Reply P Reply Iso Mtc Fr Dfp

Reply

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.September 5, 2018

Electronically FIU OO 0 NN NN nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N mm e m e m e m e m e m e m p m e m pe c o NI O N Ln B A W N Y = DO V X N N N R E L ND = O f D by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/03/2020 03:59 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Aquino,Deputy Clerk Khail A. Parris (SBN 307296) Eric N. Wilson (SBN 291815) Jason L. Maves (SBN 321526) PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, California 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ROCIO SABBAH, ARIELLA SABAH, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem ROCIO SABBAH, ELIJAH SABBAH, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem ROCIO SABBAH, Plaintiffs, V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEAN SPRINGS, ALICIA ELIAS, MARIO ELIAS, JASON ANDREW MCGEE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. - N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e Case No.: BC720891 [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Marc C. Gross, Dept. 3] PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE ; DECLARATION OF JASON L. MAVES Date: February 10. 2020 Time: 10:00am Dent. 3 Reservation No.: 319325640067 Complaint filed: September 5, 2018 Trial Date: July 2, 2020 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE OO 0 NN NN nn BA W N = N N ND N N N N N N E m e m e m em e m em e m e m c o NI O N Ln B A W N Y = DO V X N N N R E L ND = O SUMMARY OF REPLY Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to Demand for Production set one because Defendant produced no documents in response to the entire set, with demands spanning the 10 separate categories of documents catalogued in Plaintiff's moving papers. Defendant opposes the motion insisting all of his boilerplate objections are merited, and that the motion should be considered moot because further responses were served on December 23, 2019. But to date, Plaintiff has not received a many documents in response to his demands for production. A review of Defendant’s opposition reflects the same stubborn refusal to comply as before Plaintiff’s motion was filed. Defendant insists Plaintiff’s requests for photos and videos depicting the subject collision are “privileged.” The remainder of the documents, ranging from recorded statements, to insurance, to property damage, cell phone usage, vehicle maintenance, schedule preceding the collision, and communications involving the collision, are all purportedly “confidential personnel information” that cannot be obtained without the benefit of a Pitchess motion. (Penal Code § 832.7.) As explained below, Defendant cannot rely on Penal Code section 832 to prevent all inquiry regarding the subject collision; rather, the section is only requires a Pitchess motion to obtain the officer’s personal information and employment history, i.e., his personnel file. Plaintiff’s motion should be granted and Defendant should be sanctioned for his blanket refusal to comply with his discovery obligations in this wrongful death action. ARGUMENT IL. Defendant cannot serve bad-faith supplemental responses as a tactic to prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining a Court Order instructing Defendant to provide code-compliant responses. First, Defendant claims Plaintiffs’ motion is moot because further, equally obstructionist responses were served on December 23, 2019. These responses are equally defective, and Defendant has still not produced a single document in response to most of Plaintiffs’ Demands for Production. Nor can Defendant use bad faith supplemental responses as a tactic to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining a Court Order instructing Defendant to provide code-compliant responses. Defendant cannot offer new objections in lieu of providing substantive responses and demand that a new motion to compel be filed. Plaintiff is entitled to review the supplemental responses and 1 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE OO 0 NN NN nn BA W N = N N ND N N N N N N E m e m e m em e m em e m e m c o NI O N Ln B A W N Y = DO V X N N N R E L ND = O determine whether they are sufficient to withdraw the pending motion to compel. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 390, 407 [explaining trial courts may grant a motion to compel even if the responding party serves responses after it has been served with the motion]; R.M. v. First Lutheran Church (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 4, 2017, No. B266389) 2017 WL 1231383, at *4 [explaining parties do not have to “engage in meet and confer efforts in response to each iteration of supplemental responses its opponent files” as this would “incentivize piecemeal production, prolong discovery disputes, and raise litigation costs’].) A Court order instructing Defendant to provide code-compliant responses is necessary given Defendant’s repeated misuse of the discovery process in order to delay production. IL Defendant should be ordered to withdraw his boilerplate objections which make it impossible to determine whether he is fully responding to each Demand. As explained in Plaintiffs’ moving papers, Defendant responded to each demand for production with a series of 19 full lines of objections, including claims of privilege and privacy, asserted without regard for the substance of the demand. Plaintiff explained that this style of boilerplate objections constitutes discovery misconduct and is subject to sanctions. (See Mot. at p. 4:8-5:18.) Defendant made no effort to justify this obstructionist tactic. Defendant has therefore conceded that his boilerplate objections constitute discovery misconduct by failing to address the issue in his opposition papers. (See DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 563, 566 [finding that plaintiff conceded an issue by failing to argue to the contrary]; Tatum v. Schwartz (E.D.Cal. Feb.5, 2007) 2007 WL 419463, *3 [holding the plaintiff “tacitly concede[d] [her] claim by failing to address [the] defendants’ argument in her opposition”].) Defendant should be ordered to withdraw the boilerplate objections. III. There is no act of Congress or public interest in preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining photo and video evidence depicting the collision which led to the death of their husband and father. Next, Defendant claims he can withhold all evidence of the collision under Evidence Code section 1040, which lays provisional immunity over official information acquired in confidence by a 2 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE OO 0 NN NN nn BA W N = N N ND N N N N N N E m e m e m em e m em e m e m c o NI O N Ln B A W N Y = DO V X N N N R E L ND = O public employee." It very plainly does not apply here to prevent photos and videos of a collision between an officer and a civilian. Photographs are generally not protected by any privilege. (See, e.g., Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal2d 166, 176 [“A picture of a public bus on a public street is not a confidential communication.”’].) Evidence Code section 1040 is a narrow exception to the general rule. It allows “official information”, i.e., “information acquired in confidence by a public employee” to be considered privileged only if: (1) “disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of this state; or (3) “[d]isclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information.” (/d., subd. (b)(1) & (2).) Here, there is no act of Congress or public interest in preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining relevant and admissible evidence depicting the collision which led to the death of their husband and father. The officer did not have his lights and sirens activated; he was expected to drive safely and prudently, obeying all speeding and vehicle laws to which drivers are bound. This evidence is critically important to understanding how the collision occurred, and will be used by Plaintiffs’ liability experts to explain precisely how and why this collision should have been avoided. The photographs and films must be produced. IV. Plaintiffs are not required to file a Pitchess motion to obtain basic information concerning evidence that bears on the subject collision; only the officer’s personnel file and limited identifying materials are subject to this rule. Last, Defendant argues that virtually all of Plaintiffs’ document demands constitute requests for “confidential personnel information” that must be obtained by way of Pitchess motion. A motion to discover the personnel file of a law enforcement officer is known as a Piftchess motion. It is generally used to discover information such as the officer's alleged prior use of excessive force, racial bias, planting evidence, or falsifying records. (See e.g., Abatti v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 39.) In other words, it pertains to an officer’s “personnel records” (Evid. Code § 1043, subd. (a)), which is defined as those records ‘relating to a police officer’s ‘advancement, appraisal, or discipline.” ” (City of Eureka v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal. App.5th 755, 763.) ! Defendant failed to identify a single photograph or video in his privilege log. 3 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE OO 0 NN NN nn BA W N = N N ND N N N N N N E m e m e m em e m em e m e m c o NI O N Ln B A W N Y = DO V X N N N R E L ND = O Section 1043 was never intended to justify the blanket refusal to respond to discovery Defendant is now attempting. “Although the Pitchess statutes limit public access to personnel records . . , many records routinely maintained by law enforcement agencies are not personnel records. (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59, 71-72, emphasis added.) “For example, the information contained in the initial incident reports of an on-duty shooting are typically not ‘personnel records.” ” (Eureka, supra, 1 Cal. App.Sth at p. 763. Nor is a Pitchess motion necessary to obtain police dashboard camera video footage (id at p. 799 [explaining a “video is simply a visual record”]) or ‘records about an incident.” ” (Long Beach, at p. 291 [* ‘records about an 9 9 incident’ ” triggering an internal investigation not protected personnel records under Pitchess].) In sum, Defendant “has not demonstrated [the requested documents were] ‘generated in connection’ with [his] appraisal or discipline.” (Eureka, supra, 1 Cal. App.5th at p. 764.) Rather, the following have no connection to Defendant’s appraisal advancement, discipline, or identifying personal information: e Number 6-8, 11: Reports and blank exemplars e Numbers 9-10: Recorded statements e Numbers 12-13: Insurance eo Numbers 14, 25: Defendant property damage e Number 15: cell phone usage eo Numbers 19-24: Vehicle maintenance, operation, citations, collisions. e Numbers 32, 41-43: LACSD policies and procedures eo Numbers 26-32, 34-37, 44: Defendant job duties, responsibilities, performance, scheduled route on date of incident Nonetheless, Defendant asserts an official information privilege to every one of the requests in both his initial responses and further responses. This is especially confusing for demands like No. 7 which seeks “a blank exemplar copy of the INCIDENT REPORT.” A blank incident report would patently refrain from disclosing any directly information on Defendant, however, Defendant claims official information privilege. Similarly, demands for documents pertaining to Defendant’s insurance and/or financial coverage is equally outside the scope of Evidence Code section 1040. Defendant’s 4 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE OO 0 NN NN nn BA W N = N N ND N N N N N N E m e m e m em e m em e m e m c o NI O N Ln B A W N Y = DO V X N N N R E L ND = O property damage, his cell phone usage, and recorded statement are also not encapsulated within this privilege. Defendant’s supplemental responses all state “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non- privileged or otherwise protected documents in his custody, control or possession.” This language enables them to withhold documents under an inapplicable privilege. Defendant’s privilege log is equally void of substantive information in which to determine if the documents are within the zone of privilege as he only describes the withheld documents as “Deputy Jason McGee’s personnel file.” Defendant must be ordered fully respond. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the court grant Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses and responsive documents to his Demands for Production, Set One. The Court should also award Plaintiffs $1,566.95 to compensate them for the costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this motion. DATED: February 3, 2020 PARRIS LAW FIRM By: em yA Khail A. Parris Eric N. Wilson Jason L. Maves Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY ISO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE OO 0 NN NN nn BA W N = N N ND N N N N N N E m e m e m em e m em e m e m c o NI O N Ln B A W N Y = DO V X N N N R E L ND = O DECLARATION OF JASON L. MAVES I, Jason L. Maves, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and I am an associate with the Parris Law Firm, attorneys of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the following. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s supplemental responses to Plaintiffs” Demand for Production, Set One. 3x Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s privilege log corresponding to his supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Demand for Production, Set One. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 3rd day of February, 2020, at Lancaster, California. a Jason L. Maves i - 6 DECLARATION OF JASON LL. MAVES EXHIBIT “A” 1 Brian K. Stewart, Esq. (State Bar No. 126412) Allison R. Bracy, Esq. (State Bar No. 235927) 2 Lauren F. Guccione, Esq. (State Bar No. 311856) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 3 1100 El Centro Street South Pasadena, CA 91030 4 (626) 243-1100 - FAX (626) 243-1111 Exempt from Payment of Filing Fee 5 Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103. Attorneys for Defendants 6 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPUTY JASON MCGEE 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 ||ROCIO SABBAH, ARIELLA SABBAH, a ) CASE NO. BC720891 minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem ) [Assigned to Judge Marc C. Gross, Dept. 3] 12 || ROCIO SABBAH, ELIJAH SABBAH, a minor ) by and through her Guardian ad Litem ROCIO ) DEFENDANT JASON MCGEE’S 13 [[SABBAH, ) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 14 Plaintiffs, ) DOCUMENTS, SET ONE ) i> Vs. ) 16 ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ) Complaint Filed: 9/5/18 17 [[ ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF ) Trial Date: 3/5/20 DEPARTMENT, DEAN SPRINGS, ALICIA ) 18 || ELIAS, MARIO ELIAS, JASON ANDREW ) 19 |[MCGEE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) ) 20 Defendants. ) ) 21 ) 22 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ) ) 23 Cross-complainant, ) ) 24 vs. ) ) 25 (| DEAN SPRINGS, ALICIA ELIAS, MARIO ) 26 ELIAS and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive 27 Cross-defendants. ) ) 28 RECEIVED COLLINS COLLINS || 21661 MUIR + STEWART. 1 DEC 7 6 2019 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oe 0 9 a Wn t A W N B R N N N N N N E m em j m j m em je k ea a UO AR D N = & © ® QA & PE B R 2 = 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, ROCIO SABBAH RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, JASON MCGEE SET NUMBER: ONE (SUPPLEMENTAL) TO PLAINTIFF AND TO HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Defendant, JASON MCGEE, (“Responding Party”) hereby provides responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One), propounded by Plaintiff, ROCIO SABBAH, as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This responding party has not completed discovery in this action and has not completed preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to and specifically known by this responding party. The following responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently-discovered fact(s) at the time of trial. These responses are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as is presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of the responding party in relation to further discovery. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All DOCUMENTS-including but not limited to photographs, films, movies, surveillance videos, or motion pictures-which depict any party to this action, including all related cross actions. [PLEASE NOTE: All requests are for original or duplicate photographs. Photocopies are not acceptable. The propounding party will bear any reasonable expense associated with producing these photographs. If original/duplicate photographs in their original format are not available, please state go and produce the photographs in the format available. ] RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unintelligible. It is not reasonably limited in time and scope. The phrase “which depict any party to this action” is not reasonably limited or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information 21661 2 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oo 00 Na S N n t A W N N N N RN R N N N ee em em bm md em 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and the litigation privilege. It also seeks information protected by privacy rights of the parties in this litigation and third parties. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in his custody, control or possession and has never had such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All DOCUMENT S-including but not limited to diagrams, slides, photographs, films, movies, surveillance videos, or motion pictures-which depict the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Objection. The phrase “which depict the scene of the THIRD COLLISION” is vague and ambiguous. Responding Party also objects to the definition assigned to “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and mischaracterizes the events surrounding the third collision. The request also seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and the litigation privilege. The request is improperly cumulative. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Assuming Propounding Party seeks photos of the actual collision, Responding Party does not have any responsive documents in its possession, custody or control and has never had such documents. Responding Party rcfcrs Plaintiffs to the Traffic Collision Report(s), Report Numbers 9575-2017- 17716, 9575-2017-17717, 9575-2017-17718 and MAIT Report, No. 9575-2017-17718, which include photographs following the collisions. I" in 21661 3 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oo 00 a S N nt R W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All DOCUMENTS-including but not limited to traffic collision reports, police reports, emergency reports, medical reports, and criminal investigation reports-REGARDING or RELATING TO the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Objection. These questions are improperly cumulative, duplicative and intended to harass Responding Party. The request also seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and the litigation privilege. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and mischaracterizes the events surrounding the third collision. Responding Party objects to the extent these documents are already in Plaintiffs’ possession or are equally available to Plaintiffs. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Responding Party also refers Plaintiffs to the privilege log produced herewith. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any form of report that is RELATED TO the THIRD COLLISION, including but not limited to, incident reports, police reports, emergency reports, medical reports, and criminal investigation reports. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Objection. These questions are improperly cumulative, duplicative and intended to harass Responding Party. “Any form of report” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request also seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and the litigation privilege. It also seeks information protected by privacy rights of the parties in this litigation and third parties. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 21661 4 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oO ® Na S N nt RA W N N O N O N N N N ee em em em ml e d 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and to the extent it mischaracterizes the events surrounding the third collision. Responding Party objects to the extent these documents are already in Plaintiffs’ possession or are equally available to Plaintiffs. Responding Party refers Plaintiffs to the Traffic Collision Report(s), Report Numbers 9575- 2017-17716, 9575-2017-17717, 9575-2017-17718 and MAIT Report, No. 9575-2017-17718. These documents are either already in Propounding Party’s possession or are equally available to Propounding Party. Responding Party refers Plaintiff to the privilege log produced herewith. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: A blank exemplar copy of INCIDENT/accident report made concerning the THIRD COLLISION, if it was not produced in response to the immediately preceding demand. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Objection. These questions are improperly cumulative, duplicative and intended to harass Responding Party. The terms and phrases “blank exemplar copy” and “concerning,” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and to the extent it mischaracterizes the events surrounding the first collision. Responding Party objects to the extent these documents are already in Plaintiffs’ possession or are equally available to Plaintiffs. Responding arty further objects to the definition of “THRID COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and to the extent it mischaracterizes the events surrounding the second collision. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party refers Plaintiff to the privilege log produced herewith. 21661 5 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oe 0 9 a Un BRA W N NB N N N N N N em Em em md em j e em 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation undertaken or caused to be undertaken by YOU that are RELATED TO the THIRD COLLISION including but not limited to, reports, notes, photographs, and transcripts of or notes regarding interviews. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Objection. The terms and phrases “investigation,” “undertaken or caused to be undertaken” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request also seeks information protected by the attorney- client privilege, the work product doctrine, and the litigation privilege. It also seeks information protected by privacy rights of the parties in this litigation and third parties. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Responding Party objects to the extent these documents are already in Plaintiffs’ possession or are equally available to Plaintiffs. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and to the extent it mischaracterizes the events surrounding the second collision. The request is also compound. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party refers Plaintiff to the privilege log produced herewith. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all written or recorded statements of witnesses that describe or reference the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Objection. These questions are improperly cumulative, duplicative and intended to harass Responding Party. The request itself and the terms “any and all written or recorded statements” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request also seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and the litigation privilege. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by 21661 6 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oe e a AN nt A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party refers Plaintiffs to the Traffic Collision Report(s), Report Numbers 9575-2017- 17716, 9575-2017-17717, 9575-2017-17718 and MAIT Report, No. 9575-2017-17718. These documents are either already in Propounding Party’s possession or are equally available to Propounding Party. Responding Party refers Plaintiff to the privilege log produced herewith. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all written or recorded statements of parties to this action that describe or reference the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Objection. These questions are improperly cumulative, duplicative and intended to harass Responding Party. The request itself and the terms “any and all written or recorded statements” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request also seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and the litigation privilege. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045 et seq., and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party refers Plaintiffs to the Traffic Collision Report(s), Report Numbers 9575-2017 17716, 9575-2017-17717, 9575-2017-17718 and MAIT Report, No. 9575-2017-17718. These documents are either already in Propounding Party’s possession or are equally available to Propounding Party. I 21661 7 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oo 90 9 S N Wn A W N N N N N N N N Ee Em e m m m e m p k j d S&S U l A D N = S S © ® a a N R » R = = 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, Responding Party refers Plaintiffs to the privilege log produced herewith. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All DOCUMENTS -including but not limited to reports, memoranda, letters, and/or notes- that in any way, describe, reference or refer to the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Objection. These questions are improperly cumulative, duplicative and intended to harass Responding Party. The request itself and the terms “any and all written or recorded statements” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request also seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and the litigation privilege. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and to the extent it mischaracterizes the events surrounding the first collision. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party refers Plaintiffs to the Traffic Collision Report(s), Report Numbers 9575-2017- 17716, 9575-2017-17717, 9575-2017-17718 and MAIT Report, No. 9575-2017-17718. These documents are either already in Propounding Party’s possession or are equally available to Propounding Party. Responding Party refers Plaintiffs to the privilege log produced herewith. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response. 1" 1 21661 8 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oo © Na S N U Y BA W N N O N O N em em em em em em pm md ed ed MN =m O e d N N R W O N Em 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO insurance and/or financial coverage for YOU regarding the THIRD COLLISION. (This Request includes all primary and all excess policies. Please be advised that producing the declaration page without the entire policy is insufficient.) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Objection. This request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. It seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The terms “insurance and/or financial coverage” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and/or the litigation privilege. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and to the extent it mischaracterizes the events surrounding the third collision. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: After diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party cannot comply because it does not have documents responsive to this request in its custody, control or possession. The County of Los Angeles is self-insured pursuant to Government Code §§ 989, 990, et seq., 990.2, and generally, County Ordinance, Title V, Chapter 532 and thus there are no documents responsive to this request.Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery continues. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any form of insurance that could provide coverage to YOU at the time of the THIRD COLLISION. (This Request includes all primary and cxccss policies, including those where YOU are an additional named insured. Please be advised that producing the declaration page without the entire policy is insufficient.) I" Hf 21661 9 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oO 0 a S N nt BRA W N R O N N O N N N O N mk em em em md e d 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Objection. This request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous. It seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The terms “insurance and/or financial coverage” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and/or the litigation privilege. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and mischaracterizes the events surrounding the third collision. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: After diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party cannot comply because it does not have documents responsive to this request in its custody, control or possession. The County of Los Angeles is self- insured pursuant to Government Code §§ 989, 990, et seq., 990.2, and generally, County Ordinance, Title V, Chapter 5.32 and thus there are no documents responsive to this request. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery continues. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR cell phone usage from one hour before and after the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Objection. These questions are improperly cumulative, duplicative and intended to harass Responding Party. The request itself and the terms “cell phone usage” and “THIRD COLLISION” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. It is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adwissible evidence. The request also seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the official information privilege and the litigation privilege. It also seeks information protected by privacy rights of the parties in this litigation and third parties. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence 21661 10 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oO 0 Jd S N Un A W N N N N N N N N E E em em em em 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “THIRD COLLISION” on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and to the extent it mischaracterizes the events surrounding the first collision. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Any and all service, repair, and maintenance records for YOUR VEHICLE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The terms “service,” “repair” and “maintenance” are vague and ambiguous. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, the official information or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party will produce all non- privileged or otherwise protected documents responsive to this request for the three years prior to September 15, 2017. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Any DOCUMENTS REGARDING the registration of YOUR VEHICLE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The request is not reasonably calculated tw lead wo the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, the official information or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code 21661 11 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oo 90 Na S N Nt BA W N NB N N R N N N EE em em em em je e m 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All DOCUMENTS REGARDING the proper operation of YOUR VEHICLE, including but not limited to the owner’s manual, the maintenance manual, and the instruction or operation book. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “proper operation” is vague and ambiguous. The request is compound. It is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, the official information or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the duties for YOUR job with defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. RESPONSE TO REQUEST I'OR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “duties” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, the official information or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request 21661 12 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oO 0 Na S N n l B R A W N 2 No ~N No pk uk Ju d pk pk pd uh ph uk © No pd < \& [~ ~ 1 a wn of , w ~ mt = 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR job responsibilities, at the time of the THIRD COLLISION, while employed by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “job responsibilities” and “at the time of the THIRD COLLISION” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: ALL DOCUMENTS REFLECTING YOUR scheduled route on Scptcmber 15, 2017. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any changes to the safety policies followed by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department at any time after the THIRD COLLISION occurred. 1 21661 13 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Oo RX N a N N T RA W N N N N E E e m Em e m e m em p m j m p m je BN = © 0 Ww N N NT R W O N Em 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The terms “changes” and “safety policies” and “after the THIRD COLLISION” are vague, ambiguous and overbroad even defined. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents responsive to this request. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery continues. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR work schedule for the two months prior to the THIRD COLLISION, through two months after the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 21661 14 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oe 0 Na AN nt bh W N N O N EE em Em em e m md em je em BR = S S © ® 9 o o Oh B E » o e o m o S 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce Deputy McGee's work schedule for the two weeks prior and the two weeks following the third collision. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any driving logs that YOU maintained over the two months prior to the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “driving logs™ is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents responsive to this request for the two weeks prior to September 15, 2017. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO vehicles operated by YOU while employed by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 1" i" 1" 21661 15 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oO 0 NN a N Un t RA W N N P N N R O N N O N EE Em em em pm em em 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “operated” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents in his custody, control or possession. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO vehicles operated by YOU in the course and scope of YOUR job duties while employed by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “operated” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. It calls for a legal conclusion. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 21661 16 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS A nn RA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents in his custody, control or possession. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Any and all DOCUMENTS-including but not limited to any manuals or videos- RELATED or REFERRING TO training provided by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “training” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents in his custody, control or possession. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any form of safety training provided to YOU by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 1 1 21661 1% MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Lo 0 9 a n t bE W N ND N N R N N N EE em em em em je 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “safety training” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents in his custody, control or possession. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any defensive driving training provided to YOU by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The term “defensive training” is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objccts to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace 21661 18 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Lo 0 a S N nn Ae WwW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents in his custody, control or possession. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department REGARDING the THIRD COLLISION. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Objection. This request is overbroad in time and scope. The request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is intended to harass the Responding Party. Responding Party objects to the extent this request seeks information constituting a subsequent remedial measure. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request calls for information and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or litigation privileges. Responding Party further objects to the extent this request seeks information protected by privacy rights prohibited from disclosure by the Official Information privilege, Penal Code section 832.5 and 832.7, Evidence Code sections 1040, 1043, 1045, 1046 et seq., Government Code sections 6254 and 6275 and the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will comply by producing any and all non-privileged or otherwise protected documents in his custody, control or possession. DATED: December 23, 2019 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP LAUREN GUCCIONE BRIAN K. STEWART ALLISON R. BRACY Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and JASON MCGEE 21661 19 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Oo 0 9 S N B T BA W N N N N R N N N EE em he em pm em e k j m 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART, PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP g§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ss. County of Los Angeles. ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, California 91030. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT JASON MCGEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in South Pasadena) California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. T am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collectior and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day witl postage thereon fully prepaid at South Pasadena, Califomia in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requester, to be placed in the United States Mail in South Pasadena, California. BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List. FEDERAL EXPRESS - T caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents witl delivery fees provided for. og 0 « 0 0 (BY FACSIMILE) - I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimil number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (626) 243-1111 indicated al pages were transmitted. [J (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s). Executed on December 23, 2019 at South Pasadena, California. IX (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [J (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. la aA 22 Silvia Perez siperez@ccmslaw.com 21661 20 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS oe 0 a S N i t bh W N N N NR N N N N N EE em em e m em j m S&S nN BR W R N =m S S © ® J Q ea rE m a E B 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 21661 MCGEE SUPPLEMENTAL RSPS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ROCIO SABBAH v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Los Angeles County Superior Court - Case No. BC720891 Our File No. 21661 SERVICE LIST Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. Jonathan W. Douglass, Esq. Ellery S. Gordon, Esq. PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 (661) 949-2595 - FAX: (661) 949-7524 awheeler@parrislawyers.com jdouglass@parrislawyers.com egordon@parrislawyers.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS cc: TeamKhail@parrislawyers.com Yancy Robertson yrobertson@parrislawyers.com J. Pat Ferraris, Esq. Edward E. Dollar, Esq. HOMAN & STONE 12 North Fifth Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 307-9380 - FAX: (909) 793-0210 jpferraris@homan-stone.com edollar@homan-stone.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, DEAN SPRINGS 21 Mario Elias 20919 Parthenia St, #28 Canoga Park, CA 91304 (818) 262-6620 MElias@metroemail.com DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES J I have read the foregoing document entitled DEFENDANT JASON MCGEE'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE and know the contents thereof. Nl 1s EN I am a party to this action. I have read the foregoing Responses and | know the contents thereof and certify that the same are true of m y own knowledge. EXHIBIT “B” eo 0 N S n t A W N NN N N N N N N m m e m em e m p m e m em e d A U i RA W N = o C N N N R W N = O 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. Brian K. Stewart, Esq. (State Bar No. 126412) Allison R. Bracy, Esq. (State Bar No. 235927) Lauren F. Guccione, Esq. (State Bar No. 311856) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR +STEWART LLP 1100 El Centro Street South Pasadena, CA 91030 (626) 243-1100 - FAX (626) 243-1111 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPUTY JASON MCGEE Exempt from Payment of Filing Fee Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ROCIO SABBAH, ARIELLA SABBAH, a ) minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem ) ROCIO SABBAH, ELIJAH SABBAH, a minor ) by and through her Guardian ad Litem ROCIO ) SABBAH, ) Plaintiffs, VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, DEAN SPRINGS, ALICIA ELIAS, MARIO ELIAS, JASON ANDREW MCGEE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Cross-complainant, VS. DEAN SPRINGS, ALICIA ELIAS, MARIO ELIAS and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive Cross-defendants. N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N N N N N N N N 21661 CASE NO. BC720891 [Assigned to Judge Marc C. Gross, Dept. 3] DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND DEPUTY JASON MCGEE’S PRIVILEGE LOG FOR SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Complaint Filed: 9/5/18 Trial Date: 3/5/20 PRIVILEGE LOG RE: DEPUTY MCGEE AND COLA DOCUMENT PRODUCTION eo 0 N S n t A W N NN N N N N N N m m e m em e m p m e m em e d A U i RA W N = o C N N N R W N = O 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, ROCIO SABBAH RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, DEPUTY JASON MCGEE SET NUMBER: SUPPLEMENTAL (ONE) TO PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD HEREIN: Defendant DEPUTY JASON MCGEE and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“Responding Party”) hereby provides the following privilege log with respect to County’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff ROCIO SABBAH’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, as follows: Log | Discovery Description Identities/ | Identities/ | Privilege Location No. | Reference Position of | Position of Author Recipients 1 Plaintiff’s POD | Internal LASD County Attorney- CCM, to Deputy investigation and Counsel, client; work County McGee (set one), | incident report CCM4+S product; Counsel dated 8/29/19, prepared in litigation items 5-10 anticipation of privilege litigation Plaintiff’s POD to County (set one), dated 8/29/19, items 11-31 2 Plaintiff’s POD | County of Los LASD County Attorney- CCM, to Deputy Angeles Report Counsel, client; work County McGee (set one), | of Vehicle CCMH+S product; Counsel dated 8/29/19, Accident or litigation items 5-10 Incident - privilege marked 21661 2 PRIVILEGE LOG RE: DEPUTY MCGEE AND COLA DOCUMENT PRODUCTION eo 0 N S n t A W N NN N N N N N N m m e m em e m p m e m em e d A U i RA W N = o C N N N R W N = O 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. Plaintiff’s POD to County (set one), dated 8/29/19, items “prepared for County Counsel in defense of County, Special 11-31 Districts and employees” pps Penal Code §8 Plaintiffs’ POD | Deputy Jason N/A N/A - 832.5. 832.7, LASD to Deputy McGee's personnel 83 2.8; Evidence McGee (set one), | personnel file records are | Code § 1040 et seq. items, 30-31, 35- not 37,44 distributed even to Defendants’ attorneys. DATED: December 23, 2019 21661 By: COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP \/ LAUREN GUCTIONE BRIAN K. STEWART ALLISON R. BRACY Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and JASON MCGEE 3 PRIVILEGE LOG RE: DEPUTY MCGEE AND COLA DOCUMENT PRODUCTION eo 0 N S n t A W N NN N N N N N N m m e m em e m p m e m em e d A U i RA W N = o C N N N R W N = O 27 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ) ss. County of Los Angeles. ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, California 91030. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as PRIVILEGE LOG RE: DEPUTY MCGEE AND COLA DOCUMENT PRODUCTION on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST