Motion_to_compel_further_discovery_responses

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.June 23, 2017

Electronically F|LED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/11/2019 12:58 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Lopez,Deputy {lerk I' || Stephen M. Johnson State Bar No. 302029 Anthony E. Vieira, State Bar No. 175767 BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP 3 || 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7100 411 (818) 992-1500 (818)992-1541 Fax Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6 || BONNIE BLACK 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES —- STANLEY MOSK 10 || BONNIE BLACK, ) CASE NO.: BC666359 ) = Plaintiff, ) Assigned For All Purposes To: 12 ) Honorable Laura A. Seigle Vv. ) 13 ) Department: 4B PLAZA PACOIMA, LLC; PRIMESTOR ) '4 || DEVELOPMENT, INC.; COSTCO ) NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING 15 || WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 ) FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S through 200, Inclusive, ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 16 ) DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR) TO Defendants. ) DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE u ) CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD 18 ) OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT, INC, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 19 ) AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF 5 Cross-Complainants, ) STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ) ORDER 21 || Vv. ) ) DATE: November 8, 2019 22 || ROES 1 through 20, Inclusive, ) TIME: 10:00 a.m. ” ) DEPT.: “4B” Cross-Defendants. ) Reservation ID: 707412686730 24 ) ) (Statement of Requests and Responses in Dispute 25 ) Filed Concurrently Herewith) ) - ) Complaint Filed: June 23, 2017 27 ) ) FSC Date: October 25, 2019 28 ) Trial Date: November 8, 2019 NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND TO ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 8, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in Department “4B" of the above-entitled Court, Plaintiff, BONNIE BLACK (“Plaintiff"), will move this Court for an order compelling Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. (“Defendant" or “Costco™), to furnish further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents to the Defendant (Set Four), no.’s 78-91, as set forth in the separate Statement of Requests and Responses in Dispute, attached hereto and served and filed concurrently herewith; AND ALSO FOR AN ORDER that the Defendant pay a monetary sanction to the Plaintiff in the sum of $3,260.00 for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by the Plaintiff in connection with this proceeding. This motion will be made on the grounds that the Defendant’s belatedly-verified responses are unsatisfactory and good cause justifying the discovery sought by the subject demands exists. The Defendant’s objections to the subject demands are without merit and boilerplate, and are sanctionable. This motion will be based on this Notice, the attached Declaration of Stephen M. Johnson, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the separate Statement of Requests and Responses in Dispute filed concurrently herewith, as well as all pleadings, records and files herein and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing of this Motion. DATED: October 11, 2019 BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP Stephin M. J ‘Hon Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Pcs NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2015, at approximately 2:30 p.m., the Plaintiff drove her minivan to the Costco store located in Pacoima in order to pick up an item for Christmas Eve dinner. She backed her vehicle into a parking space that was next to a curb with a planter in it. After parking, the Plaintiff exited her vehicle using the driver’s side door. She got out of the car and put both feet on the ground and then had to step back to clear the door. The Plaintiff stepped back with her right foot and fell into a cut-out in the curb. She put her foot into the planter to try to regain her balance, but fell on her left side, sustaining serious injuries including] a humerus fracture and requiring surgery to her left shoulder. In its parking lot, Costco had created a series of curb cuts as part of a Bioretention System. A Bioretention System is a method of delivering water flow from the parking lot into aj planter area, as a type of storm water run-off system. As opined by Plaintiff’s expert, Brad Avrit, P.E., the subject area was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident, as the curb cuts and Bioretention System constituted a tripping and falling hazard. Expert Avrit identified two substantial hazards that exist at the subject parking space and adjacent planter that are directly causally related to the accident. The first hazard is the cutouts in the curb within which a person’s shoe can get lodged. The cutouts are 12” wide by 6” high by 6” deep. End-Parking space stall width must be 3 feet wider. This (width) exists so that people in the last stall adjacent to the dangerous condition do not get too close to the planter. The second hazard is that the planter was not maintained in accordance with the approved plans. The soil in the planter was required to be flush with the curb cutout and slope down gradually to the center of the planter. Photos taken after the incident show the planter soil level was badly eroded away and not maintained so that the soil level adjacent to the planter curb cutouts was depressed several inches instead of being flush. This sudden drop- off did not provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to stabilize herself and avoid falling. Los Angeles Municipal Ordinance No. 170.978 requires landscaping to be maintained in compliance with approved landscape plans and Costco clearly failed to comply with this requirement. oF NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Costco failed to provide a safe parking/walking environment and had notice of the dangerous condition of the parking lot prior to the incident occurring, as the parking plans were submitted for permit approval and signed off by the City of Los Angeles. Even though the City approved the design configuration it could cause due harm and foreseeable risk. The design of the subject Bioretention System was hazardous based on its proximity to a foreseeable pedestrian path of travel. In sum, the subject area was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident, as the Bioretention System created a substantial tripping hazard. Furthermore, the eco-friendly storm drainage system was unnecessary as there were and are many other pedestrian safe options available that are more eco-friendly as well. It was Costco’s negligence that posed a significant factor in causing Plaintiff’s incident and subsequent injuries. IL DISCOVERY AT ISSUE On or about July 22, 2019, Plaintiff served (by mail) a Request for Production of Documents and Things (Set Four) on the Defendant. (See Exhibit “1.”) The set contains request no.’s 78-91. On or about August 26, 2019, the Defendant served its unverified responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents. (See Exhibit “2.”) As discussed below in Section “III,” the lack of verification renders any agreements to comply untimely. On or about August 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed and e-mailed a meet and confer letter to defense counsel (Mr. Babak Shirdel) regarding the Defendant's unverified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, and regarding the Defendant’s unsatisfactory responses and boilerplate objections. (See Exhibit “3,” Mr. Johnson’s meet and confer letter dated August 30, 2019, to Mr. Babak Shirdel.) An original signed verification and further responses were requested by September 4, 2019. On or about September 4, 2019, Mr. Shirdel belatedly e-mailed a copy of the requested verification (not an original), but failed to provide further responses, even though in response to several requests (e.g., 82-83, and 86-89) the Defendant had indicated it would produce responsive documents in its possession, custody and control. (See Exhibit “4,” Mr. Shirdel’s e- mail to Mr. Johnson, dated September 4, 2019.) 4 NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On or about September 9, 2019, given that no further responses had been received, a second meet and confer letter was sent (via mail and e-mail) to defense counsel, Mr. Shirdel. (See Exhibit “5,” Mr. Johnson's meet and confer letter to Mr. Shirdel dated September 9, 2019.) No further responses to the subject requests for production have been received, as requested. Therefore, the Defendants responses to no.’s 78-91, remain in dispute, thereby necessitating the within motion to compel. The subject requests and the Defendant’s unsatisfactory responses thereto, are identified in the separate Statement of Requests and Responses in Dispute filed concurrently herewith. I11. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE AN ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE SUBJECT REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Where a response has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses. [C.C.P. § 2031.310, as cited in Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) (“Weil & Brown”) section 8:1490.] Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if] the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” The Defendant’s unverified responses to the subject requests contain statements of compliance that are incomplete, representations of inability to comply that are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and/or objections which are without merit or too general. Specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the Plaintiff’s inspection demands is set forth in the attached Declaration of Steven M. Johnson, as well as the Separate Statement of Requests and Responses in Dispute filed concurrently herewith. (Weil & Brown, supra, sections 8:1495-8:1495.10.) Moreover, the Defendant’s responses (agreements to comply) should have been verified, and the lack of verification renders the agreement to comply untimely. That creates a right _5— NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to move for orders and sanctions under C.C.P. § 2031.310. (Weil & Brown, supra, section 8:1479.1.) A copy of the verification was served late, on September 4, 2019. (See Exhibit “4.) In its responses, Defendant agreed to comply and produce all documents responsive to request no.’s 82-83, and 86-89. However, to date, no responsive documents have been produced although Defendant was under a duty to serve said responsive documents on August 26, 2019, which is the date and time set forth for inspection in the subject Requests for Production of Documents. (See Exhibit “1,” Pg. 2.) The attached Declaration of Stephen M. Johnson shows that Plaintiff’s counsel has made a number of good faith attempts to informally resolve each issue presented by this motion. Unfortunately, the attempts have been unsuccessful and the issues remain unresolved and in dispute. IV. MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT C.C.P. section 2031.310, subdivision (h), further provides that "Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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." [Emphasis added] Case law supports the imposition of sanctions in this case. For example, in response to document requests, a party (plaintiff) served general, “boilerplate” objections. Defendant moved to compel further responses and to compel plaintiff to serve a privilege log (which plaintiff did before the motion was heard). The party’s “boilerplate” objections were sanctionable (e.g., by monetary sanctions). (Weil & Brown, supra, section 8:1498.5, citing to Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App.4™ 1513, 1516, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 925, 926.) Here, Costco has served boilerplate objections to no.’s 78-81, 84-85, and 90-91. In particular, Costco has served the following general, “boilerplate” objections to no.’s 78-81, sifi NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and 91: Overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The following boilerplate objections were served by Costco to no.’s 84-85: Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Defendant’s on-going boilerplate objections in this case and other equivocal responses (which have necessitated multiple motions to compel by the Plaintiff in this case), have had the effect of obstructing discovery, and such boilerplate objections are sanctionable. (Weil & Brown, supra, section 8:1076.1.) The Defendant’s conduct is also sanctionable as discovery misuse under C.C.P. § 2023.010, as discussed below. Misuse of the Discovery Process: The Defendants conduct is not in good faith and is a misuse of the discovery process. Under C.C.P. § 2023.010, misuses of the discovery process include: (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. (h) Opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel discovery. Monetary sanctions are authorized and should be ordered under C.C.P. § 2023.030 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” [Emphasis added] Sanctions should be awarded to the Plaintiff for preparation of this motion, the attached Declaration of Stephen M. Johnson, and 21-page separate Statement of Requests and Responses Pies NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in Dispute filed concurrently herewith, and anticipated time for appearance at the hearing on the motion (as well as the motion filing fee of $60.00). (See Declaration of Stephen M. Johnson). V. CONCLUSION BASED ON THE FOREGOING, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order compelling the Defendant to provide further responses to request no.’s 78-91, without objection, and that monetary sanctions be imposed, as requested. DATED: October 11, 2019 BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP BY: ~~” StepfenW. Johnsotf] Esq. Attorney for Plainti As NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR) TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. I, STEPHEN M. JOHNSON, declare as follows: I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice in the State of California and am an associate in the Berglund & Johnson Law Group, the attorneys of record for Plaintiff, BONNIE BLACK, herein. As such, I am familiar with the facts contained within this Declaration, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify under oath, to the following: 1. On or about July 22, 2019, the Plaintiff served, by mail, a Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set Four, on Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. (“Defendant” or “Costco™). A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set Four, served on the Defendant on July 22, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” On or about August 26, 2019, the Defendant served, by mail, its unverified Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, propounded by the Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of Defendant's “Response to Request for Production of Documents,” propounded by the Plaintiff, served on or about August 26, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit “2.” On or about August 30, 2019, I mailed and e-mailed a meet and confer letter to defense counsel, Mr. Babak Shirdel, regarding the Defendant’s unverified responses to the Request for Production of Documents. My letter discusses the reasons that the Defendant’s responses and objections are unsatisfactory or without merit, as to request no.’s 78 through 91. I requested further responses without objection and the original verification by September 4, 2019. A true and correct copy of my meet and confer letter dated August 30, 2019, to Mr. Babak Shirdel, is attached hereto as Exhibit “3.” On or about September 4, 2019, Mr. Shirdel e-mailed a response to my meet and confer letter, belatedly attaching a copy of the verification. Mr. Shirdel admitted in _9_ NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER No 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . On or about September 9, 2019, a second meet and confer was mailed and e-mailed 6. No further responses to the Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, to date, . Plaintiff has alleged that Costco owed a duty to Plaintiff (one of its customers) to his e-mail that defense counsel had not asked for an extension to respond, but instead produced the responses without verification. Mr. Shirdel indicated that the Defendant had not objected to request no.’s 82, 83, and 86-89, but represented that “we are in the process of locating these documents.” To date, however, no documents have been produced in response to the subject requests (even though they should have been produced on August 26, 2019, which is the date set forth for inspection in the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents.) Moreover, in response to several requests (e.g., no.’s 78-81, 91), Mr. Shirdel sought to restrict the already limited time periods for the documents sought, which is unacceptable for reasons stated in the attached separate statement. A true and correct copy of Mr. Shirdel’s e-mail to me dated September 4, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit “4.” by me to Mr. Shirdel. Therein, I stated that our offices had not received further responses as requested in my meet and confer letter dated August 30, 2019. I advised Mr. Shirdel that, as a result, an IDC had been scheduled for October 3, 2019. A true and correct copy of my September 9, 2019, meet and confer letter to Mr. Shirdel is attached hereto as Exhibit “5.” No response to my September 9" letter to Mr. Shirdel has been received, to date. have been provided. The documents which the Defendant represented that it would produce, in response to no.’s 82-83, and 86-89, in particular, have not been produced. exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises (parking lot of the Costco store) in order to avoid exposing persons (customers) to an unreasonable risk of harm. Given Plaintiff’s claims of negligence against Costco, regarding the hazards in the Costco parking lot at the time of the subject incident (as partly described in Section “I” of the attached motion), and Costco’s failure to maintain the property in a reasonable manner, good cause exists for production of the documents requested, including documents relating to safety meetings, “splinter meetings,” policies and = NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 procedures of Costco’s Assistant GM and Admin. Manager, and internal audits and “facility audits” at the Costco Pacoima store. The foregoing documents were confirmed to exist based upon deposition testimony obtained from various individuals including Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina. 8. Good cause exists for production of the requested documents, as discussed more fully in the Separate Statement of Requests and Responses filed concurrently herewith. The subject documents are in the sole possession, custody and control of the Defendant and the Plaintiff has no other way of inspecting the documents or obtaining copies thereof, and it is necessary to inspect the reports in order to prepare this case for trial and also in order to evaluate the Defendant's defenses for settlement purposes. 9. Because the responses remain in dispute as of the date of the filing of this motion, the Plaintiff has incurred and will incur reasonable costs and attorney's fees in making this motion, declaration, proposed order, and 21-page separate statement, including reasonable attorney's fees for time spent in preparing and appearing on this motion in the amount of $3,200.00 which represents approximately 8 hours of attorney time at $400.00 per hour, and costs incurred in the amount of $60.00 in filing this within motion, for a total sum of $3,260.00 10. As stated above, an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) regarding the subject discovery dispute has been scheduled by our offices for October 3, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. in Department “4B.” I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that I have executed this document on the 11™ day of October, 2019, at Woodland Hills, California. pes STEPHEN M/ JOHNSON Declarant iil ee NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] EXHIBIT 1 22 23 24 25 26 249 28 Stephen M. Johnson State Bar No. 302029 BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7100 (818) 992-1500 (818)992-1541 Fax Attorneys for Plaintiff BONNIE BLACK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE BONNIE BLACK, Plaintiff, v. PLAZA PACOIMA, LLC; PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 200, Inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED ACTIONS e r N r N r N a e N a N a N a N e e d N d N a N e S e N a N f N a N e N e N e N e N a e CASE NO.: BC666359 Assigned For All Purposes To: Honorable Laura A. Seigle Department: 4B Complaint Filed: June 23, 2017 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK, TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, BONNIE BLACK RESPONDING PARTY: SET NO.: FOUR Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, §2031.010 that on REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC! 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Responding Party produce and permit inspection and copying of the documents described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Place of inspection: BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Date of inspection: ~~ August 26, 2019 Time of inspection: 9:00 a.m. Compliance with this demand requires production of actual photographs or negatives. Photocopies of any requested photographs will not be deemed compliance with this demand. Duplicate original photographs (prints) will be made at the Demanding Party's expense and all photographs and/or negatives will be returned to the Responding Party immediately thereafter. As an alternative, Responding Party may provide duplicate original photographs (prints) and the Demanding Party will pay reasonable costs of duplication. Responding Party need not appear at the stated time and place if legible copies of the requested documents are forwarded to the Berglund & Johnson Law Group prior to the date set for production. DATE: July 22, 2019 BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP Sho A] 77 (in. “Stephan M. Johnson, Esq” Attorney for Plaintiff Des REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK} TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC No 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 DEFINITIONS "INCIDENT" includes the circumstances and events occurring on December 24, 2015 which are the subject of this lawsuit. "PREMISES" refers to the real property, including any improvements, appurtenances and structures, where the INCIDENT occurred — i.e., the parking lot of Costco Wholesale Store as more particularly described as follows: store number 1071, located at 13550 Paxton Street Pacoima, 91331, County of Los Angeles, State of California. "ADDRESS" means the street address, including the city, state, and zip code. "PERSON" includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, or public entity. "YOU," "YOUR" 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. "DOCUMENT" means a writing, as defined in California Evidence Code, §250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including electronic files in its "native" format, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them. "HEALTH CARE PROVIDER" includes any PERSON referred to in California Code of Civil Procedure, § 667.7(¢e)(3). "SURFACE" refers to the curb at the end of the parking stall upon which Plaintiff alleges she was injured at the time of the INCIDENT. i= REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "SUBJECT PLANTER" refers to a planter into the curb, as more particularly described as follows: A planter into the curb at the end of the parking stall area at the Costco Wholesale Store number 1071 such as that which was involved in the INCIDENT and its soil material, instrumentalities, assemblies, subassemblies, and other component parts. "WITNESS" includes the name and ADDRESS of every PERSON who knows anything about the INCIDENT, whether their knowledge came to them before the INCIDENT, during the INCIDENT or after the INCIDENT, and includes investigators, insurance adjusters and others who have made investigations on behalf of said Defendant. REQUESTS 78. All DOCUMENTS relating to the safety meetings attended by Assistant GMs at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 79. All DOCUMENTS relating to the safety meetings attended by the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 80. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “splinter meetings” attended by Assistant GMs at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). I" fs REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK. TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC 3 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 81. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “splinter meetings” attended by the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 82. All DOCUMENTS relating to the job description of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website. (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 83. All DOCUMENTS relating to the job description of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 84. All DOCUMENTS relating to the policies and procedures of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U* employee website. (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 85. All DOCUMENTS relating to the policies and procedures of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 86. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job analysis” that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the bey REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK, TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 87. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job analysis” that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 88. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job bank” that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U™ employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 89. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job bank™ that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored, in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 90. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “internal audits” at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015 (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). 91. All DOCUMENTS relating to the “facility audits” at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015 (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). DATE: July 22, 2019 BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP Filer HU Stephén M. Johnson, E Attorney for Plaintiff les REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK, TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900, Woodland Hills, California 91367. On July 22, 2019, I served the foregoing documentation described as REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK, TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. on all interested parties in said action, by placing a [X] copy [ ] original thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addresses as follows: See Attached Proof of Service Mailing List _X_BY MAIL: I caused such envelope thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Woodland Hills, California. 1am “readily familiar” with the firms practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary, course of business. I 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 (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ___BY FACSIMILE: by use of facsimile machine, telephone number (818) 992-1541. I served a copy of the within documentation on the interested parties in the within action by transmitting to the numbers above. The facsimile machine I used complied with the California Rules of Court, Rule 2004 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, Rule 2006(d), 1 caused the machine to print a transmission report of the transmission. ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant to the stipulation for email service reached with counsel for in this suit, I served the above documents to the email listed in the service caption above. A true and correct copy of transmittal will be produced if requested by any party or the court. ___BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I served the within documentation on the interested parties in the within action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with overnight delivery fees provided for and deposited in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express for receipt of overnight mail at 21550 Oxnard Street, Woodland Hills, California. _X_STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 22, 2019 A J Ni h ANTONIA ER if REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK | TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proof of Service Mailing List Defendant: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Cross-Defendant Babak Shirdel McCUNE & HARBER, LLP. 515 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone (213) 689-2500 Facsimile (213) 689-2501 Email: bshirdel@mccuneharber.com Defendants: PLAZA PACOIMA, LLC & PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT, INC., Cross-Plaintiff Mike Rix Friedenthal, Heffernan & Brown, LLP 215 N Marengo Ave. Ste. 165 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone (626) 628-2800 Facsimile (626) 628-2828 Email: mrix@FHBLawyers.com = 8s REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS SET FOUR PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, BONNIE BLACK. TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC EXHIBIT 2 OO 0 NN AN Wn BD W O N b— p t p t N S = O pa Ww 00 52 -6 89 (£ 17 ) 1£ 00 6 V D " S I T I O N Y SO T “L S YO A3 IN OI { H I N O S §1 § d 7 7 ¥ 3 R A V H ¥ I N D O W 10 52 -6 89 (£ 17 ) xe d N S N O N N N N O N O N N N o m r m o m o m a p d pe C 0 NN A A Wn A W N = O Ov 0 0 N D STEPHEN M. HARBER, STATE BAR #119830 BABAK SHIRDEL, STATE BAR #280786 McCUNE & HARBER, LLP 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 689-2500 / Facsimile: (213) 689-2501 sharber@mccuneharber.com & bshirdel@mccuneharber.com Attorneys for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL BONNIE BLACK, Case No: BC666359 Assigned to Hon. Yolanda Orozco/Dept. 7 Plaintiff, (Complaint filed on June 23, 2017) v. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PLAZA PACOIMA, LLC; PRIMESTOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DEVELOPMENT, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 Trial Date: November 8, 2019 thorugh 200, Inclusive, FSC Date: October 25, 2019 Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, BONNIE BLACK RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. SET NUMBER: FOUR (4) TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: COMES NOW Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. and hereby responds to Plaintiff, Bonnie Black’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Four) as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: This responding party has not yet completed its investigation of the facts relating to this action, has not reviewed all documents relating to this action, has not yet interviewed all witnesses in this action, has not yet completed discovery in this action, and has not completed preparation for trial. Asa result, the following responses are given without prejudice to defendant's right to produce, at the time -1- JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Costco to Pitf (Set #4).docx 30900041 Response to Request for Production OO © 9 O Y Wn BD W N r y w w N N —-= O 10 52 -6 89 (£ 12 ) xe 00 52 -6 89 (£ 12 ) 1 £ 0 0 6 V D ‘ S I T I O N Y S 0 7 “L S V O d 3 N D I 4 H I N O S S 1S 41 7 M3 MI VH % I N D I O N N N N N N DN N N N e e ee em e m 0 NN O N nn B R A W N = O O N N N n N of trial, subsequently discovered evidence relating to proof of presently known material facts and to produce all evidence, whenever discovered, relating to the proof of subsequently discovered material facts. These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) which will require the exclusion of any such statement contained herein if the request was being responded to by a witness present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no admissions of any nature whatsoever are implied or should be inferred. The fact that a response has been provided should not be taken as an admission or acceptance of the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by such request, or that such response constitutes admissible evidence. The foregoing Preliminary Statement is incorporated by this reference in each of the following responses. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: All DOCUMENTS relating to the safety meetings attended by Assistant GMs at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Objection: This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: All DOCUMENTS relating to the safety meetings attended by the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). nn 3. JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Costco to Pltf (Set #4).docx 30900041 Response to Request for Production NO G 0 N N bh W N — po t p d pe d pe d WwW O N = Oo 10 57 -6 89 (£ 17 ) xe q 00 52 -6 89 (£ 17 ) 1£ 00 6 VO 'S TT IO NY S0 7] “1 S Y O ¥ 3 I N o I 4 H L N O S SI S 41 7 W3 8U VH 2 3 N N D O W N nN nN No [N J nN No No No — — — — — — 0 ~J aN wi EN Ww No pb S \O o o ~] aN wn SH RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Objection: This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: All DOCUMENTS relating to the "splinter meetings" attended by Assistant GMs at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Objection: This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: All DOCUMENTS relating to the "splinter meetings" attended by the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: Objection: This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: All DOCUMENTS relating to the job description of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the "Costco U" employee website. (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control. I" 3. JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Costco to Pltf (Set #4).docx 30900041 Response to Request for Production NO 0 J AN Wn BA W N — p d pe WLW O N = OO 10 57 -6 89 (£ 12 ) X2 4 00 52 -6 89 (£ 12 ) 12 00 6 V2 ‘S TT IO NY SO T “1 S Y O ¥ 3 I N O I 4 H I N O S SI S d T WE IR IV H % I N N D O W rN No N N N N No No ND —_— — — — — — 0 9 A Wn +H Ww No — oo \O co ~ aN wn +S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: All DOCUMENTS relating to the job description of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the "Costco U" employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: All DOCUMENTS relating to the policies and procedures of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the "Costco U" employee website. (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: Objection: This request is vague and ambiguous as to what is being sought, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: All DOCUMENTS relating to the policies and procedures of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the "Costco U" employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: Objection: This request is vague and ambiguous as to what is being sought, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job analysis" that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic aks JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Costco to Pltf (Set #4).docx 30900041 Response to Request for Production NO 0 0 NN O N Wn B R A W N — a WwW N N -= Oo 00 57 -6 89 (£ 12 ) 12 00 6 V D ‘ S 3 T I O N Y S O "L S Y O ¥ I N O I { H L N O S S[ § 41 71 ¥ I E V H 2 I N N D O W 10 $7 -6 89 (£ 17 ) xe 4 N N N N N N N N O N e m p m e d p t e a C0 NN AA Un BA W N = O O 0 0 NN O N Wn nN documents stored in the "Costco U" employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: All DOCUMENTS relating to the "job analysis" that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the "Costco U" employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: All DOCUMENTS relating to the "job bank" that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the "Costco U" employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: All DOCUMENTS relating to the "job bank" that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents store in the "Costco U" employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). nn nn 5 JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Cosico to Pltf (Set #4).docx 30900041 Response to Request for Production Oo 0 N N Un BRA W N —_— e t e t a WwW N N -= OO 10 52 -6 89 (£ 12 ) xe q 00 57 -6 89 (£ 17 ) 1£ 00 6 V D ‘ S 3 T I O N V 50 7] "1 S Y O ¥ I N O I 4 H I N O S S $ 47 7 W3 IM IV H 2 I N D O N O N O N R N R m m mm em ea ea = 4 BE 0 & 8B 2 BE E E EE H E E RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: All DOCUMENTS relating to the "internal audits" at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015 (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: Objection: This request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this request seeks proprietary information of Costco’s business practices. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: All DOCUMENTS relating to the "facility audits" at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015 (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: Objection: This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party has already produced all documents responsive to this request from 2013-2015. DATED: August 26, 2019 McCUNE & HARBER, LLP STEPHEN M. HARBER, ESQ BABAK SHIRDEL, ESQ Attorneys for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC. 6% JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Costco to PItf (Sct #4).docx ~~ 30900041 Response to Request for Production OO 0 NN O Y A W N — b d ee NN —-= O 00 52 -6 89 (£ 12 ) 1£ 00 6 V2 ‘S IT IO NY SO "1 S YO ¥I NO I HL NO S SI S dT ] "¥ 3I ME VH 2 I N N D O W — Ww po SH 10 57 -6 89 (£ 12 ) xe d BN N N N N N N N N = em em e m e m 0 NN A N nn A W N = O v NN O N W n VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW 21. JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Costco to Pitf (Set #4).docx 30900041 Response to Request for Production NO 00 NN O N Un BA W O N — p d N = OO — Ww 10 57 -6 89 (£ 17 ) X2 4 00 57 -6 89 (£ 12 7) 1L 00 6 V2 ) ‘S AT IO N SO ] ‘1S Y O¥ 3N OI J HL NO S SI ¢ d1 1¥ 38 ¥v H % IN ND OW N N N N N N N N = ee em em pm ~N o v b w = O 0 0 N N N n N ND oo PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ss. ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90071. On August 26, 2019, I served the foregoing document described as RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, on the interested parties by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST X BY MAIL: 1am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, 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 afier date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: 1 caused such envelope 0 be delivered by hand to the office of the addressce(s). BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court 2003(3) and no crror was reported by the machine. Pursuant to rule 2005(i), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this proof of service. BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered via overnight delivery, for delivery to the above address(es). X (State) 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 26, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. EATHER A. KEE Bs JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Cosico to PItf (Set #4).docx 30900041 Response to Request for Production Oo 0 NN AN n A W N — p b p d pe a Ww N = Oo 00 57 -6 89 (£ 17 ) 1£ 00 6 VO ' ST IH ON Y 50 7 ‘L S Y O ¥ 3 I N O I H L N O S SI S dT ¥E SH YH 2 I N D O 10 52 -6 89 (£ 12 ) Xe E Y SERVICE LIST FOR BLACK, BONNIE V. COSTCO Stephen M. Johnson Berglund & Johnson 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 900 Woodland Hills CA, 91367 Bus: (818) 992-1500 Fax: (818) 992-1541 Attorneys for plaintiff BONNIE BLACK Jay D. Brown Michael G. Rix Friedenthal, Heffernana & Brown, LLP 215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 165 Pasadena CA 91101 Bus: (626) 628-2800 Fax: (626) 628-2828 Attorney for Defendants, Primestor Development, Inc., and Plaza Pacoima, LL.C 4. JAWPDOCs\Black, B. v. Costco\Disc\RPD Resps of Costco to Pitf (Set #4).docx ~~ 30900041 Response to Request for Production EXHIBIT 3 BERGLUND + JOHNSON LAW GROUP August 30, 2019 VIA MAIL & EMAIL to bshirdel@mccuneharber.com Babak Shirdel McCUNE & HARBER, LLP. 515 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Re: Black v. Plaza Pacoima, LLC., et al. Meet and Confer re Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation Inc.’s Responses to Request for Production Documents and Things Set Four propounded by Plaintiff, Bonnie Black Dear Mr. Shirdel: Please consider this correspondence as a good faith effort to meet and confer regarding your client, Costco Wholesale Corporation Inc.’s late, incomplete, improper, unfounded responses and boilerplate objections Request for Production of Documents and Things set four. First, Defendant has provided responses to Request for Production of Documents and Things set four without verifications. As you are aware, discovery responses without verifications are tantamount to no response at all. As such, our Motion to Compel deadline will commence once we have obtained vour client’s original signed and dated verifications to said responses. Second, Defendant’s responses were served late. On July 22, 2019 our offices propounded the said discovery to your client. These responses were due on or before August 26, 2019. There was no extension granted to your said client. Although the Proof of Service attached to Defendant’s said responses is marked as being served by mail on August 26, 2019, the responses were served late on August 27, 2019. See attached copy of envelope reflecting U.S postage stamp. Accordingly, Defendant's right to object to the above mentioned discovery has been waived. Third, as you are aware, boilerplate objections are insufficient and are an abuse of the discovery process. Parties are to avoid boilerplate objections and other equivocal responses that have the effect of obstructing discovery (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) section 8:1076.1). Furthermore, in and of itself, serving boilerplate objections is sanctionable conduct. (Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App.4th 1513, 1516 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 925, 926].) DAVID W. BIRGILUND' | DANITL W. JOHNSON 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 818.992.1500 | Toll-Free: 800.443.4878 | Fax: 818.992.1541 | Orange County: 949.756.1434 ‘retired www.bjlawgroup.com As you know all parties must make a good faith and effort to respond to discovery. Based on the responses provided, it appears that Defendant has not made a good faith and effort to respond to discovery. Plaintiff seeks further responses to the following discovery as follows: AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS NOS. 78 through 91: Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 78: All DOCUMENTS relating to the safety meetings attended by Assistant GMs at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 79: All DOCUMENTS relating to the safety meetings attended by the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 80: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “splinter meetings” attended by Assistant GMs at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 81: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “splinter meetings” attended by the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to end of 2015, specifically relating to the protection of members from trip and fall hazards (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 82: All DOCUMENTS relating to the job description of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website. (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). > Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 83: All DOCUMENTS relating to the job description of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 84: All DOCUMENTS relating to the policies and procedures of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website. (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 85: All DOCUMENTS relating to the policies and procedures of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 86: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job analysis” that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 201 5, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 87: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job analysis” that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 88: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job bank” that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant GM over admin at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 89: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “job bank” that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Admin Manager at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015, including electronic documents stored in the “Costco U” employee website (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 90: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “internal audits” at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015 (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Request for Production of Documents and Things No. 91: All DOCUMENTS relating to the “facility audits” at Costco Pacoima from 2012 to the end of 2015 (confirmed to have existed through the deposition testimony of Cabadas, Gonzales, Van Zant, and/or Gumina). Defendant’s Boilerplate Objections & Responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 78 through 91: Objection: This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control. Objection: This request is vague and ambiguous as to what is being sought, overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection: This request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this request seeks proprietary information of Costco's business practices. Objection: This request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party has already produced all documents responsive to this request from 2013-2015. Plaintiffs’ Meet and Confer re Request for Production of Documents Nos. 78 through 91 Responses: Defendant served responses late. As a result, Defendant’s right to object has been waived. Additionally, although Defendant waived its objections to Nos. 82, 83, 86, 87, 88 & 89 and provided responses as "will produce all documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody and control", no documents were attached. Please provide further full, complete and proper responses without ob jections to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 78 through 91. Also, please produce all documents in response to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 78 through 91. Please provide your client’s original signed verifications to its responses dated August 26, 2019 and provide further requested responses along with original signed verifications thereto. Our offices do not wish to burden the court with a Motion to Compel. However, if we do not receive further requested responses without objections and the original verifications as requested above, by September 4, 2019, our offices will take the appropriate action to compel responses which may include a request for sanctions. Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention in this matter. Sincerely, BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP Stl tepheh M. Jdhnson Attorney at L SMJ/av. M c C U N E & H A R B E R A LIMITED LIABILITY P A R T N E R S H I P 515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET SUITE 1100 Los ANGELES, CA 90071 TO: Stephen M. Johnson Berglund & Johnson 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills CA 91367 309/00041 EXHIBIT 4 Tania Valencia = eee] From: Babak Shirdel Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 7:05 PM To: Stephen Johnson Cc: Heather Kee; Natasha Ruiz; Tania Valencia Subject: RE: Black v Plaza Pacoima, et al. - Meet and Confer regarding Costco's late responses/objections to RTP set four Attachments: Verifications - RPD, Set Four.pdf Categories: Blue Category Stephen, Please find attached verifications to RPD Set Four. In lieu of asking for an extension, we produced responses without verification in order to start the meet and confer process. Regardless, here attached is the verification. Substantively, all of your requests seek documents from up to four years before the subject incident. As it relates to requests Nos. 78-81, we are willing to produce documents evidencing safety and/or splinter meetings from 2014 and 2015. As it relates to Requests Nos. 82, 83, 86-89, we have no objection. However, we are in the process of locating these documents. As it relates to Requests No. 84 and 85, more clarifications is needed. The request seeks “policies and procedures of the Assistant GM” and “policies and procedures of the Admin Manager.” The technical response to this request is none, as individuals do not have “policies and procedures,” rather Costco is the entity with the policies and procedures. | believe what you are looking for are documents evidencing job duties of these two positions. Please confirm this is what you seek. As it relates to Requests No. 90, we object to this request. The internal audits of the store relate to the business operations of the store, such as inventory, sales, etc. The internal audit has nothing to do with physical inspections. Thus, we stand by our objections. As it relates to Requests No. 91, four years of facility audits is unnecessary broad. We have already produced facility audits from two years before the incident. This is a reasonable production in that respect. Please let me know if you wish to continue to meet and confer with respect to the above. Babak Shirdel bshirdel@mccuneharber.com McCune & Harber, LLP 515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 689-2500 Facsimile: (213) 689-2501 THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT 1 RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE AT (213) 689-2500, AND DESTROY THE ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS WITHOUT READING OR SAVING THEM TO DISK. THANK YOU. 8 picase consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Tania Valencia Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 10:18 AM To: Babak Shirdel Cc: Michael Rix ; James Lee ; Heather Kee ; Natasha Ruiz ; Stephen Johnson Subject: Black v Plaza Pacoima, et al. - Meet and Confer regarding Costco's late responses/objections to RTP set four Importance: High Mr. Shirdel, Please see attached Meet and Confer correspondence regarding Costco's late responses/objections to RTP set four. Hard copy was mailed. Thank you, Tania Valencia PARALEGAL BERGLUND & JOHNSON LAW GROUP s: www .bjlawgroup.com e: tvalencia(@bjlawgroup.com t: (818) 227-5313 f: (818) 992-1541 © 0 ® © Privileged And Confidential Communication. I'his electronic transmission. and any documents attached hercto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT 5 BERGLUND t+ JOHNSON LAW GROUP September 9, 2019 VIA MAIL & EMAIL to bshirdel@mecuneharber.com Babak Shirdel McCUNE & HARBER, LLP. 515 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Re: Black v. Plaza Pacoima, LLC., et al. Date of Incident: 12/24/2015 Our File No.: BLA7076 Dear Mr. Shirdel: Please consider this correspondence another good faith effort to meet and confer regarding your client, Costco Wholesale Corporation Inc.’s late, incomplete, improper, unfounded responses and boilerplate objections Request for Production of Documents and Things set four. As of the date of this correspondence our office has not received proper further responses and original verifications as requested in our meet and confer letter dated August 30, 2019. As result, an IDC hearing has been set for October 3.2019. It is still our hope we can resolve this matter informally so we do not have to obtain court intervention. Please provide the following: © Original verifications to Costco’s responses to Request for Production of Documents and Things set four served late on August 27, 2019 ° Further responses without objections by Defendant Costco to Request for Production of Documents and Things set four per meet and confer letter dated August 30, 2019 e Original signed verifications to Costco’s Further responses to Request for Production of Documents and Things set four Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention in this matter. Sincerely, Attorney atfLaw SMJ/av. DAVID W. BERGLUND” | DANIEL W. JOHNSON ‘retired 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 818.992.1500 | Toll-Free: 800.443.4878 | Fax: 818.992.1541 | Orange County: 949.756.1434 www.bjlawgroup.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [ am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900, Woodland Hills, California 91367. On October 11, 2019, I served the foregoing documentation described as NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR) TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER on all interested parties in said action, by placing a [X] copy [ ] original thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, addresses as follows: See Attached Proof of Service Mailing List _X BY MAIL: I caused such envelope thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Woodland Hills, California. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ___ BY FACSIMILE: by use of facsimile machine, telephone number (818) 992-1541. I served a copy of the within documentation on the interested parties in the within action by transmitting to the numbers above. The facsimile machine I used complied with the California Rules of Court, Rule 2004 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, Rule 2006(d), 1 caused the machine to print a transmission report of the transmission. ___BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I served the within documentation on the interested parties in the within action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope designated by Federal Express for overnight delivery, with overnight delivery fees provided for and deposited in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express for receipt of overnight mail at 21550 Oxnard Street, Woodland Hills, California. __ FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. _X STATE I declare under penalty of perj nder the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: October 11,2019 a ANTONIA VALENCIA = 1D NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proof of Service Mailing List Defendant: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Cross-Defendant Babak Shirdel McCUNE & HARBER, LLP. 515 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone (213) 689-2500 Facsimile (213) 689-2501 Email: bshirdel@mccuneharber.com Defendants: PLAZA PACOIMA, LLC & PRIMESTOR DEVELOPMENT, INC., Cross-Plaintiff Jay D. Brown Mike Rix FRIEDENTHAL, HEFFERNAN & BROWN, LLP 215 N Marengo Ave. Ste. 165 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone (626) 628-2800 Facsimile (626) 628-2828 Email: mrix@FHBLawyers.com «13m NOTICE OF MOTION COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET FOUR TO DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, INC., AND FOR AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. JOHNSON; PROPOSED ORDER] Court Reservation Receipt | Journal Technologies Court Portal https://portal-lasc.journaltech.com/public-portal/?q=calendar/receip... —8 Journal Technologies Court Portal i Court Reservation Receipt Reservation Reservation ID: Status: 707412686730 RESERVED Reservation Type: Number of Motions: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 1 Case Number: Case Title: BC666359 BONNIE BLACK VS PLAZA PACOIMA LLC ET AL Filing Party: Location: Bonnie Black (Plaintiff) Spring Street Courthouse - Department 4B Date/Time: Confirmation Code: November 8th 2019, 10:00AM CR-FYU6DZF9E5USOUGJY Fees Description Fee Qty Amount Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 60.00 1 60.00 Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1h 1.65 TOTAL $61.65 Payment Amount: Type: $61.65 MasterCard Account Number: Authorization: XXXX5498 62269G < Back to Main I= Print Page Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. 1 of 1 10/11/2019, 12:13 PM