Motion To Compel Answers To Special Interrogatories

Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 23, 2018

S M I T H LC ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Steven C. Smith, State Bar No. 116246 Michael H. Cooper, State Bar No. 272124 SMITH LC 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 925 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 416-5000 Facsimile: (949) 416-5555 Email: ssmith@smith-Ic.com Email: mcooper @smith-lc.com ELECTROMICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 04/26/2019 at 04:16:00 FM Clerk of the Superior Court By Robert Renison, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, VS. WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20. Defendants. WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a California corporation, Cross- Complainant, VS. NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC., a dissolved California corporation, LEONARD H. LUNDIN, an individual; LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO., a business entity form unknown; LUKO MANAGEMENT, INC. a suspended California corporation; and ROES 1 through 50. Cross - Defendants. CASE NO: 30-2018-01027512-CU-BC-CJC JUDGE: Hon. James Crandall DEPT.: C-33 Complaint Filed: Oct. 23, 2018 Trial Date: Oct. 21, 2019 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,655.00; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. COOPER Date: June 27, 2019 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C33 Reservation Number: 73034551 1 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE S M I T H LC ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 27, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department C33 of the above-captioned court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701, Defendant, WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION will move the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (specifically Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 22) served on Plaintiff on January 14, 2019. This motion is made pursuant Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300 on the grounds that the responding party has failed, without justification, to serve proper responses to these inspection demands. Notice is additionally given that Defendant will request that the Court award monetary sanctions against and Plaintiff and its attorney in favor of Defendant in the sum of $1655.00 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2023.010 et. seq., and Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(d). This motion is further based upon this notice; the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declaration of Michael H. Cooper and Separate Statement filed herewith; upon the records and files in this action; and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented prior to or at the time of hearing on the motion. Dated: April 26, 2019 SMITH LC wm IRA Steven C. Smith pe Michael H. Cooper, Attorneys for DefendantyWKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION 2 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE S M I T H LC A N nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This case is one where Plaintiff claims a real estate transaction was a lease while Defendant claims that it was a sale. At issue in this motion is the various Special Interrogatories that Plaintiff has provided insufficient responses. Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 5, 12, 15, and 18 These request ask Plaintiff to identify certain witnesses. The interrogatory defined “Identify” and required Plaintiff to “provide all information known, including complete contact information, e-mail address, name, address, telephone number, and mailing address of any responsive PERSON.” In response, Plaintiff simply provided names of the witnesses but nothing further. As set forth in the concurrently filed Separate Statement, Plaintiff’s objections are misplaced and it should be compelled to provide “all information known, including complete contact information, e-mail address, name, address, telephone number, and mailing address of any responsive PERSON.” A further response to these interrogatories is needed. Interrogatory Nos. 10 This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to provide “all facts” that support its first cause of action for anticipatory breach of the agreement. Plaintiff’s response is both evasive and non-responsive. Plaintiff simply identifies a number of documents but does not explain the facts that support its cause of action. Simply listing documents is insufficient. Defendant is entitled Plaintiff’s version of the facts - this is the purpose of discovery. Accordingly, a further response to this interrogatory is needed. Interrogatory Nos. 22 In response to this interrogatory, Plaintiff states that it will produce all non-privileged documents. As of the date of this motion, no documents have been produced. A further response identifying the documents and production of the actual documents must be compelled. 3 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE S M I T H LC ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL FURTHER WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THESE INTERROGATORIES “On receipt of a response to an interrogatory, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. 2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 3) An objection in the interrogatory is without merit or too general." Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300(a). As set forth below and in the concurrently file separate statement, Plaintiff’s responses are evasive and incomplete. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and inapposite. As it pertains to responsive documents that Plaintiff has represented to exist, they have not been identified or produced. Accordingly, the instant motion is proper. III. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES ARE DEFICIENT AND REQUIRE AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES The responding party to interrogatories must comply as follows: (a) Each answer in the 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. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220. 4 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE S M I T H LC ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As articulated in the concurrently file Separate Statement, Plaintiff’s responses to the interrogatories at issue are deficient, incomplete, and fail to provide proper responsive information. Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 5, 12, 15, and 18 These request ask Plaintiff to identify certain witnesses. The interrogatory defined “Identify” and required Plaintiff to “provide all information known, including complete contact information, e-mail address, name, address, telephone number, and mailing address of any responsive PERSON.” In response, Plaintiff simply provided names of the witnesses but nothing further. As set forth in the concurrently filed Separate Statement, Plaintiff’s objections are misplaced and it should be compelled to provide “all information known, including complete contact information, e-mail address, name, address, telephone number, and mailing address of any responsive PERSON.” A further response to these interrogatories is needed. Interrogatory Nos. 10 This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to provide “all facts” that support its first cause of action for anticipatory breach of the agreement. Plaintiff’s response is both evasive and non-responsive. Plaintiff simply identifies a number of documents but does not explain the facts that support its cause of action. Simply listing documents is insufficient. Defendant is entitled Plaintiff’s version of the facts - this is the purpose of discovery. Accordingly, a further response to this interrogatory is needed. Interrogatory Nos. 22 In response to this interrogatory, Plaintiff states that it will produce all non-privileged documents. As of the date of this motion, no documents have been produced. A further response identifying the documents and production of the actual documents must be compelled. 111 111 5 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE S M I T H LC ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. DEFENDANT HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN Code of Civ. Proc. §2030.300(b) provides that the motion "shall be accompanied by a meet] and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." "A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." Code of Civ. Proc. §2016.040. As stated in the accompanying Declaration of Michael H. Cooper, on March 26, 2019, defense counsel set Plaintiff's counsel a detailed meet and confer correspondence detailing the specific issues with the Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Defense counsel even requested a time to hold a telephonic meet and confer conference. Counsel for Plaintiff never responded and it was clear that this motion is necessary. V. CONCLUSION Defendant is entitled to certain information in order to mount its defense in preparation of trial which is scheduled for October 21, 2019. Plaintiff’s responses are incomplete and evasive. Accordingly, the court must order Plaintiff’s further responses. Defendant further requests the Court award monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel of record in the sum of $1,655.00 for being forced to bring this motion. Dated: April 26, 2019 SMITH LC ow TNA even C. Smith ichael H. Cooper Attorneys for Defendant, WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION 6 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE S M I T H LC A N nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. COOPER I, Michael H. Cooper, declare as follows: I. I make this declaration in support of Defendant WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if asked, I could and would competently testify to those facts. 2, I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of the State of California, and am an attorney of the law firm of Smith LC, counsel for Defendant WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION (“WKS”). 3 All exhibits attached hereto are true and correct copies of the documents more fully described in the body of the motion. 4. On January 14, 2019, WKS served Plaintiff with its Special Interrogatories, Set One. Exhibit “A”. 5. Plaintiff’s responses were served on March 12, 2019. Exhibit “B”. 6. Because the responses contained many deficiencies, I wrote a meet and confer letter, dated March 26, 2019 to Plaintiffs counsel. Exhibit “C”. 7. In my March 26, 2019, I detailed Defendant’s position pertaining to Plaintiffs evasive and incomplete discovery responses and requested that we (Plaintiff’s counsel and I) hold a telephonic meet and confer correspondence. As of the date of this declaration, I never received a substantive response and it was evident that this motion would be needed. 8. I have spent no less than 3.5 hours of time preparing this motion and accompanying separate statement. I anticipate spending an additional 2 hours in reviewing the anticipated opposition and Reply. Ihave accounted for travel to and presenting argument at the hearing in Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s corporate officer - Leonard H. Lundin’s deposition and am not accounting for that time in this motion. I have incurred a $60.00 filing fee in filing this motion. 7 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE S M I T H LC ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. My hourly rate as at attorney at Smith, LC is $290.00 per hour, which is what I am billing the Defendant in this matter. The attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this Motion are not less than $1,595.00. 10. Therefore, an appropriate award of sanctions of $1,655.00 as reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees related to this Motion to Compel. I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury of the State of California. Executed Friday, April 26, 2019 at Irvine, California. i 0) Fa H. a / 8 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Exhibit A S M I T H LC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Steven C. Smith, State Bar No. 116246 Michael H. Cooper, State Bar No. 272124 SMITH LC 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 925 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 416-5000 Facsimile: (949) 416-5555 Email: ssmith@smith-lc.com Email: mcooper@smith-lc.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC., a California | CASE NO: 30-2018-01027512-CU-BC-CJC Corporation, JUDGE: Hon. James Crandall DEPT.: C-33 Plaintiff, Complaint Filed: October 23,2018 Vs. Cross- Complaint Filed: December 31, 2018 Trial Date: Not Yet Set WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through | WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL 20. INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF Defendants. WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a California corporation, Cross- Complainant, VS. NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC., a dissolved California corporation, LEONARD H. LUNDIN, an individual; LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO., a business entity form unknown; LUKO MANAGEMENT, INC. a suspended California corporation; and ROES 1 through 50. Cross - Defendants. 1 WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF S M I T H LC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC., a California Corporation SET NO: ONE Defendant/Cross-Complainant, WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION requests that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC., a California Corporation answer the following Special Interrogatories separately and fully in writing and under oath, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2030.10 et seq., and that the answer be signed by the person making it, and be served upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days from the service of these interrogatories. INSTRUCTIONS 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. 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. 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. You may respond by attaching a copy of the document to your answers to these interrogatories. Whenever an address or 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. 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. I 2 WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF S M I T H LC 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORIES SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: IDENTIFY all each and every one of YOUR shareholders from 2003 to 2008. (The term “YOU”, "YOUR", and “YOURS” refers to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Northridge Foods, Inc., and/or any PERSON(S) acting as an employee, agent, or otherwise on its behalf. The term “IDENTIFY” means to provide all information known, including complete contact information, e-mail address, name, address, telephone number, and mailing address of any responsive PERSON. The term “PERSON has the same meaning as in Evidence Code Section 175; that is, it includes any natural person, corporation, association, firm, partnership, organization, governmental entity, or other business or legal entity.) SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: IDENTIFY all each and every one of YOUR officers from 2003 to 2008. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.3: IDENTIFY everyone that held a position on YOUR board of directors for each year in 2003 to 2008. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 4: IDENTIFY everyone that held a position on YOUR board of directors for each year in 2003 to 2008. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.5: IDENTIFY each and every individual that voted to dissolve YOU in 2008. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.6: Did YOU hire a tax professional or third party to file YOUR taxes from 2003 to 2008? SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.7: If the answer to the immediately preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY who YOU hire to prepare/file YOUR taxes from 2003 to 2008. 11 3 WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF S M I T H LC 10 11 1) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.8: Have YOU file a tax return after 2008? SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.9: If the answer to the immediately preceding interrogatory is in the negative, IDENTIFY the reasons why YOU did not file a tax return after 2008. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.10: IDENTIFY all facts that support YOUR first cause of action that WKS has or will breach the written contract. (The term “WKS” refers to Defendant/Cross-Complainant WKS Restaurant Corporation, and/or any PERSON(S) acting as an employee, agent or otherwise on its behalf’) SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.11: IDENTIFY the written contact which YOU contend WKS has or will breach. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.12: IDENTIFY all witnesses that support YOUR first cause of action that WKS has or will breach the written contract. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.13: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR first cause of action that WKS has or will breach the written contract. (The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean all “writings” and “recordings” as those terms are defined in Evidence Code § 250 and shall include all writings, including without limitation handwriting, typewriting, printing, digital image, photograph, photocopy, transmittal by (or as an attachment to) electronic mail (“e-mail”) (including instant messages and text messages) or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored, and all non-identical copies of such DOCUMENTS, including, but not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, drafts, reports, financial statements, notes, records, letters, envelopes, telephone logs, messages (including reports, notes, and memoranda of personal or other telephone conversations and conferences), contracts, 4 WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF S M I T H LC 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28 agreements, summaries, tapes, disks, computer files retained on any form of memory (including hard drives), printouts, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained (translated, if necessary, through detection devices to usable form), and other writings or DOCUMENTS of whatever description or kind, in the possession, custody, or control of YOU, YOUR counsel, or any other PERSON acting on YOUR behalf.) SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.14: IDENTIFY all facts that support your allegation that “Plaintiff owns the Property and the physical building thereon” as asserting in §27 of YOUR Complaint. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.15: IDENTIFY all witnesses that support your allegation that “Plaintiff owns the Property and the physical building thereon” as asserting in 427 of YOUR Complaint. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.16: IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support your allegation that “Plaintiff owns the Property and the physical building thereon” as asserting in 27 of YOUR Complaint. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.17: IDENTIFY each and every fact that supports YOUR contention that YOU are the title holder of the Property as referenced in 31 of YOUR Complaint. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.18: IDENTIFY each and every witness that supports YOUR contention that YOU are the title holder of the Property as referenced in 31 of YOUR Complaint. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.19: IDENTIFY each and every document that supports YOUR contention that YOU are the title holder of the Property as referenced in 31 of YOUR Complaint. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.20: IDENTIFY what YOU contend to be the “intention of the parties to the Commercial Lease and Addendum” as referenced in §32 of YOUR Complaint. 11 1 5 WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF S M I T H LC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.21: IDENTIFY all obligations that YOU “stand ready and able to perform . . . under the Commercial Lease and Addendum” as referenced in {33 of YOUR Complaint. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.22: IDENTIFY all correspondence between YOU and WKS pertaining to the sale of the Property. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.23: Since YOU contend WKS was leasing the premises from YOU, why do YOU contend that WKS paid YOU $1,000,000.00 in 2004. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.24: Identify all DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention that YOU have any property rights in the SUBJECT PROPERTY. (The term “SUBJECT PROPERTY” shall mean the real property identified in YOUR Complaint located at 19640 Nordhoff Blvd., Northridge, CA.) SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.25: Identify the person with the most knowledge who can be subjected to a deposition on YOUR behalf and be questioned about YOUR purported property rights in the subject Property. Dated: January 14, 2019 Steven C. Smith it / Michael H. Cooper ‘Attorneys for Defendant, WKS TAURANT CORPORATION / 6 WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF S M I T H LC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Northridge Foods v. WKS Restaurant OCSC Case No. 30-2018-01027512 I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Orange, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 925, Irvine, CA 92612. On January 14, 2019, I served the following: WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE on all interested parties in this action by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage pre-paid, addressed as follows: Ryan N. Burns ZFATY | BURNS 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 398-8080 Fax: (949) 398-8081 Email: mb@zfatyburns.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Northridge Foods, Inc. [X] [MAIL] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Irvine, California, addressed as set forth above. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mail. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I 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] [FACSIMILE] by transmitting Via Facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m. [ ] [OVERNIGHT MAIL] by Federal Express of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above. [ ] [PERSONAL DELIVERY] by causing delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above. [ ] [EMAIL] by causing to be sent via electronic mail in the above mentioned document to the parties to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 14, 2019, in Irvine, Californ] WKS RESTAURANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF Exhibit B ZFATY | BURNS OO 00 JI A N Ln BA W N = N N N N N N N N H m m e e m e m e m e m ~~ O N Dn Br W D = DO 0 0 0 N D N R W = O 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 470 CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 398-8080 Motion to Compel deadline 4/26 ZFATY | BURNS RYAN N. BURNS, State Bar No. 215939 rnb @zfatyburns.com 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470 Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone: (949) 398-8080 Facsimile: (949) 398-8081 Attorneys for Plaintiff NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC., a California Case No.: 30-2018-01027512-CU-BC-CJC corporation, Assigned for all purposes to: HON. JUDGE JAMES CRANDALL Plaintiffs Dept. C33 VS. WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20. | DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] Defendants PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 [|[PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION 2 [RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff NORTHRIDGE FOODS, INC. 3 |ISET NO.: ONE 4 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 6 The following responses are based upon the records and information presently available to 7 ||Responding Party and are given without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to amend its 8 |lresponses should additional information be subsequently discovered. 9 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 10 Responding Party has not fully completed its investigation of facts relating to this case, 11 |{has not fully completed its discovery in this matter, and has not completed its preparation for 12 [ftrial. 13 All of the answers contained herein are based only upon such information and documents 14 |[which are presently available and specifically known to Responding Party and disclose only those 15 |lintentions which are presently known to it. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent 16 |linvestigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts, add meaning to the known 17 | facts, as well as establish entirely new factual contentions and legal contentions, all of which may 18 {lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the Responses herein set forth. 19 The following Responses are given without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to 20 |[produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which may later be developed. 21 |The answers contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual 22 |[information and specification as is presently known, which in no way is to be considered 23 |[prejudicial to Responding Party with relation to further discovery, research, analysis or 24 |[production of evidence. 25 These responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action. Each 26 |[answer is given question to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections 27 |[competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and admissibility), which would require the 28 |[exclusion of any statement contained herein as made by a witness present and testifying in court. 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH cms -2- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 [|All objections and grounds, therefore, are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. 2 [|Except for facts specifically admitted herein, no admission of any nature, whatsoever, is to be 3 |limplied or inferred. 4 ||ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 5 IDENTIFY all each and every one of YOUR shareholders from 2003 to 2008. 6 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 7 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, 8 |lambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome, particularly with regard 9 ||to the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” provided by the propounding party (which by Propounding 10 [[Party’s definition includes Responding Party’s employee, agent, among potentially countless 11 | other people). Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the 12 ||privacy rights of Responding Party and third parties as protected by the Constitution of the State 13 |lof California. Responding Party does not articulate a compelling need for this discovery. Plaintiff 14 | further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to 15 [the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff 16 [responds as follows: Leonard H. Lundin, Diane Kolodziejski, William Brusslan, Walter Beck. 17 [SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 18 IDENTIFY all each and every one of YOUR officers from 2003 to 2008. 19 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 20 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, 21 |[ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome, particularly with regard 22 [to the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” provided by the propounding party (which by Propounding 23 [|Party’s definition includes Responding Party’s employee, agent, among potentially countless 24 |[other people). Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not 25 |[reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to 26 |[this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and without 27 [waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Leonard H. Lundin; Walter Beck; William 28 |[Brusslan; Christopher J. Kolodziejski; Cynthia I. Kolodziesjski. Discovery is continuing. 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE enor sec cms -3- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 ||ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 2 IDENTIFY everyone that held a position on YOUR board of directors for each year in 3 12003 to 2008. 4 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 5 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably 6 | calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said 7 ||objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Leonard H. Lundin; Walter Beck; William Bruslam; 8 || Christopher J. Kolodziejski; Cynthia I. Kolodziesjski. Discovery is continuing. 9 |ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 10 IDENTIFY everyone that held a position on YOUR board of directors for each year in 11 ][2003 to 2008. 12 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 13 Objection. This appears to be identical to Special Interrogatory Number 3, and is thus 14 | duplicative, redundant and has been asked and answered. 15 [SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 16 IDENTIFY each and every individual that voted to dissolve YOU in 2008. 17 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 18 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably 19 Jlcalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this 20 |linterrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving 21 ||said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Leonard H. Lundin; Christopher J. Kolodziejski; 22 |[Cynthia I. Kolodziejski. Discovery is continuing. 23 (SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 24 Did YOU hire a tax professional or third party to file YOUR taxes from 2003 to 2008? 25 (RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.6: 26 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades Responding 27 ||Party’s privacy as protected by the Constitution of the State of California, and Responding Party 28 |[has not articulated a compelling need for this discovery. Responding Party further objects to this 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH cms 4- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 ||Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of 2 [lrecords and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product 3 ||doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably 4 |[calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding these 5 |lobjections, Responding Party responds as follows: Yes. 6 ||SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 7 If the answer to the immediately preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY 8 ||who YOU hire to prepare/file YOUR taxes from 2003 to 2008. 9 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 10 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades Responding 11 [[Party’s privacy as protected by the Constitution of the State of California, and Responding Party 12 |lhas not articulated a compelling need for this discovery. Responding Party further objects to this 13 ||Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of 14 |frecords and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product 15 |{doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably 16 [calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding these 17 |lobjections, Responding Party responds as follows: KBT TAX INC. 18 [SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 19 Have YOU filed a tax return after 2008? 20 (RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 21 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades 22 [Responding Party’s privacy as protected by the Constitution of the State of California, and 23 |[Responding Party has not articulated a compelling need for this discovery. Responding Party 24 |[further objects to this Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the 25 |[production of records and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the 26 ||attorney work product doctrine. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that 27 lit is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and 28 |[notwithstanding these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: No. 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH cms 5- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 ||ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 2 If the answer to the immediately preceding interrogatory is in the negative, IDENTIFY 3 [[the reasons why YOU did not file a tax return after 2008. 4 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 5 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, 6 |lambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome, particularly with regard 7 |to the terms “YOU” and “YOUR” provided by the propounding party (which by Propounding 8 |[Party’s definition includes Responding Party’s employee, agent, among potentially countless 9 [lother people). Responding Party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it 10 Jfinvades Responding Party’s privacy as protected by the Constitution of the State of California, 11 Jland Responding Party has not articulated a compelling need for this discovery. Furthermore, 12 ||Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of records and 13 |[documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. 14 || Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to 15 |{lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding these objections, 16 |[Responding Party responds as follows: The entity was dissolved. 17 (SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 18 IDENTIFY all facts that support YOUR first cause of action that WKS has or will breach 19 |[the written contract. 20 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 21 Objection. Calls for legal conclusion and is a question to present to the trier-of-fact. 22 |[Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 23 |[oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome, particularly with regard to the terms “YOU” and 24 “YOUR” provided by the propounding party (which by Propounding Party’s definition includes 25 [Responding Party’s employee, agent, among potentially countless other people). Plaintiff further 26 |[objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff further objects to 27 |[this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 28 |[admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH cms -6- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 [facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as 2 |[follows: The December 1, 1987 Ground Lease for the Balboa Nordhoff Center; September 1, 3 [[2004 First Amendment to Lease; December 2, 2004 Assignment of and Second Amendment to 4 |[Lease; December 27, 2004 Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease - Net, Option(s) 5 [to Extend, and Addendum to Lease; and the Complaint filed with the court herein. Discovery is 6 | continuing. 7 ||ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 8 IDENTIFY the written contract which YOU contend WKS has or will breach. 9 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 10 Objection. Calls for legal conclusion and is a question to present to the trier-of-fact. 11 ||Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 12 [loppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome, particularly with regard to the terms “YOU” and 13 “YOUR” provided by the propounding party (which by Propounding Party’s definition includes 14 [[Responding Party’s employee, agent, among potentially countless other people). Plaintiff further 15 |lobjects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff further objects to 16 | this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 17 |{admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes 18 |[facts not in evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as 19 | follows: The December 1, 1987 Ground Lease for the Balboa Nordhoff Center; September 1, 20 [12004 First Amendment to Lease; December 2, 2004 Assignment of and Second Amendment to 21 | Lease; December 27, 2004 Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease - Net, Option(s) 22 | to Extend, and Addendum to Lease. Discovery is continuing. 23 (SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 24 IDENTIFY all witnesses that support YOUR first cause of action that WKS has or will 25 |[breach the written contract. 26 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 27 Herb Lundin; Christopher J. Kolodziejski; Cynthia I. Kolodziesjski; Propounding Party, 28 |[Karl Nikenejad, Cathy Hilts. 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH cms -7- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 2 ||ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 3 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR first cause of action that WKS has or 4 [will breach the written contract. 5 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 6 Objection. Calls for legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 7 |[that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff 8 ||further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff further 9 |[objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 10 |{discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff 11 [responds as follows: the December 1, 1987 Ground Lease for the Balboa Nordhoff Center; 12 ||September 1, 2004 First Amendment to Lease; December 2, 2004 Assignment of and Second 13 ||Amendment to Lease; December 27, 2004 Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease 14 ||- Net, Option(s) to Extend, and Addendum to Lease; Correspondence from Propounding Party 15 [dated April 12, 2018; Propounding Party’s notice of exercise of the Ground Lease extension 16 |[dated August 2, 2018. Discovery is continuing and Responding Party reserves the right to 17 |supplement this response accordingly. 18 (SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 19 IDENTIFY all facts that support your allegation that "Plaintiff owns the Property and the 20 [Iphysical building thereon” as asserted in Paragraph 27 of YOUR Complaint. 21 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 22 Objection. Calls for legal conclusion and is a question to present to the trier-of-fact. 23 |[Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 24 |[oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the 25 |[grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 26 |[Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. 27 |[Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Responding Party 28 |[was the title holder of the real property in question. Nothing in any of the agreements alleged in 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH cms -8- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 [the pleadings effectuates the transfer of real property to Propounding Party. Propounding Party 2 [|has always been and remains a lessee with respect to the subject real property. Responding 3 || Party’s interest in the real property was distributed on dissolution to its rightful owners. 4 [Discovery is continuing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as 5 |ladditional information becomes available. 6 ||SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 7 IDENTIFY all witnesses that support your allegation that "Plaintiff owns the Property and 8 |[the physical building thereon” as asserted in Paragraph 27 of YOUR Complaint. 9 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 10 Herb Lundin; Christopher J. Kolodziejski; Cynthia I. Kolodziesjski; Propounding Party, 11 |{Karl Nikenejad, Cathy Hilts. 12 (SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 13 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support your allegation that "Plaintiff owns the 14 [Property and the physical building thereon” as asserted in Paragraph 27 of YOUR Complaint. 15 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 16 Objection. Calls for legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 17 J that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff 18 | further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff further 19 Jlobjects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 20 |[discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff 21 | responds as follows: the December 1, 1987 Ground Lease for the Balboa Nordhoff Center; 22 ||September 1, 2004 First Amendment to Lease; December 2, 2004 Assignment of and Second 23 ||Amendment to Lease; December 27, 2004 Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease 24 || Net, Option(s) to Extend, and Addendum to Lease; various records of the relevant county 25 |[recorder, which Responding Party does not presently possess but intends to obtain. Discovery is 26 |[continuing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response accordingly. 27 28 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH mys 9- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 ||SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 2 IDENTIFY each and every fact that supports YOUR contention that YOU are the title 3 ||holder of the Property referenced in Paragraph 31 of YOUR Complaint. 4 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 5 Objection. This request is redundant and in essence duplicative of Special Interrogatory 6 ||No. 14. This request calls for legal conclusion and is a question to present to the trier-of-fact. 7 ||Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 8 |loppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the 9 [lgrounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 || Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence. 11 |[Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Responding Party 12 [was the title holder of the real property in question. Nothing in any of the agreements alleged in 13 ||the pleadings effectuates the transfer of real property to Propounding Party. Propounding Party 14 Jhas always been and remains a lessee with respect to the subject real property. Responding 15 [[Party’s interest in the real property was distributed on dissolution to its rightful owners. 16 || Discovery is continuing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as 17 |ladditional information becomes available. 18 [SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 19 IDENTIFY each and every witness that supports YOUR contention that YOU are the title 20 |{holder of the Property referenced in Paragraph 31 of YOUR Complaint. 21 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 22 Herb Lundin; Christopher J. Kolodziejski; Cynthia I. Kolodziesjski; Propounding Party, 23 |[Karl Nikenejad, Cathy Hilts. 24 (SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 25 IDENTIFY each and every document that supports YOUR contention that YOU are the 26 |[title holder of the Property referenced in Paragraph 31 of YOUR Complaint. 27 28 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE enor sec ne -10- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 2 Objection. Calls for legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 3 ||that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff 4 [further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff further 5 [[objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 6 [discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff 7 |[responds as follows: the December 1, 1987 Ground Lease for the Balboa Nordhoff Center; 8 ||September 1, 2004 First Amendment to Lease; December 2, 2004 Assignment of and Second 9 |[Amendment to Lease; December 27, 2004 Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease 10 ||- Net, Option(s) to Extend, and Addendum to Lease; various records of the relevant county 11 |frecorder, which Responding Party does not presently possess but intends to obtain. Discovery is 12 |lcontinuing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response accordingly. 13 [SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 14 IDENTIFY what YOU contend to be the "intention of the parties to the Commercial 15 |[Lease and Addendum" as referenced in Paragraph 32 of YOUR Complaint. 16 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 17 Objection. The document speaks for itself. This interrogatory calls for legal conclusion 18 Jland is a question to present to the trier-of-fact. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the 19 |lgrounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome, 20 |[Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff 21 |[further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to 22 | the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 23 |[that it assumes facts not in evidence. Discovery is continuing and Responding Party reserves the 24 |[right to supplement this response accordingly. Subject to and notwithstanding these objections, 25 |[Responding Party responds as follows: The parties intended for the Responding Party to be 26 |[landlord and the Propounding Party tenant pursuant to the express terms of the document 27 | referenced. There is nothing in that document evidencing an intent to transfer real property or any 28 |[interest therein. 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH Fr 11 - PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 2 ||ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 3 IDENTIFY all obligations that YOU "stand ready and able to perform ... under the 4 [Commercial Lease and Addendum" as referenced in Paragraph 33 of YOUR Complaint. 5 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 6 Objection: The document speaks for itself. Subject to and notwithstanding that objection, 7 ||[Responding Party has performed all of its obligations as expressly set forth in the referenced 8 ||document and remains prepared to do so. 9 |ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 10 IDENTIFY all correspondence between YOU and WKS pertaining to the sale of the 11 || Property. 12 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 13 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, 14 Jfambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome. It is also duplicative of 15 [[Propounding Party’s document requests. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory to the extent 16 | that it calls for speculation. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff responds as 17 |{follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in 18 |[connection with its responses to Propounding Party’s document requests. 19 (SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 20 Since YOU contend WKS was leasing the premises from YOU, why do YOU contend 21 |[that WKS paid YOU $1,000,000.00 in 2004. 22 (RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: 23 The $1,000,000 was related to Propounding Party’s purchase of the business, not 24 |[including any real property or interest therein. 25 (ISPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 26 Identify all DOCUMENTS which support YOUR contention that YOU have any property 27 |[rights in the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 28 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH oT -12- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] 1 ||RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 2 Objection. Calls for legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 3 ||that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, harassing and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff 4 [further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for speculation. Plaintiff further 5 |lobjects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 6 [discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Plaintiff 7 |[responds as follows: the December 1, 1987 Ground Lease for the Balboa Nordhoff Center; 8 ||September 1, 2004 First Amendment to Lease; December 2, 2004 Assignment of and Second 9 |[Amendment to Lease; December 27, 2004 Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease 10 ||- Net, Option(s) to Extend, and Addendum to Lease; various records of the relevant county 11 |frecorder, which Responding Party does not presently possess but intends to obtain. Discovery is 12 |[continuing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response accordingly. 13 [SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 14 Identify the person with the most knowledge who can be subjected to a deposition on 15 ||YOUR behalf and be questioned about YOUR purported property rights in the subject Property. 16 [RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 17 Herb Lundin. 18 19 |[Dated: March 12, 2019 ZFATY | BURNS 20 21 55 RYANN. BURNS Attorneys for Plaintiffs NORTHRIDGE FOODS, 23 INC. 24 25 26 27 28 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRE EwroRT BEACH Fr -13- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE] ZFATY | BURNS O O OV 0 N N O N Un A W N - N O R O N O N NN N O N O N em oe m e a sm s b a e a em a e a me ee N O N nm A W N - O D N S N R L Y - 28 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 470 NEWPORT BEACH Cal IFORNIA 92660 {949) 336-8080 VERIFICATION I, Herb Lundin, am the principal of Northridge Foods, Inc., a dissolved corporation, who is a Plaintiff to the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing documents and know the contents thereof: Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). The matters stated in the foregoing documents are true to my own knowledge, except those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 12, 2019, Huntington XM By: Herb Lundin Its: Principal Beach, California. -4. PLEADING © 00 39 a wn BA W O N = N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m e m p m e m co 9 O N nn kA W I N D = O O X N N N N R E W N R Oo PROOF OF SERVICE Northridge Foods, Inc. v. WKS Restaurant Corporation OCSC Case No. 30-2018-01027512 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE. I, Edwyn F. Santos, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years of age and not a party to the within action. My business address is 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470, Newport Beach, CA 92660. On March 12, 2019, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One); Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant WKS Restaurant Corporation’s Request for Admission (Set One); Plaintiff Northridge Foods, Inc.’s Responses to Defendant WKS Restaurant Corporation’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); and Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). F W N E on the following interested parties in this action: [ X] BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: I placed the a bove-referenced document(s) in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited said envelope in the U.S. Postal Service mailbox at 660 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California on the date stated above, addressed to each of the named parties listed on the SERVICE LIST. [ 1 BYPERSONAL DELIVERY: On this date I caused a true copy of the above- referenced document to be delivered by hand to each of the parties listed on the SERVICE LIST by using the services of Nationwide Legal Support. [ X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be sent by electronic mail to the e-mail addresses of each party listed on the SERVICE LIST. Executed on March 12, 2019 at Newport Beach, California. [X ] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. on EDWYNF. SANTOS © 00 39 a wn BA W O N = N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m e m p m e m co 9 O N nn kA W I N D = O O X N N N N R E W N R Oo SERVICE LIST Northridge Foods, Inc. v. WKS Restaurant Corporation OCSC Case No. 30-2018-01027512 Steven c¢. Smith Michael H. Cooper SMITH LC 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 925 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel.: (949) 416-5000 Fax.: (949) 416-5555 Email: ssmith@smith-lc.com mcooper@smith-lc.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION Exhibit C S M | | H | C Steven C. Smith *§ Douglas M. Campbell John S. Clifford * Richard R. Thomas T#’ Stephen C. Biggs T Stephanie P. Alexander” Kipp S. Muir * Via Email Only Devin M. Tarwater rnb@zfatyburns.com Michael H. Cooper March 26, 2019 Of Counsel” Vonde M. Smith Ryan N. Burns os *Also admitted in Utah ZFATY | BURNS §Also admitted in Arizona 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470 aad dn ror Newport Beach, CA 92660 #Also admitted in Georgia ‘Also admitted in Wyoming ~Only admitted in Wyoming Re: Northridge Foods, Inc. v. WKS Restaurant Corp. OCSC Case No. 30-2018-01027512 Michael H. Cooper mcooper @smith-lc.com Dear Mr. Burns: direct: 949.396.2585 We are in receipt of your client’s written discovery responses. These discovery responses are insufficient and fail to identify certain substantive aspects of your case and allegations. We write to meet and confer and anticipate that law and motion will not be necessary should complete and lawful responses be provided. Request for Production of Documents First, we note there are a number of requests where Plaintiff has agreed to produced documents - namely in response to Nos. 2-12, 14, and 16. As of the date of this letter, Plaintiff has not served any responsive documents to the requests. We demand that this documents be served with five business days of this correspondence - by April 2, 2019 RFP Nos. 1 and 15. As a preliminary note, Plaintiff is a corporate entity and not an individual. This request seeks Northridge’s Foods, Inc. corporate tax returns from the years of 2003 to 2017. Plaintiff suggests that Defendant has not shown a “compelling need” for discovery. This objection and characterization of the scope of discovery is highly misplaced. Relevance - Scope of Discovery Contrary to your position, a party is entitled to disclosure in discovery as "a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it." Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378. The intention of the discovery statutes is to make discovery a "simple, convenient, and inexpensive" means of revealing the truth and exposing false claims. Id. at 376. Another 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 Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107. Orange County, CA | Phoenix, AZ | Provo, UT | Jackson, WY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 925 | Irvine, California 92612 | tel: 949.416.5000 | fax: 949.416.5555 | www.smith-lc.com SMITH LC Ryan N. Burns ZFATY | BURNS March 26, 2019 Page 2 California courts have reiterated that discovery provisions in the Civil Discovery Act (CCP §§2016.010-2036.050), are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.App.5th 531, 541 ("In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad"); Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1383 (absent showing that substantial interests will be impaired by allowing discovery, liberal policies of discovery rules will generally counsel against overturning trial court's decision granting discovery and militate in favor of overturning decision to deny discovery). Essentially, the only limitation on discovery is the requirement that a court narrow the scope of discovery "if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." CCP §2017.020(a); Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378. Privilege of Tax Returns & Bank Statements. Based on your objections, the responding party must provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.240(c)(1). While you may be accurate that tax returns are generally not discoverable, your position fails to take in to account the nuisance Plaintiff’s own allegations. The right of privacy under the California Constitution protects the privacy rights only of people, not that of corporations. Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770. Regardless, the privilege against discovery of tax returns is not absolute. Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721. When the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with continued assertion of the privilege (as is the case here), the privilege has been waived. Wilson v. Superior Court (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 825, 830. In this lawsuit, you are asserting that Northridge is a lessor and entitled to rents. Northridge was a party to the contract, but as you know - Northridge ceased to exist when it was dissolved over ten years ago. The question we are now trying to answer is where did the “rent” go, who received it, and who realized it as income. If Northridge does not have tax returns, we request that you provide immediate notification to our office and serve amended responses. It is well established that when counsel for a party objects to production of documents based on privilege, counsel implies that the documents in question exist and have been reviewed. Objections made to requests for production of documents that do not exist or are not in the attorney's or party's possession violate an attorney's ethical duty under Bus & Prof. Code to act truthfully and constitute bad faith. Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys. (1993) 13 Cal. App.4th 976, 991 nS. The court in Bihun ruled that when counsel admitted at trial that a file could not be located, his previous objection to its production on the grounds of privacy and irrelevancy was in bad faith and violated Bus & Prof. Code §6068(d). SMITH LC Ryan N. Burns ZFATY | BURNS March 26, 2019 Page 3 Defendant is entitled to Plaintiff’s tax returns. Because the contract, Plaintiff received money from Defendant. Plaintiff’s tax returns are the best source of information to determine how the money was received and realized. Plaintiff does not have a right to privacy to shield itself from disclosure and by the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, the tax returns are relevant. Defendant is also entitled to Plaintiff’s bank statements for the same reasons. This are corporate statements that contain information about the payments received from Defendant. They are relevant and should be produced. RFP No. 13 Your response is confusing. Does Northridge contend that it never received $1,000,000.00 in 2004? Your response contends that “no such documents have ever existed” is perplexing. Again, in support of our RFP No. 1, wouldn’t payment be indicated on Northridge’s tax returns? We are entitled to all documents which evidence the $1,000,000.00 paid to Plaintiff that may be in his possession. Special Interrogatories SROG Nos. 1-3, 5, 12, 15, and 18 While the information that you provided is appreciated, it is insufficient. Our definition of the term “IDENTIFY” required Plaintiff to provide “all information known, including complete contact information, e-mail address, name, address, telephone number and mailing address of any responsive person”. While Plaintiff has provided various names, Defendant is entitled to the additional information sought. SROG No. 10 This requests asks that you provide all facts that support your first cause of action. Plaintiff’s response is non-responsive; it simply identifies a number of documents. This interrogatory is designed to discover Plaintiff’s position pertaining to the cause of action. Plaintiff’s current response is insufficient and inadequate. Please provide a supplemental response. SROG No. 22 In response to this interrogatory, Plaintiff states that it will produce all non-privileged documents. As of the date of this letter, no documents have been produced. Please produce all non-privileged documents within five business days (by April 2, 2019) of this correspondence. In addition, Defendants request that Plaintiff provide a privilege log which provides sufficient factual information so that we can verify the veracity of the objections. SMITH LC Ryan N. Burns ZFATY | BURNS March 26, 2019 Page 4 Form Interrogatories FROG Nos. 8.1-8.8 If Plaintiff is claiming loss of income, then this interrogatory series must be completed. In responses to 8.1, Plaintiff states that it is not claiming a loss of income but then qualifies the response by stating “Responding party claims damages in the form of the loss of rents due under the lease.” I’m not sure how else Plaintiff would classify “rents due” other than income. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to obtain Plaintiff’s evidence of the amount claimed, when it was due, and any documents that support the claim. Full and complete responses to this series of interrogatories Conclusion Based on the foregoing material, Defendant is entitled to further responses to its written discovery. The scope of discovery is broad and Plaintiff has failed to comply with it responding obligations. We are hopeful that law and motion can be avoided. Should you wish to discuss the substance of this correspondence, please contact us so that we can set up a time to have a telephonic meet and confer conference. Otherwise, please provide further responses by April 9, 2019. Very truly yours, pa ly MHC/ S M I T H LC A N nn W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Northridge Foods, Inc. v. WKS Restaurant Corporation, et al. OSCS Case No.: 30-2018-01027512-CU-BC-CJC I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Orange, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 925, Irvine, CA 92612. On April 26, 2019, 1 affected electronic service of the following: DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,655.00; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. COOPER on all interested parties in this action listed below: Ryan N. Burns ZFATY | BURNS 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 398-8080 Fax: (949) 398-8081 Email: mb@ zfatyburns.com Attorney for Plaintiff Northridge Foods, Inc. By submitting an electronic version of the documents(s) to One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 26, 2019, in Irvine, California. Em. J Kalen Canaan 9 MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINITFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE