Plaintiff Erich Mynocks Separate Statement In Opposition To Defendants Motion To Compel And For Sanctions

Response

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.July 9, 2015

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GARY B. ROTH, Esq. [SBN248031] ERIC S. RITIGSTEIN, Esq. [SBN249026] BOXER & GERSON, LLP ELECTRONICALLY 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza FILED Rotunda Building, Suite 500 Superior ComrraP California; Oakland, California 94612 CURLY OF San Francisco Telephone: (510) 835-8870 07 /19 / 2017 Facsimile: (510) 835-0415 Sv SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiff ERICH MYNOCK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Case No. CGC-15-546776 Consolidated With Case No. CGC-17-557646 (Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction) ADA MYNOCK, MICHAEL MYNOCK, AMANDA GARCIA, individually and as Successors-in-Interest to Decedent Wrongful Death Casc of LUCILLE MYNOCK, PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiffs, Vs. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALL SOURCE RECRUITING GROUP, INC., JOHNNY J. NEWPORT, Date: August 2, 2017 ERICK MYNOCK, et al., Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 302 Defendants. ERICH MYNOCK, Plaintiff, VS. JOHNNY J. NEWPORT, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALL SOURCE RECRUITING GROUP, INC., et al. Defendants. N a r ” N a r ? Na r? ’ N e e ? Ne er ” t t ” N a e c a r ’ N v ” “ s c e “e a ea e a t a s t s e se an ’ a i “s ee s “ s u “ s r “s et t “ s u e “ s t “ s t “m at e” “ s e t Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, ef seq., Plaintiff ERICH MYNOCK hereby submits the following Separate Statement in support of his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel; and For Sanctions. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please describe all physical harm YOU suffered as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT. 1 ; PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 1: | Plaintiff sustained loss of consortium [handwritten], physical anguish, grief, emotional distress and other harm as a consequence of the death of Lucille Mynock. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”) Plaintiff includes “physical anguish” without reference to any requested physical harm. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate witnesses for these claims and are entitled to a description of any physical harm sustained by Erich Mynock or a statement that he did not sustain physical harm. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please describe all economic damages YOU suffered as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 3: | At this time, plaintiff is unaware of any significant economic damages suffered as a consequence of the death of Lucille Mynock. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably 2 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 97 28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coifo v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”) Plaintiff states he is unaware of any “significant” damage. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate these claims and are entitled to a complete response identifying all damages sustained by Erich Mynock or a statement that he did not sustain any of the requested damages. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State the amount of medical expenses YOU are seeking to recover as damages YOU incurred in this action. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 4: At this time, plaintiff is unaware of any significant medical expenses suffered as a consequence of the death of Lucille Mynock. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); 3 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS A w O N Oo «0 ~~ O Y Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiff's mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”) Plaintiff states he is unaware of any significant funeral suffered as a consequence of the death of Lucille Mynock. Lucille Mynock’s funeral expenses were paid by an insurance policy, to the best of plaintiff's knowledge. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the amount of funeral expenses YOU are seeking to recover as damages YOU incurred in this action. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 5: At this time, plaintiff is unaware of any significant funeral expenses suffered as a consequence of the death of Lucille Mynock. Lucille Mynock’s funeral expenses were paid by an insurance policy, to the best of plaintiff's knowledge. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lugille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Corr (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”) Plaintiff states he is unaware of any “significant” damage. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate these claims and are entitled to a complete response identifying all damages sustained by Erich Mynock or a statement that he did not sustain any of the requested damages. 4 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 95 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please IDENTIFY all grandchildren of Lucille Mynock who survived Lucille Mynock. | Response to Special Interrogatory No. 10: Plaintiff will identify all grandchildren of Lucille Mynock that descend from him and permit his siblings to identify the remaining grandchildren: | Dena Mynock; Erich Mynock, Jr.; Ofelia Mynock. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship T) heatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiffs mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”). Plaintiff only identifies grandchildren descended from him. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate witnesses for these claims and are entitled to a complete response identifying all grandchildren of Lucille Mynock. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please set forth Lucille Mynock’s residence address for all periods between January 1, 2010 and August 25, 2013. I 5 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Response to Special Interrogatory No. 16: To the best of his knowledge, Lucille Mynock resided with her children Amy Garcia and/or Michael Mynock from January 1, 2010 to August 25, 2013. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal. App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”). Plaintiff only identifies Lucille Mynock’s children without providing her address. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate these claims and are entitled to a complete response [sic] Lucille Mynock’s residence address. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please IDENTIFY all sources of Lucille Mynock’s income between January 1, 2008 and the time of her death. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 20: To the best of plaintiff's knowledge, Lucille Mynock relied upon Social Security, a Federal pension from her spouse’s employment and some savings. Lucille Mynock also received financial support from her children. /1/ / 17 6 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres.of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintif’s mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant’ to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”). Plaintiff only states Lucille Mynock receives financial support from her children without identifying those children. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate witnesses for these claims and are entitled to a complete response identifying children that provided financial support to Lucille Mynock. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please set forth the cause of Lucille Mynock’s death. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 21: To the best of plaintiff's knowledge, Lucille Mynock died as a consequence of injuries sustained in a July 31, 2015 motor vehicle collision, Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests 7 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS” MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”). Plaintiff only states Lucille Mynock died as a consequence of injuries sustained in a July 31, 2015 motor vehicle collision without further explanation. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate these claims and are entitled to a complete response describing Lucille Mynock’s cause of death and mechanism of injury. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please IDENTIFY all persons who determined the cause of Lucille Mynock’s death. Response to Special Interrogatory No. 22: See persons identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 17. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: The information requested is highly relevant to Plaintiff Erich Mynock’s claims for general damage and damages for the purported wrongful death of Lucille Mynock, and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010; Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 CalApp.4th 1366, 1383 (discovery laws favor disclosure). Further, privacy protections are not absolute and do not apply to these requests for basic identification of witnesses. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 501 (names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not protected); Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12 (a party must disclose names and addresses upon a proper interrogatory); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839-842 (finding plaintiff’s mental and emotional condition not only “directly relevant” to her claims, but “essential to a fair resolution of her suit.”). Plaintiff only refers to his answer to special interrogatory no. 17, which does not identify any individuals, without further explanation. Propounding Parties are permitted to investigate witnesses 8 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for these claims and are entitled to a complete response identifying any persons who determined Lucille Mynock’s cause of death. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to physical damages YOU suffered, as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the - that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of ‘admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in posscssion of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent scarch and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated 9 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS® MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this fire.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All WRITINGS evidencing, somstitafing or referring to emotional damages YOU suffered, as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintittis not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement 10 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiffs Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to all economic damages YOU suffered, as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote s0 as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBSv. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has 11 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to communications between YOU and Lucille Mynock in 2010. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a 12 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to communications between YOU and Lucille Mynock in 2011. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that 13 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiffs Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to communications between YOU and Lucille Mynock in 2012. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. 14 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to communications between YOU and Lucille Mynock in 2013. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Objection is hereby made to this discowery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. : 15 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide -- setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All WRITINGS evidencing any marriage of Lucille Mynock including, but not limited to, - marriage certificates. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote $0 as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal. App.2d 813. 117 16 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28, 24 25 26 27 28 Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO: 16: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to the termination of any marriage of Lucille Mynock. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of 17 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 23 24 25 26 27 28 admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal. App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to the death of any person who was a spouse of Lucille Mynock at the time of his death. /1/ I] 18 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5 23 24 25 26 oy 28 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiffis not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. 117 19 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to greeting cards and similar communications YOU sent to Lucille Mynock at any time between January 1, 2008 and the time of Lucille Mynock’s death. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal. App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.21 0, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. - 20 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to greeting cards and similar communications sent by Lucille Mynock to YOU at any time between January 1, 2008 and the time of Lucille Mynock’s death. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Myynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated 21 ; PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to the ownership ofthe vehicle in which Lucille Mynock was a passenger at the time of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal. App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said obi ections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement 22 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to maintenance performed between January 1,2011 and the date of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT on the veliile in which Lucille Mynock was a passenger at the time of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal. App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiffis not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify 23 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person Known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to any repairs performed between January 1, 2010 and the date of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT on the vehicle in which Lucille Mynock was a passenger at the time of the SUBJECT ACCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. " Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning, Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. - Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that 24 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 13 14 15 16 IF 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to any damage caused by the accident to the vehicle in which Lucille Mynock was a passenger at the time of the accident. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible - CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiffs not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. 25 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS O e 3 n b 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to pro vide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort fo comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, ar control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to any repairs performed after the SUBJECT ACCIDENT to the vehicle in which Lucille Mynock was a passenger at the time of the subject accident. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal. App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal. App.2d 813. Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible 26 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. | Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All WRITINGS evidencing, constituting or referring to any statement given by any person who witnessed the SUBJECT ACCIDENT. RESPON SE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and remote so as to be of little or no practical benefit to the propounder, and as such is not calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this action nor to the discovery of admissible evidence. CCP §2017.010; see CBS v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12; Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813. 27 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 2d 28 Objection is hereby made to this discovery on the ground that it is oppressive and burdensome because it is so vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to make a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning. Without waiving said objections, plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Response: Pursuant to CCP § 2031.210, subd. (a) Erich Mynock is required to provide a statement that the party will comply or a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply. In addition, pursuant to CCP §2031.230, Erich Mynock is required to affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with a request for production and specify (1) whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or (2) has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. He is also required to provide a statement setting forth the name and address of any natural person known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item. Instead, Erich Mynock stated “plaintiff is not in possession of any documents responsive to this request at this time.” This response is not code-compliant. Accordingly, Erich Mynock is required to amend this response to provide a substantive answer. Plaintiff’s Response: Plaintiff stands by his response. Plaintiff is not in possession of, nor is Plaintiff presently aware of, any such documents. Dated: July 19, 2017 BOXER ao LLP By - GARY Bl ROTH ERIC SMVRITIGSTEIN Attorneys for Plaintiff ERICH MYNOCK 28 PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ) ss. I am a citizen of the United States of America, employed in the County of Alameda, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to. the within entitled action; my business address is 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Rotunda Building, Suite 500, Oakland, California, 94612. On July 19, 2017, I served the document, described as PLAINTIFF ERICH MYNOCK’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND FOR SANCTIONS on the interested parties to said action by the following means: [XX] (By Mail) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices, in the United States Mail at the offices of Boxer & Gerson, Oakland, California, addressed as shown below. 1am readily familiar with this business's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and in the ordinary course of business correspondence would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day it was placed for collection and processing. [ 1 (ByMail) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Oakland, California, addressed as shown below. [ 1 (ByPersonal Service) By personally delivering a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the addressees shown below. [ 1 (ByHand Delivery) By causing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to be delivered by hand to the addresses shown below. [ 1 (ByOvernight Delivery) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery charges prepaid, to be sent by UPS Next Day Air, addressed as shown below. [XX] (By Facsimile Transmission) By transmitting a true copy thereof by facsimile transmission from facsimile number (510) 835-0415, to the interested parties to said action; the transmission was reported as complete and without error. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on July 19, 2017 at Oakland, California. L271 [12 ATHARRISON PROOF OF SERVICE: ERICH MYNOCK V. JOHNNY J. NEWPORT, S.F.Sup, No. CGC-17-557646 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 235 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE LIST: Steven M. Campora, Esq. [SBN110909] Robert M. Nelson, Esq. [SBN284726] DREYER, BABICH, BUCCOLA, WOOD, CAMPORA, LLP 20 Bicentennial Circle Sacramento, California 95826 Telephone (916) 379-3500 Facsimile (916) 379-3599 scampora@dbbwc.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ADA MYNOCK, MICHAEL MYNOCK and AMANDA GARCIA Catherine S. Meulemans, Esq. [SBN146276] Theodore E. Bacon, Esq. [SBN115395] ALVARADOSMITH A Professional Corporation 235 Pine Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone (415) 624-8665 Facsimile (415) 391-1751 Email: cmeulemans@alvaradosmith.com tbacon@alvaradosmith.com Counsel for Defendant PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Via Facsimile and First Class Mail: Andrew P. Sclar, Esq. [SBN112022] Andrew J. Chan, Esq. [SBN302526] ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT 100 Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94104-4504 Telephone (415) 362-7126 Facsimile (415) 362-6401 Attorneys for Defendants JOHNNY J. NEWPORT ALL SOURCE PPS, INC. (Sued herein as Doe 1) and THE ACT 1 GROUP, INC. dba AGILE-1 (sued herein as Doe 2) PROOF OF SERVICE: ERICH MYNOCK V. JOHNNY J. NEWPORT, S.F.SuP, No. CGC-17-557646