached to the Declaration of Ashley Soto as Exhibit “B.” On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defense counsel requesting that Defendant provide verifications and supplement several responses that were not complaint with the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's counsel requested the verifications by October 16, 2017 and further responsesto the discovery by October 23, 2017. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Initial Meet and Confer Letteris attached to the Declaration of Ashley Soto as -3- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS o e N g A W N B s W N N N O N N O R N N N O N O R N O N s m o m m m e e e m m d e m pa d e m C R E E E E E T ~ ~ N E J J Exhibit “C.” Plaintiff's counsel did not receive a response to this letter and no further discovery responses or verifications were received. Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another meet and confer letter on October 30, 2017 granting one more extension to November 6, 2017 to provide the verifications and further responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in accordance with the October 6, 2017 meet and confer. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s second Meet and Confer Letteris attached to the Declaration of Ashley Soto as Exhibit “D.” On Sunday, November 5, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel received an email asking if Plaintiff's counsel had time that week to discuss the meet and confer letters. As Plaintiff's counsel had requested further responses be provided on November 6, 2017, it was clear that Defense counsel had not completed them. Plaintiff’s counsel responded to this email with a detailed timeline of her attempts to meet and confer and requested that Defendant’s counsel provide her response to the meet and confer in writing so that there would be a written record. Defendant’s counsel responded that she would address the meet and confer with a written response and would provide the missing verifications “upon receipt from myclient.” A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel November 5-6, 2017 email exchange is attached to the Declaration of Ashley Soto as Exhibit “E.” Defendant’s counsel never provided a response to Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letters. On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received the verifications for the discovery responses. No further discovery responses were provided. As ofthe date ofthis motion, four months after Plaintiff's counsel sent the first meet and confer letter, Plaintiff still has not received a response to the meet and confer letters, any further responses, or any documents that may need to be produced. IL IT IS PROPER FOR THE COURT TO COMPEL A PARTY TO FURTHER RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IF A STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEMAND IS INCOMPLETE -4- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS R X 3 N n B A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Code of Civil Procedure §2031.310 (a) states: “On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any ofthe following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” California’s discovery procedures “are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guess work about the other side’s evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure,” Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4™ 1113, 1119. See also, Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376 (California discovery procedures intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation). IV. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, AND SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS Plaintiff is entitled to and needsthe responsesto these requests, and the actual documents sought. As shownin the Declaration of Ashley Soto and the attached exhibits, Defendant’s compliant response is long overdue. The Court is referred to the accompanying Separate Statement for the legal and factual reasons for compelling further responses. In summary, further responses are warranted because Plaintiff's responses do not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure, are incomplete, and are evasive. Plaintiffis unable to guess whether the documents requested ever existed. Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant Kevin Granich to provide verified answersto the Request for Production of Documents, and the actual production of missing documents, within (10) days of the hearing of this motion, without objection. -5- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Ww W n N N o e e 9 a i r A a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD Refusal to participate in discovery exposes Defendant and Defense Counsel to sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010 states: “Misuse of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: .... (d) Failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery. (1) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery,ifthe section governing a particular discovery motionrequires the filing of a declarationstating facts showing that such an attempt has been made. §2023.030 continues: (a) 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. If the Court finds that the refusal, failure, or objection to the discovery request was without substantial justification, the Court shall require the refusing,failing, or objecting party or deponent and the party or attorney advising the refusal or failure or objection, or any of them,to pay to the 1 -6- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 0 N A R m W N N N N N N N N N N e m m m e m ee k m m le w he d e m e e e m ° F 2 N h R W N m D 0 N S W N B s W N e m © party seeking discovery the amount of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees incurred in obtaining the order. See California Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.310. In this case, Defendant Kevin Granich andits attorney of record have no substantial Justification for refusing to respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letters and provide further responses to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents that are compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defense counsel was aware that the responses were not compliant and were given several extensions to further respond, but has failed to supplement the responses or provide all requested documents. The amount ofthe requested sanctions is $2,460.00. Plaintiffs attorney’s hourly rate for this matter is $400.00. Plaintiff has incurred legal fees in the sum of $1,200.00 for the research and preparation ofthis motion (3.0 hours at $400.00 per hour). The filing fee for this motionis $60.00. Plaintiff will incur additional legal fees estimated to be in the sum of $1,200.00 for counsel’s review of the opposing papers and preparation of the reply brief, preparing for the hearing, appearance at the hearing, and oral argument (3.0 hours at $400.00 per hour). The request for sanctions is therefore in the amount of $2,460.00 to be imposed against Defendant, Kevin Granich, and its attorney of record, Maryam Danishwar, Esq. VI. CONCLUSION. Defendant Kevin Granich and its attorney of record, Maryam Danishwar, Esq., have failed to provide further responses and all requested documents to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. Defendantis deliberately denying Plaintiff her right to discovery, and severely prejudicing Plaintiff's ability to properly prepare this matter for trial. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court compel Defendantto provide verified further responses to this discovery, without objection, and the production of the requested documents, within ten (10) days of the hearing ofthis motion. In addition, Defendant and its attorney ofrecord should be ordered -7- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 0 0 N S W h B R W N N O N N N N N N N O R m m m m e m m m w k h m e d m e e d e m W W N N RA R W N = S O N R O R W O N m o m to pay monetary sanctionsto Plaintiffforits refusal to provide further responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production. Additionally,it took five months to receive Defendant’s verifications. Defendant has no legal justification for failing to provide further responses and failing to meet and confer. Defendant’s failure to provide further responses has caused unnecessary litigation expense. Monetary sanctions are clearly warranted. DATED: February 28, 2018 DAG LAW EIRM, APC 4 JBy: TL | JAshley G,oto, Esq. Attorneysfor Plaintiff -8- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS w w o R a n n a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ASHLEY SOTO, ESQ. 1, Ashley Soto, declare as follows, that: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and fully personally familiar with the facts herein. 1am an associate with DAG Law Firm, APC and if called to testify I could and would competently do so with respect to the contents of this declaration. 2. On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff Miranda McLemore propounded her Requests for Production of Documents, Set One to Defendant, Kevin Granich. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Oneare attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 3. Defendant’s responses were due on July 28, 2017. 4. Anextension was provided that made Defendants responses due on August 11, 2017. 5. No objections or responses to this request were received by the Plaintiff. 6. On October 2, 2017, I sent an email notifying Defendant’s counsel that the responses had never been received. 7. A copy of the responses were emailed to me on October 3, 2017 with a proof of service date of August 11, 2017. No verifications were included. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One are attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 7. I reviewed the discovery responses and on October 6, 2017, | mailed and faxed a meet and confer letter to Defense counsel requesting that Defendant provide verifications and supplement several responses that were not complaint with the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. I requested the verifications by October 16, 2017 and further responses to the discovery by October 23, 2017. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Initial Meet and Confer Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 10. I did notreceive a responseto this letter and no further discovery responses or -9.- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS L e 3 S W N B W N e N N N N N N O N O R N O N m e m m e d e m e d m k e d e m ee k e d @ N N n h RA R W N = D 0 0 d N O R W O N m m o o verifications were received. 11. Therefore, I mailed and faxed another meet and confer letter on October 30, 2017 granting one more extension to November 6, 2017 for Defense counsel to provide the verifications and further responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests in accordance with the October 6, 2017 meet and confer. A true and correct copy of the October 20, 2017 meet and confer letteris attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” 12. On Sunday, November 5, 2017, 1 received an email asking if I had time that week to discuss the meet and conferletters. As Plaintiff's counsel had requested further responses be provided on November 6, 2017,it was clear that Defense counsel had not completed them. | responded to this email with a detailed timeline ofmy attempts to meet and confer and requested that Defendant’s counsel provide me her response to my meet and confer in writing so that we would have a record. 13. Defendant’s counsel responded that she would address the meet and confer witha written response and would provide the missing verifications “upon receipt from my client.” A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel November 5-6, 2017 email exchange is attached to the Declaration of Ashley Soto as Exhibit “E.” 14. Defendant’s counsel never provided a response to my meet and confer letters. 15. On January 9, 2018, I received the verifications for the discovery responses. A true and correct copy of the January 9, 2018 letter with enclosed verifications is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.” 16. To date, I have not receive any further discovery responses. 17. My regular hourly billing rate is $400.00 per hour, which I believe is reasonable given the rates of other attorneys with similar qualifications and experience in the community. I have had substantial experience litigating cases of a broad variety. I am a member ofnumerous legal organizations and have participated in numerous litigation skills seminars. 18. Plaintiff has incurred legal fees in the sum of $1,200.00 for the research -10- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 3 o e 3 S N n n a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and preparation of this motion (3.0 hoursat $400.00 per hour). The filing fee for this motion is $60.00. Plaintiff will incur additional legal fees estimated to be in the sum of $1,200.00 forits counsel’s review of the opposing papers and preparation ofthe reply brief, preparing for the hearing, appearance at the hearing, and oral argument(3.0 hours at $400.00 per hour). The request for sanctions is therefore in the amount of $2,460.00 to be imposed against defendant, Kevin Granich andits attorney of record, Maryam Danishwar, Esq., jointly and severally. I declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ,B Executed this 23rd day of Februa 201:8.~~- y7,/OFzy ET AshleySoto, Esq. “11 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS EXHIBIT “A” ~ ~ & & U n a W N o o 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Daniel A. Gibalevich, Esq., SBN: 217116 Rachel E. Fishenfeld, Esq., SBN: 270310 DAG LAWFIRM, APC. 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1440 Los Angeles, California 90048 Telephone: (323) 930-2020 Facsimile: (323) 930-2225 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MIRANDA MCLEMORE,individually and as Successorin Interest ofMARY MCLEMORE; GREYSON MCLEMORE, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, MIRANDA MCLEMORE; individually and as Successor in Interest of MARY MCLEMORE; Plaintiffs, Vv. ROQUE CENTER, INC., a California Corporation, MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, LLC, a California Corporation; NISHANT KUMAR, an individual; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive; Defendants. CASE NO.: 30-2016-00885188-CU-NP-CJC PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER: 1 /i Plaintiff, MIRANDA MCLEMORE,individually and as Successor in Interest of MARY MCLEMORE Defendant, KEVIN GRANICH ONE - I - PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 TO DEFENDANT AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Pursuant to Section 2031.010 ofthe California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff MIRANDA MCLEMORE(“Plaintiff’), hereby demands that Defendant KEVIN GRANICH produce for inspection, copying, and related activity, any and all documents and other tangible things described belowthat are in the care, custody, control, or possession of the defendant and its agents and/or employees and are both responsive to the below demands and relevant to the subject matter ofthis litigation. Pursuantto the California Code ofCivil Procedure,the Plaintiff hereby requests that the Defendant comply with the code by producing all items relevant to that which is listed below, on or before 30 days from the date ofservice, at DAG LAW FIRM, APC., 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1440, Los Angeles, CA 90048. Definition 1. The term “YOU”and “YOUR(S8)” shall mean and refer to Defendant KEVIN GRANICH and is deemed to include anyone acting on YOUR behalf,including, but not limited to YOURagents, employees,officers, investment advisors, attorneys, accountants, investigators, insurance companies, their agents, their employees, and anyone else acting on YOUR, ortheir behalf. 2. As used herein, the term “DEFENDANTrefers to KEVIN GRANICH. 3 As used herein, the term “DECEDENT”refers to MARY MCLEMORE. 4. For the purposes of this Request, the word “DOCUMENT” and “WRITING” shall mean that which is defined in Evidence Code Section 250 and includes, but is not limited to, any and all means of communication, including all writings, recordings, correspondence, notes, memoranda, calendars, journals, diaries, appointment books, studies, analyses, investigations, statements, summaries, audio and video recordings, data compilations, physical evidence, invoices, drafts, minute records, electronic recordings, electronic data, electronic mail (E-Mail), including deleted E-Mail, computer hard disk drives, computer disk drives, magnetic disks, computer floppy disks, databases stored on computers, computer file menus, computer printouts, microfiche, - 2 - PRINTED ON RECYCLED PaFER PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE o e 1 S N W h d a W N e e N N N N N N N N m e e m m e b m e d m e m w ee d ee d ee d 0 N S h h W R e m D O d h b a L W or a e m = surance policies and attachments thereto, whetheroriginal, duplicate or facsimile, and whether handwritten, typed, printed, recorded, or otherwise retained on a computer or electronic system. DOCUMENT REQUEST REQUEST NUMBER 1 All WRITINGS and DOCUMENTS YOU identified in YOURresponse to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded upon YOU byPlaintiff MIRANDA MCLEMORE. REQUEST NUMBER 2 All insurance agreements, policies and declaration pages which afford coverage to the YOU or YOUR agents, employeesorofficers for any conduct alleged against them by PLAINTIFFS in this lawsuit. REQUEST NUMBER 3 Any and all files YOU created related to DECEDENT. REQUEST NUMBER 4 Any and all communication between YOU and DECEDENT’S health insurance company. REQUEST NUMBER 5 Any and all communication, including e-mails, between YOU and DECEDENT. REQUEST NUMBER 6 Any and all communication, including e-mails, between YOU and PLAINTIFF MIRANDA MCLEMORE. - 3 - PRINTED ON RECYCLED PspER PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE A W e w e w n 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST NUMBER 7 Any and all job descriptions of employment positions held by YOU at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY fromJanuary 1, 2011 to present. REQUEST NUMBER 8 Any and all employee handbooks you received while working at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY. REQUEST NUMBER 9 Any and all rules and regulations in effect while YOU were working at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY. REQUEST NUMBER 10 Anyand all notes YOU created related to DECEDENT. REQUEST NUMBER 11 Any and all intake documents completed by YOU related to DECEDENT. REQUEST NUMBER 12 Any and all treatment plans YOU created for DECEDENT. REQUEST NUMBER 13 Any and all documents evidencing payment to YOU relating to DECEDENT’S attendance at ROQUE CENTER. REQUEST NUMBER 14 Anyand all documents evidencing payment to YOUrelating to DECEDENT’S attendance at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY. - 4 - PRINTED ON RECYCLED Paper PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE W w e e e 3 S N u n a 10 11 12 13 14 i 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 | 26 27 28 REQUEST NUMBER 15 Any and all cell phone records evidencing calls between YOU and PLAINTIFFS. REQUEST NUMBER 16 Any and all agreements and/orcontracts between YOU and ROQUE CENTER, INC. REQUEST NUMBER 17 Anyand all agreements and/or contracts between YOU and MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, LLC. REQUEST NUMBER 18 Any and all agreements and/or contracts between YOU and anyother person or entity relating to DECEDENT. REQUEST NUMBER 19 Any and all agreements and/or contracts related to admissions of clients to MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, LLC. Dated: June 23,2017 DAG LAW-FIR J) By: Radfie] EHere , Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff -5- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PapgR PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE h h a W w «e S 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE [ C.C.P. §§ 1005(b), 1001, 1013, 2015.5] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) CASE NO.: 30-2016-00885188-CU-NP-CJC COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Veronica Rodas, the undersigned, declare: 1 am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State ofCalifornia, and am overthe age ofeighteen (18) years of age and not a party to the within action; my business address is 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1440, Los Angeles, California 90048. On June 23, 2017, I served the foregoin®LAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE 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: See Attached Service List [X] BYMAIL: [am readily familiar with this firm’s practice ofcollecting and processing correspondence for mailing. I know that the correspondenceis deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. 1 know that the envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, at Los Angeles, California. I 1 BYFACSIMILE: Itransmitted by facsimile machine,to the fax number(s) indicated below, a true and correct copy of the document(s) described herein above to counsel indicated hereinbelow. The foregoing document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as completed and withouterror. [ X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed onthe 23rd day ofJune, 2017, at [fos Angeles, Califomia. Vero#ica Rodas - 6 - PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE 1 ServiceList MCLEMORE,et al v. ROQUE CENTER, INC., et al 2 Case No: 30-2016-00885188-CU-NP-CJC Thomas E. Beach, Esq. 4 Michael H. Brody, Esq. Beach | Cowdrey | Jenkins, LLP 5] 500 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 1400 6 Oxnard, CA 93036 Attorneys for Defendant, ROQUE CENTER INC. Rodger S. Greiner, Esq. 8 Hewitt & Truszkowski 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 880 91 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 10 Attorneys for Defendant. NISHANT KUMAR 11 ||Maryam Danishwar, Esq. Norton Melnik, APC 12 {120920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Attorneys for Defendants, MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, LLC and KEVIN GRANICH 14 it Courtesy Copyto: I5 ||Larry T. Pleiss, Esq. Pleiss Casey Sitar & Ross 16 5510 Trabuco Road 17 [|Irvine, CA 92620 Attorneys for Defendant, ALL IN BUSINESS CONSULTING, INC. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 7 - PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT, KEVIN GRANICH, SET ONE EXHIBIT “B” S 0 0 d N B E B N ) e e B 2 0 N N R N N ) e e e m e e e m e s e m e m e m © N N B W = O O 0 N N U E B R L R ) e e SONALI OLSON <(sax 1se3em MARYAM DANISHWAR sex 259102) NORTON & MELNIK. APC 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 TEL (818) 999-9500 = FAX (818) 999-9155 Attorneys for Defendants, MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, LLC and KEVIN GRANICH SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE —~ CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE MIRANDA MCLEMORE,individually and as) Case No.: 30-2016-00885188-CU-NP-CIC Successor in Interest of MARY MCLEMORE ) and GREYSON MCLEMORE, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, MIRANDA MCLEMORE,individually and as Successor in Interest of MARY MCLEMORE, [Assigned to Department “C21"] Hon. Mary Fingal Schulte DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTPlaintiffs, FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE vs. Complaint Filed: November 4, 2016 ROQUE CENTER, INC., a California Trial Date: Not Set corporation; MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, LLC, a California corporation; NISHANT KUMAR,an individual; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. t r k e c t a g e s a t s a “ s e a t t e S s t ” “ a p e “s ep a “ s a t s t e ? “ s m ” “ s a g “ s u ” “ m e “ s e m e “s ma ” PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, MIRANDA MCLEMORE, individually and asSuccessor in Interest of MARY MCLEMORERESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, KEVIN GRANICHSET NO.: ONE111 -1-RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE S O N h B m L N ) e e B B R RN ) 0 N R R N R RY ) m m m e e m e w e m e e e m o e X X N N R W N = S Y 0 I e s W N — PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses are madesolely forthe purpose ofthis action. Each response is subject to all objections as to competence,relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of anystatement herein if the discovery propounded were asked of, or any statement contained herein were made by a witness present and testifying in Court,all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at the time oftrial. The responding party reserves the right to make any changesin these responses ifit appears that omissions or errors have been made herein, or that further or more accurate information is available. The following responses are based on information presently available and are made without prejudice to this responding party’s rights to utilize subsequently discovered facts. Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no incidental or implied admissions are intended hereby. The fact that this responding party has responded to any ofthe discoveryitems or requests propounded should not be taken as an admission the responding party accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by such propounded discoveryor that such responses constitute admissible evidence. The fact that this responding party has responded to any or all of the propounded discovery is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver bythis responding party ofall or any part of any objections to any discovery matters. Certain discovery items and requests posed can be construed to seek privileged information or work-product which are not within the scope of discovery under the California Rules of Evidence. In responding to such discovery matters,this responding party has interpreted each such items and requests to call only for such information orthe identification of such documents as are discoverable. The fact that this responding party has responded in part or to all of any discoveryitems or requests is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver ofthe attorney/client privilege or the work-product privilege. It is well established California authority that discovery cannot unilaterally be denominated as continuing in nature. The responding partyserves notice that he/she will not voluntarily provide further responsesto this 2- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE S O 0 N N B A W N ) e e B R R N N O N R R R ) R Y e m m m oe m m m e m oe m e e e m e m © N N E m W N e m O 0 0 N N W d W N — discovery if additional information is acquired after the responses are served. (Smith v. Sup. C1. (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6.) To the extent the asking partyattempts in this discoveryto extend the responding party's responsibilities beyond the scope of discovery established by Code ofCivil Procedure, responding party declines to accept such an attempt. Moreover, the responding party will not accept any specialized meanings or definitions ascribed bythe asking party in this discovery, and will interpret all wordsin their ordinary and customary meanings. This preliminary statement is incorporated into each of the answers as set forth below: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: All WRITINGS and DOCUMENTS YOU identified in YOURresponse to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded upon YOU by Plaintiff MIRANDA MCLEMORE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: All non-privileged responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: All insurance agreements, policies and declaration pages which afford coverage to the YOU or YOUR agents, employees or officers for any conduct alleged against them by PLAINTIFFS in this lawsuit. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: Responding objectsto this interrogatory as it would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary ofor from the documents, and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for propounding party as for responding party. Subject to and without waiving this objection,this party responds: Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, responding partyrefers plaintiff to the attached Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company Common Policy Declarations. Discovery is continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response ata later date. 117 -~ 3 RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE S S O w N A N B W R ) e e B Y 2 B D B N R Y RN ) R Y N ) ON ) m m e m e m e e oe m e t e m e m e e R X N A b s W N = O O 0 d N W B L R N ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Any and all files YOU created related to DECEDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: This request is vague and ambiguousas to the term “files.” Subject to, and without waiving these objections,this partyresponds: Responding partydid not create a file regarding Decedent. The documents pertaining to Decedentthat are in possession of responding partyare being produced herewith. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Any and all communication between YOU and DECEDENT’S health insurance company. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: All responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Any and all communication, including e-mails, between YOU and DECEDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5: All responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6: Anyand all communication, including e-mails, between YOU and PLAINTIFF MIRANDA MCLEMORE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Anyand all job descriptions of employment positions held by YOU at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERYfrom January 1, 2011 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, this party is not in possession of documents responsive to this request at this time. Discovery is continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. 4. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE = S N e e ~ ~ O N Wi n 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: Anyand all employee handbooks you received while working at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: This request is vague and ambiguous and overbroad. This request is burdensome and harassing. Furthermore,this request seeks documentation that is neitherrelevant to this litigation nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks proprietary, confidential, and/or trade secret information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9: Any and all rules and regulationsin effect while YOU were working at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: This request is vague and ambiguous and overbroad. This request is burdensome and harassing. Furthermore,this request seeks documentation thatis neither relevant to this litigation norcalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks proprietary, confidential, and/or trade secret information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Any and all notes YOU created related to DECEDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.11: Any and all intake documents completed by YOU related to DECEDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,this party is not in possession of documents responsive to this request at this time. Discovery is continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Any and all treatment plans YOU created for DECEDENT. Be RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE S N D G e N O N W n B W R Y e e I D B B R N N N R D me e e m m m e e e e e m se s e m m e e m X P N n R E W R N = S Y 0 N O N W N d a W R ) m e RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,this party is not in possession of documents responsiveto this request at this time. Discoveryis continuing. Responding party reservesthe right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Any and all documents evidencing payment to YOU relating to DECEDENT’S attendance at ROQUE CENTER. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,this party is not in possession of documents responsiveto this request at this time. Discoveryis continuing. Responding party reservesthe right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Any and all documents evidencing payment to YOU relating to DECEDENT’S attendance at MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,this party is not in possession of documents responsive to this request atthis time. Discovery is continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.15: Any and all cell phone records evidencing calls between YOU and PLAINTIFFS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.15: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,this partyis not in possession of documents responsiveto this request at this time. Discoveryis continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.16: Anyand all agreements and/or contracts between YOU and ROQUE CENTER, INC. 111 11 -6- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 2 S S N O 0 d N W n B s W w RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: This request is vague and ambiguous and overbroad. This request is burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this request seeks documentation that is neither relevant to this litigation nor calculated to lead to the discoveryof admissible evidence. This request seeks proprietary, confidential, and/or trade secret information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Anyand all agreements and/or contracts between YOU and MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY,LLC. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: This request is vague and ambiguous and overbroad. This requestis burdensome and harassing. Furthermore,this request seeks documentationthat is neither relevant to this litigation nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks proprietary, confidential, and/or trade secret information. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.18: Anyand all agreements and/or contracts between YOU and any other person or entity relating to DECEDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,this party is not in possession of documents responsive to this requestatthis time. Discovery is continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Any and all agreements and/or contracts related to admissions ofclients to MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY,LLC. 111 /1/ I 117 111 7. RESPONSES TO REQUESTFOR PRODUCTION. SET ONE S S 0 0 3 N n R B W N B N N Y N R R N ) o m e m e e e m e m e m m e e m e n e m © N N W h l s W R N = D 0 8 N N W B W R RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,this party is not in possession of documentsresponsive to this request at this time. Discoveryis continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response at a later date. Dated: August 11, 2017 NORTON & MELNIK, APC oS SONALI OLSON MARYAM DANISHWAR Attorneys for Defendants, MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY, LLC and KEVIN GRANICH .8- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE w o J N D h W N — N O R N N N D N N N R = m m e e m p m e d m e m i a m e p e ® N m b h W N = O O m Y B B R W o = o o PROOF OF SERVICE (Cal.Civ.Proc. Code §1013a) I'am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B, Woodland Hills, California 91367. On August 11, 2017, 1 served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE on parties therein in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope as follows: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Daniel A. Gibalevich, Esq. Rachel E. Fishenfeld, Esq. DAG LAW FIRM, APC 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1440 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Tel: (323) 930-2020 Fax: (323) 930-2225 gibalevichlaw@hotmail.com rachel.fishenfeld@gmail.com I sealed and placed such envelope for collection and mailing to be deposited in the mail on the same day in the ordinary course ofbusiness at Woodland Hills, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I'am readily familiar with this firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 11, 2017, at Woodland Hills, California. Tf ReyRodrigad |] = 9. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE EXHIBIT “C” Telephone 323.930.2020 DAG LAW FIRM Facsimile 323.930.2225 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1440 Los Angeles, California 90048 e-mail: ashley@daglawapc.com October 6, 2017 VIA MAIL and FACSIMILE TO (818) 999-9155 Maryam Danishwar, Esq. NORTON & MELNICK 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Re: McLemore et al v. Rogue Center, Inc. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00885188 Dear Counsel, I have reviewed your clients’ responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. This is a meet and confer letter sent as an effort to resolve deficiencies without court involvement. First, we did not receive any signed verifications with the responses. As you are aware, unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all. See Allen-Pacific, Ltd. V. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636. Kindly forward the dated original verifications in the next ten (10) days. DEFENDANTS KEVIN GRANICH AND MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY LLC’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONEant AREASPeBME SIn )VS EJY,) Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.2 Defendants need to provide a yes or no answer. If it is your position that these interviews are privileged, then please produce a privilege log. (CCP 2031.240) Response to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.3 and 12. 7 Defendants fail to respond to these interrogatories. They require a yes or no answer. Defendants state that no unprivileged statements and inspections have been obtained. If any statements have been obtained or inspections taken place, please state so. If it is your position that these statements or inspections are privileged, then please produce a privilege log. (CCP 2031.240) Response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 Both Defendants have failed to answer each subpart ofthis interrogatory for each request for admission.Is it your position that the facts, witnesses, and documents that support each response are the same for all the denied requests for admissions? Please separately respond to each subpart for each requests for admissions that were denied. -1- DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S RE UESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE Response to Request for Admission No. 16 and 17 Defendant responds that he is “unable to admit or deny.” CCP 2033.220 allows a party to respond to request for admission in three ways (1) Admit so much ofthe matter involved in the request as istrue,either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party, (2) Deny so much ofthe matter involved in the request as is untrue, or (3) specify so much of the matter involved in the requestas to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. Defendant’s response does not comply with the code ofcivil procedure. If Defendantis unable to admit or deny because oflack ofknowledge,please state so and follow CCP 2033.220(c). DEFENDANT MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY LLC’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS. SET ONE Response to Request for Admission No. 18 and 19 Defendant responds thathe is “unable to admit or deny.” CCP 2033.220 allows a party to respond to request for admission in three ways (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as istrue,either as expressed in the requestitself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party, (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the requestas is untrue, or (3) specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. Defendant’s response does not comply with the code ofcivil procedure. If Defendantis unable to admit or deny because of lack ofknowledge, please state so and follow CCP 2033.220(c). DEFENDANT KEVIN GRANICH’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE Request for Production of Document No. 1.2.4.5, 6,10 Defendant responds that “all non-privileged responsive documents will be produced.” Code of Civil Procedure 2031.220 states that “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling and related activity demand, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that 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 supplement Defendant’s responses and state whether all documents will be included in the production. If there are privileged documents that you are withholding, then please produce a privilege log. (CCP 2031.240) Request for Production of Document No. 3.7,11,12,13. 14,15. 18. 19 Defendant responds “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, this party is not in possession ofdocuments responsive to this requestatthis time.” Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230 states.......A representation of inability to comply withthe particular demand for 2. inspection, copying,testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been madein an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed. has been destroyed, has beenlost, misplaced. or stolen, or has never been.or is no longer, in the possession, custody or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address ofany natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control ofthat item or category of item. The Defendantstates that it has no responsive documents, but was he everin possession of those documents? Please supplementthe responses and clarify in accordance with the Code, Request for Production of Document Nos. 8 and 9 Defendant does not provide a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant responds with objections that employee handbooks and rules and regulations at Mormingside are not relevant and are confidential. Documents related to Mr. Granich’s employment at Morningside are clearly relevant to this action as he was acting as an employee of Momingside when he made the alleged representations to Plaintiffs. If Mr. Granich violated any rules and regulations, whether in the employee handbook or not, that is relevantto the allegations against him. Any confidential or privileged information in these documents can be redacted. Please provide a proper response to these requests and produce any responsive documents. Request for Production of Document Nos. 16 and 17 Defendant does not provide a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant responds with objections that agreements and/or contracts between Granich and Roque Center, Inc. and Granich and Momingside Recovery LLC are not relevant and are confidential, Any such agreementsare clearly relevant to the relationships between these entities and Mr. Granich’s role in the allegations in the complaint. Any confidential or privileged information in these documents can beredacted. Please provide a properresponse to these requests and produce any responsive documents. DEFENDANT MORNINGSIDE RECOVERY LLC’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE Request for Production of Document No. 1,2.3,.4.5.6.8.9. 11,13 Defendant responds that “all non-privileged responsive documents will be produced.” Code of Civil Procedure 2031.220 states that “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shallstate that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling and related activity demand, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that 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 supplement Defendant’s responses and state whether all documents will be included in the production. Ifthere are privileged documents that you are withholding, then please produce a privilege log. (CCP 2031.240) Request for Production of Document No. 7,14, 15,16. 17, 18. 19, 25, 27 Defendant responds “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, this party is not in possession ofdocuments responsive to this requestat this time.” Code of Civil Procedure §2031.230 states.......A representation ofinability to comply with the particular demand for -3- inspection, copying,testing, or sampling shall affirm that a dili gent search and a reasonable inquiry has been madein an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply 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 ofthe responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category ofitem. The Defendantstates that he has no responsive documents, but wasit ever in possession of those documents? Please supplement the responses and clarify in accordance with the Code. Request for Production of Document No. 10 Defendant does not provide a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant responds with objections that job descriptions are not relevant and are confidential. Job descriptionsare relevant as Ms. McLemore was under the impression that she would be attending Morningside. I fail to see how job descriptions would be confidential. Any confidential or privileged information in these documents can be redacted. Please provide a properresponse to these requests and produce any responsive documents. Request for Production of Document No. 12 Defendant does not provide a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant responds with objections that agreements and/or contracts between Morningside Recovery LLC and All In Business Consulting are not relevant and are confidential. Any such agreements are clearly relevantto the relationships between these entities and Mr. Granich’s role in the allegations in the complaint. Any confidential or privileged information in these documents can be redacted. Please provide a proper response to these requests and produce any responsive documents. Request for Production of Document No. 14 This requests asks for “Any and all correspondence between YOU and ROQUE CENTER, INC.related to, mentioning, or referring to PLAINTIFFS.” Defendant’s response 1s “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, this party is not in possession of documents responsive to this request at this time.” However,in special interrogatory #32, Defendant’s response states “On November 4, 2015, an email inquiry was sent to Roque Centerto determine if they had an availability for Decedent, which they did.” Whyis this email not produced? Certainly the email is in the possession of Defendants. Please produceit. Request for Production of Document Nos. 20 and 21 Defendant does not provide a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant responds with objections that licenses and accreditations are not relevant and are confidential. This information is relevant as Ms. McLemore was made promises regarding the type of care she would be receiving at Morningside. Any confidential or privileged information in these documents can be redacted. Please provide a proper response to these requests and produce any responsive documents. Request for Production of Document Nos. 22,23, and 26 Defendant does not provide a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant responds with objections that policies and procedures and employee handbooks of Morningside Recovery LLC are not relevant and are confidential. This information is relevant as Ms. McLemore was made promises regarding the type of care she would be receiving at 4. Mommingside. It is also relevant to determine if Mr. Granich violated any ofthose policies and procedures in his interactions with Plaintiffs or Decedent. Any confidential or privileged information in these documents can be redacted. Please provide a proper response to these requests and produce any responsive documents. Request for Production of Document No. 24 Defendant does not provide a response compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant responds with objections that treatment plan optionsare not relevant and are confidential. This informationis relevant as Ms. McLemore was made promises regarding the type ofcare she would be receiving at Morningside. Any confidential or privileged information in these documents can be redacted. Please provide a proper response to these requests and produce any responsive documents. To avoid motions to compel, we request that your clients submits further verified responses, which comply with the above stated facts and law, by October 23, 2017. Our preference is to handle these discrepancies informally. Please contact ouroffice if you have any questions. ed Rachel E. Fishenfeld, Esq. EXHIBIT “D” Telephone 323.930.2020 DAG LAW FIRM Facsimile 323.930.2225 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1440 Los Angeles, California 90048 e-mail: ashley@daglawapc.com October 30, 2017 VIA MAIL and FACSIMILE TO (818) 999-9155 Maryam Danishwar, Esq. NORTON & MELNICK 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Re: McLemore et al v. Rogue Center, Inc. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00885188 Dear Ms. Danishwar, I'am writing to follow up on the meet and confer letter| faxed and mailed to your office onOctober 6, 2017. To date, we have not received a response to our letter or received any furtherdiscovery responses. No verifications were received with your clients’ discovery. We requested the missingverifications to be provided by October 16, 2017. No verifications have been received. Additionally, we requested further discovery responses that address the deficienciesdiscussed in the October 6, 2017 meet and confer by October 23, 2017. No further discoveryresponses have been received. As I stated in our first meet and conferletter, we would prefer to handle these discoveryissues informally rather than file motions to compel. However,the lack ofany response to mymeet and confer letter shows a lack of cooperation. As no verifications have been received,Defendants’ discovery responses are tantamountto no responses at all. I can provide one moreextension to November 6, 2017. If we do notreceive the missing verifications and further verifieddiscovery responses by that date, we will be forced to file motions to compel. We hopeto hearfrom you soon. Rachel ishenfeld, Esq. -1- EXHIBIT “E” Ashley Soto From: Maryam Danishwar [mdanishwar@nortonmelnik.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 4:44 PM To: Ashley Soto Cc: Rachel Fishenfeld Subject: RE: McLemore Thank you for your timeline of events. I'll reference if ever needed. Per your request | will address your meet and confer correspondence with a written response. As for verifications, | will provide them upon receipt from my client. Have a lovely Monday afternoon!! Maryam Danishwar Senior Associate Attorney NORTON MELNIK, APC 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 T: (818) 999-9500 | F: (818) 999-9155 http://www.nortonmelnik.com THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS, 1S CONFIDENTIAL and may contain information that is privileged under federal and/or state law. If you are neither the intended recipient nor responsible for delivering the messageto the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, share, forward, distribute, copy, or take any other action with respect to the message or any attachments to the message. Further, you are not authorized to take, or forbear from taking, any legal action in reliance upon the contents of the message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. From: Ashley Soto [mailto:ashley@daglawapc.com] Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 9:24 AM To: Maryam Danishwar Cc: Rachel Fishenfeld Subject: RE: McLemore Maryam, I sent the meet and confer letter a month ago, on October 6, 2017 and gave you an additional two weeks to respond to the letter and provide verifications. I heard nothing from your office so [ sent another letter/fax on October 30%giving you an additional week to provide verifications and respond. You are just now contacting me regarding these issues when your response and verifications were requested by today?? Does this mean that your supplemental responses and verifications are still not ready, a month later? If your client's discovery responses were served in August, why have no verifications been provided in the past 3 months? I'would prefer that you write down any concerns you have with my meet and confer either by email or letter so that | have a record of our meet and confer efforts for the judge ifwe need to bring any motions, as it seems (despite providing several extensions) that we may be headed that way. | would also like to know when we can expect the missing verifications and supplemental responses. Best, Ashley Soto, Esq. DAG LAW FIRM, APC 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1440 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 930-2020 Facsimile: (323) 930-2225 Ashley@daglawapc.com THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT 1S ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (310) 930-2020 AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. UNINTENDED TRANSMISSION SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE WAIVER OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE. THANK YOU) From: Maryam Danishwar [mailto:mdanishwar@nortonmelnik.com] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:40 PM To: Ashley Soto Subject: McLemore Ashley, when do you have time this week to meet and confer re your issues with my clients’ discovery responses? Maryam Danishwar Senior Associate Attorney NORTON MELNIK, APC 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 T: (818) 999-9500 | F: (818) 999-9155 http://www.nortonmelnik.com THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS, IS CONFIDENTIAL and may contain information that is privileged under federal and/orstate law.If you are neither the intended recipient nor responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, share, forward, distribute, copy, or take any other action with respect to the message or any attachmentsto the message. Further, you are not authorized to take, or forbear from taking, any legal action in reliance upon the contents of the message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.
