B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. (SBN: 255800) Mabhsa Farid, Esq. (SBN: 288402) Gregory Sogoyan, Esq. (SBN: 316832) B & D LAW GROUP, APLC. 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 424-5252 Facsimile: (310) 492-5855 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Danica Morais ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 07/11/2018 Clerk of the Court BY:KALENE APOLONIO Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DANICA MORALIS, Plaintiff, VS. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive. Defendants. CASE NO. CGC-17-561194 PLAINTIFF DANICA MORAIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT CARLOS ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ’S FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE [CCP §2033.280; CCP §2033.290; §2030.290; CCP §2030.300; CRC 3.1345] Date: August 22, 2018 Time: 9:00 am Dept.: 302 TO THIS COURT, ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiff Danica Morais respectfully submits this Separate Statement in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Admissions Set One. Defendant PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 4 2 4 - 5 2 5 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Carlos Roberto Rodriguez’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Set One as the issue are evasive, without merit and insufficient. " INTRODUCTION This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 20, 2016, near the intersection of Folsom Street and 11" Street in San Francisco, California. For over two years Defendants have refused to pay Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant has put into dispute every aspect of the Plaintiffs injuries and damages without even a scintilla of factual support for any of their contentions. Plaintiff is entitled to meaningful responses to her discovery in order to be able to prepare her case for trial. Plaintiff is entitled to meaningful responses to his discovery in order to be able to prepare his case for trial. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 1093. Pursuant to CCP §2033.220(a), which governs responses to Requests for Admissions: “Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Pursuant to CCP §2033.220(c) “If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” 2 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to 2033.230(a): “If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.” Again, a party must identify and respond to the portion of the question that they are able to respond to. Blanket statements of inability to respond are unacceptable and are considered an act of bad faith. Cembrook v. Superior Court 56 Cal.2d at 429-430. As the court can see, Defendant has gone out of his way to avoid answering these questions simple questions. Plaintiff requests that this court rule on the objections (overrule and strike them), and further issue an Order requiring Defendant to produce full and complete code-compliant responses without objections. Plaintiff further requests an order precluding defendant from introducing any documents, testimony, or evidence that should have been produced in responses to these requests. They also should be ordered to respond to the concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1, which they completely failed to serve code complaint responses to. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS As a preliminary issue, the Court can see that the responses contain meritless and boilerplate objection for every question. In Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961), 56 Cal. App.2d 423, 430, the Court indicated that such objections to the entire set of discovery is abusive and shows a complete lack of good faith. The Court in Cembrook also explained that requests for admissions arc not subject to the objections like other types of discovery. Pursuant to CCP §2033.220: (a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (b) Each answer shall: 3 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party. (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue. Defendant, pursuant to this code section, is mandated to respond either wholly in the affirmative or negative or in part. Here, Defendant has abstained from even making a partial admission even though at least a partial admission 1s warranted. Pursuant to 2033.230(a): “If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered.” The fact that they have wholly objected instead of trying to answer as much as they could shows that their response lacks good faith. Plaintiff requests a Court overrule and strike Defendant’s objections and order Defendant to produce code-compliant supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions and the concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1 and without objections. SEPARATE STATEMENT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1: Plaintiff Danica Morais was injured as a result of the INCIDENT. (For the purposes of these requests, all references to “INCIDENT” includes the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach giving rise to this action nor proceeding, including but not limited to the accident that occurred on or about 09/20/16. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 4 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This answering defendant has insufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request. Defendant has not been provided with any medical records, bills, doctor’s notes or reports that describe any injury, nor has a medical expert been retained to evaluate plaintiff’s alleged injury. REASON FOR A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 This request seeks to gain information as to Plaintiff’s injuries and liability of the Defendant. Plaintiff prior to engaging in this litigation process had produced all their medical records, in their demand issued to Defendants Insurance Company and has further produced her medical records in discovery proceedings, this far. Thus, Defendant has acquired sufficient information through extensive discovery and Defendant can intelligently respond to this request. Additionally, “inability to admit” pursuant to pursuant to CCP § 2033.220, requires a detailed reason under oath, otherwise it is considered in bad-faith, justifying sanctions. Even if a party shows a lack of personal knowledge but has “sources available and fails to make a reasonable investigation it shows... lack of good reason for the failure to admit and supports sanction award.” Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 618, 634-5. Objecting based on lack of personal knowledge 1s insufficient if access to knowledge 1s reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal. App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal. App.2d 318, 323. This includes facts supporting their contentions which can arguably be considered “attorney work-product”. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Smith v. Circle P. Ranch (1978), 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 275. [If information available, there is no good 5 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reason for denial and sanctions are justified] The legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial.” Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to seek Defendant’s contentions as to liability. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Objections based on the lack of personal knowledge are insufficient if access to knowledge is reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal. App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal. App.2d 318, 323. The courts have specifically held that one even has an obligation to consult with their experts when responding to discovery. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water Dist. v. Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 42, 46; See also, Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427 [Sanctions imposed for party's refusal to obtain information from its own expert to answer interrogatories]. Requests for admissions arc not a discovery in the traditional sense. International Harvester v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 652, 655; Lieb v. Superior Court (1962) 199 Cal. App.2d. 364, 367; Hillman v. Stultz (1968) 263 Cal. App.3d 848, 885; Burch v. Gombos (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 352, 359. They also serve to establish uncontroverted facts learned from other discovery, which saves time and expense of 6 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 proof at trial. Fredericks v. Kontos Industries (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 272, 276. Therefore, the objection such as “premature disclosure of expert witnesses” do not apply. One, request for admissions are not discovery devices. Two, neither the expert witness’s identity nor his testimony is sought or disclosed. Additionally, Defendants contend that that they have not conducted discovery in this matter, and thus they are unable to admit or deny the question. Defendant is in receipt of all the medical records of the Plaintiff, prior to engaging in the litigation process Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendants insurance company, Defendant has sufficient information to answer the request and is dodging plaintiff’s questions, thus, defeating the spirit of litigation. Defendant should be ordered to provide a full and complete and non-evasive responses and without objections to this Request for Admission and where appropriate to amend their response to the concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2: Plaintiff Danica Morais did not contribute to the cause of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Objection: vague, ambiguous, overbroad. Without waiving said objections, defendant admits that plaintiff Morais was not driving either vehicle when the collision occurred, but the cause of any injury is unknown at this time. REASON FOR A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2 This request seeks to gain information as to Plaintiff’s injuries and liability of the Defendant. Plaintiff was a passenger in a bus that collided with another automobile on the road. A traffic collision report documented the accident. 7 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The question asked is a simple and straight forward question and Defendant’s objections of vague, ambiguous, overbroad are not well taken. Plaintiff is entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Additionally, “inability to admit” pursuant to pursuant to CCP § 2033.220, requires a detailed reason under oath, otherwise it is considered in bad-faith, justifying sanctions. Even if a party shows a lack of personal knowledge but has “sources available and fails to make a reasonable investigation it shows... lack of good reason for the failure to admit and supports sanction award.” Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 618, 634-5. Objecting based on lack of personal knowledge is insufficient if access to knowledge is reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal. App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal. App.2d 318, 323. This includes facts supporting their contentions which can arguably be considered “attorney work-product”. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Smith v. Circle P. Ranch (1978), 87 Cal. App.3d 267, 275. [If information available, there is no good reason for denial and sanctions are justified] The legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial.” Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] 8 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to seek Defendant’s contentions as to liability. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Moreover, the objection based on vagueness and ambiguity and overbroad is absurd as this request is straightforward. “A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer. (Hunter v. International Systems & Controls Corp., supra, 56 F.R.D. 617, 625.) Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response. (See Cal. Civil Discovery Practice, supra § 8.54.)” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 772, 783. Surely, Defense Counsel and his staff are knowledgeable enough to know what Plaintiff means by “incident.” Additionally, Defendants contend that that they have not conducted discovery in this matter, and thus they are unable to admit or deny the question. Defendant is in receipt of the traffic collision report that describes an accident in which Plaintiff was a passenger in a bus, Defendant has sufficient information to answer the request and is dodging plaintiff’s questions, thus, defeating the spirit of litigation. Defendant’s objections lack merit and should be overruled and stricken. Defendant should be ordered to provide a full and complete and non-evasive responses and without objections to this Request for Admission and where appropriate to amend their response to the concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Plaintiff Danica Morais’ claim is not barred pursuant to Civil Code § 3333.3 and/or Civil Code § 3333.4. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 9 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This answering defendant has insufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request at this time. REASON FOR A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: This request seeks to gain information as to Plaintiff’s injuries and liability of the Defendant. Plaintiff prior to engaging in this litigation process had produced all their medical records, in their demand issued to Defendants Insurance Company and has further produced his medical records in discovery proceedings, this far. Thus, Defendant has acquired sufficient information through extensive discovery and Defendant can intelligently respond to this request. Additionally, “inability to admit” pursuant to pursuant to CCP § 2033.220, requires a detailed reason under oath, otherwise it is considered in bad-faith, justifying sanctions. Even if a party shows a lack of personal knowledge but has “sources available and fails to make a reasonable investigation it shows...lack of good reason for the failure to admit and supports sanction award.” Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 618, 634-5. Objecting based on lack of personal knowledge is insufficient if access to knowledge is reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal. App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 323. This includes facts supporting their contentions which can arguably be considered “attorney work-product”. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Smith v. Circle P. Ranch (1978), 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 275. [If information available, there is no good reason for denial and sanctions are justified] The legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while 10 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial.” Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to seek Defendant’s contentions as to liability. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Additionally, Defendants contend that that they have not conducted discovery in this matter, and thus they are unable to admit or deny the question. Defendant is in receipt of all the medical records of the Plaintiff, prior to engaging in the litigation process Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendants insurance company, Defendant has sufficient information to answer the request and is dodging plaintiff’s questions, thus, defeating the spirit of litigation. Defendant should be ordered to provide a full and complete and non-evasive responses and without objections to this Request for Admission and where appropriate to amend their response to the concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Plaintiff Danica Morais incurred at least $1.00 of economic damages as a result of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: This answering defendant has insufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request. Defendant has not been provided with any medical records, bills, 11 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 doctor’s notes or reports that describe any injury, nor has a medical expert been retained to evaluate plaintiff’s alleged injury. REASON FOR A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: This request seeks to gain information as to Plaintiff’s injuries and liability of the Defendant. Plaintiff prior to engaging in this litigation process had produced all their medical records, in their demand issued to Defendants Insurance Company and has further produced his medical records in discovery proceedings, this far. Thus, Defendant has acquired sufficient information through extensive discovery and Defendant can intelligently respond to this request. Additionally, “inability to admit” pursuant to pursuant to CCP § 2033.220, requires a detailed reason under oath, otherwise it is considered in bad-faith, justifying sanctions. Even if a party shows a lack of personal knowledge but has “sources available and fails to make a reasonable investigation it shows...lack of good reason for the failure to admit and supports sanction award.” Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 618, 634-5. Objecting based on lack of personal knowledge is insufficient if access to knowledge is reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal. App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal. App.2d 318, 323. This includes facts supporting their contentions which can arguably be considered “attorney work-product”. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Smith v. Circle P. Ranch (1978), 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 275. [If information available, there is no good reason for denial and sanctions are justified] The legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while 12 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial.” Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to seek Defendant’s contentions as to liability. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Additionally, Defendants contend that that they have not conducted discovery in this matter, and thus they are unable to admit or deny the question. Defendant is in receipt of all the medical records of the Plaintiff, prior to engaging in the litigation process Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendants insurance company, Defendant has sufficient information to answer the request and is dodging plaintiff’s questions, thus, defeating the spirit of litigation. Defendant should be ordered to provide a full and complete and non-evasive responses and without objections to this Request for Admission and where appropriate to amend their response to the concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Plaintiff Danica Morais was injured as a result of Defendant Carlos Roberto Rodriguez’ negligence. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: This answering defendant has insufficient information upon which to admit or deny this request. Defendant has not been provided with any medical records, bills, 13 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 doctor’s notes or reports that describe any injury, nor has a medical expert been retained to evaluate plaintiff’s alleged injury. REASON FOR A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: This request seeks to gain information as to Plaintiffs injuries and liability of the Defendant. Defendant has in his possession, control, or custody the Traffic Collision Report regarding the accident. Plaintiff prior to engaging in this litigation process had produced all their medical records, in their demand issued to Defendants Insurance Company and has further produced his medical records in discovery proceedings, this far. Thus, Defendant has acquired sufficient information through extensive discovery and Defendant can intelligently respond to this request. Additionally, “inability to admit” pursuant to pursuant to CCP § 2033.220, requires a detailed reason under oath, otherwise it is considered in bad-faith, justifying sanctions. Even if a party shows a lack of personal knowledge but has “sources available and fails to make a reasonable investigation it shows...lack of good reason for the failure to admit and supports sanction award.” Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 634-5. Objecting based on lack of personal knowledge is insufficient if access to knowledge 1s reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 323. This includes facts supporting their contentions which can arguably be considered “attorney work-product”. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Smith v. Circle P. Ranch (1978), 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 275. [If information available, there is no good reason for denial and sanctions are justified] 14 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The legislature intended to take the “game” element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of trial itself. One of the principle purposes of discovery was to do away with the sporting theory of litigation-namely surprise at trial.” Chronicle Pub. Co v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d, 548,561, See also page (572 citing to United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1958), 356 U.S. 677 [Discovery tends to “make trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Plaintiff is absolutely entitled to seek Defendant’s contentions as to liability. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Objections based on the lack of personal knowledge are insufficient if access to knowledge is reasonably available. Lindgreen v. Superior Court (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 743, 746; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 323. The courts have specifically held that one even has an obligation to consult with their experts when responding to discovery. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water Dist. v. Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal. App.2d 42, 46; See also, Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427 [Sanctions imposed for party's refusal to obtain information from its own expert to answer interrogatories]. Additionally, Defendants contend that that they have not conducted discovery in this matter, and thus they arc unable to admit or deny the question. Defendant is in receipt of all the medical records of the Plaintiff, prior to engaging in the litigation process Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Defendants insurance company, Defendant has sufficient information to answer the request and is dodging plaintiff's questions, thus, defeating the spirit of litigation. 15 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & D L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nt a M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 42 4- 52 52 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant should be ordered to provide a full and complete and non-evasive responses and without objections to this Request for Admission and where appropriate to amend their response to the concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s objections lack merit and should be overruled and stricken. Further, Defendant should be ordered to provide full, complete and code-compliant non-evasive responses to these interrogatories. DATED: July 11, 2018 B & D LAW GROUP, APLC By: TTA Mahsa Farid, Esq. \_ Gregory Sogoyan, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kristopher Condon 16 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT B & DD L a w G R O U P , AP LC . 1 0 7 0 0 Sa nT A M o n i c a B O U L E V A R D , SU IT E 20 0 L o s A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 2 5 (3 10 ) 4 2 4 - 5 2 5 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, state of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025. On July 11, 2018, I served the foregoing documents described: Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses, Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Separate Statement, and Exhibits on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Timothy J. Fama, Esq. City and County of San Francisco 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 (415)554-3837 _ X (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles County, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. _X (BY FIRM PRACTICE) I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the office of the addressee. (BY FACSIMILE) I caused all of the pages of the above entitled documents to be sent to recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the respective telephone numbers indicated above. __X (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction this service was made. Executed on the 11th day of July 2018 at Los Angeles, Califomsy Cd Gregoty Sogoyan, Esq. PROOF OF SERVICE
