Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Further Responses To Form InterrogatoriesOppositionCal. Super. - 4th Dist.August 13, 201810 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 Law Offices of Cullins & Grandy LLp Moulton Park Place ELECTROMICALLY FILED 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Superior Court of California, Laguna Hills, CA 92653-1341 County of Orange (949)454-2500 oe 03/01/2019 at 04:51:00 PM Douglas D. Cullins: 105527 Clerk of the Superior Court Heather G. Cote: 293368 Bye Clerk. Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendants, NORELY BRITO, FRANCISCO BRITO and BERTHA BRITO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER BETTY DUENAS, No: 30-2018-01011995-CU-PA-CJC ; a Assigned For All Purposes To: Flalobi, Hon. Melissa R. McCormick Vs. Dept. C-13 NORELY BRITO, an Individual; CYNTHIA ANGELA LOCKE, an Individual; FRANCISO BRITO, an Individual; BERTHA BRITO, an Individual, and; DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF HEATHER G. Defendants. COTE N e N e N e N e N e S e a S e S e n e S e S e S e SN S r TO THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HEREIN: Defendant NORELY BRITO hereby opposes Plaintiff BETTY DUENAS’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. As Defendant has provided responses that are as complete as possible at this early stage of discovery and the information sought by Plaintiff is protected by the attorney work product privilege, Plaintiff's Motion should be denied. Additionally, because Defendant properly met and conferred with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's motion is not warranted, and the amount sought is unreasonable, Plaintiff's request for sanctions should be denied. Defendant 1 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 1.4 12 13 14 LS 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 23 24 25 26 £1 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92633 (949) 454-2500 requests instead that the Court grant sanctions in favor of Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(d) in the amount of $787.50 for the necessity of opposing this unnecessary and meritless motion. 1. DISCOVERY DISPUTE This 3-vehicle accident occurred on August 25, 2016 at about 8:25 a.m. on Newhope Street at the intersection of Trask Avenue in the City of Garden Grove. Plaintiff Betty Duenas was driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee in the #2 lane on northbound Newhope Street. Co-Defendant Cynthia Locke was driving a Honda Accord in the #2 lane directly behind Ms. Duenas on northbound Newhope Street. Defendant Norely Brito (“Defendant”) was driving her Lexus directly behind Ms. Locke's vehicle in the #2 lane on northbound Newhope Street. Defendants Francisco Brito and Bertha Brito were not involved in the subject accident in any way. At some point prior to the accident, Ms. Locke and Ms. Duenas stopped at the intersection of Newhope Street and Trask. When Ms. Duenas saw that vehicles were stopped, she attempted to apply the brakes, but was unable to stop her vehicle before it rear-ended Ms. Locke's vehicle. She cannot recall the speed of her vehicle or any other details regarding the subject accident. As a result of the accident, Ms. Duenas filed a complaint for personal injuries on August 15, 2018. On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission and a request for production of documents on Defendant Norely Brito (“Defendant”). (Exhibit “A”) Defendant served verified responses on October 30, 2018. (Exhibit “B”) On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel sent correspondence to Defense counsel regarding responses provided by Defendant to Plaintiff's first set of discovery that Plaintiff believed were deficient. (Exhibit “C”) On December 7, 2018, Defense counsel sent a responsive letter addressing in detail each of the responses Plaintiff believed were deficient. As to Form Interrogatory 2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92633 (949) 454-2500 20.8, Defense counsel stated, “I understand that you believe my client has not stated how the accident happened. However, in reviewing her response, the accident is described in as much detail as Ms. Brito can provide at this time and as complete a response as possible has been provided. No further information can be provided at this time.” As to Form Interrogatory 13.1 and 13.2, Defense counsel explained that the requested information is protected by the attorney work product privilege with no good cause shown for disclosure. Defense counsel further explained that the requested information would necessarily be created by Defense counsel or their agents for the purpose of evaluating the case and preparing for trial. As a result, the existence or nonexistence of surveillance reveals Defense counsel's strategy in defending Ms. Brito. No further responses to these interrogatories was provided. (Exhibit “D”) On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel sent correspondence to Defense counsel responding to Defendant's December 7, 2018 letter. However, the December 14, 2018 correspondence did not mention or address Form Interrogatory 20.8 in any way. As of the date of this motion, Plaintiff's counsel has made no attempt to further meet and confer as to Form Interrogatory 20.8. (Exhibit “E”) As to Form Interrogatory 13.1 and 13.2, Plaintiff sent further meet and confer correspondence on December 14, 2018 denying that surveillance is protected by the attorney work product privilege. (Exhibit “E”) Defense counsel responded the same day, advising that no new authority or argument had been provided and asking if Plaintiff had any additional authority to support her argument that the work product privilege does not apply. (Exhibit “F”) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on or about December 19, 2018. 2. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 20.8 IS AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE AT THIS EARLY STAGE OF DISCOVERY Form Interrogatory 20.8 asks that Defendant state how the accident occurred, giving the speed, direction and location of the vehicles involved just before, at the time 3 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92633 (949) 454-2300 of, and just after the subject accident. In response, Defendant stated that all three vehicles involved in the subject accident were northbound on Newhope Street in the #2 lane. At the time of the accident, the vehicles driven by Plaintiff and co-defendant Locke were stopped and Defendant Brito’s vehicle braked before striking the rear of the Locke vehicle. Finally, Defendant stated that just after the accident, all three vehicles were stopped. Plaintiff argues this response is incomplete because Defendant did not state how the accident occurred and did not provide the speeds of the vehicles. However, Defendant is only required to provide an answer based on her own personal knowledge and the information reasonably available to her. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220(a)(c). If Defendant is unable to answer an interrogatory completely, she must only give the most complete partial answer possible. Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220 (b). Here, discovery has just begun. Plaintiff's deposition has not been taken, no witness investigation has been completed, and experts have not yet been designated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs knowledge of the facts of the accident is extremely limited. Moreover, the accident occurred nearly 2.5 years ago, further limiting Defendant's memory of the details of the accident. Despite these limitations, Defendant provided a response identifying the direction all three vehicles were travelling, their lane of travel and their speeds to the best of her ability at this time. Indeed, when meeting and conferring with Plaintiff's counsel on or about December 7, 2018, Defense counsel advised that “the accident is described in as much detail as Ms. Brito can provide as this time” and “no further information can be provided at this time.” Once more discovery has been completed, Defendant may be in a better position to provide additional information, but at this time, her knowledge of the details of the accident is extremely limited. Accordingly, Defendant has complied with the Code requirements and has provided as complete a response as possible at this time. 4 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 3. AT THIS EARLY STAGE OF DISCOVERY, FORM INTERROGATORY 13.1 AND 13.2 ARE PROTECTED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND SEEK PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE Form Interrogatories 13.1 and 13.2 ask whether Defendant conducted any surveillance of any individual involved in the subject accident and for any report concerning said surveillance. This information is protected by the attorney work product privilege. Plaintiff relies extensively on Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166 to support her contention that the requested materials are not protected by the attorney work product privilege. However, the Suezaki case was decided in 1962 at a time when California law did not yet recognize the attorney work product doctrine as an evidentiary privilege. Indeed, the Suezaki court held, “simply because the subject matter sought to be discovered is the ‘work product’ of the attorney it is not privileged.” /d. The California Legislature responded to court decisions, including Suezaki, by creating a separate privilege for materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Until then, the right of a party to discovery the work product of his adversary’'s attorney was controlled by case law. In 1963, the Code of Civil Procedure was amended to state, “It is the policy of this State (i) to preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of such cases and (ii) to prevent an attorney from taking undue advantage of his adversary’s industry and efforts. Accordingly, the following shall not be discoverable unless the court determines that a denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery. . .” (emphasis added) Committee Report-Administration of Justice (1962) 37 State Bar J. 585, 586-87; Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4™, 126. The purpose of the work product privilege is to encourage a thorough investigation of claims by protecting materials that could reveal an attorney's opinions 2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 in 1:22 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2]. 22 23 24 29 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92633 (949) 434-2500 and strategy in representing a client and to prevent one attorney from taking undue advantage of another attorney's industry and efforts. Code Civ. Proc. §2018.020; Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4™ 480, 497-98; Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4" 807, 814. To be protected, the material must be prepared by the attorney or the attorney's agents and must be prepared for a legal purpose. Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court(5™ Dist. 2013) 217 Cal.App.4" 889, 911; Shrandalina G. v. Homonchuk (4" Dist. 2007) 147 Cal.App.4"™ 396, 407; 2,022 Ranch LLC v. Superior Court (4" Dist. 2003) 113 Cal.App.4" 1377, 1389-90; Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4" 725; Mack v. Superior Court (1% Dist. 1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10. Even a verbatim transcription or recording can be work product if it would reveal the attorney’s strategy or opinions or the fact that the attorney chose to make the transcription or recording discloses tactical or evaluative information. Coito, supra, 54 Cal.4™ at 496. The Coito court held, “In light of the origins and development of the work product privilege in California, we conclude that witness statements obtained as a result of an interview conducted by an attorney, or by an attorney's agent at the attorney's behest, constitute work product.” /d. at 494. The court further held that “Even when an attorney who exercises no selectivity in determining which witness to interview. . .the attorney has expended time and effort in identifying and locating each witness, securing the witness’ willingness to talk, listening to what the witness said, and preserving the witness’ statement for possible future use.” Id. at 496. Further, photographs and recordings taken by an attorney or the attorney’s agent are protected as noncore work product. Code Civ. Proc. §§2016.020 (c), 2016.030; Evid. Code §250. Qualified work product is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party's claim.” Code Civ. Proc. §2018.030(b). 6 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 Here, the materials requested by Plaintiff would necessarily be materials created by Defense counsel and their agents for the purpose of evaluating Plaintiff's claimed injuries and preparing for trial. In fact, the purpose of surveillance, especially at the stage of litigation where Plaintiff's deposition has not yet been taken, no experts have been designated, and discovery has not been completed, is to evaluate and investigate the extent of damages being claimed by the Plaintiff. Defense counsel's direction or decision not to direct its agents to conduct surveillance, whether surveillance is necessary or beneficial to their investigation, when the surveillance is to be conducted, where the surveillance is to be conducted, and what activities or absence of activities to observe all reveal Defense counsel's strategy in defending Defendant. Even if this industry and effort by Defense counsel had not taken place and surveillance were conducted blindly with no direction, Defense counsel would have expended time and effort in identifying the subject of surveillance, sending an agent to conduct surveillance, and preserving the surveillance for future use. As the Coito court determined, this is to be protected under the work product privilege to prevent opposing attorneys from taking undue advantage of Defense counsel's efforts. Plaintiff goes on to argue that disclosure of the requested information is necessary to prevent surprise and to prepare for examination of those who performed the surveillance. However, at this early stage of discovery, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff. There is no danger of surprise and Plaintiff will be well aware of her activities that could potentially be the subject of surveillance. Additionally, Plaintiff will have ample opportunity to depose any witness Defendant intends to call at trial, including any potential investigator, as any such witness will be disclosed long before trial in compliance with the evidence code. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion as to Form Interrogatories 13.1 and 13.2 should be denied. ~ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 10 1.1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills. CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 4. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO SANCTIONS FOR THE NECESSITY OF OPPOSING THIS UNNECESSARY AND MERITLESS MOTION Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(d) entitles this Court to “impose monetary sanctions . . .against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” “[Tlhe phrase ‘substantial justification’ has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4" 1424, 1434. Here, Plaintiff has failed to show how Defendant's responses are insufficient or that the materials requested are not protected by the attorney work product privilege, particularly in light of the parties’ meet and confer efforts and the early stage of discovery and investigation in this matter. Defense counsel, on the other hand, has repeatedly explained to Plaintiff's counsel that Defendant has provided all information reasonably available to her at this time and provided extensive authority to support the claim of work product privilege. Defense counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff's counsel in good faith and addressed Plaintiff's arguments and authorities. Defendant has not committed an abuse of the discovery process such that Plaintiff should be awarded any sanctions and Defendant has acted with substantial justification in opposing this motion. Defense counsel has spent 2.5 hours on this Opposition and anticipates spending 2 hours preparing for, traveling to, and appearing at the hearing on this Motion. Defendant therefore respectfully requests this Court issue sanctions against Plaintiff Betty Duenas and/or her attorneys of record Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley in the amount of $787.50. 5. CONCLUSION As outlined above, Plaintiff's Motion lacks merit. As such, Defendant respectfully 8 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 | requests that the Motion be denied in its entirety along with the request for sanctions. > | Defendant further requests that sanctions be ordered against Plaintiff Betty Duenas 3 | and/or her attorneys of record Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley for the expense of 4 | opposing this unnecessary motion. 61 DATED: March 1, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF CULLINS & GRANDY LLP : puis (6 QUGLAS D. CULLINS ? HEATHER G. COTE 10 Attorneys for Defendants, NORELY BRITO, FRANCISCO 11 BRITO and BERTHA BRITO 12 13 14 1g 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of 9 RULER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills. CA 92653 ONE (949) 434-2500 10 Ll. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92633 (949) 454-2500 DECLARATION OF HEATHER G. COTE I, Heather G. Cote, declare as follows: 1. 1 am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. | am an attorney at the Law Offices of Cullins & Grandy LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants Norely Brito, Francisco Brito, and Bertha Brito. If called upon, | could and would competently testify to the following matters from my own personal knowledge or from my review of the file materials in this matter. 2. Plaintiff propounded Form Interrogatories on September 11, 2018. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 3. My office served Defendant's timely, verified responses to Plaintiff's first set of Form Interrogatories on October 30, 2018. A true and correct copy of Defendant's verified responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Set One, is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 4. On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff sent my office correspondence dated December 3, 2018. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's counsel's December 3, 2018 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 5. On December 7, 2018, my office sent responsive meet and confer correspondence specifically addressing each response Plaintiff's counsel identified in the December 3, 2018 correspondence. A true and correct copy of the December 7, 2018 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 6. On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel sent correspondence to me responding to my December 7, 2018 letter. That correspondence did not address Form Interrogatory 20.8 in any way and did not provide any new or additional authority or argument regarding Form Interrogatory 13.1 and 13.2. A true and correct copy of the December 14, 2018 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”. 7. The same day, | sent responsive correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel advising that no new authority had been sent regarding the applicability of the work product 10 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 | privilege and asking for any additional or further authority Plaintiff's counsel may have 2 | to support her position. A true and correct copy of the December 14, 2018 responsive 3 || correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”. 4 8. My time is billed at $175.00 per hour. | have spent 2.5 hours preparing this 5 | opposition and anticipate spending an additional 2 hours preparing for, travelling to, 6 and appearing at the hearing on this Motion. Accordingly, my office has incurred a 7 | total of $787.50 in fees related to this Motion. 3 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the o| foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of March 2019 in 10| Laguna Hills, California. 11 iE | Jy ; eas (FC 14 HEATHER G. COTE, Declarant 15 16 LY 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of 1 1. SHECISIRRAEY OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 23141 Verdugo Dr. 4204 Laguna Hills, CA 92633 ONE (949) 454-2500 EXHIBIT A DISC-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Slate Bar number, and address): Daniel Benji, Esq. (SBN 278525), Paul S. Zuckerman, Esq. (SBN 155539) _ CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY 8827 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 TELEPHONE NO: (310) 273-1230 FAXNO (Optional): (310) 858-1063 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff, Betty Duenas SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 SHORT TITLE OF CASE: Duenas v. Brito, et. al. FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Asking Party: Plaintiff, Betty Duenas Answering Party: Defendant, Norely Brito Set No.: One CASE NUMBER: 30-2018-01011995-CU-PA-CJC Sec. 1. Instructions to All Parties (a) Interrogatories are written questions prepared by a party to an action that are sent to any other party in the action to be answered under oath. The interrogatories below are form interrogatories approved for use in civil cases. (b) For time limitations, requirements for service on other parties, and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.010-2030.410 and the cases construing those sections. {c) These form interrogatories do not change existing law relating to interrogatories nor do they affect an answering party's right to assert any privilege or make any cbhjection. Sec. 2. Instructions to the Asking Party (a) These interrogatories are designed for optional use by parties in unlimited civil cases where the amount demanded exceeds $25,000. Separate interrogatories, Form Interrogatories-Limited Civil Cases (Economic Litigation) (form DISC-004), which have no subparts, are designed for use in limited civil cases where the amount demanded is $25,000 or less; however, those interrogatories may also be used in unlimited civil cases. (b) Check the box next to each interrogatory that you want the answering party to answer. Use care in choosing those interrogatories that are applicable to the case. (c) You may insert your own definition of INCIDENT in Section 4, but only where the action arises from a course of conduct or a series of events occurring over a period of time. (d) The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant's Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiff's injuries and damages. (e) Additional interrogatories may be attached. Sec. 3. Instructions to the Answering Party (a) An answer or other appropriate response must be given to each interrogatory checked by the asking party. (b) As a general rule, within 30 days after you are served with these interrogatories, you must serve your responses on the asking party and serve copies of your responses on all other parties to the action who have appeared. See Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.260-2030.270 for details. Form Approvad for Opiicnal Use Judicial Council of California £ISC-001 [Rav. January 1, 2008) (c) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to you, including the information possessed by your attorneys or agents, permits. if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it to the extent possible. (d) If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is equally available to the asking party. (8) Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to a document, the document may be attached as an exhibit to the response and referred to in the response. If the document has more than one page, refer to the page and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be found. (f) Whenever an address and telephone number for the same person are requested in more than one interrogatory, you are required to furnish them in answering only the first interrogatory asking for that information. (g) If you are asserting a privilege or making an objection to an interrogatory, you must specifically assert the privilege or state the objection in your written response. (h) Your answers to these interrogatories must be verified, dated, and signed. You may wish to use the following form at the end of your answers: | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing answers are true and correct. FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL (DATE) (SIGNATURE) Sec. 4. Definitions Words in BOLDFACE CAPITALS in these interrogatories are defined as follows: (a) (Check one of the following): [vv] (1) INCIDENT includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding. Page 1 of 8 Cade of Civil Procedure, §§ 2030 910-2030.410, 2033.74C wwiy courtinfo ca gov [] (2) INCIDENT means (insert your definition here or on a separate, atfached sheet labeled “Sec. 4(a)(2)’): (b) YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF includes you, your agents, your employees, your insurance companies, their agents, their employees, your attorneys, your accountants, your investigators, and anyone else acting on your behalf. {(c) PERSON includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, limited liability company, corporation, or public entity. (d) DOCUMENT means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them. (e) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER includes any PERSON referred to in Code of Civil Procedure section 867.7(e)(3). (fi ADDRESS means the street address, including the city, state, and zip code. Sec. 5. Interrogatories The following interrogatories have been approved by the Judicial Council under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.710: CONTENTS 1.0 Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories 2.0 General Background Information-Individual 3.0 General Background Information-Business Entity 4.0 Insurance 5.0 [Reserved] 6.0 Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries 7.0 Property Damage 8.0 Loss of Income or Earning Capacity 9.0 Other Damages 10.0 Medical History 11.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims 12.0 Investigation-General 13.0 Investigation-Surveillance 14.0 Statutory or Regulatory Violations 15.0 Denials and Special or Affirmative Defenses 16.0 Defendant's Contentions Personal Injury 17.0 Responses to Request for Admissions 18.0 [Reserved] 19.0 [Reserved] 20.0 How the Incident Occurred-Motor Vehicle 25.0 [Reserved] 30.0 [Reserved] 40.0 [Reserved] 50.0 Contract 60.0 [Reserved] 70.0 Unlawful Detainer [See separate form DISC-003] 101.0 Economic Litigation [See separate form DISC-004] 200.0 Employment Law [See separate form DISC-002] Family Law [See separate form FL-145] DISC-001 1.0 Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories [v] 1.1 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) 2.0 General Background Information-individual [v] 2.1 state: (a) your name, (b) every name you have used in the past; and (c) the dates you used each name. 2.2 State the date and place of your birth. 2.3 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver's license? If so state: (a) the state or other issuing entity; (b) the license number and type; (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. 2.4 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have any other permit or license for the operation of a motor vehicle? If so, state: (a) the state or other issuing entity; (b) the license number and type, (c) the date of issuance; and (d) all restrictions. Vv] 2.5 State: (a) your present residence ADDRESS; (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and {c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS. [v] 2.6 state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; and (b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today. (v] 2.7 State: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each school or other academic or vocational institution you have attended, beginning with high school; (b) the dates you attended; (c) the highest grade level you have completed; and (d) the degrees received. 2.8 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) the date of conviction; (c) the offense; and (d) the court and case number. [v] 2.9 Can you speak English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? 2.10 Can you read and write English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? DISC-001 [Rev. January 1, 2008} FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL a [v] 2.11 Atthe time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for any PERSON? If so, state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON: and (b) a description of your duties. [v] 2.12 At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If so, for each person state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; {b) the nature of the disability or condition; and (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT. 2.13 Within 24 hours before the INCIDENT did you or any person involved in the INCIDENT use or take any of the following substances: alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or medication of any kind (prescription or not)? If so, for each person state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the nature or description of each substance; (c) the quantity of each substance used or taken; (d) the date and time of day when each substance was used or taken; (e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken; (fH) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each person who was present when each substance was used or taken; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who prescribed or furnished the substance and the condition for which it was prescribed or furnished. General Background Information-Business Entity 1 3.1 Are you a corporation? If so, state: (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation; (b) all other names used by the corporation during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; (c) the date and place of incorporation; (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California. 3.2 Are you a partnership? If so, state: (a) the current partnership name; (b) all other names used by the partnership during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; (c) whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what jurisdiction; (d) the name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and (e) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.3 Are you a limited liability company? If so, state: DISC-001 (] 3.4 Are you a joint venture? If so, state: (a) the current joint venture name; (b) all other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; (c) the name and ADDRESS of each joint venturer; and (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.5 Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state: (a) the current unincorporated association name; (b) all other names used by the unincorporated association during the past 10 years and the dates each was used; and (c) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.6 Have you done business under a fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each fictitious name state: (a) the name; (b) the dates each was used; (c) the state and county of each fictitious name filing; and (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 3.7 Within the past five years has any public entity regis- tered or licensed your business? If so, for each license or registration: (a) identify the license or registration; (b) state the name of the public entity; and (c) state the dates of issuance and expiration. 4.0 Insurance 4.1 Atthe time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; (d) the policy number; (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage con- tained in the policy; (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurance company; and (@) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. 4.2 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? [f so, specify the statute. (a) the name stated in the current articles of organization; 5.0 [Reserved] ( b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each was used; (c) the date and place of filing of the articles of organization; [¢] 6.1 Do you attribute any physical, mental, or emotional (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and injuries to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California. answer interrogatories 6.2 through 6.7). 6.0 Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries © 6.2 Identify each injury you attribute to the INCIDENT and the area of your body affected. DISC-001 {Rev. January 1, 2008] FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page 3 of 8 6.3 Do you still have any complaints that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each complaint state: (a) a description; (b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and (c) the frequency and duration. [v] 6.4 Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; (c) the dates you received consultation, examination, or treatment; and (d) the charges to date. [v] 6.5 Have you taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each medication state: (a) the name; (b) the PERSON who prescribed or furnished it; (cj the date it was prescribed or furnished; (d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and (e) the cost to date. [v] 6.6 Are there any other medical services necessitated by the injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT that were not previously listed (for example, ambulance, nursing, prosthetics)? If so, for each service state: (a) the nature; (b) the date; (c} the cost; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each provider. [¥] 6.7 Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may require future or additional treatment for any injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury state: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; (b) the complaints for which the treatment was advised; and (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment. 7.0 Property Damage [¥1 7.1 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property: (a) describe the property; {b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; DISC-001 (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount was calculated; and (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price. 7.2 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate or evaluation state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared it and the date prepared; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has a copy of it; and (c) the amount of damage stated. 7.3 Has any item of property referred to in your answer to interrogatory 7.1 been repaired? If so, for each item state: (2) the date repaired, (b) a description of the repair; (c) the repair cost; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who repaired it; (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who paid for the repair. Loss of Income or Earning Capacity 8.1 Do you attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through 8.8). 8.2 State: (a) the nature of your work; (b) your job title at the time of the INCIDENT; and (c) the date your employment began. 8.3 State the last date before the INCIDENT that you worked for compensation. 8.4 State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was caiculated. 8.5 State the date you returned to work at each place of employment following the INCIDENT, 8.6 State the dates you did not work and for which you lost income as a result of the INCIDENT. 8.7 State the total income you have lost to date as a result of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated. 8.8 Will you lose income in the future as a result of the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; (b) an estimate of the amount; (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and (d) how the claim for future income is calculated. DISC-001 (Rev. January 1, 2006 FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page dor 8 pl R E 9.0 Other Damages LL] 9.1 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation was incurred. [] 8.2 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 10.0 Medical History [110.1 Atany time before the INCIDENT did you have com- plaints or injuries that involved the same part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each stats: (a) a description of the complaint or injury; (b) the dates it began and ended; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom you consulted or who examined or treated you. ] 10.2 List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediately before the INCIDENT. (You may omit mental or emotional disabilities unless you attribute any mental or emotional injury to the INCIDENT.) [ 10.3 At any time after the INCIDENT, did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now claiming damages? If so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state: (a) the date and the place it occurred; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any other PERSON involved; (c) the nature of any injuries you sustained; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you consulted or who examined or treated you; and (e) the nature of the treatment and its duration. 11.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims [] 11.1 Except for this action, in the past 10 years have you fled an action or made a written claim or demand for compensation for your perscnal injuries? If so, for each action, claim, or demand state: (a) the date, time, and place and location (closest street ADDRESS or intersection) of the INCIDENT giving rise to the action, claim, or demand; {b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON against whom the claim or demand was made or the action filed; DISC-001 (c) the court, names of the parties, and case number of any action filed, (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any attorney representing you; (e) whether the claim or action has been resolved or is pending; and (f) a description of the injury. 11.2 In the past 10 years have you made a written claim or demand for workers' compensation benefits? If so, for each claim or demand state: (a) the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT giving rise to the claim; (ob) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your employer at the time of the injury; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the workers’ compensation insurer and the claim number; (d) the period of time during which you received workers’ compensation benefits; (e) a description of the injury; (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who provided services; and (9) the case number at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. 12.0 Investigation-General = 1 12.1 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). 12.2 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed, (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview. 12.3 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy. EISC-001 [Rov Janu 1.2006] FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL BN Page 5 or 3 [v] 12.4 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiff's injuries? If so, state: (a) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotape, (b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped, (c) the date the photographs, films, or videotapes were taken; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs, films, or videotapes; and (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes. [v] 12.5 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF “7 know of any diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210- 2034.310) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state: (a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model); (b) the subject matter, and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has it. [v] 12.6 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the or INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) the date and type of report made; {c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the origina! or a copy of the report. A [v] 127 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so, for each inspection state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310); and (b) the date of the inspection. 13.0 Investigation-Surveillance conducted surveillance of any individual involved in the INCIDENT or any party to this action? If so, for each sur- veillance state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual or party; (b) the time, date, and place of the surveillance; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who conducted the surveillance; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of any surveillance photograph, film, or videotape. a ) DISC-001 [v] 13.2 Has a written report been prepared on the surveillance? If so, for each written report state: (a) the title; (b) the date; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who prepared the report; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy. 14.0 Statutory or Regulatory Violations (v] 14.1 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If s0, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated. [v] 14.2 Was any PERSON cited or charged with a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation as a result of this INCIDENT? If so, for each PERSON state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) the statute, ordinance, or regulation allegedly violated; (c) whether the PERSON entered a plea in response to the citation or charge and, if so, the plea entered; and (d) the name and ADDRESS of the court or administrative agency, names of the parties, and case number. 156.0 Denlals and Special or Affirmative Defenses vl 15.1 Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 16.0 Defendant's Contentions-Personal Injury 16.1 Do you contend that any PERSON, other than you or plaintiff, contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each PERSON: (a) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [v] 16.2 Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the INCIDENT? If so: (a) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. DISC-001 {Rev. January 1, 2008] { ] FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Paget fn [v] 18.3 Do you contend that the injuries or the extent of the injuries claimed by plaintiff as disclosed in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not caused by the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury: (a) identify it; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [v] 18.4 Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the INCIDENT? If so; (a) identify each service; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge cf the facts; and (dy identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. furnished by any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER claimed as damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not necessary or unreasonable? If so: (a) identify each cost; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case was unreasonable or was not caused by the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify each part of the loss; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. [v]16.7 Do you contend that any of the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery Proceedings thus far in this case was not caused by the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify each item of property damages; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. ) DISC-001 [v] 16.8 Do you contend that any of the costs of repairing the property damage claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were unreasonable? If so: (a) identify each cost item; (b) state all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of the facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. 16.9 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT (for example, insurance bureau index reports) concerning claims for personal injuries made before or after the INCIDENT by a plaintiff in this case? If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) the source of each DOCUMENT; (b) the date each claim arose; (c) the nature of each claim; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT, [v] 16.10 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF have any DOCUMENT concerning the past or present physical, mental, or emotional condition of any plaintiff in this case from a HEALTH CARE PROVIDER not previously identified (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310)? If so, for each plaintiff state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PRQVIDER; (b) a description of each DOCUMENT; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 17.0 Responses to Request for Admissions 17.1 Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. 18.0 [Reserved] 19.0 [Reserved] 20.0 How the Incident Occurred-Motor Vehicle v] 20.1 State the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT (closest street ADDRESS or intersection). v1 20.2 For each vehicle involved in the INCIDENT, state: (a) the year, make, model, and license number; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the driver; OISC-0G1 {Rav January 1, 2008] FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL PRIS TES {c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each occupant other than the driver; (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each registered owner, (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each lessee; (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each owner other than the registered owner or lien holder; and (9) the name of each owner who gave permission or consent to the driver to operate the vehicle. [v] 20.3 State the ADDRESS and location where your trip began and the ADDRESS and location of your destination. [v] 20.4 Describe the route that you followed from the beginning of your trip to the location of the INCIDENT, and state the location of each stop, other than routine traffic stops, during the trip leading up to the INCIDENT. |v/| 20.5 State the name of the street or roadway, the lane of travel, and the direction of travel of each vehicle involved in the INCIDENT for the 500 feet of travel before the INCIDENT. [v1206 Did the INCIDENT occur at an intersection? If so, describe all traffic control devices, signals, or signs at the intersection. [v] 20.7 Was there a traffic signal facing you at the time of the INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) your location when you first saw it; (b) the color; (c) the number of seconds it had been that color; and (d) whether the color changed between the time you first saw it and the INCIDENT. v] 20.8 State how the INCIDENT occurred, giving the speed, direction, and location of each vehicle involved: (a) just before the INCIDENT; (b) at the time of the INCIDENT; and (c) just after the INCIDENT. [v] 20.9 Do you have information that a malfunction or defect in a vehicle caused the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify the vehicle; (b) identify each malfunction or defect; (c) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who is a witness to or has information about each malfunction or defect; and (d) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has custody of each defective part. (v] 20.10 Do you have information that any malfunction or defect in a vehicle contributed to the injuries sustained in the INCIDENT? If so: (a) identify the vehicle; (b) identify each malfunction or defect; (c) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who is a witness to or has information about each malfunction or defect; and DISC-001 (d) state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has custody of each defective part. v] 20.11 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each owner and each PERSON who has had possession since the INCIDENT of each vehicle involved in the INCIDENT. 25.0 [Reserved] 30.0 [Reserved] 40.0 [Reserved] 50.0 Contract 1 50.1 For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: (a) identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; (b) state each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date that part of the agreement was made; (c) identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; (d) identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement, and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; (e) state each modification notin writing, the date, and the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and the date the modification was made; (fy identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT. [] 50.2 Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each breach describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement. ] 50.3 Was performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings excused? If so, identify each agreement excused and state why performance was excused. [] 50.4 Was any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement, release, accord and satisfaction, or novation? If so, identify each agreement terminated, the date of termination, and the basis of the termination. [] 50.5 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforce- able? If so, identify each unenforceable agreement and state why it is unenforceable. [] 50.6 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous. 60.0 [Reserved] DISC-001 [Rev. January 1, 2008} FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL Page 8 of 8 w n NN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ]ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 8827 West Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90211-3613. On September 11, 2018 I served the foregoing document described as FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Norely Brito 1974 N. Sacramento St. Orange, CA 92867 I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Beverly Hills, California. Tam "readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, California, in the ordinary course of business. 1am 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. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on September 11, 2018 at Beverly Hills, California 4! ve” Vannia-Gutierrez EXHIBIT B Law Offices of 10 1 12 13 23 24 25 26 27 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 Law Offices of Cullins & Grandy LLP Moulton Park Place 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653-1341 (949)454-2500 Attorney Bar Number: 105527 Attorneys for Defendant, NORELY BRITO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY-CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER BETTY DUENAS, No: 30-2018-01011995 Assigned For All Purposes To: Hon. Melissa R. McCormick Dept. C-13 Plaintiff, VS. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE NORELY BRITO and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants. PROPQOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, BETTY DUENAS RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, NORELY BRITO SET NUMBER: One Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2030.010 et seq., defendant NORELY BRITO hereby responds to plaintiff BETTY DUENAS'’ form interrogatories, set one, as follows. It should be noted that this responding party has not fully completed her investigation of the facts relating to this case, and has not completed her discovery in this action nor her preparation for trial. All of the answers contained herein are based 1. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Law Offices of p = 10 Pi 12 i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2% 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92 (949) 454-2500 633 upon such information and documents which are presently available to or specifically known to this responding party and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to such responding party. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts, add meaning to known facts as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the contentions herein set forth. The following interrogatory responses are given without prejudice to responding party's right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts which this responding party may later recall. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all answers herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed and contentions are made. The answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known which should in no way be to the prejudice of this responding party in relation to further discovery, research and/or analysis. 1.1 Law Offices of Cullins & Grandy, LLP. 21 g Norely Brito b; N/A GC; From birth to present 2.2 Born on October 9, 1990 in Orange, California. 23 & California. b; D9674512, Class C G; 08/27/2015 2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 14 Law Ollices of 15 16 157 18 18 20 21 22 23] 24 25 26| £7 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 2.4 2.9 2.6 2.7 None No. 1974 N. Sacramento Street, Orange, CA 92867. N/A Birth to present Western Youth Services, 200 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701; January 2018 to present. Crittenton Services, 801 E. Chapman Ave. #203, Fullerton, CA 92831; May 2015 to December 2017 Spires Restaurant, 13451 Newport Ave., Tustin, CA 92780; 2013-2015 Marie Calendars, 307 E. Katella Ave., Orange, CA 92867; 2012-2013 Villa Park High School 2004-2008 12th Grade Diploma Santiago Canyon College 2008-2011 N/A Associates Degree in Liberal Arts Santa Ana College 2008-2011 N/A 3 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Law Offices of 12 13 14 155 16 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 212 2.13 4.1 Associates Degree in Liberal Arts No. Yes. Yes. Objection. This interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion and expert opinion from a lay witness without a foundational showing of competence. It is also vague and ambiguous. Without waiving said objections, Responding party may have been in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the subject accident. Crittenton Services, 801 E. Chapman Ave. #203, Fullerton, CA 92831 Responding Party was a therapist who travelled to various locations as part of her work duties. Objection, calls for a legal conclusion from a lay witness. No good cause may be shown to compel disclosure of the requested information. Without waiving objections, no. As to responding party: No. Automobile liability policy. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Bertha, Francisco and Norely Brito, address as above. Policy No. 4151-803-75B $250,000/$500,000/$100,000 None. State Farm PLUP 4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Law Offices of w wn 10 Bt 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 2: 22 23 | 24 25 26 2 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Ills, CA 92653 (9493 454-2500 4.2 6.0 Series: 7.1 TZ 7.3 12.1 g State Farm Bertha, Francisco and Norely Brito, address as above. Policy No. 75BHM7073 $1,000,000 None. State Farm No. Objection, relevance, violates responding party's right to privacy. No good cause may be shown to compel disclosure of the requested information. Responding party is not making a claim or counterclaim for injuries and is not placed her physical state at issue. 2014 Lexus ES. Front end damage. $11,099.60 N/A Brooks Orange Body & Paint. Cullins & Grandy LLP has a copy. 411,099.60 Post accident. Front end damage repair. $11,099.60 Brooks Orange Body & Paint. Responding party and State Farm. Please see traffic collision report. Responding party is unaware of any 5 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Law Offices of 10 11 12 | 13] 14 15 16 1d 18 19 20 Zl; 27 238 24 25 26 27 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr, #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 13.1 13.2 14.1 a witnesses other than as identified in the traffic collision report. Objection: Violates the attorney client and/or the attorney work product privilege. No good cause may be shown to compel disclosure of the requested information. Without waiving this objection: no statements. Objection: Violates the attorney client and/or the attorney work product privilege. No good cause may be shown to compel disclosure of the requested information. Without waiving this objection: no statements. Fifty-five (55) photographs. ThirtyOthree (33) photographs of responding party's vehicle; Sixteen (16) photographs of Ms. Locke's 2004 Honda Accord; Six (6) photographs of plaintiff's Jeep. Dates unknown. Photographers unknown. Cullins & Grandy, LLP have the photographs. Other than the diagram in the traffic collision report, none. Other than the Traffic Collision Report, none. Objection. This interrogatory violates the attorney client and attorney work product privileges with no good cause shown for disclosure. Without waiving said objections, not at this time. Objection. This interrogatory violates the attorney client and attorney work product privileges with no good cause shown for disclosure. Objection. This interrogatory violates the attorney client and attorney work product privileges with no good cause shown for disclosure. At this stage of discovery, no. 6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Law Offices of 10 dt: 12 3 16 17 18 1.9 20 Zl 22 23 24 | 5 26 27 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 2314! Verdugo Dr, #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 14.2 15.1 16.0 Series: 171 20.1 20.2 a; b; Cc; d; €; f; g 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6. None. Responding party plead all denials and affirmative defenses protectively pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §431.30. Please see instructions to interrogatories, Sec. 2 sub (d). Discovery has just begun in this matter and responding party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiff's injuries and damages. Requests 1 to 9, 13 to 16, 20, 21, 25 and 26 are objectionable. Please see objections. The incident occurred on August 25, 2016 at about 8:25 a.m. on Newhope Street at the intersection with Trask Ave. in Garden Grove, CA. As to responding party's vehicle: 2014 Lexus ES, California license #7FDT016 Responding party was driving. Responding party had no passengers. Responding party was the registered owner. N/A N/A N/A 15904 Sterling Court, Fountain Valley, CA to either Crittenton Services or home. Edinger to Newhope toward 22 Freeway. All three vehicles were northbound on Newhope Street in the #2 lane. Yes, traffic lights. 7 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Law Offices of 10 JT. 12 18 19 20 21. 22 2:3 24 29 26 27 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 20.7 Responding Party does not recall. 20.8 ga; All three vehicles were northbound on Newhope Street in the #2 lane. b; Plaintiff's vehicle and Ms. Locke's vehicle stopped. Responding party braked and struck the rear of the Locke vehicle. G All three vehicles stopped. 20.9 No. 20.10 No. 20.11 As to responding party's vehicle- Responding Party has possession of the vehicle. DATED: October 30, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF CULLINS & GRANDY LLP Ay a OWGLAS D. CULLINS HEATHER G. COTE Attorneys for Defendant, NORELY BRITO 8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Law Offices of L3 14 15 16 17] 18 15 20 22 23 24 25 26 20 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92 (949) 454-2500 653 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013a(3) C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I'am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204, Laguna Hills, California 92653. I, Nick Brady, on the date below, served the foregoing document described as RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE on all interested parties in this action addressed as follows: PLEASE SEE SERVICE LIST XI BY MAIL: As follows: | am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Laguna Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. | am 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. [1 BY FACSIMILE: By facsimile machine telephone (949)454-1409, | served a copy of the above document(s) to the facsimile telephone number(s) on the attached service list by transmitting via facsimile machine. The facsimile machine | used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2004 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2006(d), | caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission. [1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: | delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. [ 1 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: | caused such envelope(s) to be personally delivered via [Federal Express], to the addressee(s) designated on the attached service list. STATE: | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [1 FEDERAL: | declare that | am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on October 30 , 2018 , at Laguna Hills, California. NICK BRADY ny / Las Offices of [98 ] wl 10 Ll. Lz 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 DEUNAS V. BRITO Orange County Superior Court - Central Case No.: 30-2018-01011995-CU-PA-CJC Daniel Benji, Esq. Paul Zuckerman, Esq. CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP 8827 West Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 (310) 273-1230 (310) 858-1063 FAX Attorneys for Plaintiff, BETTY DUENAS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 di 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 cuLovs & rand Moulton Park Place Suite 205 23141 Verdugo Drive Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 VERIFICATION BY PARTY (466, 2015.5 CCP) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE | am a party in the above-entitled proceeding; | have read the foregoing RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE and know the contents thereof, and | certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters | believe it to be true. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this on day of Ocige © , 2018 at Orange, California. Norely Brito We aR Signature { EXHIBIT C Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley C / December 3, 2018 &R Via Facsimile & First Class Mail Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy LLP 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Facsimile: (949) 454-1409 Re: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Orange County Sup. Ct., Case No.: 30-2018-010119995 Dear Ms. Cote: I am in receipt of Defendant Norely Brito (“Defendant”) responses to Betty Duenas (“Plaintiff”) propounded Set One Discovery, served on this office on October 30, 2018. This letter shall serve as our attempt to meet and confer regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses set forth herein, Plaintiff demands Defendants’ further verified responses to the following discovery by no later than 5:00 P.M. on December 10, 2018 in order to avoid filing a motion to compel. GENERAL SCOPE OF DISCOVERY The scope of discovery is very broad. The first and most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that "Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if that matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) "Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document. ..." (Id.). For discovery purposes, information should be regarded as "relevant to the subject matter" if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th1539,1546.) The phrase makes clear that discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial. Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense. (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th1599, 1611.) CZ&R LLP - 8827 West Olympic Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 - Phone: 310.273.1230 + Fax: 310.858.1063 + www.czrlaw.com Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 2 The "relevance to the subject matter" and "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" standards must be applied liberally. (Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785,190.) Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery, particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. /d.) The "expansive scope of discovery" (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1108S) is a deliberate attempt to "take the 'game' element out of trial preparation” and to "do away 'with the sporting theory of litigation-namely, surprise at the trial." (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d355,376; see also Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (2004) I 16 Cal. App.4th 694,712, fn. 8 [discovery process is "designed to eliminate the element of surprise"].) One key legislative purpose of the discovery statutes is "to educate the parties concerning their claims and defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate trial." (Emerson, at p. 1107.) The discovery procedures are also "designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness." (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App.4th 1113, 1119.) Consistent with these purposes, our Supreme Court has often stated that discovery statutes are to be construed broadly in favor of disclosure, so as to uphold the right to discovery whenever possible. (Greyhound, at pp.377-378; Emerson, at pp. 1107-1108.) "Matters sought are properly discoverable if they will aid in a party's preparation for trial.” Forthmanny. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th977,987. The civil discovery statutes are "intended to accomplish the following results: (1) to give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; (2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (a) to educate the parties in advance of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlements; (5) to expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and narrow the issues; and, (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial." (Greyhound Corporation v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.d 355,376.) Virtually every purpose of discovery is frustrated by a response which says that answers are available in files and records but that the answering party will produce only those files and records which he deems "pertinent and proper.’ (See, Brotslry v. State Bar, 57 Cal.2d287, 304.) CZ&R LLP - www.czrlaw.com -BEVERLY HILLS + 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 « Phone: 310.273.1230 » Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE + 12881 Knott Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 « Phone: 714.895.3300 = Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito. et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 3 Consistent with these purposes, our Supreme Court has often stated that discovery statutes are to be construed broadly in favor of disclosure, so as to uphold the right to discovery whenever possible. (Greyhound, supra, at pp. 377-378; Emerson, supra, at pp. 1107-1108.) "Matters sought are properly discoverable if they will aid in a party's preparation for trial.” Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 97 7, 987.) FORM INTERROGATORY 6 Series, RFA 18-19, RFP 23: Defendant’s objections are not well-taken. Whether Defendant sustained physical injuries as a result of the incident or had pre-existing injuries to parts of his body injured in the incident is relevant to and reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relative to Plaintiff’s proving causation of injuries, biomechanics, and nature and extent of damages. Please provide a further response to the Form Interrogatory 6 series, RFAs 18 and 19, as well as RFP 23, or Plaintiff will be forced to file a motion to compel. FORM INTERROGATORY 12.1: Defendant’s response is not complete. There are four sub-parts to this question. The response of referring to the Traffic Collision Report will not suffice. Further, Defendant did not provide a response to subsection d. Please provide a further response to the Form Interrogatory 12.1, or else Plaintiff will be forced to file a motion to compel. FORM INTERROGATORY 13.1 & 13.2, RFP 7: Defendant’s objections in response to interrogatories and request for production in regards to Sub Rosa are not well taken. Defendant’s objections based on the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine must fail. California has long held that photographs and films of surveillance are subject to discovery and, further, that such evidence is not protected by the attorney-client or work-product privilege. Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166. The Suezaki case remains the leading authority in California on this topic wherein the California Supreme Court specifically addressed and dismissed both these objections. The Suezaki Court explained that surveillance evidence does not constitute a confidential communication for purposes of the attorney-client privilege and further, that transmission of the evidence to the attorney, even where the parties intend the matter to be confidential, “cannot create the privilege if none, in fact, exists.” Suezaki, 58 Cal.2d at pp.175-177. Suezaki further stated that the films plaintiff sought were “not a graphic representation of the defendants, their activities, their mental impressions, anything within their knowledge, or of anything owned by them” but instead were the “representations of the plaintiffs, not of the defendants.” Ibid. Thus, attorney-client privilege objections to discovery requests for sub rosa evidence are without merit. CZ&R LLP = www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS + 8827 Wast Olympic Blvd, Beverly Hills. CA 90211 + Phone: 310.273.1230 + Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE - 12881 Knott Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 » Phone: 714.895.3300 + Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 4 Further, the absolute work-product protection of any writing reflecting an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research theories afforded under Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030(a) was deemed to not apply to sub rosa of a plaintiff. Ibid. Similarly, defense counsel cannot establish that sub rosa evidence is exempt from discovery based on the qualified work-product protection under section 2018.030(b). The party seeking discovery must show that there is good cause for the production of the evidence being sought, while the party claiming the statutory protection has the burden to prove that it applies and must do more than merely state that they want something protected. See Fellows v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 55, 66. The Suezaki Court determined that the work-product objection was without merit because good cause indeed existed for the production of the sub rosa evidence in order to (1) protect against surprise; and (2) prepare for an examination of the person who performed the surveillance. Id. at p.171. Thus, neither objection should preclude discovery of sub rosa evidence. As noted by the Suezaki Court, in addition to good cause existing for the discovery of sub rosa evidence in order to prepare the attorney to cross examine the investigator who did the sub rosa, good cause also exists for the production of sub rosa evidence to avoid trial by ambush and unfair surprise. In California, pretrial discovery procedures are designed to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side’s evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure. (See Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113.) Courts have construed the discovery statutes broadly, so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. See Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378. Moreover, even where the discovery statutes require a showing of “good cause” to obtain discovery, the term is liberally construed to permit, rather than to prevent, discovery wherever possible. Id. at 377-378. As noted in Norton v. Superior Court 24 - Cal.App.4th 1750, courts are to be broad-minded in considering relevancy and provide the party seeking discovery substantial leeway. Errors should be made in favor of granting discovery rather than in denying it. Id. at 1761-2. These laws of discovery are meant to preclude trial by ambush and unfair surprise in trial. See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587; Campain v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 362, 366. It is clear that California follows a liberal standard of discovery and favors a finding of good cause for the discovery of sub rosa evidence to avoid trial by ambush as well as to encourage settlements. Indeed, the visual and extremely powerful impact sub rosa can have on a jury further establishes good cause for its discovery. Lastly, good cause exists for the discovery of sub rosa evidence in order to establish foundation and authentication under Evidence Code sections 402-3, 1400-1402 and prevent improper video editing. CZ&R LLP « www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS = 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 + Phone: 310.273.1230 » Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE « 12881 Knott Street #225. Garden Grove, CA 92841 » Phone: 714.895.3300 + Fax: 714 895.3500 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 5 Accordingly, Defendant must provide a further response clearly answering Form Interrogatory 13.1, 13.2, their sub-parts, and Request for Production of Documents No. 7. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: Defendant’s response is evasive, vague and ambiguous, and non-responsive. Defendant’s have pleaded nine entirely distinct affirmative defenses. Therefore, for each of the nine affirmative defenses, Defendant must state the (a) facts, (b) witnesses, and (c) documents, pertaining to each defense. If Defendant has no facts, witnesses, or documents for its nine affirmative defenses, at this time, if must so clearly state. Whether Defendant has not yet concluded acts of Discovery is of no consequence as Form Interrogatory No. 15 asks for the facts, witnesses, and documents supporting each of the ten affirmative defenses af_the present time. Accordingly, the Defendant must flesh out each of the nine affirmative defenses and each of the distinct sub-parts (a, b & c) and indicate whether there are any facts, witnesses, and documents supporting each defense presently. Anything less does not constitute a code- compliant response and will warrant the filing of a motion to compel, especially as trial is less than a month away. Form Interrogatory 15.1 is very specific in its obligation to the responding party. It requires that Defendant identify, separately, each of the affirmative defenses and then respond to each subpart of the interrogatory. As phrased, Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220. (I). Defendant has failed to identify its [1] denials of the material allegations of the complaint or [2] its affirmative defenses. Defendant has not provided any of the facts, witnesses or documents and things supporting each of its denials or defenses. Interrogatories are designed to permit discovery of all facts presently known to defendant upon which it predicates its defenses, and such interrogatories should be permitted where answer consists solely of disfavored overbroad general denial which gives plaintiff no guidance whatsoever regarding specific matters legitimately at issue. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. In answering interrogatories, a party must furnish information available from sources under the party's control. "A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." Deyo v. Kilbourne (1979) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782. CZ&R LLP + www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS + 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 + Phone: 310.273.1230 « Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE = 12881 Knott Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 * Phone: 714.895.3300 + Fax. 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 6 California Law mandates that claims and defenses asserted in any pleading be “warranted by existing law,” and that “allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery,” that “denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specially so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. Code Civ. Proc., §128.7, subd. (b). Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.210, provides for the manner of a response to interrogatories, and sets forth only three appropriate responses to a question: an answer continuing the information sought to be discovered; an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; an objection to the particular interrogatory. See id. at subsection (a). “Discovery and Investigation are in the beginning stages” is not a legal objection. An attorney who presents a pleading, including a complaint or answer, a motion or any similar paper to the court makes an implied “certification” as to its legal and factual merit; and is subject to sanctions for violation of this certification. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7; see Bockrath v. Alrich Chem. Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71. When a defendant’s attorney adds defenses that lack any factual or legal support that attorney is violating, not just the spirit, but the letter of law as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The Court of Appeals explained this standard as it relates to the filing of a complaint in Bockrath, supra, 21 Cal.4th 71. There the Court held that “actual-belief standard requires more than a hunch, a speculative belief, or wishful thinking: it requires a well founded belief.” This means that the defense attorney must also have facts to support allegations contained within the answer or a good-faith belief that such facts will be discovered.” Bockrath supra, 21 Cal.4th at 82. Moreover, courts have held, with regard to discovery requests that it is not ground for objection that the request is ambiguous, unless it is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply. Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2nd 423, 430. Additionally, when responding to interrogatories, the answering party owes a duty to respond in good faith as best as it can. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App3d 771, 783. Defendant has a duty to answer interrogatories as completely and straightforwardly as possible given the information available to it. id., Code Civ. Proc. §2030.220. The duty to truthfully and fully respond has been described as follows, “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal. App.3d 438. CZ&R LLP * www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS = 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 « Phone: 310.273.1230 » Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE + 12881 Knolt Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 « Phone: 714.895.3300 « Fax: 714 895.3500 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 7 Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) supra. Further, the responding party is required to provide information not only based on his own personal knowledge, but also on knowledge he may acquire through a reasonable inquiry. id. at 782. What is more, the scope of permissible discovery is broad. “The purpose of pretrial discovery is to obtain all of the facts relative to a claim or defense.” Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 301. For purposes of discovery, information is considered relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 22 Ca.App4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Com v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790. Objections on the ground of over breadth of undue burden lack merit unless the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code of Civil. Proc., §2017.020, subd. (a). From Plaintiffs perspective, interrogatory 15.1 is crucial relative to Plaintiff's continuation of meaningful discovery. Plaintiff must be able to conduct discovery as to the factual basis which the defense is asserting its denials and affirmative defenses so that Plaintiff can anticipate and be prepared to oppose dispositive motions and to adequately prepare for trial. More importantly, it is Defendants’ burden at trial to prove these affirmative defenses. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal. App.4th 1093. In Liberty Mutual, the plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and common counts. The defendant, LcL Administrators, filed an answer with 28 affirmative defenses. (Id. at 1095.) The plaintiff served Form Interrogatory 15.1on the defendant. After two extensions, the defendant responses that “The statutory denials are based upon the authorization of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the belief that the contacts of insurance were improperly implemented and interpreted by plaintiff. . . .” Id. at 1096-1097. Due to the defective nature of the defendant’s responses, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Ultimately, the trial court granted the plaintiffs motion to compel and ordered the defendant to serve supplemental responses. Id. at 1097. Subsequently, the defendant provided two sets of supplemental responses. Each of these responses contained equally evasive responses - the defenses were made on information and belief and would be fully developed during discovery. Id. at1097-1098. The trial court ultimately granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the answer and cross-complaint for defendant’s failure to comply with its obligations pursuant to the discovery statute and to follow the court’s order to provide supplemental responses. Id. at 1099. CZ&R LLP < www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS - 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 80211 » Phone: 310.273.1230 * Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE - 12881 Knolt Streel #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 » Phone: 714.895.3300 + Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 8 Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 defines failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery, making an unmeritorious objection to discovery, making an evasive discovery response, opposing an unsuccessful motion to compel discovery, without justification and failing to meet and confer in person as a misuse of the discovery process. See Code Civ. Proc., §2023.010, subds. (d) - (i). The Court of Appeal found that the defendant provided “evasive discovery responses that submitted to meaningful information and claimed throughout that information will be ‘developed’ by ‘future discovery . . .” Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company), supra, 163 Cal. App.4th 1102-1103. Accordingly, please provide a code-compliant response stating the (a) facts, (b) witnesses, (c¢) and documents supporting each of Defendant’s nine entirely distinct affirmative defenses at the present time. Accordingly, please provide a further response answering 15.1. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.8: Defendant’s response is incomplete. Plaintiff is entitled to a Code compliant response to the specific call of the question. Form Interrogatory 20.8 requires that Defendant “[s]tate how the INCIDENT occurred” in addition to answering sub sections, (a), (b), and (c). Defendant needs to answer “how the incident occurred” in addition to the answers provided to sub sections (a), (b), and (¢). Although Defendant responded to sub sections (a), (b), and (c), Defendant failed to provide pertinent responsive information as to Defendant’s first-hand perception as to how the incident transpired. As set forth above, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 requires each response to be “as complete”, “to the extent possible”, and Defendant “shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry” in providing responses. Plaintiffs require the forgoing information to adequately develop her case. Accordingly, please provide a further verified response adhering to the specific call of the question, RESPONSE TO REQUST FOR ADMISSIONS 1-9, 13-15, 20-21, 25-26 & FROG 17.1 Defendant fails to provide responsive responses to the subject requests. A response to a request for admission must contain (1) an admission; (2) a denial; (3) or a statement claiming inability to admit or deny. CCP § 2033.220(b). Here, instead of providing a proper answer, Defendant responds with what appears to be a response to an interrogatory. However, a request for admissions is much different. The scope, purpose and function of admissions is to establish uncontroverted facts, save time and expense of proof at trial. St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014), 223 Cal. App.4th 762 and Fredericks v. Kontos Industries (1987), 189 Cal. App.3d 272, 27. CZ&R LLP - www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS = 8327 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 + Phone: 310.273.1230 » Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE + 12881 Knott Stieet #225. Garden Grove, CA 92841 « Phone: 714.895.3300 * Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 9 Along the same lines, Requests for Admission are not a discovery device. International Harvester v. Superior Court (1969), 273 Cal. App.2d 652, 655; Lieb v. Superior Court (1962), 199 Cal. App.2d 364, 367; Hillman v. Stultz (1968), 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 885, and Burch v. Gombos (2000), 82 Cal. App.4th 352, 359. Request for Admissions should be admitted if a party does not, in good faith, contend to contest the matter at trial. St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014), 223 Cal. App.4th 762; Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997), 56 Cal. App.4th 618; Smith v. Circle P. Ranch (1978), 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 273; Burke v. Superior Court (1969), 71 Cal.2d 276, 282; Haseltine v. Haseltine (1962), 203 Cal. App.2d 48 [admit when fact cannot be reasonably disputed; the court found good faith in denying 23 of 27 requests]. Unlike other forms of written discovery, requests for admission are not used to learn new information as much as to test triable issues of fact. Cembrook v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco, (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 429 (disapproved of on separate grounds); Kelly v. New West Federal Savings, (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 659, 672. In this way admissions more closely resemble summary judgment, rather than a discovery tool. Hansen v. Superior Court, (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 823, 827. Indeed, the main reason to use requests for admission is to narrow and reduce triable issues of fact and thus save the parties the time and expense at trial of putting on evidence concerning issues that are not substantively disputed. Miller v. Marina Mercy Hospital, (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 765, 769. Here, Defendant fails to provide a responsive response to the subject request for admissions and instead answers them as if they were interrogatories. Please provide a further response, admitting, denying or providing a statement claiming inability to deny pursuant to C.C.P. §2033.220(b). Accordingly, please provide a further response answering requests 1-9, 13-15, 20-21, 25-26 and Form Interrogatory 17.1. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1-8 & 10-12 Defendants failure to respond to this straightforward interrogatory is clearly evasive. False or evasive answers are improper: “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 CA4th 64, 76, 81 CR2d 360, 368 (internal quotes omitted); see CCP § 2023.010(f) -evasive response is ground for sanctions. Moreover, courts have held, with regard to discovery requests that it is not ground for objection that the request is ambiguous, unless it is so ambiguous that the responding party cannot in good faith frame an intelligent reply. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2nd 423, 430.) CZ&R LLP » www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS - 8827 Wesi Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 80211 + Phone: 310.273.1230 » Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE - 12881 Knott Street #225. Garden Grove, CA 92841 » Phone: 714.895.3300 » Fax: 714 895.3800 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 10 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 provides in pertinent part: (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. These questions are not duplicative of Form Interrogatory 20 series. First, Defendant did not completely answer the questions and subsections within the 20 series. Second, these special interrogatories ask for information that Defendant did not disclose within her response to the Form Interrogatory 20 series. Defendant did not explain how she believes the accident occurred, the cause of the incident, distance between vehicles and speed. For all of these reasons, Defendant’s objections are meritless, and please provide further responses to special interrogatories 1-8 & 10-12. CELL PHONE RECORDS- RFP Nos. 17-18 & SPROG 26 Defendant makes generalized privacy objections but fails to explain how the information sought is private. Protection of private information is "not absolute," protecting only a “reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion." (Cutier v. Bronbridge, 183 Cal. App. 3d 836, 843 (1986); Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v. Super. Ct., 40 Cal. 4th 360, 370 (2007) (emphasis in original).) Discovery of private information is limited only where the responding party shows "(1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by [propounding party] constituting a serious invasion of privacy." (Rains v. Belshe, 32 Cal. App. 4th 15"7,'167 (1995); see also Smith v., Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979) ("[A] person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.").) Defendants fail to establish any of these elements and cannot do so. CZ&R LLP « www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS - 8327 West Oiympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 « Phone: 310.273.1230 « Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE - 12881 Knott Street #225, Garden Grove. CA 92841 « Phone: 714.895.3300 « Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 11 Defendant will be required to present evidence on all of the topics addressed in Plaintiff's discovery in order to prevail at trial. Privacy rights "may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public interest [like] the historically important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings." (£/ Dorado Say. & Loan Ass'n v. Super. Ct, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342, 345 (1987) (internal citations omitted).) Where discovery is directly relevant to a claim or defense, "a party's privacy interests may have to give way to the opponent's right to a fair trial." (Vinson v. Super. Ct., 43 Cal. 3d 833, 842 (1987) ("[ There is] an implicit waiver of a party's constitutional rights encompass[ing] . . . discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff's claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.").) Further, even assuming that Defendant could establish a legitimate privacy interest, the parties can execute a stipulated protective order. Where “intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged." (Pioneer, 40 Cal. 4th at 360, 371 (quoting Hill v. Colorado 530 U.S. 703, 716 (2000).) Further, it is conspicuous that a privilege log was not produced with these responses. If Defendant is objecting on the basis of privacy, they must provide the reasons as to why this information is private. For all of these reasons, Defendant’s objections are meritless, and please provide further responses to Request for Production 17 &18, and Special Interrogatory 26. WITNESS STATEMENTS- RFP 10-11, SPROG 27-28 We are entitled to witnesses statements under Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480. There, the court held “that a witness statement obtained through an attorney-directed interview is entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product protection,” and “if the party resisting discovery alleges that a witness statement, or portion thereof, is absolutely protected because it “reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories” (§ 2018.030, subd. (a)), that party must make a preliminary or foundational showing in support of its claim.” 7d. “If [the defendant fails to make this showing] then the items may be subject to discovery if plaintiff can show that ‘denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice [her] in preparing for [her] claim...or will result in an injustice.’ (Section 2018.030, subd. (b).).” Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 486. CZ&R LLP « www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS + 8827 West Olympic Blvd.. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 « Phone: 310.273.1230 ¢ Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE « 12881 Knot! Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 « Phone: 714.895.3300 « Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al, Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 12 Furthermore, in the California Supreme Court Case of Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, the witness statements at issue were made to employees of the defendant, not to defendant’s counselor to agents of defendant’s counsel, which were later transmitted to the defendant’s attorney. Greyhound, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 386-387. In opposing the discovery request, the defendant argued that the statements fell within the attorney-client privilege and were also protected under the work product doctrine. Greyhound, at pp. 395, 398- 400. The Court rejected this argument and concluded the neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine protected nonparty witness statements from discovery.” Notably, in its analysis of Greyhound, the Court in Coito v. Superior Court recognized that “[on] those facts, it is unsurprising that Greyhound said that [the party] had failed to indicate that the reasons underlying the work product doctrine would be applicable to this proceeding . . . [as] Greyhound did not involve a witness statement procured by an attorney through his own initiative.” Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th at 497-498 (highlighting that facts that give rise to the work- product privilege-i.e. “free-riding” on the opposing counsel’s industry-did not exist in that case). You have indicated that the statements were given to a representative of the insurance company. As such, you must release the recorded statements since “it did not involve a witness statement procured by an attorney through [the attorney’s] own initiative,” and, as such, does not fall within the purview of the attorney work-product doctrine. Coito v.Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal 4th at 498. Even assuming these statements fall within the purview of the attorney work-product doctrine, as set forth in Coifo v. Superior Court, the recorded statements are only entitled to qualified privilege as you have failed to make a foundational showing that the recorded statement would reveal Defendant’s counsel’s “impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research.” In addition, Defendant is in possession of contemporaneous statements given by the most important percipient witnesses in the matter. Consequentially, qualified privilege will not prevent the discovery of these recordings since “denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice [Plaintiff] in preparing for [Plaintiff's] claim...[and] will result in an injustice.” Coito v.Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal 4th at 486. Accordingly, please provide a further response to Request for Production of Documents 10 and 11, as well as Special Interrogatories 27 and 28. CZ&R LLP « www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS = 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hilis, CA 90211 « Phone: 310.273.1230 + Fax. 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE ° 12881 Knolt Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 ¢ Phone: 714.895.3300 + Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 13 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 6, 27, 28 and 31 The majority, if not all, of the requests and interrogatories are not directed toward communications between Defendant and their counsel. To the extent that requests could be construed to seek such information, Plaintiff may be willing to appropriately limit the request. Any such limitation would not apply where any third parties are copied on the communications (e.g., anyone other than Defendant and non-firm personnel). The standard procedure is for Plaintiff to produce a privilege log identifying each document withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. Regarding the work product privilege, it protects only legal work of the attorney, and specifically the analysis of an attorney. The discovery of facts, witnesses, documents, witness statements, and any information existing independent and apart from the work an attorney has compiled are not protected work product. (See People v. Collie. 30 Cal. 3d 43 (1981); Tehachapi-Cummings Co. Water Distr. v. Super. Ct., 267 Cal. App. 2d 42 (1968); Borse v. Super. gt, 7 Cal. App. 3d 286, 289 (1970); Coito v. Super. Ct., 54 Cal. 4th 480 (2012).) Further, "[i]Jnformation regarding events provable at trial, or the identity and location of physical evidence, cannot be brought within the work product privilege simply by transmitting it to the attorney." (Mack v. Super. Ct., 259 Cal. App. 2d 7, 10 (1968).) Here, Plaintiff seeks facts, witnesses, and documents that exist in support of this incident. Such facts, witnesses, and documents are not protected work product absent a specific showing of unique interpretive information as opposed to evidentiary information. Furthermore, when asserting claims of privilege or attorney work product protection, the objecting party must provide “sufficient factual information” to enable other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim, “including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (CCP § 2031.240(c)(1)) As the term is commonly used by courts and attorneys, a “privilege log” identifies each document for which a privilege or work product protection is claimed, its author, recipients, date of preparation, and the specific privilege or work product protection claimed. Hernandez v. Sup.Ct. (Acheson Industries, Inc.) (2003) 112 CA4th 285, 291-292, 4 CR3d 883, 888-889, fn. 6; see CCP § 2031.240(c)(2)-Legislative intent to codify concept of privilege log “as that term is used in California case law”) “The information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not (in) fact privileged.” Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (McCombs) (1997) 59 CA4th 110, 130, 68 CR2d 844, 857. CZ&R LLP » www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS - 8827 West Olympic Bivd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 « Phone: 310.273.1230 + Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE - 12881 Knott Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 « Phone: 714.895.3300 « Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 14 The Code seems to indicate that if a privilege log is “necessary” to enable other parties to evaluate the merits of a privilege or work product claim, it must be provided by the objecting party with the response to the § 2031.010 inspection demand (i.e., at the time the objection is made). See CCP § 2031.240(c)(1): If objection is based on privilege or work product claim, “the response shall provide ... including, if necessary, a privilege log”. In regards to Defendant’s failure to produce its privileged documents, Defendant has necessitated the creation of a “privilege log”, which requires the Defendant: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. See C.C.P §2031.240(b). Although C.C.P. §2031.240(b) does specifically not state the kind of identification that is required, it is expected that for each document withheld that the privilege log state (a) the nature of the document (e.g., letter, memorandum) (b) date, (c) author, (d) recipients, (¢) the sequential number (or document control umber, if any), and (f) the privilege claimed. See California Civil Discovery Practice (CEB 4th Ed. 2011) §3.192 citing Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 C4th 201 and §33.201 for a sample of a privilege log. Except in some limited situations, California court’s do not have the right to do an in camera inspection of privileged documents to determine whether or not the document is actually privileged. See Weil and Brown, Cal Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2011) 18:192.1 citing Southern California Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Communication (1990) 50 C3d 31, 45. Therefore, it is important that the privilege log be sufficiently specific enough to allow the court to determine whether the document is or is not (in) fact privileged.” Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Sup Ct. (1997) 59 CA4th 110, 130. If the log is not sufficiently specific, the trial court may order the objecting party to prepare a new log containing more information about the nature of the document in question. Kaiser Foundation Hospital v. Superior Court (1998) 66 CAdth 1217, 1228. The court also may conduct a preliminary fact hearing on whether the privilege exists. See Ev. C. §402. CZ&R LLP ° www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS - 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 » Phone: 310.273.1230 » Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE + 12881 Knolt Street #225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Phone: 714.895.3300 * Fax: 714 895.3600 Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy, LLP RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 3, 2018 Page: 15 Accordingly, because Defendant has objected to production of documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, it has necessitated the creation of a privilege log that must be submitted to Plaintiff in order to assess whether the privilege actually exists. The response that Defendant will produce all “non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control” will not suffice, as no privileged long was produced. Please provide a privilege log or a further response to Requests 6, 27, 28 and 31without those meritless objections, ok ik cokoOk ok Please allow this correspondence to serve as Plaintiff’s attempt to inform you that, absent any communication from you indicating that you are agreeable to serving further verified responses to the above, we will be forced to file a motion to compel further responses. For these reasons, we require supplemental verified responses to the discovery set forth above by 5:00 P.M. on December 10, 2018. Should the discovery responses not be received by that date, I will immediately file the necessary motion to compel. Obviously, we don't want to make a motion, we just require the further verified responses. However, if you fail to properly respond, we will be left with no other choice but to seek court intervention. Please contact me at 310.273.1230 Ext. 226, by fax at 310.858.1063, or by email at lakshmi@czrlaw.com. Of course, we do not want to have to file a motion to compel in order to obtain Defendants’ further verified responses. However, we require these further verified responses, so that Plaintiff can continue conducting her discovery. With kindest regards, CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY LAKSHMI ODEDRA, ESQ. CZ&R LLP www.czrlaw.com BEVERLY HILLS ° 8827 West Olympic Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211 « Phone: 310.273.1230 » Fax: 310.858.1063 GARDEN GROVE ° 12881 Knott Street #225, Garden Grove. CA 92841 + Phone; 714.895.3300 = Fax: 714 895.3600 EXHIBITD Law Offices of PALM SPRINGS OFFICE . 1111 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 121 Cullins & Grandy LLP Palm Springs, California 92262 James L. my : Est. 1990 FACSIMILE SE nC u - Moulton Park Place Laguna Hills (949) 454-1409 usse » randy 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Palm Springs (760) 778-9987 Bonnie Dohrmann Laguna Hills, CA 92653-1341 Heather 1. Cafe Telephone (949) 454-2500 EBA, Allison L. Grandy deulllns@eullinsgrandylaw.com Chanel P. Araujo jgrandy@enllinsgrandylaw.com Ashley N. Pham rgrandy@cullinsgrandylaw.com ee] 7. Lowel bdohrmann@eullinsgrandylaw.com heote@culllinsgrandylaw.com agrandy@cullinsgrandylaw.com caraujo@cullinsgrandylaw.com *Also admitted in Colorado apham@cullinsgrandylaw.com miowell@cullinsgrandylaw.com jfrench@cullinsgrandylaw.com Jaclyn C. French December 7, 2018 Daniel Benji, Esq. Lakshmi Odedra, Esq. Carpenter, Zukerman & Rowley 12881 Knott Street, #225 Garden Grove, CA 92841 Re: DUENAS v. BRITO Claim No x 75-957B-317 D/Loss : August 25, 2016 Insured : Bertha G. Brito Our File : SF 2334 Dear Mr. Benji and Ms. Odedra: We have received your office's December 3 and December 5, 2018 letters regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's first set of discovery and Defendant's subpoenas for medical and employment records, respectively. Please accept this correspondence as our office’s attempt to meet and confer in good faith. Defendant’s Records Subpoenas- Your letter addresses a number of medical subpoenas issued by my office as well as a subpoena to Planned Parenthood regarding your client's employment records. You noted your objections, primarily on the grounds of privacy, to the subpoena language and asked that my office respond by December 10, 2018. On December 6, 2018, | contacted Ms. Odedra regarding the subpoena language. | advised that my office is happy to reissue the medical subpoenas with language limiting the requests to the specific body parts Plaintiff claims were injured in the subject accident. Ms. Odedra indicated that limitation would be sufficient. Accordingly, below is the language | intend to use in the reissued medical subpoenas: December 7, 2018 Page 2 of 8 THE RECORDS REQUESTED INCLUDE ANY AND ALL RECORDS, LETTERS OR CORRESPONDENCE, EMAILS, DOCUMENTS, MEDICAL REPORTS INCLUDING DOCTORS' ENTRIES, NURSES' CHARTS, PROGRESS NOTES, PROGRESS REPORTS, PHYSICAL THERAPY RECORDS, X-RAY REPORTS, INCLUDING ANY DIGITAL X-RAY, MRI OR CT SCANS ON CD-ROM DISC OR DVD, LAB REPORTS, CASE HISTORY REPORTS, EMERGENCY ROOM RECORDS, ADMITTING SHEETS. SPECIAL TESTS AND SIGN-IN SHEETS PERTAINING TO THE CARE AND TREATMENT, DIAGNOSIS, CONDITION, DISCHARGE, RADIOLOGICAL FILMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MRI FILMS, MYELOGRAM FILMS, CT SCANS. X- RAYS, INVOICES, AND STATEMENT OF CHARGES RENDERED, CHARGES, BILLS, EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT, MEDI-CAL PAYMENT CLAIMS, PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS OR WRITE, OFFS, INSURANCE CLAIM FORMS AND PAYMENTS, CASH OR CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS, INCLUDING REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF BENEFITS FORMS, VIDEOTAPE AND/OR AUDIOTAPE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF DIGITAL FORMAT OF ANY PROCEDURES INCLUDING ANY AND ALL SURGICAL PROCEDURES, EXAMINATIONS OR INTERVIEWS ON DDR (DIRECT TO DISK RECORDING), VCR, DVD OR ANY OTHER DIGITAL FORMAT: COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS, AND/OR BLACK & WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS, ANY AND ALL PATIENT DISCLOSURES REGARDING FINANCIAL INTEREST, INVESTMENT INTEREST, AGENCY AGREEMENT, COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT OR OWNERSHIP IN ANY HEALTHCARE FACILITY, HEALTH-RELATED FACILITY, HOLDING COMPANY, RADIOLOGY FACILITY, MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF ANY MEDICAL DEVICES, SPINAL SURGERY DEVICE COMPANIES OR DISTRIBUTORS OR HOLDING COMPANIES, CLINICAL LABORATORY, PHYSICAL THERAPY, PHYSICAL REHABILITATION, DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING OR OUTPATIENT SURGERY, ANY AND ALL FLUOROSCOPIC IMAGING/FILMS FROM ANY PROCEDURE AND ASSOCIATED DATA AND REPORTS, ANY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, DRUGS AND/OR MEDICATIONS DISPENSED OR PRESCRIBED OR USED, INCLUDING IN ANY PROCEDURE, AFFECTING OR RELATING TO THE NECK, BACK, FACE, HEAD, BRAIN, HIPS, SHOULDERS, ARMS OR HEADACHES REGARDING OR RELATING TO Betty Duenas DOB (06/25/1981). As to the employment records subpoena to Planned Parenthood, as we discussed on the phone, we are willing to limit the language to eliminate any request for earnings records based on your representation that Plaintiff is not making a claim for lost earnings or earning capacity. Therefore, we plan to use the following language: ANY AND ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS, STATEMENTS, REPORTS, MEMORANDA CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: (1) DAYS ABSENT FROM WORK, EITHER PARTIAL OR TOTAL AND THE REASONS THEREFORE; (2) JOB DUTIES, JOB TITLE AND EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY; (3) RECORDS OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY AND FOR ILLNESS OR INJURY DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT; (4) APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT: (5) ALL HEALTH INSURANCE INFORMATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE NAME OF THE CARRIER, GROUP NUMBER, POLICY NUMBER TO THE PRESENT December 7, 2018 Page 3 of 8 AND; (6) EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS, EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS RELATING TO BETTY DUENAS DOB (06/25/1981). Please advise as soon as possible if these modifications are acceptable to your office. If so, I'll have the subpoenas reissued with the modified language. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery- Form Interrogatories- Your letter first addresses Form Interrogatories 6.1 through 6.7. You state that Plaintiff's injuries as a result of the accident and “pre-existing injuries” are relevant to prove “causation of injuries, biomechanics, and nature and extent of damages.” We do not agree that this information is discoverable in this matter. Defendant is not making a claim for bodily injuries in this case. As your correspondence regarding the subpoenas points out, under the California Constitution and Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, individuals have an “inalienable right to privacy” and California law is clear that the right to privacy extends to an individual's medical history and medical information. Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 850; In re Qawi (2004)32 Cal.4th 1, 14; Rains v. Belshe (1st Dist. 1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 157, 17L. That right to privacy is only waived by 1) express consent, 2) by raising a claim that places the medical information at issue, or 3) by failing to object. 7TBG Ins. Servs. v. Superior Court (2d Dist. 2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 452-53; Moskowitz v. Superior Court (2d Dist. 1982) 137 Cal. App.3d 313, 316-17; Best Prods. v. Superior Court (2d Dist 2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189-90. Defendant has not consented to disclosure of her medical information, and has objected to disclosure on the grounds of relevance and right to privacy. Further, Defendant has not raised any claims that would put her medical information or medical history at issue. Accordingly, these interrogatories are objectionable on the right to privacy and Defendant is not obligated to provide a responses beyond an objection. Defendant will not supplement these responses. Your letter next identified interrogatory 12.1. Although | believe the information stated in Defendant's response fully responds to the interrogatory, I'm happy to supplement this response to address each subsection. December 7, 2018 Page 4 of 8 Form Interrogatory 13.1 and 13.2 ask whether Defendant conducted surveillance of any individual involved in the subject accident and for any report concerning said surveillance. Although | understand that you disagree, this information is privileged. The purpose of the work product privilege is to encourage a thorough investigation of claims by protecting materials that could reveal an attorney's opinions and strategy in representing a client and to prevent one attorney from taking undue advantage of another attorney's industry and efforts. Code Civ. Proc. §2018.020; Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 497-98; Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 807, 814. To be protected, the material must be prepared by the attorney or the attorney's agents and must be prepared for a legal purpose. Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (5th Dist. 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911; Shandralina G. v. Homonchuk (4th Dist. 2007) 147 Cal. App.4th 396, 407; 2,022 Ranch LLC v. Superior Court (4th Dist. 2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1389-90; Costco Wholesale Corp v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725; Mack v. Superior Court (1st Dist. 1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10. Even a verbatim transcription or recording can be work product if it would reveal the attorney's strategy or opinions or the fact that the attorney chose to make the transcription or recording discloses tactical or evaluative information. Coito, supra, 54 Cal.4th at 496. Further, photographs and recordings taken by an attorney or the attorney's agent are protected as noncore work product. Code Civ. Proc. §§2016.020 (c), 2016.030; Evid. Code §250. Your letter extensively relies on the case Suezaki v. Superior Court to support your contention that the requested materials are not protected by the attorney work product privilege. However, the Suezaki case was decided in 1962 at a time when the work product privilege was not yet recognized under California law. Accordingly, the Suezaki holding has no relevance in this matter. Here, the requested materials would necessarily be materials created by my office or our agents for the purpose of evaluating this case and preparing for trial. In fact, the purpose of surveillance is to evaluate and investigate a party's claims and the existence or nonexistence of surveillance reveals my office's strategy in defending our client. We will therefore not provide a further response to these interrogatories. Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks for facts, witnesses, and documents to support each of Defendant's affirmative defenses. However, as you know, discovery in this December 7, 2018 Page 5 of 8 matter has just begun. In fact, my office has not even received Plaintiff's responses to our first set of discovery and no depositions have been taken. Your office has also objected to every subpoena issued by Defendant thus far and no records have been produced to date. As a result, this interrogatory is clearly premature as my client cannot provide information of which she has no knowledge. However, my office will provide a supplemental response responding to each subsection. As to Form Interrogatory 20.8, | understand that you believe my client has not stated how the accident happened. However, in reviewing her response, the accident is described in as much detail as Ms. Brito can provide at this time and as complete a response as possible has been provided. No further information can be provided at this time. Finally, you address Form Interrogatory 17.1. Per the discussion of Requests for Admission below, Defendant will provide a further response to this interrogatory to correspond with the further responses to requests for admission below. Special Interrogatories- Your letter identifies Special Interrogatories 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 and asks that Defendant provide a further response because they are not duplicative of Form Interrogatory 20.8. However, upon examination of the interrogatories, it is clear that many of them are duplicative. Form Interrogatory 20.1 asks Defendant to “state the date, time, and place of the incident.” Form Interrogatory 20.8 asks 1) how the accident occurred, and 2) the speed, direction and location of each vehicle involved before the accident, at the time of the accident, and after the accident. As stated above, Defendant provided as much information in response to Form Interrogatory 20.8 as possible. Special Interrogatory 1, 2 and 3 ask Defendant to state again how the accident occurred, the exact time of the accident, and the approximately time of the accident. Clearly, these interrogatories were already asked and answered in 20.1 and 20.8. Special Interrogatory 6 asks Defendant to state the speed of Plaintiff's vehicle prior to the accident. Again, this information was provided to Plaintiff in response to Form Interrogatory 20.8. Special Interrogatory 12 asks Defendant to explain where Plaintiff's vehicle was December 7, 2018 Page 6 of 8 in relation to Defendant's vehicle prior to the accident. This information was also provided in response to Form Interrogatory 20.8. Defendant agrees to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories 4, 5, 7, 8,10, and 11. You next state that Defendant should provide a further response to Special Interrogatory 26, which asks Defendant to provide her cell phone number at the time of the accident. Defendant objected on relevant, Utilities Code §2891 and privacy. There is no evidence whatsoever that my client was using her cell phone at the time of the accident. In fact, the only evidence regarding cell phone use is to the contrary-the police report in this matter indicates cell phone use was not a factor for any party. Therefore any information regarding my client's cell phone number or records is not discoverable as it is irrelevant. Moreover, cell phone records and information regarding who my client associates with are clearly protected under the California right to privacy. In order to obtain those records, you would have to show that the need for discovery of that information outweighs Defendant's privacy concerns. Where there is no indication of cell phone use as in this case, there is no need that could overcome Ms. Brito’s privacy rights. Therefore, we will not supplement this response. Special Interrogatory 27 asks Defendant set forth any statement made by Plaintiff regarding the incident. Defendant responded, “without waiving said objections, plaintiff spoke with a representative from State Farm on September 9, 2016. The interview was not recorded.” Your letter indicated that my office “must release the recorded statements,” but as you can see, Defendant has already responded that the interview was not recorded. A further response will not be provided. Special Interrogatory 28 asks Defendant to produce any statements she made concerning the incident. However, as indicated in Defendant's responses, any such statements in existence are privileged as they were made to her attorneys or agents of her attorneys. No non-privileged statements exist. A further response will not be provided. Requests for Production- Request for Production 6 and 7 asks Defendant to produce all sub rosa films, photographs or videos of Plaintiff since the subject accident. However, as stated above, these materials are protected by the attorney work product privilege. Accordingly, no December 7, 2018 Page 7 of 8 further response will be provided. Request for Production 23 asks for all documents regarding personal injury claims made by Defendant as a result of the subject accident. However, as Defendant stated in response to form interrogatories, she is not making a claim for personal injuries in this matter. Moreover, any information concerning claims would be protected by Defendant's right to privacy and the attorney client privilege, and any non-privileged information would be equally available to Plaintiff. No further response will be provided to this request. Request for Production 17 and 18 request documents regarding Defendant's cell phone records. As discussed above, this information is completely irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation as the evidence shows cell phone use was not a factor for any party. Additionally, this information is protected by Defendant's right to privacy. Therefore, no further response will be provided. Request for Production 10 and 11 seek statements by Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the subject accident. However, as stated above, the only statement made by Plaintiff to State Farm was not recorded and any statement by Defendant is protected by the attorney client privilege. No further response will be provided. Defendant agrees to provide a further response to Request for Production 27, 28, and 29. As to Request for Production 31, Plaintiff seeks all document concerning any communications or correspondence will anyone concerning the incident. This request is clearly overbroad and burdensome and does not state with specificity the documents requested. This request could encompass nearly any document imaginable, even if it has little or no relevance to this case. Moreover, the request would include numerous documents protected by the right to privacy, the attorney client privilege, and the attorney work product privilege. If you would like a further response, please indicate specifically what documents you seek from Defendant so that Defendant can determine whether she has any responsive, discoverable documents. Requests for Admission- Request for Admission 18 and 19 ask Defendant to admit that Defendant has not incurred health care expenses and has not been treated as a result of the accident. As stated above, information regarding Defendant's medical information and medical December 7, 2018 Page 8 of 8 history are protected by the right to privacy. Accordingly, no further response will be provided here. Requests 1 through 9 and 25 and 26 ask Defendant to admit, in different variations, that Defendant is responsible for the subject accident and that Plaintiff is not responsible. Similarly, Requests 13 through 15 ask that Defendant admit that Plaintiff experienced certain damages or injuries. However, not only would this require Defendant to provide an expert opinion and a legal conclusion, neither of which she is qualified to provide, but these requests are premature. Discovery has just begun and Defendant has not had a reasonable opportunity to investigate the subject accident or Plaintiff's claimed injuries. Accordingly, Defendant will provide further responses simply stating that she lacks sufficient information to admit or deny at this time. Requests 20 and 21 ask that Defendant admit she violated certain sections of the California vehicle code in causing the accident. First, Defendant cannot admit or deny these requests because she cannot admit or deny at this time that she was the cause of the subject accident. Second, she cannot admit or deny these requests because they would require specialized expert opinion. Accordingly, Defendant will again provide a further response indicating she is unable to admit or deny at this time. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. Very truly yours, CULLINS & GRANDY LLP EATHER G. COTE for DOUGLAS D. CULLINS DDC:hgc V:/DDCISF2334/Pf Atty.007 EXHIBIT E December 14, 2018 Via U.S. Mail and Facsimile: (949) 454-1409 Heather Cote, Esq. CULLINS & GRANDY LLP Moulton Park Place 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Re: Duenas v. Brito, et al. Dear Ms. Cote: This letter is in response to your meet and confer letter on December 7,2018, and our subsequent phone conversation on Monday, December 10, 2018. Defendant’s Record Subpoenas In regards to the medical subpoenas, thank you for agreeing to modify your subpoena with limitations to the specific body parts Plaintiff sustained injuries to in the subject accident. My only request is that you start off the subpoena with “Only records relating to the neck, back, face, head, brain, hips, shoulders, arms or headaches.” Thus, the subpoena language should read: ONLY REACORDS RELATING TO THE NECK, BACK, FACE, BRAIN, HIPS, SHOULDERS, ARMS OR HEADACHES. THE RECORDS REQUESTED INCLUDE ANY AND ALL RECORDS, LETTERS OR CORRESPONDENCE, EMAILS, DOCUMENTS, MEDICAL REPORTS INCLUDING DOCTORS! ENTRIES, NURSES' CHARTS, PROGRESS NOTES, PROGRESS REPORTS, PHYSICAL THERAPY RECORDS, X-RAY REPORTS, INCLUDING ANY DIGITAL X-RAY, MRI OR CT SCANS ON CD-ROM DISC OR DVD, LAB REPORTS, CASE HISTORY REPORTS, EMERGENCY ROOM RECORDS, ADMITTING SHEETS, SPECIAL TESTS AND SIGN-IN SHEETS PERTAINING TO THE CARE AND TREATMENT, DIAGNOSIS, CONDITION, DISCHARGE, RADIOLOGICAL FILMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MRI FILMS, MYELOGRAM FILMS, CT SCANS, X-RAYS, INVOICES, AND STATEMENT OF CHARGES RENDERED, CHARGES, BILLS, EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT, MEDI- CAL PAYMENT CLAIMS, PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS OR WRITE OFFS CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY 12881 Knott Street, Suite 225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Tt 714-895-3300 Fr 714-895-3600 czrlaw.com Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy LLP Re: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 14, 2018 Page: 2 of4 INSURANCE CLAIM FORMS AND PAYMENTS, CASH OR CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS, INCLUDING REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF BENEFITS FORMS, VIDEOTAPE AND/OR AUDIOTAPE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF DIGITAL FORMAT OF ANY PROCEDURES INCLUDING ANY AND ALL SURGICAL PROCEDURES, EXAMINATIONS OR INTERVIEWS ON DDR (DIRECT TO DISK RECORDING), VCR, DVD OR ANY OTHER DIGITAL FORMAT; COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS, AND/OR BLACK & WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS, ANY AND ALL PATIENT DISCLOSURES REGARDING FINANCIAL INTEREST, INVESTMENT INTEREST, AGENCY AGREEMENT, COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT OR OWNERSHIP IN ANY HEALTHCARE FACILITY, HEALTH-RELATED FACILITY, HOLDING COMPANY, RADIOLOGY FACILITY, MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF ANY MEDICAL DEVICES, SPINAL SURGERY DEVICE COMPANIES OR DISTRIBUTORS OR HOLDING COMPANIES, CLINICAL LABORATORY, PHYSICAL THERAPY, PHYSICAL REHABILITATION, DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING OR OUTPATIENT SURGERY, ANY AND ALL FLUOROSCOPIC IMAGING/FILMS FROM ANY PROCEDURE AND ASSOCIATED DATA AND REPORTS, ANY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, DRUGS AND/OR MEDICATIONS DISPENSED OR PRESCRIBED OR USED, INCLUDING IN ANY PROCEDURE, AFFECTING OR RELATING TO THE AFORMENTIONED BODY PARTS ONLY REGARDING OR RELATING TO Betty Duenas DOB (06/25/1981). Please let me know if this language is agreeable to you, and I will refrain from filing a motion to quash in regards to the medical subpoenas. As to the employment record subpoena to Planned Parenthood, following our conversation on Monday and after reviewing the amended language provided within your letter, | have no choice but to move forward with the Motion to Quash regarding Plaintiffs employment records. Plaintiff is not making a claim for lost earnings, and thus you are only entitled to records from Planned Parenthood involving injuries Plaintiff sustained from the collision. The language in this subpoena would have to be substantially similar to the above language in the medical subpoenas. I reiterated this to you during our December 10, 2018 phone conversation; however your modification continues to infringe on Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Please advise if there are any changes within your position regarding the employment subpoena. If not, I have no choice but to proceed in filing a Motion to Quash next week. CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY 12881 Knott Street, Suite 225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 71 714-895-3300 ¢ 714-895-3600 czrlaw.com Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy LLP Re: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito. et al. Date: December 14, 2018 Page: 3 of4 Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Discovery Subrosa (Form Interrogatories 13. & 13.2, Request for Productions 6 & 7) Your meet and confer letter contends that the authority within Suzeaki us not relevant because the case was decided in 1962. This is not true. The Suzeaki case remains the leading authority in California on this topic. Further, the California Judicial Council has confirmed this position recognizing the discoverability of sub rosa evidence as reflecting in Judicial Council Form Interrogatory 13 series. Finally, your meet and confer letter provides no authority reflecting that Suzeaki has been overturned. Your contention that sub rosa is privileged on the basis of the attorney work product protection is not well taken. Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, subsection (a), defines attorney work-products as “a writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances.” Civil Procedure section 2018.030(a) was deemed to not apply to sub rosa of a plaintiff. Suzeaki v. Superior Court 58 Cal.2d 175-177. Similarly, defense counsel cannot establish that sub rosa evidence is exempt from discovery based on the qualified work-product protection under section 2018.030(b). The party seeking discovery must show that there is good cause for the production of the evidence being sought, while the party claiming the statutory protection has the burden to prove that it applies and must do more than merely state that they want something protected. (See Fellows v. Supeior Court (1980) 108 Cal. App.3d 53, 66.) The Suzeki Court determined that the work-product objection was without merit because good cause indeed existed for the production of the sub rosa evidence in order to (1) protect against surprise; and (2) prepare for an examination of the person who performed the surveillance. (/d. at p.171) Thus, this objection will not preclude discovery of sub rosa evidence, As you may recall, our office filed this same motion in the recently tried case of Kelly Hampton v. Angela Jarasuanas. The Court examined the authority within Suzeaki v. Superior Court and found that under the circumstances, discovery of films is fair and equitable. Further, the discovery act is to be liberally construed to be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Laddon v. Superior Court (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 391, 395; Pac. Tel & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d. 161, 173.) A copy of the Court’s order is attached to this letter. CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY 12881 Knott Street, Suite 225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Tt 714-895-3300 ¢ 714-895-3600 czrlaw.com Heather Cote, Esq. Cullins & Grandy LLP Re: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito, et al. Date: December 14, 2018 Page: 4 of4 Please advise if there are any changes within your position regarding the discoverability of Sub Rosa. If not, I have no choice but to proceed in filing a Motion for a Further Response early next week. In the spirit of compromise and in an effort further meet and confer, I will forgo filing a motion regarding further responses in regards to the other matters including Defendant’s cell phone records and the request for admissions seeking Defendant’s position of responsibility, if liability in this matter is being admitted to. Your client rear ended another vehicle, causing a three car collision, and the Traffic Collision Report clearly places your client at fault. Please contact me today so we can further discuss your position regarding liability, and hopefully narrow down the some of these issues in an effort to avoid further court intervention. Sincerely, Carpenter Zuckerman & Rowley Wott Cacho Lakshmi Odedra, Esq. CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY 12881 Knott Street, Suite 225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Tt 714-895-3300 ¢ 71 4-895-3600 czrlaw.com EXHIBIT F H Cote From: H Cote Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 5:22 PM To: Lakshmi Odedra Subject: RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito Hi Lakshmi, I've asked our copy service to reissue all of the identified medical subpoenas with the language you suggested in your letter. | cannot agree to withdraw the Planned Parenthood subpoena, but in an effort to compromise, | have also asked that that subpoena be reissued with the limited language contained in my December 7, 2018 letter. I reviewed your letter regarding the sub rosa requests and | don’t see any new authority other than what you already provided in your initial meet and confer letter. If there is some new or different authority that I'm just not seeing, let me know. Your letter also stated that you were attaching the order from the Hampton case, but | don’t see that it was attached. Please forward at your convenience if you'd like me to take a look at it. I also don’t see any new authority regarding the requests for cell phone records or Defendant's responses to Requests for Admission. At this very early point in the case, we are not in a position to stipulate regarding liability. Accordingly, I'm not sure how | could help narrow down the dispute as to the written discovery any further. Again, if there is some additional authority you'd like me to review, please forward it and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks, Heather Cote Cullins & Grandy LLP 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204 Laguna Hills, Ca. 92653 949-454-2500 From: Lakshmi Odedra [mailto:Lakshmi@czrlaw.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 10:33 AM To: H Cote Subject: RE: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito Hello Heather, Please find the attached letter that is being sent to your office today. I was wondering if you were available to speak today to further meet and confer on this matter. Let me know your availability. Best, Lakshmi From: Lakshmi Odedra Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 1:24 PM To: 'H Cote Subject: Betty Duenas v. Norely Brito Hello Heather, Please find the attached Meet and Confer letter regarding recently issued subpoenas. Please let me know by 12:00pm on December 10, 2018, if you are willing to withdraw/amend the language within the subpoenas. | am available by phone and email if you would like to further meet and confer on this matter. Best Regards, Lakshmi LAKSHMI ODEDRA TRIAL LAWYER CZR CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley Beverly Hills Office 8827 W. Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 30211 T 310-273-1230 ext 226 F 310-858-1063 Orange County Office 12881 Knott Street, Suite 225, Garden Grove, CA 92841 T 714-895-3300 ext 226 F 714-895-3600 czrlaw.com 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013a(3) C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) | am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 204, Laguna Hills, California 92653. I, Ryan Cullins, on the date below, served the foregoing document described as OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; DECLARATION OF HEATHER G. COTE on all interested parties in this action addressed as follows: PLEASE SEE SERVICE LIST BY MAIL: As follows: | am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Laguna Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. | am 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. [1 BY FACSIMILE: By facsimile machine telephone (949)454-14009, | served a copy of the above document(s) to the facsimile telephone number(s) on the attached service list by transmitting via facsimile machine. The facsimile machine | used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2004 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2006(d), | caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission. [1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: | delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. Kl BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: | caused such envelope(s) to be personally elivered via [Federal Express], to the addressee(s) designated on the attached service list. IX] STATE: | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [ ] FEDERAL: | declare that | am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on March | , 2019 , at Laguna Hills, California: RYAN CULLINS a 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Law Offices of CULLINS & GRANDY 23141 Verdugo Dr. #204 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 454-2500 DEUNAS V. BRITO Orange County Superior Court - Central Case No.: 30-2018-01011995-CU-PA-CJC Daniel Beniji, Esq. Paul Zuckerman, Esq. CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP 8827 West Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 (310) 273-1230 (310) 858-1063 FAX Attorneys for Plaintiff, BETTY DUENAS
