William Hardy vs. Winifred Wilson

Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Admissions

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.April 21, 2017

K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 P h o n e : (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 F a x : ( 8 1 8 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 > W w N D u l 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Robert A. Kahn, State Bar No. 92746 Jonathan D. Roven, State Bar No. 284614 KAHN ROVEN, LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (818) 888-9171 Attorneys for Plaintiff William Hardy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE William Hardy Plaintiff, v. Winifred Wilson, an individual; Cross Creek Care, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants. N e e r ? t r ’ S g t “ g t “ p t ? “ t t “ p t ” “ s a s “ a p r ? “ g t ? ” “ g t “ u p s ” CASE NO: 30-2017-00916032-CU-PA-CJC NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITZ, LLP IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,610; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. ROVEN [Filed concurrently with Separate Statement and Proposed Order] Date: January 25, 2018 Time: 2:00 PM Location: Dept. C15 Reservation Number: 72691136 TO EACH PARTY AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on January 25, 2018 at 2:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in Dept. C15 of the above-entitled Court located at 700 Civic 1 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 P h o n e : (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 Fa x: (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 N o y U s W N pe © 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, PlaintiffWILLIAM HARDY will move the Court for an order compelling responses and further responses to discovery, and to rule on boilerplate objections and have all objections removed from discovery, in regard to Requests for Admissions (Set One), pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023, 2033. I This shall also serve as notice of a Request for Sanctions against Defendant’s counsel, DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITZ, LLP in the amount of $4,610. The motion will be based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and | authorities in support thereof, the declaration of Jonathan Roven,the files and records in this action, and any further evidence and argumentthat the Court may receive at or before the hearing. {| Dated: November 1, 2017 KAHN ROVEN,LLP { By: JONATHAND ROY JONA . ROVEN Attorne rirov WILLI HARDY 2 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 P h o n e : (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 Fa x: (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS This is a straightforward car accident case. Plaintiff was driving with Defendant as a passenger, when Defendant caused a car accident, which injured the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is in his mid-80s and is suffering from poor health. Plaintiffhas filed a motion for trial preference based on his age and health. Plaintiff then went in ex parte and had the hearing for the motion for trial preference advanced. There is an urgency to obtaining Defendant’s discovery responses as Plaintiffis trying to proceed to trial on a preferred basis. On August 7, 2017, and Requests for Admissions (Set One). Exhibit 1. On September 8, 2017, Defendant requested a 2-week extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On September 25, 2017, Defendant requested another 2-week extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On October 9, 2017, Defendant requested a 1-week extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On October 16, 2017, Defendant requested a 1-day extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On October 17, 2017, Defendant requested a 3-day extension. Plaintiff did not agree. Exhibit 2. On October 17, 2017, Defendant served boilerplate responses to all discovery. Not a single response was contained in the requests for admissions. Exhibit 3. On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel, requesting that Defendant remove all objections and send complete responses and a privilege log by October 27, 2017. Exhibit 4. No response. On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another meet and conferletter, indicating that it has been nearly 3 months and Defendant has not given a single response, leaving Plaintiff no option but to turn to the Court. Exhibit 4. Defendant’s counsel responded that they would like to discuss a stipulation to liability. 3 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 P h o n e : (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 Fa x: (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 They stated, “I asked you to call me regarding a stipulation re liability, but have received no call. What's better than discovery responses: a stipulation to liability. Please call me back.” Exhibit 4. Plaintiff’s counsel responded, “Please cite me some authority that says offering a stipulation to liability absolves a party from responding to discovery.” Exhibit 4. Defendant’s counsel responded, “Are you saying that you would rather do discovery than get a stipulation to liability? Do you plan on returning my calls about this? Iam at a complete loss as to what purpose your “meet and confer” efforts serve, when you refuse to return my calls despite my multiple requests.” Exhibit 4. Plaintiff's counsel called and left a message, and documented as such. Exhibit 4. To date, Defendant has not responded to a single request for admission. 2. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff is Entitled to Discovery Responses. California's Discovery Act grants parties in litigation liberal rights to discovery. (Greyhound Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 377-78; Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785, 790; Emerson Elec. Co. v Sup. Ct. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101, 1108.) A partyis entitled to disclosure in discovery as “a matter ofright unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Sup. Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378; Code Civ. Proc. §2017.010.) California courts have reiterated that discovery provisions in the Civil Discovery Act of 1986, and the Civil Discovery Act which replaced it, are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. (Flagship Theatres ofPalm Des, LLC v Century Theatres, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1383). Plaintiffs may seek information related not only to their claims, but to a defendant's contentions and defenses. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2017.010, 2030.010(b), 2033.010; Burke v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 71 Cal. 2d 276, 281-82.) The scope ofrelevant discovery is “relevancy to the subject matter” of the case, a broader concept than “relevancyto the issues.” (Pacific Tel. & Tel Co. v. Sup. Court. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 163, 172. B. Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions are Improper. 4 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd .. S u i t e 2 0 0 P h o n e : ( 8 1 8 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 Fa x: (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 a U 1 l w N D 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.290 provides in pertinent part: (a) On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both ofthe following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete. (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (c) Unless notice ofthis motion is given within 45 days of the service of the response, or any supplemental response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compelfurther response to the requests for admission. (d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person,or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subjectto the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition ofthe sanction unjust.” Defendant did not respond to any ofthe requests but instead makes the same boilerplate responses. Plaintiff is entitled to responses and removal of the objections. C. Defendant’s Actions Are Sanctionable. Where general boilerplate objections were made, courts have authority to compel further responses (but not to find a waiver ofprivilege objections). Best Products, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189. Making objections in a boilerplate fashion is improper and can be sanctioned. Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516. “[T]he fact that a party is conducting discovery... shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party.” C.C.P. § 2019.020. Objections without merit or too general and incomplete/evasive responses are sanctionable 5 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 P h o n e : (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 Fa x: (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and can be compelled for a further response. C.C.P. §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person,or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response. C.C.P. §§ 2030.290, 2031.310, 2033.290 Here, the Defendant provided only boilerplate objections, no responses. Plaintiff requests multiple times for responses, to no avail. Plaintiff has no other option but to turn to the Court for assistance. Plaintiff’s counsel has spent approximately 4 hours drafting this motion and supporting documents. Plaintiff's counsel anticipates spending 1 hour reviewing Defendant’s Opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates spending 3 hours drafting a Reply. Plaintiff's counsel anticipates spending 5 hourstraveling to, from, and attending the hearing on this motion to compel. Plaintiff has spent $60 filing this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $350 based on his experience and skill. Plaintiff's counsel anticipates spending approximately 13 hours on this motion. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $4,610. 3. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that Defendantis ordered to provide complete responses without objections, and that Defendant’s counsel of record DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITZ, LLP is sanctioned in the amount of $4,610. q° , LLP By: N ROBERTA. N JONATHAN/D. ROVEN Attorney for Plaintiff WILLIAM HARDY Dated: November 1, 2017 6 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 P h o n e : (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 Fa x: (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN ROVEN 1, Jonathan Roven, declare as follows: 1. I, Jonathan Roven, am an attorney at law duly authorized to practice law in all courts of the State of California. I am a memberof the firm, KAHN ROVEN, LLP, attorneys of record for Plaintiff in this action. I have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein and if called as a witness I could and would testify thereto. 2. On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions (Set One). Exhibit 1. On September 8, 2017, Defendant requested a 2-week extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On September 25, 2017, Defendant requested another 2-week extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On October 9, 2017, Defendant requested a 1-week extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On October 16, 2017, Defendant requested a 1-day extension. Plaintiff agreed. Exhibit 2. On October 17, 2017, Defendant requested a 3-day extension. Plaintiff did not agree. Exhibit 2. On October 17, 2017, Defendant served boilerplate responses to all discovery. Not a single response was contained in the requests for admissions. Exhibit 3. On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel, requesting that Defendant remove all objections and send complete responses and a privilege log by October 27, 2017. Exhibit 4. No response. On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel sent another meet and conferletter, indicating that it has been nearly 3 months and Defendant has not given a single response, leaving Plaintiffno option but to turn to the Court. Exhibit 4. Defendant’s counsel responded that they would like to discuss a stipulation to liability. They stated, “I asked you to call me regarding a stipulation re liability, but have received no call. What's better than discovery responses: a stipulation to liability. Please call me back.” Exhibit 4. 7 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd ., Su it e 2 0 0 P h o n e : (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 9 1 7 1 Fa x: (8 18 ) 8 8 8 - 7 6 1 1 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 1 3 6 7 Plaintiff's counsel responded,“Please cite me some authority that says offering a stipulation to liability absolves a party from responding to discovery.” Exhibit 4. Defendant’s counsel responded, “Are you saying that you wouldrather do discovery than get a stipulation to liability? Do you plan on returning my calls about this? Iam at a complete loss as to what purpose your “meet and confer” efforts serve, when you refuse to return mycalls despite my multiple requests.” Exhibit 4. Plaintiff's counsel called and left a message, and documented as such. Exhibit 4. To date, Defendant has not responded to a single request for admission. 3. Plaintiff’s counsel has spent approximately 4 hours drafting this motion and supporting documents. Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates spending 1 hour reviewing Defendant’s Opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates spending 3 hours drafting a Reply. Plaintiff's counsel anticipates spending 5 hours traveling to, from, and attending the hearing on this motion to compel. Plaintiff hasspent $60 filing this motion. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is $350 based on his experience and skill. Plaintiff's counsel anticipates spending approximately 13 hours on this motion. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $4,610. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true a ect. Executed on November 1, 2017 in Woodland Hills, CA. \, V Jonathan Ro 8 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) Exhibit 1 K A H N | R O V E N 55 50 To pa ng a Ca ny on Bl ed , Su it e 20 0 W O O D L A N D H I L L S , C A L I F O R N I A 91 36 7 Ph on e: (8 19 ) 88 8- 91 71 Fa x: (8 18 ) 88 8- 76 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Robert A. Kahn, State Bar No. 92746 Jonathan D. Roven, State Bar No. 284614 KAHN ROVEN, LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (818) 888-9171 Attorneys for Plaintiff William Hardy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE William Hardy CASE NO: 30-2017-00916032-CU-PA-CIC Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ) ) ) : V. ) DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON (SET ) ) ) ) ) ) Winifred Wilson, an individual; Cross ONE) Creek Care, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: WILLIAM HARDY RESPONDING PARTY: WINIFRED WILSON SET NUMBER: ONE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that PlaintiffWILLIAM HARDY, pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure, Section 2033, hereby demands that the Defendant WINIFRED WILSON admit the truth ofthe following facts,in writing under oath, within 30 days of service ofthis request (plus five (5) days if this demand was served by mail). 1 PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 55 50 ) T o p a n g a C a n y o n B h , Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D HI LL S, C A L I F O R N I A 91 36 7 Ph on e: (8 18 ) 88 8- 91 71 Fa x: {8 18 ) 88 8- 76 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 f DEFINITIONS The term “YOU,” “YOURSELF,” or “YOUR?”as used herein shall mean Responding Party, and its servants, agents, employees, representatives, divisions, attorneys, and anyone else acting on its behalf. REQUESTS 1. Admit that YOU caused the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. 2. Admit that YOU did not use reasonable care when driving the VEHICLE (“VEHICLE”as used herein shall mean the vehicle that Responding Party was driving at the time ofthe incident which gaverise to this lawsuit.). 3. Admit that YOU caused the collision by driving in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22350(a). 4. Admit that YOU drove at an unsafe speed that caused the collision which is the subject ofthis lawsuit. 5. Admit that YOU own the VEHICLE. 6. Admit that YOU are an employee of Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. 7. Admit that YOU are an agent of Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. 8. Admit that YOU were acting within the scope ofYOUR employment with Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. when you were driving at the time ofthe accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. 9. Admit that YOU were acting within the scope ofYOUR agency with Defendant CROSS I CREEK CARE, INC. when you were driving at the time of the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. 10. Admit that YOU were driving on the way to or from getting groceries for clients of Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC.at the time ofthe accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. 11. Admit that YOU were driving on the way to or from getting supplies for clients of Defendant 2 PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON (SET ONE) K A H N | R O V E N 5 5 5 0 T o p a n g a C a n y o n Bl vd , Su it e 2 0 0 W O O D L A N D HI LL S, C A L I F O R N I A 91 36 7 Ph on e: (8 18 ) 86 8- 91 71 Fa x: (8 18 ) 88 8- 76 11 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CROSS CREEK CARE, INC.at the time of the accident which is the subject ofthis lawsuit. 12. Admit that YOU were driving on the wayto or from Sam’s Club to buy supplies and groceries for Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC.at the time of the accident which is the subject ofthis lawsuit, Dated: August 7, 2017 KAHN ROVEN, LLP ROBERTAKREN~~ JONATHAN D. RO B Attorneys for Plaintiff WILLIAM HARDY 3 PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANTWINIFRED WILSON (SET ONE) PROOF OF SERVICE (STATE) The undersigned declares that I am employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State of California; I am over the age ofeighteen years and am nota party to this action; my business address is 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200, Woodland Hills, California 91367, in said County and State. On the date set forth below I served the following document: PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON (SET ONE) on the interested parties in this action, by placing true copies thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Scott M, Leavitt Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 BY MAIL X By placing said documents in an envelope or package and then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully prepaid,at a post office or, mailbox, subpost office, substation or mail chute or otherlike facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, at Woodland Hills, California; that there is a regular communication between the place of mailing and the place(s) so addressed. BY FAX -. In addition to service by mail, I transmitted a copyof the foregoing document(s) this date via telecopier to the facsimile number(s) shown above. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE - By placing said document(s) in an envelope or package designated by the overnight delivery carrier, and then sealing said envelope and depositing the same with fees paid or provided for in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the overnight delivery carrier or delivered to an authorized carrier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents Federal Express collection box at Woodland Hills, California; that there is a regular communication between the place of deposit and the place(s) so addressed. BY E-MAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION MAIL Based upon a court order or an agreement ofthe parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the above referenced documents(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic notification address(es) listed below. 1did notreceive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. BY PERSONAL SERVICE By delivering such envelope by hand to the offices ofaddressee. 1 declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws ofthe State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 7, 2017 at Woodland Hills, California. BETH MARK \ {Please Print) Signature Exhibit 2 Jonathan Roven From: Katherine Bruce Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 4:40 PM To: Jonathan Roven Cc: Claire Evans Subject: 3010-27: Hardy v. Wilson - Def Discov Resp Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Jonathan, Please accept this email as confirmation of the voicemail that | left for you a moment ago regarding the above-entitled matter. Defendants have responses to Plaintiff's first set of form interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for documents due on 9/11/2017. We require more time to gather the information and documents requested and provide verified responses. Please grant us a 2 week extension up to and including 9/25/2017, in order to respond to the aforementioned discovery requests. We thank you in advance for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter and hope to hear from you soon. Warmest regards, Katherine A. Bruce Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 Fax: (310) 556-2807 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above.if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination,distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS,LLP Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure comptiance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) {1} was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to ancther person any transaction or matter addressed herein. Jonathan Roven E From: Claire Evans Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 10:03 AM To: Beth Mark Cc: Katherine Bruce; Jonathan Roven Subject: William Hardy vs. Winifred Wilson et al. Our File No.: 3010-027 Good Morning Beth: Thank you for granting a two week extension on our responsesto your discovery requests in the above referenced matter. Our discovery is now due Monday, October 9, 2017. Greatly appreciated. Claire Evans Legal Secretary to Katherine A. Bruce, Esq., and Jeffrey Y. Tsao, Esq. Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 ext. 4336 Fax: (310) 556-2807 Jonathan Roven EE EE BAoE From: Claire Evans Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 2:27 PM To: Jonathan Roven Cc: Katherine Bruce Subject: Hardy, William vs. Wilson, Winifred - 3010.027 Importance: High Good Afternoon Mr. Roven: This e-mail will confirm our request for a 1 week extension from today left with your voicemail. Our request would have our discovery due today ultimately due October 16, 2017. Please confirm receipt, consideration and hopeful granting of this request. Claire Evans Legal Secretary to Katherine A. Bruce, Esq, and Jeffrey Y. Tsao, Esq. Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 ext. 4336 Fax: (310) 556-2807 Jonathan Roven From: Katherine Bruce Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:10 PM To: Jonathan Roven Cc: Claire Evans; Robert Kahn Subject: RE: Hardy v Wilson - Winifred Wilson Deposition I'm sorry; | don't know why that was sent out that way. I'll draft and send an amended notice of Plaintiff's deposition to 11/6/2017, in Orange County. Does Plaintiff still live in Orange County? | don't think he is a resident at Cross Creek any longer. Also, I confirmed my client's availability for her deposition on 11/8/2017 in Orange County. Please let me know the date and time. On a related note, | should find out by today, whether my client has had enough time to return verified responses. |am worried that won't happen until the end of the day and | don't want to miss mail cut-off. Can we have a one-day extension to 10/17/2017 to send you verified responses? Best, Katherine A. Bruce Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 Fax: (310) 556-2807 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are notthe intended recipient ofthis communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. DANIELS,FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS, LLP Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayerfor the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. aOriginal Message----- From: Jonathan Roven [mailto:jon@krinjurylaw.com]) Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 8:25 AM Jonathan Roven EE From: Claire Evans Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:54 PM To: Jonathan Roven Cc: Katherine Bruce Subject: William Hardy vs. Winifred Wilson - 3010-027 Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mr. Roven: Sorry to be such a pest. This e-mail echoes my voicemail requests left today with your office. Our client will provide us verified responses by Friday and, therefore, we are requesting an extension to serve our discovery responsesthis Friday, October 20, 2017. We await your gracious consideration and granting of our request. Thank you. Claire Evans Legal Secretary to Katherine A. Bruce, Esq, and Jeffrey Y. Tsao, Esq. Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 ext. 4336 Fax: (310) 556-2807 Jonathan Roven a BE ERRat From: Jonathan Roven Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 8:15 AM To: Claire Evans Cc: Katherine Bruce; Robert Kahn Subject: Re: William Hardy vs. Winifred Wilson - 3010-027 Ms. Evans, We sincerely apologize but we cannot grant any more extensions. The discovery was served on August 5. We are on a fast track with this case. My client is not well so we have to move this case along as fast as we can. JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN,LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 = (818)888-9171 & (818) 888- 7611 KAHN ROVEN. Where YOU matter. From: Claire Evans Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 3:53 PM To: Jonny Roven Cc: Katherine Bruce Subject: William Hardy vs. Winifred Wilson - 3010-027 Dear Mr. Roven: Sorry to be such a pest. This e-mail echoes my voicemail requests left today with your office. Our client will provide us verified responses by Friday and, therefore, we are requesting an extension to serve our discovery responsesthis Friday, October 20, 2017. We await your gracious consideration and granting of our request. Thank you. Claire Evans Legal Secretary to Katherine A. Bruce, Esq, and Jeffrey Y. Tsao, Esq. Daniels, Fine,Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 ext. 4336 Exhibit 3 O o 0 N N N u n a 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FAKAB\DISCOV\3010-027.1rfa01 -ww(wh)}-obj.docx DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS, LLP 1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, NINTH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA B0067 TELEPHONE (310) 556-7900 FACSIMILE (310) 566-2807 Scott M. Leavitt, State Bar No. 157407 Katherine A. Bruce, State Bar No. 288694 Attorneys For Defendants WINIFRED WILSON and CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE WILLIAM HARDY, Case No. 30-2017-00916032-CU-PA-CIC [Complaint Filed: May 26, 2017] Plaintiff, [Hon. Peter Wilson, Dept. C15] vs. DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM WINIFRED WILSON,an individual; CROSS HARDY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, CREEK CARE, INC., a California corporation; SET ONE DOES 1 TO 16, Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY : Plaintiff WILLIAM HARDY RESPONDING PARTY : Defendant WINIFRED WILSON SET NUMBER : ONE COMES NOW Defendant WINIFRED WILSON (“Responding Party(ies)”) and object(s) to Plaintiff WILLIAM HARDY’s (“Plaintiff’s” and/or “Propounding Party(ies)’s”) First Set of Requests for Admission pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210 as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses are made solely for the purpose ofthis action. All objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at time of trial. 1 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 8 - 2 8 0 7 D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L L E B O V I T S , L L P w h A s W N O e 1 O N 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This responding party has not yet completed its investigation ofthe facts related to this action,its discovery in this action, or its preparation for trial of this action. Consequently, these responses are given without prejudice to the right of any responding party to produce at the time of trial any and all subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proofof presently known material facts, and to produce all evidence, whenever discovered,relating to the proof of subsequently discovered material facts. Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no admissions of any nature whatsoever are implied or should be inferred. This preliminary statement is by this reference incorporated into each and every individual response to this Requests for Admissions. OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1.: Admit that YOU caused the accident which is the subject ofthis lawsuit. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or 2 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , t L e 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A S D 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 0 N N W n B s W N N N N N N N N N D Y m m m e p e m e pe w e d se d e d p e ® n N O h A W R = O Y R e ] N n B W N e opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production of electronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope ofresponding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary of documents; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2.: Admit that YOU did not use reasonable care when driving the VEHICLE (“VEHICLEas used herein shall mean the vehicle that Responding Party was driving at the time of the incident which gave rise to this lawsuit.). OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion;(3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure ofconsultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law,statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a 3 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS #OR ADMISSION, SET ONE D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O W V I T S , L i p 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A B O O E 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 v e N a N w k 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information andfor production of electronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope of responding party’s duty underthe Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary of documents; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplement this response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.: Admit that YOU caused the collision by driving in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22350(a). OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the groundsset forth bere: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a 4 " DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 Q ) S 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 L o w O e 9 O N h b 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; {16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence of a thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production ofelectronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope ofresponding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4. Admit that YOU drove at an unsafe speed that caused the collision which is the subject ofthis lawsuit, OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the groundsset forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invadesright to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) secks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a 5 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 1 0 ) 5 5 8 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 O 9 8 O N U h D B W N ) ee e B O N N D N N N R N N R N e e e e e m me m e m e m a m e m oe m e w ® 2 b s W N e m D 0 N r B s W N = lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production ofelectronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope of responding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5. Admit that YOU own the VEHICLE. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5.; Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the groundsset forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legalconclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure ofexpert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invadesright to privacy ofresponding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law,statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or 6 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I E O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E (3 10 ) 5 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 FA CS IM IL E (3 10 ) 55 6- 28 07 D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T . N I N T H F L O O R £ 8 o w o N ~ N O N w n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production of electronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope ofresponding party’s duty underthe Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6.: Admit that YOU are an employee ofDefendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NOQ.6.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the groundsset forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound;(14) assumesfacts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- 7 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 1 0 ) 5 8 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 W e N N W U B s W R ) e e N O R N N R N R R Y m m e m e m m e R m e m e m pw s oe m o e ® N A L h A W N = O W e e N N W R W R N e s existence ofa thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production ofelectronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope of responding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary of documents; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7.: Admit that YOU are an agent of Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invadesright to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law,statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumesfacts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior 8 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 7 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 8 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 D e 3 h n n h o n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production of electronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope ofresponding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. §.: Admit that YOU were acting within the scope of YOUR employment with Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. when you were driving at the time ofthe accident which is the subject ofthis lawsuit. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8. Responding Party(ies) object(s) 10 this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure ofexpert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy ofresponding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- 9 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION,SET ONE L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 8 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 8 6 - 7 8 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L B W w W w o o e 9 O o 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 existence of a thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production ofelectronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope of responding party's duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9.: Admit that YOU were acting within the scope ofYOUR agency with Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. when you were driving at the time of the accident which is the subject ofthis lawsuit. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure ofexpert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations,rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or 10 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A B O 0 O E 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 L h + o W o t o a e e 3 O N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production of electronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope ofresponding party’s duty underthe Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary of documents; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplementthis response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10.: Admit that YOU were driving on the way to or from getting groceries for clients of Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. at the time ofthe accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invadesright to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome;(9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a 11 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) $ 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L L E B O V I T S , L L P W e N N n r B d W Y N F D 2 O N N N N R N N m e e m e m m m m e d a d k e t M m pe ed e a G o ~ ~ U n B W R = O N D 0 N N t h B A W = D lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing orfact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production ofelectronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope of responding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplement this response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11.: Admit that YOU were driving on the way to or from getting supplies for clients of Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC.at the time ofthe accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the groundsset forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure of expert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy of responding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials already produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected information/materials protected by case law,statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or 12 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE N I N T H F L O O R F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 2 0 0 7 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) § 5 8 - 7 9 0 0 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L E B O V I T S , L L P w n B e W N 0 0 J 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence ofa thing orfact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production ofelectronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope ofresponding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secret privilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplement this response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12.: Admit that YOU were driving on the way to or from Sam’s Club to buy supplies and groceries for Defendant CROSS CREEK CARE, INC.at the time ofthe accident which is the subject of this lawsuit. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12.: Responding Party(ies) object(s) to this request on the grounds set forth in the preliminary statement above and the grounds set forth here: (1) vague and ambiguous/insufficient description; (2) calls for a legal conclusion; (3) calls for speculation; (4) calls for premature disclosure ofexpert opinion/information/identity and/or improper disclosure of consultants; (5) unreasonably invades right to privacy ofresponding party(ies); (6) calls for disclosure of privileged attorney client communications and/or work product; (7) calls for irrelevant information/materials not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (8) overbroad & unduly burdensome; (9) duplicative; (10) seeks information/materials aiready produced/disclosed and/or available to requesting party at the same burden and/or expense; (11) calls for or requires responding party to summarize and/or audit information and/or materials at the same burden/expense as requesting party; (12) calls for privileged and/or protected 13 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 5 5 6 - 7 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) S 5 6 - 2 8 0 7 D A N I E L S , F I N E , I S R A E L , S C H O N B U C H & L _ L E B O V I T S , L L P 1 8 0 1 C E N T U R Y P A R K E A S T , N I N T H F L O O R L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A S 0 O 0 8 7 b e b o N o 8 N y W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 information/materials protected by case law, statute, regulations, rules, ordinances, and/or constitutions; (13) compound; (14) assumes facts; (15) calls for or requires expert opinion from a lay person or otherwise seeks premature or impermissible disclosure of expert identification and/or opinion; (16) shotgun style interrogatory/request; (17) requires response to prove the non- existence of a thing or fact; (18) Singer v. Superior Court(1960) 54 Cal.2d 318; Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276; (19) not reasonably accessible electronically stored information and/or production ofelectronically stored information in all forms; (20) improperly expands(via instructions, definitions, or otherwise) the permissible scope of responding party’s duty under the Code; (21) oppression; (22) calls for a narrative; (23) calls for a compilation, audit, abstract, or summary ofdocuments; (24) impermissible pre-trial punitive damages discovery; (25) tax privilege; (26) trade secretprivilege; and (27) collateral source. Responding Party(ies) reserve(s) its/their right(s) to amend and/or supplement this response. Date: 10/17/2017 DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS, LLP By: - AT Sad de Scott M, Leavitt Katherine A. Bruce Attorneys For Defendants WINIFRED WILSON and CROSS CREEK CARE, INC. 14 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE L h H K Ww W o N o e N y O N 10 I 12 13 15 16 17 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) I am a resident ofthe State of California, over the age ofeighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1801 Century Park East, Ninth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. On October 17, 2017, 1 served the within document(s): DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE by placing a true copy thereof in sealed envelopesas stated on the attached mailing list. [] BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION I transmitted said document(s) via facsimile machine pursuant to C.R.C, rule 2.306 to fax number FACSIMILE NUMBER. The facsimile machine 1 used complied with rule 2.306 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to rule 2.306, I caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration. [XX] BY MAIL I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice a true copy would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [] BY PERSONAL SERVICE caused personal delivery by ATTORNEY SERVICE of said document(s) to the offices of the addressee(s) as set forth on the attached mailing list. [|] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE caused such envelope to be deposited with an overnight delivery service (Overnite Express/Federal Express) for delivery the next court day, or at most, within two court days ofthe above date. [1 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documentsto be sent to the personsat the e-mail addresses listed on the service list. 1 did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is true and correct. [7] (Federal) Ideclare that I am employed in the office of a member ofthe bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on October 17, 2017, at Los Angeles, California. so . 3 \ AX ye ACE Assim “Katherine A. Bruce 15 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE o e N N t e B R w e N Y B O N D N N Y N N R N r e m m o m e m e e a t p e w w p e e p a ® N N L L B R W N e e O R N N U l n s W N e e SERVICE Jonathan Roven, Esq., [SBN 284614] Kahn Roven, LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Tel: (818) 888-9171; Fax: (818) 888-7611 jon@krinjurylaw.com Attorneysfor PlaintiffWILLIAMHARDY 3010-027 16 DEFENDANT WINIFRED WILSON'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF WILLIAM HARDY'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE Exhibit 4 Jonathan Roven EE From: Jonathan Roven Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 4:20 PM To: Katherine Bruce (bruce@dfis-law.com) Cc: Robert Kahn (robert@krinjurylaw.com) Subject: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Counsel, As anticipated, Defendant objected to every single discovery request and did not provide a single discovery response. These discovery requests were served on August 7, 2017. After many extensions, Defendant has had until October 16, 2017 (over 2 months) to respond. Boilerplate objections are sanctionable and are deemed a waiver of objections. Where general boilerplate objections were made, courts have authority to compel further responses (but not to find a waiverof privilege objections). Best Products,Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189. Making objectionsin a boilerplate fashion is improper and can be sanctioned. Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516. “[T]he fact that a party is conducting discovery... shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party.” C.C.P. § 2019.020. Objections without merit or too general and incomplete/evasive responses are sanctionable and can be compelled for a further response. C.C.P. §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290. Privileges were also asserted. Therefore, Plaintiff requests a privilege log by 5PM October 27, 2017. This matteris on a fast track towardstrial due to my client's health. We can’t afford the time for these games. Therefore, we must receive complete responses without objection to Defendant's discovery no later than Friday, October 27, 2017. Should we not receive responses by 5PM that day, we will have no choice but to turn to the Court for assistance and seek sanctions including reasonable attorney's fees. JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN, LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodiand Hills, CA 91367 8 (818)888-9171 & (818) 888- 7611 KAHN ROVEN. Where YOU matter. Jonathan Roven EE From: Jonathan Roven Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:42 AM To: Katherine Bruce (bruce@dfis-law.com) Cc: Robert Kahn (robert@krinjurylaw.com) Subject: RE: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Counsel, It has now been nearly 3 months since we served our discovery responses. We still have not received a single response. You are leaving us with no option but to turn to the Court. JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN, LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 B (818) 888-9171 & (818) 888- 7611 KAHN ROVEN. Where YOU matter. From: Jonathan Roven Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 4:20 PM To: Katherine Bruce (bruce@dfis-law.com) Cc: Robert Kahn (robert@krinjurylaw.com) Subject: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Dear Counsel, As anticipated, Defendant objected to every single discovery request and did not provide a single discovery response. These discovery requests were served on August 7, 2017. After many extensions, Defendant has had until October16, 2017 (over 2 months) to respond. Boilerplate objections are sanctionable and are deemed a waiver of objections. Where general boilerplate objections were made, courts have authority to compelfurther responses (but not to find a waiver of privilege objections). Best Products,Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189. Making objections in a boilerplate fashion is improper and can be sanctioned. Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cai. App. 4th 1513, 1516. “[T]he fact that a party is conducting discovery... shall not operate to delay the discovery of any other party.” C.C.P. § 2019.020. Objections without merit or too general and incomplete/evasive responses are sanctionable and can be compelled for a further response. C.C.P. §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290. Privileges were also asserted. Therefore, Plaintiff requests a privilege log by 5PM October 27, 2017. This matteris on a fast track towards trial due to my client's health. We can’t afford the time for these games. Therefore, we must receive complete responses without objection to Defendant's discovery no later than Friday, October 27, 2017. Should we notreceive responses by 5PM that day, we will have no choice but to turn to the Court for assistance and seek sanctions including reasonable attorney's fees. JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN, LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 @ (818) 888-9171 & (818) 888- 7611 KAHN ROVEN. Where YOU matter. Jonathan Roven I From: Katherine Bruce Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 12:53 PM To: Jonathan Roven Cc: Robert Kahn Subject: RE: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged I'asked you to call me regarding a stipulation re liability, but have received no call. What's better than discovery responses: a stipulation to liability. Please call me back. Thanks, Katherine A. Bruce Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: {310} 556-7900 Fax: (310) 556-2807 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS, LLP Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayerfor the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. From: Jonathan Roven [mailto:jon@krinjurylaw.com] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:42 AM To: Katherine Bruce Cc: Robert Kahn Subject: RE: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Counsel, It has now been nearly 3 months since we served our discovery responses. We still have not received a single response. You are leaving us with no option but to turn to the Court. Jonathan Roven TE From: Jonathan Roven Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:14 PM To: Katherine Bruce Cc Robert Kahn Subject: Re: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Attachments: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png Please cite me some authority that says offering a stipulation to liability absolves a party from responding to discovery. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: jon@KRinjurylaw.com JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN, LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 & (818) 888-9171 & (818) 888-7611 KAHN ROVEN. Where YOU matter. From: Katherine Bruce Date: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 12:53 PM To: Kahn Roven Cc: Robert Kahn Subject: RE: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer I asked you to call me regarding a stipulation re liability, but have received no call. What's better than discovery responses: a stipulation to liability. Please call me back. Thanks, Katherine A. Bruce Daniels, Fine,israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 Fax: (310) 556-2807 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. Jonathan Roven From: Katherine Bruce Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:19 PM To: Jonathan Roven Cc: Robert Kahn; Claire Evans Subject: RE: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Are you saying that you would rather do discovery than get a stipulation to liability? Do you plan on returning my calls aboutthis? | am at a complete loss as to what purpose your “meet and confer” efforts serve, when you refuse to return my calls despite my multiple requests. Katherine A. Bruce Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Sth Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 556-7900 Fax: (310) 556-2807 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy atl copies. DANIELS, FINE, ISRAEL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS, LLP Circular 230 Disclosure: Te assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) {1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayerfor the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. From: Jonathan Roven [mailto:jon@krinjurylaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:14 PM To: Katherine Bruce Cc: Robert Kahn Subject: Re: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer Please cite me some authority that says offering a stipulation to liability absolves a party from responding to discovery. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: jon@KRinjurylaw.com 51 JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN,LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodiand Hills, CA 91367 0. (818) 888-9171 [Q(818) 888-7611 Jonathan Roven From: Jonathan Roven Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:30 PM To: Katherine Bruce Cc: Robert Kahn; Claire Evans Subject: RE: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer I just called you and left a message. JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN,LLP 5650 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hilis, CA 91367 8 (818)888-9171 & (818) 888- 7611 KAHN ROVEN. Where YOU matter. From: Jonathan Roven Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 3:21 PM To: Katherine Bruce Cc: Robert Kahn; Claire Evans Subject: Re: Hardy v Wilson - Meet and Confer I'd rather keep our conversations in writing so we keep a clear record. Thanks. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAH. ADDRESS: jon@KRinjurylaw.com @Q JONATHAN D. ROVEN INJURY LAWYER | KAHN ROVEN,LLP 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 & (818)888-9171 ® (818) 888-7611 KAHN ROVEN. Where YOU matter. From: Katherine Bruce Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 3:18 PM To: Kahn Roven PROOF OF SERVICE (STATE) The undersigned declares that I am employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State of California; [ am over the age ofeighteen years and am not a party to this action; my business address is 5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200, Woodland Hills, California 91367, in said County and State. On the date set forth below I served the document to which this Proof of Service is attached on the interested parties in this action, by placing true copies thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Scott M. Leavitt Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP 1801 Century Park East Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 BY MAIL -X__ By placing said documents in an envelope or package and then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully prepaid, by certified mail, return receipt requested, at a post office or, mailbox, subpost office, substation or mail chute or otherlike facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, at Woodland Hills, California; that there is a regular communication between the place of mailing and the place(s) so addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws ofthe State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 1, 2017, at Woodland Hills, California. BETH MARK "Aang (Please Print) Signature