motion to compel further responses to request for admission

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.November 16, 2021

1 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. (SBN: 255800) Michael B. Geoola, Esq. (SBN: 235365) Khushboo B. Vasandani, Esq. (SBN:332841) 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, Jonathan Valladares SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE JONATHAN VALLADARES, Plaintiff, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et. al. Defendants. CASE NO. CGC-19-579765 Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’s OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500.00 FROM DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ., & NORTON & MELNIK, APC [CCP §§ 2023.et seq; 2030.et seq] Hearing: Dept.: 301 Time: 9:00 A.M. Date: August 30, 2021 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 07/23/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk 2 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This action arises from an automobile collision that occurred on October 26, 2018 at or around Sansome Street by Merchant St., San Francisco, CA 94111 (hereinafter “day of the incident”). On the day of the incident, Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle owned by Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. Dba Skylark Limousine (hereinafter “Defendants Skylark”), when all of a sudden the vehicle that Plaintiff was a passenger in was struck by a fire truck owned by Defendant City and County of San Francisco. Liability is disputed by and between the Defendants herein. Plaintiff’s and the Defendant Skylark herein have attempted to meet and confer; however despite several discussions between counsel, and various meet and confer attempts, and the case laws that Plaintiff’s counsel provided to Defendant Skylark, Defendant has refused to amend their response or provide further responses. Therefore it is apparent that further attempts to meet and confer will not be fruitful, making this motion necessary. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On March 25, 2021 Plaintiff propounded Request for Admission, Set One; to Defendant Skylark (hereinafter “RFA’S”), via electronic transmission. (See Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of the Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) On April 26, 2021 Defendant served its verified responses via e-mail. (See Exhibit B, a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFA’S, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). On May 26, 2021 as the Defendant’s responses to the RFA’S were insufficient and non- code-compliant, Plaintiff sent her first meet and confer letter requesting further responses to the Set One responses (See Exhibit C, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 3 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 On June 2, 2021 Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter and stated that their responses were adequate based on the information they had. (See Exhibit D, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). On June 3, 2021 Plaintiff again in good faith asked Defendant to reconsider their position. (See Exhibit E, a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff’s email to Defendants counsel, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). On June 8, 2021 Defendant provided supplemental verified responses. (See Exhibit F, a true and correct copy of Defendants Supplemental RFA’S to Plaintiff’s counsel, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) On July 15, 2021, as Defendants supplemental responses were still deficient, and while there was no requirement to endlessly meet and confer, Plaintiff in good faith sent her last and final meet and confer letter, requesting Defendant’s to provide further responses. (See Exhibit G, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) On July 20, 2021, Defendant served verified responses to RFA’s no.’s 8 & 9 only. Defendants further stated that the will not amend responses to RFA no.’s 1, 2, 5, & 7 (See Exhibit H, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, and supplemental responses sent by Defendants’ counsel, respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) There is no endless requirement to meet and confer. Defendant’s responses to RFA’s 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 are still deficient. Plaintiff believes that Plaintiff has reached an impasse and it does not seem that any more meeting and conferring can be beneficial to the parties. Plaintiff has no choice but to bring the instant Motion. Good Cause exists to bring the instant Motion because the responses are not code- compliant and Defendant’s objections are not valid or proper. Plaintiff is entitled to the responses to these discovery requests so that she can be prepared for trial. 4 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 III. ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE RESPONSES ARE INADEQUATE A. The Court May Compel A Party To Provide Further Answers To Discovery (Requests For Admissions) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2033.290, on receipt of a response to a request for admissions, the party propounding the request may move for an order compelling further response to the request if the answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete, or if an objection to the request is without merit or too general. Furthermore, Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220 provides that each answer shall be as complete and straightforward as possible and shall admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, deny so much of the matter involved in the request as untrue, and specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the response the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. If lack of information or knowledge is the reason for failure to admit all or part, then 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. Moreover, pursuant to CCP § 2033.230 provides that when an objection is asserted it must state the specific grounds and the party must still answer the remainder of the request. B. Plaintiff Is Entitled To Meaningful Responses To Discovery 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 blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”] Plaintiff is entitled to know what Defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is also entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 5 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 Cal. App. 4th 109 [Court strikes Defendant’s answer and entered their default for failing to provide meaningful responses to discovery.] Moreover, Request for Admissions are meant to uncover undisputed factual issues. Shepard & Morgan v. Lee & Daniel (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 885. They also serve to establish uncontroverted facts learned from other discovery, which saves time and expense of proof at trial. Fredericks v. Kontos Industries (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 272, 276. They are not discovery devises in the traditional sense and most objections that may apply to an interrogatory or production demand do not apply to a request for admissions. Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 884-887; International Harvester v. Superior Court (1969), 273 Cal.App.2d 652, 655. Any necessary objection or explanation should be reserved for the concomitant responses to FROG 17.1 and not asserted as an “objection” to the request for admission. Burch v. Gombos (2000), 82 Cal.App.4th 352, 358-359. In Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961), 56 Cal.2d 423, 429-430, the court explains in detail that Requests for Admissions are not subject to objections like other types of discovery. In Cembrook the Court explained: “The claims of ambiguity, calling for opinion and conclusion, and those other objections summarized above, have been discussed in the other decisions filed this day. They were there found to be untenable. The reasons set forth in those cases for holding such objections unsound when applied to other discovery procedures, are peculiarly applicable to requests for admissions… For this reason, the fact that the request is for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment.” Cembrook v. Superior Court 56 Cal.2d at 429 [Emphasis Added].” The same objections and issues that Defendant has raised here were addressed in Cembrook. The Court in Cembrook goes on to explain that an objection is not a substitute to an inability clearly to admit or deny a request for admission: 6 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 “This is not a ground for objection and certainly does not constitute a sound reason for sustaining the objection. As quoted above, section 2033 provides that a party served with requests for admission may deny as well as admit, and that a denial shall fairly meet the substance of the request. The section is even more explicit. As if underscoring the error of the trial court in sustaining Sterling's objections, the section also provides that the request may be answered by a sworn statement "setting forth in detail the reasons why [the party served with requests] cannot truthfully admit or deny ...," and that "when good faith requires that a party deny only a part or a qualification of a matter ... he shall specify so much of it as is true and deny only the remainder…… “By objecting to the requests as a whole, without some attempt to admit or deny in part, and by making no attempt to answer with an explanation of its inability, it failed to show the "good faith" required by the statute. Consequently the trial court erred in sustaining its objections to the requests, in toto. Some of the requests are obviously relevant and void of ambiguity. If other reasons exist that make Sterling unable to reply, Plaintiff is entitled to a sworn statement from Sterling setting forth those reasons in good faith.” Cembrook v. Superior Court 56 Cal.2d at 429-430 [Emphasis Added]. In the instant case, Defendants have done exactly what the court in Cembrook chastised the Defendant for having done. As set forth in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements, Defendant is hiding behind objections in order to avoid answering the questions. The fact of the matter is that the admissions sought are all true and Defendant knows it. They just don’t want to admit it without putting up a fight, but they also want to not be subject to the ramifications for failing to admit true facts under Civil Procedure Code §2033.420. The Court should OVERRULE and STRIKE all the objections asserted by Defendant and to the extent that the substantive answers are deficient or non-responsive, this Court should order that 7 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 Defendant provide further code compliant responses, under oath. C. Defendants Should Also Be Ordered To Provide Further Responses To Concomitant Form Interrogatory 17.1 In Line With The Further Responses To The Requests For Admissions Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code §§2030.220, Defendants had an obligation to respond to the interrogatories to the fullest extent possible and to conduct a reasonable inquiry to other persons or organizations. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code §§2030.300, Defendant also should be ordered to fix his responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 to fully and properly respond to all the subparts and to: (1) provide actual facts in subpart (b) including all facts in their possession or obtainable after doing a reasonable inquiry; (2) provide the names and contact information for all persons who have knowledge in subpart (c); and (3) identify all documents or things in subpart (d). Defendant has failed to adequately do so and they should be compelled to do so. IV. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE JUSTIFIED SINCE DEFENDANT HAD AMPLE TIME TO RESPOND AND HAD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR FAILURE TO RESPOND When a motion is brought pursuant to Civil Procedure Code §2030.290, the code allows the Court to not impose sanctions only if it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Civil Procedure Code §2030.290(c). “Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to authorized discovery, providing evasive discovery responses, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, unsuccessfully making or opposing discovery motions without substantial justification, and failing to meet and confer in good faith to resolve a discovery dispute when required by statute to do so.’ [Citation.] (In re Marriage of Michaely (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 802, 809”. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer to no avail. Plaintiff has not received sufficient responses to the discovery. Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to reach an informal 8 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 resolution to these discovery issues and communicated with Defense Counsel’s office numerous times, to no avail. The Plaintiff has incurred $2,100.00 in bringing these motions ($350/hour for 6 hours preparing these motions, the points and authorities, and two Separate Statements, and an anticipated 2 hours replying to any oppositions and appearance time of 1 hour for the hearing on this motion) and $60.00 in costs for a total of $3,210.00. Courts in this county have awarded private Plaintiff’s counsel amounts in excess of $350.00 per hours and the undersigned has been awarded this much by Courts in this county the past. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is only asking for $2,500.00 in sanctions inclusive of the filing costs. Plaintiff requests that this Court award $2,500.00 payable to Plaintiff’s Counsel of record, as a sanction and in compensation for having to bring this motion. However, Plaintiff defers to the wisdom of this Court in setting the amount of the sanctions. V. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant should be ordered to promptly serve full and complete further responses to the discovery requests without objection and any objections in its responses should be ordered and deemed stricken. In addition, Defendant and Defendant’s Counsel should be ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff’s Counsel in the amount of $2,500.00 Respectfully submitted this 23th day of July, 2021. B&D LAW GROUP, APLC. By:________________________________ Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. Khushboo B. Vasandani, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jonathan Valladares 9 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 DECLARATION OF KHUSHBOO B. VASANDANI, ESQ I, Khushboo B. Vasandani, Esq., declare that: 1. I am an attorney at law, admitted to practice in California. I am a member in good standing of the California State bar. I represent Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares at all times relevant herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On March 25, 2021 Plaintiff propounded Request for Admission, Set One; to Defendant Skylark (hereinafter “RFA’S”), via electronic transmission. (See Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of the Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 3. On April 26, 2021 Defendant served its verified responses via e-mail. (See Exhibit B, a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFA’S, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). 4. On May 26, 2021 as the Defendant’s responses to the RFA’S were insufficient and non- code-compliant, Plaintiff sent his first meet and confer letter requesting further responses to the Set One responses (See Exhibit C, a true and correct copy of the meet and confer letter, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 5. On June 2, 2021 Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter and stated that their responses were adequate based on the information they had. (See Exhibit D, a true and correct copy of the Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s RFA’S, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). 6. On June 3, 2021 Plaintiff again in good faith asked Defendant to reconsider their position. (See Exhibit E, a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff’s email to Defendants counsel, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference). 7. On June 8, 2021 Defendant provided supplemental verified responses. (See Exhibit F, a true and correct copy of Defendants Supplemental RFA’S to Plaintiff’s counsel, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 8. On July 15, 2021, as Defendants supplemental responses were still deficient, and while there 10 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 was no requirement to endlessly meet and confer, Plaintiff in good faith sent her last and final meet and confer letter, requesting Defendant’s to provide further responses. (See Exhibit G, a true and correct copy of the email sent by Defendants’ counsel, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 9. On July 20, 2021, Defendant served verified responses to RFA’s no.’s 8 & 9 only. Defendants further stated that the will not amend responses to RFA no.’s 1, 2, 5, & 7 (See Exhibit H, a true and correct copy of the email sent by Plaintiff’s counsel attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.) 10. There is no endless requirement to meet and confer. Defendant’s responses to RFA’s 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 are still deficient. 11. Plaintiff believes that Plaintiff has reached an impasse and it does not seem that any more meeting and conferring can be beneficial to the parties. Plaintiff has no choice but to bring the instant Motion. 12. Good Cause exists to bring the instant Motion because the responses are not code-compliant and Defendant’s objections are not valid or proper. Plaintiff is entitled to the responses to these discovery requests so that she can be prepared for trial. 13. To date, Plaintiff has not received any responses to the discovery issues addressed in Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter. 14. There is an impasse and it does not seem that any more meeting and conferring can be beneficial to the parties. Plaintiff has no choice but to bring this instant motion. Good Cause exists to bring this instant motion because the responses are not code-compliant and the objections are not valid or proper. Plaintiff is entitled to the responses to these discovery requests so that he can be prepared for upcoming trial. 15. Plaintiff needs the answers to these requests and any documents that are responsive to our requests for production to investigate the matters far in advance of trial. Additionally, this information in advance of being able to take a deposition of Defendants and potential witnesses. 16. Defendant’s failure to respond to any discovery has deprived Plaintiff and counsel of a 11 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD; DECLARATIONS; EXHIBITS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 meaning full evaluation of their claim. 17. I have incurred $2,100.00 in bringing these motions ($350/hour for 6 hours preparing these motions, the points and authorities, and two Separate Statements, and an anticipated 2 hours replying to any oppositions and appearance time of 1 hour for the hearing on this motion) and $60.00 in costs for a total of $3,210.00. Courts in this county have awarded private Plaintiff’s counsel amounts in excess of $350.00 per hours and the undersigned has been awarded this much by Courts in this county the past. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is only asking for $2,500.00 in sanctions inclusive of the filing costs. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this July 23, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. ___________________________ Declarant Exhibit “A” EXHIBIT “A” American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) FOR COURT USE ONLYATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: SHORT TITLE: REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Truth of Facts Genuineness of Documents CASE NUMBER: Requesting Party: Answering Party: Set No.: REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. Each of the following facts is true (if more than one, number each fact consecutively): Continued on Attachment 1 The original of each of the following documents, copies of which are attached, is genuine (if more than one, number each document consecutively): 2. Continued on Attachment 2 (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 94-95, 2033.010-2033.420, 2033.710 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California DISC-020 [Rev. January 1, 2008] REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DISC-020 TELEPHONE NO.: E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): FAX NO. (Optional): INSTRUCTIONS You are requested to admit within 30 days after service, or within 5 days after service in an unlawful detainer action, of this Requests for Admission that: Requests for admission are written requests by a party to an action requiring that any other party to the action either admit or deny, under oath, the truth of certain facts or the genuineness of certain documents. For information on timing, the number of admissions a party may request from any other party, service of requests and responses, restrictions on the style, format, and scope of requests for admission and responses to requests, and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections 94-95, 1013, and 2033.010-2033.420 and the case law relating to those sections. These instructions are only a summary and are not intended to provide complete information about requests for admission. This Requests for Admission form does not change existing law relating to requests for admissions, nor does it affect an answering party’s right to assert any privilege or to make any objection. Unless there is an agreement or a court order providing otherwise, the answering party must respond in writing to requests for admission within 30 days after they are served, or within 5 days after service in an unlawful detainer action. There may be significant penalties if an answering party fails to provide a timely written response to each request for admission. These penalties may include, among other things, an order that the facts in issue are deemed true or that the documents in issue are deemed genuine for purposes of the case. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing answers are true and correct. ______________________ ______________________________________________ An answering party should consider carefully whether to admit or deny the truth of facts or the genuineness of documents. With limited exceptions, an answering party will not be allowed to change an answer to a request for admission. There may be penalties if an answering party fails to admit the truth of any fact or the genuineness of any document when requested to do so and the requesting party later proves that the fact is true or that the document is genuine. These penalties may include, among other things, payment of the requesting party’s attorney’s fees incurred in making that proof. Answers to Requests for Admission must be given under oath. The answering party should use the following language at the end of the responses: (DATE) (SIGNATURE) Page 1 of 1 Khushboo B. Vasandani, Esq., SBN: 332841 B & D LAW GROUP, APLC. 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310)424-5252 (310)492-5855 TeamLit1@bdinjurylawgroup.com Jonathan Valladares San Francisco 400 McAllister Street Room 007 400 McAllister Street Room 007 San Francisco, 94102 Civic Center Court House Jonathan Valladares v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. Jonathan Valladares Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine Set One (1) CGC-19-579765 Khushboo B. Vasandani, Esq. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - SET ONE (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 B & D L A W G R O U P , A P L C . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N IC A B O U L E V A R D , S U IT E 2 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 2 5 (3 1 0 ) 4 2 4 -5 2 5 2 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares 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 or proceeding, including but not limited to the accident that occurred on or about 10/26/18.) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares did not contribute to the cause of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares’s claim is not barred pursuant to Civil Code §3333.3 and/or Civil Code §3333.4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: The vehicle in which Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares was a passenger was damaged as a result of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares incurred at least $1.00 of economic damages as a result of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence was a cause of the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares was injured as a result of Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence contributed at least one (1) percent toward causing the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the INCIDENT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine struck the vehicle in which 2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - SET ONE (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 B & D L A W G R O U P , A P L C . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N IC A B O U L E V A R D , S U IT E 2 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 2 5 (3 1 0 ) 4 2 4 -5 2 5 2 Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares was a passenger on 10/26/18. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine was using a MOBILE DEVICE during the three (3) minutes prior to the INCIDENT. (For the purposes of these requests, all references to “MOBILE DEVICE” as used herein includes any cellular phone, mobile phone, smart phone, pager, tablets, two-way radios, navigation devices, and/or any cordless electronic device.) 11 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE (SET ONE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P , A P L C . 1 0 7 0 0 S A N T A M O N IC A B O U L E V A R D , S U IT E 2 0 0 L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 2 5 (3 1 0 ) 4 2 4 -5 2 5 2 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 March 25, 2021, I served the foregoing documents described: Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares’ Special Interrogatories Set One; Form Interrogatories Set One; Request for Admissions Set One; Request for Production Set One to Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine 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 Tim.Fama@sfcityatty.org anita.murdock@sfcityatty.org Mark L. Dawson, Esq. Norton and Melnik, APC 500 La Gonda Way Suite 295 Danville, CA 94526 (925)743-1148 mdawson@nortonmelnik.com chamze@nortonmelnik.com kschieber@nortonmelnik.com ____ (BY MAIL) I caused the envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles County, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. ____ (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. __X__ (ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION TO ATTORNEYS ONLY). Only by e- mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice provided, during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mails. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. __X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on the 25th day of March 2021 at Los Angeles, California. _____________________________ Katarina Lustenberger Katarina Lustenberger Exhibit “B” EXHIBIT “B” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ. (SBN 166956) DAVID P. ARMANINI, ESQ. (SBN 259422) NORTON & MELNIK, APC 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295 Danville, CA 94526 (925)718-1040 Telephone (925) 743-1148 Facsimile mdawson@nortonmelnik.com darmanini@nortonmelnik.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JONATHAN VALLADARES Plaintiff, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCSICO, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT; WAYLAND GIN; VINCENT CAPURRO; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants. _________________________________ AND ALL RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. No. CGC-19-579765 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE (1) Complaint Filed: July 16, 2019 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, JONATHAN VALLADARES RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, AMAR ENTERPRISES INC DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINES SET NO.: ONE (1) Defendant, AMAR ENTERPRISES INC DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINES (hereinafter referred to as “DEFENDANT”), responds to plaintiff, JONATHAN VALLADARES (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFF”), Requests for Admission, Set One, as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) PREFATORY STATEMENT It should be noted that this responding party has not fully completed its investigation into the facts relating to this suit, has not completed discovery, and has not completed its preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to and specifically known to this responding party and disclose only contentions which presently occur to such responding party. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research, and analysis will supply additional facts and establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the contentions herein set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s rights to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which this responding party may later recall. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed, and contentions are made. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as are presently known but should in no way be to the prejudice of this responding party in relation to further discovery, research or analysis. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares 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 or proceeding, including but not limited to the accident that occurred on or about 10/26/18.) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares did not contribute to the cause of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares’s claim is not barred pursuant to Civil Code §3333.3 and/or Civil Code §3333.4. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 Objection. This request is compound, overbroad, lacks foundation, calls for speculation and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 The vehicle in which Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares was a passenger was damaged as a result of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares incurred at least $1.00 of economic damages as a result of the INCIDENT. /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence was a cause of the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares was injured as a result of Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence contributed at least one (1) percent toward causing the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine struck the vehicle in which Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares was a passenger on 10/26/18. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous and overbroad in both time and scope. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine was using a MOBILE DEVICE during the three (3) minutes prior to the INCIDENT. (For the purposes of these requests, all references to “MOBILE DEVICE” as used herein includes any cellular phone, mobile phone, smart phone, pager, tablets, two-way radios, navigation devices, and/or any cordless electronic device.) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous and overbroad in both time and scope. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny. Dated: April 26, 2021 NORTON & MELNIK, APC By: _____________________________ MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ. DAVID P. ARMANINI, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 VERIFICATION I, Harinder S. Gahunia, declare that: I am a representative of defendant in the above-entitled action; that I have read the foregoing Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousine’s Responses To Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One; and know the contents thereof; that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information and belief and as to those matters that I believe it to be true. Executed this ______ day of_________, 2021, at _________________, California. ______________________________________ HARINDER S. GAHUNIA on behalf of Amar Enterprises, Inc., dba Skylark Limousine 22 April 11:30am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My governmental address is 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295, Danville, California, 94526. On the date set forth below, I served: DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE (1) on the parties to said action by emailing a true copy of the document as listed below: Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. B & D Law Group, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310-424-5252 Email: teamlit1@bdinjurylawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant City and County of San Francisco Timothy J. Fama, Esq. Fox Plaza 1390 Market St, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: 415-554-3921 Email: tim.fama@sfgov.org Anita.Murdock@sfcityatty.org (ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above, that during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, Norton & Melnik will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and are therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with first class postage thereon fully prepaid at Danville, California, in the ordinary course of governmental. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Danville, California on April 26, 2021. ____________________________________ Catherine Hamze X X Exhibit “C” EXHIBIT “C” B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 FAX: (310) 492-5855 May 26, 2021 Via Email Only Mark L. Dawson, Esq. David P. Armanini, Esq. Norton & Melnik, APC 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295 mdawson@nortonmelnik.com darmanini@nortonmelnik.com RE: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Court Case: CGC-19-579765 Our Client: Jonathan Valladares Your Client: Amar Enterprises Inc. dba Skylark Limousines Date of Loss: 10/26/18 Our File Number: 16752 Dear Counsel: Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares (“Plaintiff”) is in receipt of Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousines (“Defendant”) responses to Plaintiff’s propounded Discovery, Set One (1), served on this office on April 26, 2021. This letter shall serve as our attempt to meet and confer regarding the deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses set forth herein. FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Form Interrogatory 1.1: Defendant’s response does not address the interrogatory being asked. The interrogatory specifically states not to identify the person who simply typed or reproduced these responses. Defendant needs to provide the name, address and telephone number of each person who prepared or assisted in the preparation of these interrogatories, especially in light of the fact that Defendant is a corporation, and Plaintiff would like to depose the party who is responding to these interrogatories. Harinder S. Gahunia signed the verification. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a code compliant response identifying his contact information (this is needed in the event that he is an employee of Defendant and subsequently becomes no longer employed by Defendant for subpoenas for depositions and/or to appear at trial) as is required by the Judicial Council approved interrogatory. The discovery rules recognize that the contact information, including the location of persons having discoverable information, are proper subjects of the civil discovery process. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 Cal.App.4th 360, 367, 53; Code Civ. Proc., 2017.010. Where a nonparties' identity is relevant to the action, a party may be compelled to disclose their names, addresses and phone numbers. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 Cal.App.4th 360, 367, 53. Form Interrogatory 3.7: These are judicial council approved interrogatories which request basic information related to the incident. Your response “none other than general business licenses” is evasive and fails to answer each subpart to this judicial form interrogatory. Plaintiff is entitled to know what license Defendant had and whether the license was valid on the date of the incident. Defendant is required to provide meaningful answers. Defendant has failed to provide any meaningful information. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is also entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008)163 Cal. App. 4th 109. Please supplement your Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 2 of 9 response. Form Interrogatory 17.1: Defendant’s responses are vague, ambiguous, evasive and therefore non- responsive. Defendant must set forth all the facts, witnesses, and documents in which they base their answers that are not unqualified admissions. Failure to do so is non-responsive, evasive, and vague and ambiguous. The law is clear that Defendant is required to provide complete and straightforward answers containing all information “reasonably available” to it. Civ. Proc. Code, § 2030.220(a); Sigerseth v. Superior Court, (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 427, 433. In response to Form Interrogatory 17.1, Request for Admissions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9 subpart (b), instead of providing any facts, you simply state that you have insufficient information and that discovery is continuing. This is not a proper response. If you cannot admit, you’re still under a duty to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations. CCP 2030.220(c). The code requires you to provide complete and straightforward responses “as the information reasonably available”. CCP 2030.210(a). With regard to Form Interrogatory 17.1, RFA #11 sub section (b), you state “Responding Party’s vehicle was parked and did not strike any vehicles.” However, the request for admission simply asks you if Defendant was using a mobile device during the three (3) minutes prior to the incident and thus, your answer is non-responsive. You have completed written discovery of the Plaintiff and have had ample time and opportunities to interview percipient witnesses, including those within its control and others who may have knowledge of the facts concerning this incident. Moreover, you are in receipt of Plaintiff’s medical records and bills as a result of this incident. You are also in receipt of Plaintiff’s discovery responses with additional factual information. Finally, an inquiry by and between Defendant and its counsel will reveal most of this information. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why these simple requests as these cannot be answered. Defendant is required to provide the information presently known; regardless of whether you anticipate learning additional information on a later date. In answering discovery requests, a party must furnish information available from sources under the party's control. “(A party) cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771 (parentheses added); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles), supra (citing text). The duty to obtain information extends to the agents and/or employees of Defendant. Discovery requests directed to a corporation or other entity require it to disclose information known to all persons in its employ, not merely the particular officer or agent designated to verify the responses: “While a corporation or public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories in its behalf, it has a corresponding duty to obtain information from all sources under its control - information which may not be personally known to the answering agent.“ Gordon v. Sup.Ct. (U.Z. Mfg. Co.) (1984) 161 Cal. App. 3d 157, 167-168 (emphasis added), addressing corporation bound by initial, untruthful answers given by employee who answered interrogatories on its behalf. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Plaintiff is entitled to adequate information about Defendant’s allegations and defenses in order to be prepared and not to be surprised 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. Form Interrogatory 17.1 also asks that you identify all the persons that have knowledge of the facts. In response to Requests 1, 2, 5, and 7-11 (c), you have failed to do so and instead, state “defense witnesses” “responding police officers/medics” and “medical providers”. This is inadequate and evasive and Plaintiff is entitled to the names and contact information of the persons identified in your response to these interrogatories. Where a nonparties' identity is relevant to the action, a party may be compelled to Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 3 of 9 disclose their names, addresses and phone numbers. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 Cal.App.4th 360, 367, 53. Form Interrogatory 17.1 also asks that you identify the documents and tangible things that support your responses and identify the person who has them (see 17.1, RFA # 1, 2, 5, 7-11 (c)). You have not provided this either. For example, you have generally referred to expert reports and medical records. This is inadequate. Please supplement your response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 with code compliant responses. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Special Interrogatory 2-3: Defendant identifies Sukh Deep Singh but fails to provide his contact information. Where a nonparties' identity is relevant to the action, a party may be compelled to disclose their names, addresses and phone numbers. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 C4th 360, 367, 53. Although disclosure may invade their privacy, there is generally no protection for the identity, addresses and phone numbers of percipient witnesses. Thus, a court may not require the party seeking discovery to obtain the witnesses' consent to disclosure: "(A) percipient witness's willingness to participate in civil discovery has never been considered relevant-witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify whether they want to or not." Puerto v. Sup.Ct. (Wild Oats Markets, Inc.) (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251-1252-error to require plaintiff to secure witnesses' consent to disclosure of their names and addresses. Please supplement your responses and provide this information. Special Interrogatory 5: You object on a number of grounds, none which bare any merit. By definition, the purpose of a Request for Admission is to assume facts, call for speculation, and to bypass the need to set foundation for certain factual conclusions. This concept was once explained succinctly in the 1983 edition of Am Jur 2d in two remarkable sentences: Although requests to admit are often classified as a discovery device and treated as such in practice [Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill 2d 204, 208], ‘‘the purpose of admissions is not to discover facts but rather to establish some of the material facts in a case without the necessity of formal proof at trial.’’ 23 Am Jur 2d § 314 (1983). In Cembrook v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 429, 430 the court explains in detail that Requests for Admissions are not subject to objections like other types of discovery. Second, when a request for admission is a mixed question of law and fact, like the one here, an objection based on legal conclusion and/or legal opinion is improper Lieb v. Superior Court (1962), 199 Cal. App.2d 364, 368. Plaintiff is entitled to Defendant’s contentions regarding liability and damages. Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal. 2d 276. Plaintiff is entitled to meaningful responses to discovery. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 1093. Third, objections to discovery based upon “vague, ambiguous and unintelligible” were categorically overruled more than 45 years ago by the California Supreme Court. See Cembrook vs. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 423, 428-430 (1961). There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the term “operating” and “[a] party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer.” Hunter v. International Systems & Controls Corp., 56 F.R.D. 617, 625. “Overbroad” is not a valid objection or reason to wholly not answer a question. It is only valid if the interrogatory or request imposes an extreme and undue burden or is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. See CCP §2017(a); Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 761, 764-765; and Durst v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460. Additionally, your response does not address the question asked and is wholly evasive. The question specifically asks if the vehicle operator was operating the vehicle in the course and scope of employment as an employee or agent at the time of the incident and if so, to state all facts upon which you base your contention. You simply state that the vehicle was parked and not in operation at the time of the incident. Although Plaintiff understands that this is your contention, you are still required to answer whether the person operating the vehicle (or who parked the vehicle) was in the course and scope of employment as an employee or agent of Defendant. “A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer.” Hunter v. International Systems & Controls Corp., 56 F.R.D. 617, 625. Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 4 of 9 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. Please provide a supplemental response without objection. Special Interrogatory 6: Again, you assert numerous meritless objections and fail to provide the contact information for the persons listed in your response. For the sake of brevity, Plaintiff will not reiterate the aforementioned case law and citations as to why the objections do not apply. Moreover, since Defendant is an entity, you are required to identify by name the individuals within your organization that have knowledge of the facts you allege and their contact information. Please provide the contact information for Sukh Deep Singh, Harinder S. Gahunia, and Poonam Gahunia. Where a nonparties' identity is relevant to the action, a party may be compelled to disclose their names, addresses and phone numbers. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 Cal.App.4th 360, 367, 53. Special Interrogatories 12-13: Your response “unaware” is not well taken because you should know whether the vehicle was equipped with a date recorder at the time of the incident. There is absolutely no reason why this interrogatory cannot be answered. Defendant has a duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry and to respond to discovery with information from all sources within their possession, custody, or control, including from their experts. CCP §2030.220; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 322; See also, Tehachapi-Cummings County Water Dist. v. Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 42, 46; Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427427 [Sanctions imposed for party's refusal to obtain information from its own expert to answer interrogatories]. In answering discovery requests, a party must furnish information available from sources under the party's control. “(A party) cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771 (parentheses added); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles), supra (citing text). The duty to obtain information extends to the agents and/or employees of Defendant. Discovery requests directed to a corporation or other entity require it to disclose information known to all persons in its employ, not merely the particular officer or agent designated to verify the responses: “While a corporation or public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories in its behalf, it has a corresponding duty to obtain information from all sources under its control - information which may not be personally known to the answering agent.“ Gordon v. Sup.Ct. (U.Z. Mfg. Co.) (1984) 161 Cal. App. 3d 157, 167-168 (emphasis added), addressing corporation bound by initial, untruthful answers given by employee who answered interrogatories on its behalf. Moreover, 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 and thus, your objection is improper and must be stricken. Please supplement your response. Special Interrogatories 24-26: Defendant names Poonam Gahunia and Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousine as the custodians of record for video and/or surveillance recordings. However, Defendant fails to provide any contact information. Where a nonparties' identity is relevant to the action, a party may be compelled to disclose their names, addresses and phone numbers. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 C4th 360, 367, 53. Please supplement your response. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) Requests 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9: In response to these simple and straightforward requests, you state the inability to admit or deny these matters because you have insufficient information at this time. Further, you object on a number of grounds, none which bare any merit. Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 5 of 9 First, your objections are inapplicable. In Cembrook v. Superior Court, (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 429, 430 the court explains in detail that Requests for Admissions are not subject to objections like other types of discovery. By definition, the purpose of a Request for Admission is to assume facts, call for speculation, phrased argumentatively and to bypass the need to set foundation for certain factual conclusions. This concept was once explained succinctly in the 1983 edition of Am Jur 2d in two remarkable sentences: Although requests to admit are often classified as a discovery device and treated as such in practice Bright v Dicke, 166 Ill 2d 204, 208, ‘‘the purpose of admissions is not to discover facts but rather to establish some of the material facts in a case without the necessity of formal proof at trial.’’ 23 Am Jur. 2d § 314 (1983). Moreover, an objection that a response to a request for admission required expert opinion does not eliminate your obligation to respond to the discovery request. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322; Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 427; Tehachapi-Cummings County Water Dist. v. Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal. App. 2d 42, 46. Similarly, legal conclusions and opinions are the proper subject of a request for admission. Burke v. Superior Court (1969), 71 Cal. 2d 276, 282; Lieb v. Superior Court (1962), 199 Cal. App. 2d 364, 368. Second, your inability to admit or deny these requests is not well taken. Seeking to dispose of issues early in litigation is a well-established purpose of requests for admission. It is "neither unfair nor improper to require defendants to make such reasonable investigation as they may deem needed in order for them to determine now that, when the trial is held, they will, or they will not, dispute the matters involved." Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal. App. 3d 812, 819; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 323. Court’s do not take well to objections that claim it is too early or that additional discovery is necessary. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. LcL, 163 (2008) Cal. App. 4th 1093. In responding to a request for admission, a party’s duty to investigate requires them to conduct a reasonable investigation. In Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch (N.D. Ohio 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93651, which applied an analogous statute, the Court held that a duty to investigate requires that the party review all information in its possession. Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997), 56 Cal. App. 4th 618, 634; Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 323; Lindgren v. Superior Court (1965), 237 Cal. App. 2d 743, 746. In the instant case, our office had provided Defendant all of the records necessary for you to be able to respond to these requests. This incident occurred on October 26, 2018 and by now, you should have conducted a reasonable inquiry into all sources within your possession, custody or control. Frankly, your assertion in your responses that you do not have sufficient information at this time is disingenuous. Your responses to the following Requests for Admissions Set One were inadequate: RFA No. 1. This request asked you to admit or deny that Plaintiff was injured as a result of the incident. This is a very common and regular discovery request. This question does not require an expert opinion as any lay person can opine the Plaintiff was injured and you are in receipt of Plaintiff’s medical records and bills clearly show Plaintiff’s injuries as a result of this incident. Additionally, expert opinion is not a basis to refuse to respond to a request for admission and requests for admission are allowed to ask about issues that may require an expert opinion. Finally, the Judicial Council approved Form Interrogatories ask the same information. This question was appropriate and should have been answered. A further response without objection is necessary and requested. RFA No. 2. This request asked you to admit or deny that Plaintiff did not contribute to the cause of the incident. Again, this is a very common and regular discovery request. You are in receipt of Plaintiff’s discovery responses and have had ample time to conclude whether Plaintiff contributed to the incident. This is a simple yes or no question and deserves a simple answer. You are required to provide the information presently known; regardless of whether you anticipate learning additional information on a Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 6 of 9 later date. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. See Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Finally, the Judicial Council approved Form Interrogatories ask the same information. This question was appropriate and should have been answered. A further response without objection is necessary and requested. RFA No. 5. This request asked you to admit or deny that Plaintiff incurred at least $1.00 of economic damages as a result of the incident. Again, this is a very common and regular discovery request. You are in receipt of Plaintiff’s medical records/bills and his discovery responses. A simple inquiry into these documents would reveal this information. You are required to provide the information presently known; regardless of whether you anticipate learning additional information on a later date. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case. See Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Finally, this request does not require expert opinion and such an objection is not a basis to refuse to respond to a request for admission. There is absolutely no reason why you are unable to admit or deny this request. This question was appropriate and should have been answered. A further response without objection is necessary and requested. RFA No. 7-9. These requests ask you to admit or deny that (1) Plaintiff was injured as a result of Defendant’s negligence (2) that Defendant’s negligence contributed at least one percent toward causing the incident, and (3) that Defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the incident. You state the inability to admit or deny due to lack of information. These are very common and regular discovery requests. Again, you are in receipt of the necessary documents and by now, you should have conducted an investigation into this matter and into the sources within your possession, custody and control. Is Defendant claiming they were negligent or not? You are required to provide the information presently known; regardless of whether you anticipate learning additional information on a later date. Plaintiff is entitled to know what defendant’s contentions are and where they stand on each issue related to this case including but not limited to liability and damages. See Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276. Additionally, expert opinion is not a basis to refuse to respond to a request for admission and requests for admission are allowed to ask about issues that may require an expert opinion. Finally, the Judicial Council approved Form Interrogatories ask the same information. These questions were appropriate and should have been answered. A further response without objection is necessary and requested. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Requests 3, 12, 13 and 16: With regard to these requests, you object on the grounds of attorney client and work product privilege. First, we do not believe the objections apply. The attorney-client privilege only applies to confidential communication made in the course of the attorney-client relationship. Evidence Code § 952. "However, the attorney-client privilege only protects disclosure of communications between the attorney and the client; it does not protect disclosure of underlying facts which may be referenced within a qualifying communication." State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, p.639 citing Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Insurance (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004-100. The privilege does not protect ‘independent facts related to a communication; that a communication took place, and the time, date and participants in the communication.” 2,022 Ranch, LLC v. Superior Court (Chicago Title Ins. Co.) (2003) 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1804, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1377 citing State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 640. Whereas, the attorney work product privilege provides that although “any writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories" is protected (CCP §2018.030(a)); facts, including places, times, and dates, and identification of participants are not protected. Mack v. Superior Court, In and For Sacramento County, 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10, ; See also Southern Pacific Co. v. Superior Court (1969), 3 Cal.App.3d 195. Not everything is automatically work product just because an attorney (or an insurance adjuster) was somehow involved in the process. Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 7 of 9 Kadelbach v. Amaral (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 814, 822; Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, 502. An investigator’s report obtained by the insurance company before an attorney was hired is not protected. Wilson v Sub Court 226 Cal.2d 715; Hardesty v WCAB 41 CCC 111. A witness statement obtained by an investigator hired by the insurance company is not protected. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court; Moreno v. City of Los Angeles 21 CWCR 108. There is no insurer-insured privilege. Soltani-Rastigar v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App 3d 424. The identities of witnesses are not subject to the attorney-client and work product privileges. Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Insurance (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004; City of Long Beach v. Superior Court (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 65, 73). Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 109. Information obtained by an attorney, or by an attorney's agent at the attorney's behest, is not automatically entitled as a matter of law to absolute work product protection in a civil case. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, 502; See also California Code of Civil Procedure § 2018.030. Additionally, there is no rule or law that protects documents merely, because they were created “in anticipation of litigation.” Although it was stated in a proposed 1963 amendment to the Civil Discovery Act, the amendment was never approved or enacted and California has never adopted this wording. See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480, 492. Second, assuming arguendo “attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection” objections are proper, Defendant has a duty to produce a privilege log in compliance with CCP §§ 2031.240 (b) and (c). Defendant has an obligation to identify the privilege being asserted and the document being withheld, with sufficient specificity to ascertain whether the privilege applies. CCP §2031.240; Wellpoint Health network, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.110, 130. We are entitled to know what exists and will be produced and what exists and will not be produced. CCP §2031.230. CCP §2031.240 requires you to identify with particularly, any document or thing requested to which an objection is made. Finally, it is important to note that you cannot object to a document that does not exist. Objections made to requests for production of document that do not exist or not in the attorney or party’s possession violate an attorney’s ethical duty under Bus & PC §6068(d) to act truthfully and, therefore, constitutes bad faith. See Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991 (pdf) (reversed on other grounds) and CEB §8:10. Please amend your responses and provide code compliant responses to these requests. Request 7: With regard to RFPD #7, you object on a number of grounds, none which bare any merit. For the sake of brevity, Plaintiff will not reiterate the aforementioned case law. Moreover, you state that you have no documents responsive to this request. However, in response to Form Interrogatory 3.7, you identified a business license and in response to Form Interrogatory 17.1, you reference documents in subsection (d). Thus, your response is not well taken. Again, you have a duty to identify which documents exist, no longer exist, and what documents never existed. CCP §2031.230. You have a second duty to produce the documents. CCP §§ 2031.220 & CCP §2031.280. Please supplement your response, without objection. Request 8: With regard to RFPD #8, you object on a number of grounds, none which bare any merit. For the sake of brevity, Plaintiff will not reiterate the aforementioned case law. Please withdraw your objections. Moreover, you state that you have no documents responsive to this request. However, in response to Special Interrogatories 7 & 8 you reference policies and procedures relating to auto collisions involving employees (SROG 7) and policies and procedures relating to incidents involving employees (SROG 8). You have a duty to identify which documents exist, no longer exist, and what documents never existed. CCP §2031.230. You have a second duty to produce the documents. CCP §§ 2031.220 & CCP §2031.280. Please produce the policies and procedures you referred to in your responses to Special Interrogatories. Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 8 of 9 Request 14: This request asks for a copy of your cellular phone bill for the date of the incident. Instead of providing a code compliant response, you state the request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in time and scope, violates privacy rights and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. None of your objections are applicable and this information is directly relevant to this action. Plaintiff is entitled to know whether the driver of the vehicle/person who parked the vehicle was using his cellular phone at the time of incident and was distracted, thereby causing this accident. Objections to discovery based upon “vague, ambiguous and unintelligible” were categorically overruled more than 45 years ago by the California Supreme Court. See Cembrook vs. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 423, 428-430 (1961). “Overbroad” is not a valid objection or reason to wholly not answer a question. It is only valid if the interrogatory or request imposes an extreme and undue burden or is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. See CCP §2017(a); Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 118 CA3d 761, 764-765; and Durst v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460. The request is limited to Defendant’s cellular phone bill for the date of the incident and is not overbroad. Plaintiff is an innocent passenger in this matter, yet Defendants are disputing every aspect of this case. Defendant’s phone records from the time of the accident are highly probative and outweigh any privacy claims, especially because you can redact any private phone numbers. Surely, there is good cause and Plaintiff is entitled to do discovery into the obvious likely explanation that Defendant was distracted on the phone. Discovery of private information is directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation; the "compelling public need" for discovery is outweighed against the "fundamental right of privacy". Moreover, this request has been narrowly tailored to only ask for the records for the day of the incident to minimize any unnecessary intrusion. No privacy rights are put at issue here. Defendant cannot point to a single privacy right that has been triggered by this interrogatory. In the absence of privilege, the right to discovery in this state is a broad one, to be construed liberally so that parties may ascertain the strength of their case and at trial the truth may be determined. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 539. Thus, the objections shall be stricken. Finally, your response is in violation of CCP §2031.230 which states that a party responding to requests for productions has two duties: First, they have a duty to provide a responses (statement of compliance) that identifies (1) which responsive documents exist, (2) which documents no longer exist (and why), and (3) what documents never existed. CCP §2031.230. This obligation includes conducting a reasonable inquiry into sources within their possession, sources within their custody, and sources within their control. This duty applies regardless of whether they intend to produce the documents or not. This duty applies regardless of whether they assert some sort of privilege. CCP §2031.240. Finally, this duty applies regardless of whether the actual documents are in their possession and regardless of whether the documents are equally available or burdensome to produce. CCP §§ 2031.220 & 2031.230. Second, they have a separate duty to produce the documents. CCP §§ 2031.220 & CCP §2031.280. Please supplement your response, without objection. Requests 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23-26: In response to these requests, you assert a number of meritless objections. For the reasons stated above, the objections do not apply and must be withdrawn. Moreover, your response is not code compliant. You state that you do not have any documents responsive to these requests. However, you fail to state whether the documents exist, ever existed or were destroyed in violation of CCP § 2031.230. A party responding to requests for productions has two duties: First, they have a duty to provide a responses (statement of compliance) that identifies (1) which responsive documents exist, (2) which documents no longer exist (and why), and (3) what documents never existed. This duty applies regardless of whether the actual documents are in their possession and regardless of whether the documents are equally available or burdensome to produce. CCP §§ 2031.220 & 2031.230. Second, they have a separate duty to produce the documents. CCP §§ 2031.220 & CCP §2031.280. Please provide a proper further response. ************************************** Re: Valladares, Jonathan v. San Francisco Fire Department Date: May 24, 2021 Page: 9 of 9 Your responses are not code compliant. We ask that you call our office to discuss the responses further. Alternatively, you just can provide further responses that are full and complete and code compliant. The courtesy of your responses are expected no later than June 3, 2021, by email at 12:00 P.M., or our office will be forced to move forward with motions to compel. I sincerely hope we can resolve these simple discovery issues absent judicial intervention. Thank you, Sydney Desman, Esq. B&D LAW GROUP, APLC Exhibit “D” EXHIBIT “D” Los Angeles Bay Area Central Valley Orange County Inland Empire NORTON & MELNIK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW TEL 925 718 1040 500 LA GONDA WAY FAX 925 743 1148 SUITE 295 DANVILLE, CA 94526 MDAWSON@NORTONMELNIK.COM June 2, 2021 VIA EMAIL Sydney Desman, Esq. B&D Law Group, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310.424.5252 Fax : 310.492.5855 Email: syndey.bdlawgroup@gmail.com Re: VALLADARES v CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. Claim Number: 1221856 Insureds: Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousine Claimants: Jonathan Valladares Policy Number: PHPK1756469 DOL: 10/26/2018 Dear Counsel, INTRODUCTION The following is a response to your May 26th, 2021 meet and confer correspondence regarding Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousines’ (“Defendant”) responses to Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares’ (“Plaintiff”) initial written discovery requests in the above-referenced matter. Please find enclosed Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One and Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. As detailed herein, Defendant stands by all objections with respect to the prior responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES We have provided Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories, 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 26. We are not supplementing the response to Special Interrogatory Number 5. Please review Los Angeles Bay Area Central Valley Orange County Inland Empire Special Interrogatory Number 5 again. Your meet and confer letter seeks a different answer from what the interrogatory asked. Special Interrogatory Number 5 specifically asks: If YOU contend that the VEHICLE OPERATOR was not operating the VEHICLE in the COURSE AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT as an employee or agent of Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine at the time of the INCIDENT, state all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention. (The term “COURSE AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT” means representatives, attorneys, accountants, employees, investigators, insurance companies, and their agents acting at the direction of an entity or individual that controls the results of the work performed and the means by which the work is to be accomplished, CACI 3720 (Scope of Employment). Defendant objected, but provided an answer to the interrogatory: Objection. This interrogatory lacks foundation, calls for speculation and calls for a legal conclusion. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and overbroad with respect to the term “operating” as used herein. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party’s vehicle was parked and not in operation at the time of the subject incident. Your meet and confer letter claims Defendant’s response “does not address the question asked and is wholly evasive.” (Pg. 3.) Your letter says “[t]he question specifically asks if the vehicle operator was operating the vehicle in the course and scope of employment as an employee or agent at the time of the incident and if so, to state all facts upon which you base your contention.” (pg. 3.) That is false. The question asks Defendant to state facts to support the stated contention. Defendant did exactly that. Accordingly, the response is Code-compliant per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210(b) specifically provides that objections are appropriate in responses to Requests for Admissions. The same Code section makes clear that a response must contain: (1) an admission; (2) a denial; or (3) a statement claiming inability to admit or deny. While you may not like Defendant’s responses, they are, in fact, Code-compliant. Moreover, none of the legal authorities discussed in your boilerplate meet and confer letter provide any law that somehow supersedes these statutory requirements. Defendant’s responses to the six (6) responses at issue are accurate based on Defendant’s current understanding (or lack thereof) of the subject incident and the resulting injuries and damages Plaintiff is alleging. Frankly, at this early stage, we are scratching our heads as to how the incident as reported in the Traffic Collision Report could have caused the extent of injuries and damages Plaintiff is claiming. Despite best efforts, we have not received your client’s medical records pursuant to our subpoenas. Though Plaintiff produced some records in response to Los Angeles Bay Area Central Valley Orange County Inland Empire Defendant’s initial Request for Production of Documents, Set One, they do not inform us any further with respect to the six specific requests at issue. Moreover, we are entitled to conduct a full investigation of all relevant evidence before committing to a contention. Given this status of available information, we simply do not have sufficient information to admit or deny: whether Plaintiff was injured (RFA No. 1); whether Plaintiff contributed to causing the incident (RFA No. 2.); whether Plaintiff incurred economic damages as a result of the incident (RFA No. 5); whether Plaintiff was injured as a result of Defendant’s negligence (first assuming Defendant was, in fact, negligent (RFA No. 7); the percentage of Defendant’s alleged negligence (RFA No. 8); and whether Defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor (RFA No. 9). We understand from page five (5) of your letter that you are seeking “to dispose of issues early in litigation”, however, the issues within these six (6) requests simply cannot be disposed of at this juncture in the litigation, at least with respect to the limited information we currently possess. This case will not be tried on paper, rather it is in for the long haul. You are certainly within your rights to request supplemental discovery requests later in the litigation, once extensive discovery has been completed, at which time we would be obligated to update any responses to our prior requests and the basis for same based on what has been gleaned from these extensive discovery efforts that inform contentions. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION You have not provided a Code-compliant meet and confer correspondence with respect to Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 and 2031.310(b)(2) requires a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve issues regarding document production requests. Moreover, any potential motion to compel requires a showing of good cause that the production is required. Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1) requires the motion to set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” Your letter references nineteen (19) specific requests and responses that fail to discuss with any requisite specificity any factual justification for the requested information. The discussion on pages six (6) through nine (9) of your letter is merely a boilerplate recitation of law that fails to specifically analyze each request and present a good showing of justification for what you are seeking. Accordingly, any motion to compel will not have been brought in good faith. The only specifics we can glean from your letter is that you are seeking cellular phone records for the date of the incident (RPD No. 14). Please review Plaintiff’s requests again. Specifically, “YOU” and “YOUR” is defined as Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousines’ (see Definition One (1), page three (3) of Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One (1).) Your Request for Production Number 14 seeks a copy of Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousines’ cellular phone records for the day of the incident. Defendant is a business entity, not an individual. It is unclear if you are seeking its former employee’s cellular phone records. But if you are, the Defendant who you sued does not have custody or control over those records. Defendant did not provide a cell phone to anyone. Moreover, individual privacy rights of third parties not subject to this litigation prevent disclosure of an individual’s privacy rights. Accordingly, per our stated objections, Defendant does not have the records you may be seeking and does not have access to them. Los Angeles Bay Area Central Valley Orange County Inland Empire Though the remainder of your issues with the unspecified requests is unclear for us to respond, rest assured that the fact that we did not produce a privilege log means we are not withholding any documents. We are aware of our obligations to provide a privilege log, when necessary. The fact that Defendant asserted objections based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product, does not automatically mean privileged documents exist and have been withheld. The objections are appropriate where the request seeks information that may call for such privileged information. Though you assert we cannot object to requests for documents that do not exist, we stand by our objections to best protect our client and protect against improperly phrased requests that seek such information. CONCLUSION The discussion herein makes clear that we have provided you with all information and documents presently available to Defendant. No information or documents have been withheld. We have supplemented Defendant’s Form Interrogatory and Special Interrogatory responses where we concede the points raised in your letter. However, we maintain all objections asserted in Defendant’s responses. We intend to work professionally with your office throughout what is sure to be a lengthy course of litigation and will respond appropriately to any subsequent discovery requests, including those that seek supplementation to prior responses, after extensive discovery efforts are completed. The current state of discovery and Defendant’s knowledge about this case makes our responses appropriate and any motion to compel further responses based on what has already been provided to you will not have been made in good faith. Accordingly, we will oppose any such motion and seek all fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Very Truly Yours, NORTON & MELNIK, APC MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ. MLD/DPA/krs Exhibit “E” EXHIBIT “E” 7/23/2021 Gmail - Valladares v Amar Enterprises, Inc., et al. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=753ecb3002&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1701594207147952598&simpl=msg-f%3A17015942071… 1/2 Khushboo Vasandani Valladares v Amar Enterprises, Inc., et al. Sydney Desman Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:31 PM To: Kristin Schieber , David Armanini Cc: Daniel Geoulla Counsel, Your letter and supplemental responses dated June 2, 2021 is acknowledged. I will keep my response simple. The outstanding issues are as follows: Form Interrogatory 17.1: Having perused your letter, Plaintiff reserves his right to bring a motion on Form Interrogatory 17.1 sub parts (b) for requests 1,2, 5, 7-9 for the simple reason that these requests ask for facts and yet you have failed to provide a single fact in support of your contentions. Moreover, with regard to RFA# 2, and 7 -11 sub part (c) you state that parties that have knowledge include Plaintiff and defendant’s witnesses. However you do not provide the name, nor the contact information (address/phone number) of these witnesses. Discovery is not a guessing game and Plaintiff should not be forced to guess who your witnesses are. We need to take the deposition of these witnesses and need this information. Therefore we strongly urge you to reconsider your position with regard to these responses. Request for Admissions: With regard to your responses to request for admissions 1, 2, 5, 7-9, your response is in violation of the CCP § 2033.220 and none of your objections bare any merit. Thus I humbly request you to reconsider your position and provide at the very least a code compliant response. I hope we can resolve these outstanding issues without judicial intervention. I am available to meet and confer further. My direct extension is 1014. Thank you, Sydney On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:12 PM Kristin Schieber wrote: Good evening, Please see below. I think there was a typo in your email address. Sincerely, Kristin Schieber Legal Administrator Norton & Melnik, APC Northern California office 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295 Danville, CA 94526 Tel (925) 718-1040, Fax (925) 743-1148 Southern California office 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (818) 999-9500, Fax (818) 999-9155 Exhibit “F” EXHIBIT “F” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My governmental address is 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295, Danville, California, 94526. On the date set forth below, I served: DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE (1) on the parties to said action by emailing a true copy of the document as listed below: Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. B & D Law Group, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310-424-5252 Email: teamlit1@bdinjurylawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant City and County of San Francisco Timothy J. Fama, Esq. Fox Plaza 1390 Market St, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: 415-554-3921 Email: tim.fama@sfgov.org Anita.Murdock@sfcityatty.org (ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above, that during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, Norton & Melnik will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and are therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with first class postage thereon fully prepaid at Danville, California, in the ordinary course of governmental. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Danville, California on June 8, 2021. ____________________________________ Kristin Schieber X Exhibit “G” EXHIBIT “G” B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 FAX: (310) 492-5855 July 15, 2021 VIA EMAIL: COVID - 19 Mark L. Dawson, Esq. (SBN 166956) David P. Armanini, Esq. (SBN 259422) Norton & Melnik, APC 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295 Danville, CA 94526 (925)718-1040 Telephone (925) 743-1148 Facsimile mdawson@nortonmelnik.com darmanini@nortonmelnik.com RE: Jonathan Vallardes v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. Court Case No: CGC-19-579765 Our Client: Jonathan Vallardes Your Client: Amar Ent. Inc. DBA Skylark Limousines Date of Loss: 11/18/18 Our File Number: 16846 Dear Mark, We are in receipt of your client Amar Ent. Inc. DBA Skylark Limousines supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, set one, dated June 8, 2021. Please consider this as our last and final good faith attempt to meet and confer. The responses we wish to discuss with you are as follows: Request for Admissions, Set One Request No’s. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, & 9: With regard to all these requests you have stated the inability to admit or deny the request. Simply put most of these requests can be answered by a simple enquiry by and between your clients. Moreover, you have also stated that the operator of the vehicle was Sukh Deep Singh at the time of the incident, who can be reached through counsel of the responding party. Thus there is absolutely no reason as to why a simple enquiry by and between the parties you have access to can’t be answered. In answering discovery requests, a party must furnish information available from sources under the party's control. “(A party) cannot plead ignorance to information which B&D LAW GROUP, APLC 10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 TEL: (310) 424-5252 FAX: (310) 492-5855 can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771 (parentheses added); Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Settles), supra (citing text). The duty to obtain information extends to the agents and/or employees of Defendant. Discovery requests directed to a corporation or other entity require it to disclose information known to all persons in its employ, not merely the particular officer or agent designated to verify the responses: “While a corporation or public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories in its behalf, it has a corresponding duty to obtain information from all sources under its control - information which may not be personally known to the answering agent.“ Gordon v. Sup.Ct. (U.Z. Mfg. Co.) (1984) 161 Cal. App. 3d 157, 167-168 (emphasis added), addressing corporation bound by initial, untruthful answers given by employee who answered interrogatories on its behalf. Therefore, we kindly ask you to reconsider your position and provide further responses to these requests and without objections. Your response is wholly evasive, unresponsive and not code compliant. It’s a complete dodge of the question which seeks to get their admissions. ********** As you are aware there is no endless requirement to meet and confer. Please provide further responses that are full and complete. The courtesy of your responses are expected no later than five (5) days. Thank you, B&D LAW GROUP, APLC Christopher Barnes, Esq. CB/kbv Christopher Barnes Exhibit “H” EXHIBIT “H” Los Angeles Bay Area Central Valley Orange County Inland Empire NORTON & MELNIK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW TEL 925 718 1040 500 LA GONDA WAY FAX 925 743 1148 SUITE 295 DANVILLE, CA 94526 MDAWSON@NORTONMELNIK.COM July 20, 2021 VIA EMAIL Christopher Barnes, Esq. B&D Law Group, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310.424.5252 Fax : 310.492.5855 Email: christopher@bdinjurylawgroup.com teamlit1@bdinjurylawgroup.com Re: VALLADARES v CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. Claim Number: 1221856 Insureds: Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousine Claimants: Jonathan Valladares Policy Number: PHPK1756469 DOL: 10/26/2018 Dear Counsel, The following is a response to your July 15th, 2021, meet and confer correspondence regarding Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousines’ (“Defendant”) responses to Plaintiff Jonathan Valladares’ (“Plaintiff”) Request for Admissions, Set One (1). Please find enclosed Defendant’s Second Set of Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One. We have supplemented Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions Numbers 8 and 9. We stand by our responses and supplemental responses to the other Requests for Admissions discussed in your recent correspondence (Requests for Admissions Numbers 1, 2, 5, and 7.) In response to each of those requests, Defendant makes clear that after a reasonable inquiry concerning the matters in the requests, the information known and readily obtained is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the request. This response complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(c). Los Angeles Bay Area Central Valley Orange County Inland Empire Your July 15th, 2021, meet and confer letter did not include any authority that supersedes this provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. If you have any authority that you believe renders this statute inoperable, we would be happy to review it and consider your request. But as we made clear in prior correspondence, we have little to no information about your client’s alleged injuries and damages. No depositions have been taken and we have received little to no medical records pursuant to our subpoenas for your client’s records. Accordingly, our responses to the matters which you are seeking to prove with ease on paper (RFA 1: whether Plaintiff was actually injured in the incident; RFA 2: whether Plaintiff contributed to causing the incident; RFA 5: whether Plaintiff incurred economic damages; and RFA 7: whether Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were a direct result of Defendant’s negligence) remain in dispute until we can ascertain such information from evidence we simply do not have at this time. As previously acknowledged, our client is obligated to supplement its responses to these requests later in litigation should you serve supplemental requests once more discovery has been completed and we have a better basis to admit or deny such requests. Accordingly, any motion to compel will be made in bad faith and we will be forced to oppose any motion on such grounds, seeking all fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Very Truly Yours, NORTON & MELNIK, APC MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ. MLD/DPA/krs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ. (SBN 166956) DAVID P. ARMANINI, ESQ. (SBN 259422) NORTON & MELNIK, APC 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295 Danville, CA 94526 (925)718-1040 Telephone (925) 743-1148 Facsimile mdawson@nortonmelnik.com darmanini@nortonmelnik.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JONATHAN VALLADARES Plaintiff, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCSICO, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT; WAYLAND GIN; VINCENT CAPURRO; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants. _________________________________ AND ALL RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. No. CGC-19-579765 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE Complaint Filed: July 16, 2019 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, JONATHAN VALLADARES RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, AMAR ENTERPRISES INC DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE SET: ONE (1) SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES Defendant, AMAR ENTERPRISES INC DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINES (hereinafter referred to as “DEFENDANT”), hereby provides a second set of supplemental responses to plaintiff, JONATHAN VALLADARES (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFF”), Requests for Admission, Set One, as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) PREFATORY STATEMENT It should be noted that this responding party has not fully completed its investigation into the facts relating to this suit, has not completed discovery, and has not completed its preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to and specifically known to this responding party and disclose only contentions which presently occur to such responding party. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research, and analysis will supply additional facts and establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the contentions herein set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s rights to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which this responding party may later recall. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed, and contentions are made. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions as are presently known but should in no way be to the prejudice of this responding party in relation to further discovery, research or analysis. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence contributed at least one (1) percent toward causing the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request, the information known and readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny the request. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request, Responding Party admits that it was negligent in parking illegally, but the information known and readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny anything more than that with respect to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. DBA Skylark Limousine’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the INCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Unable to admit or deny because Responding Party does not have sufficient information to provide an informed response at this time. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request, the information known and readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny the request. /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for an expert opinion and calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Deny. Dated: July 20, 2021 NORTON & MELNIK, APC By: _____________________________ MARK L. DAWSON, ESQ. DAVID P. ARMANINI, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINNE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 VERIFICATION I, Harinder S. Gahunia, declare that: I am a representative of defendant in the above-entitled action; that I have read the foregoing Defendant Amar Enterprises, Inc. dba Skylark Limousine’s Second Set of Supplemental Responses To Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One; and know the contents thereof; that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information and belief and as to those matters that I believe it to be true. Executed this _____ day of July, 2021, at San Jose, California. ________________________________________ HARINDER S. GAHUNIA on behalf of Amar Enterprises, Inc., dba Skylark Limousine 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1) PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My governmental address is 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295, Danville, California, 94526. On the date set forth below, I served: DEFENDANT AMAR ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SKYLARK LIMOUSINE’S SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE (1) on the parties to said action by emailing a true copy of the document as listed below: Attorneys for Plaintiff Daniel D. Geoulla, Esq. B & D Law Group, APLC 10700 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: 310-424-5252 Email: teamlit1@bdinjurylawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant City and County of San Francisco Timothy J. Fama, Esq. Fox Plaza 1390 Market St, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: 415-554-3921 Email: tim.fama@sfgov.org Anita.Murdock@sfcityatty.org (ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above, that during the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, Norton & Melnik will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and are therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with first class postage thereon fully prepaid at Danville, California, in the ordinary course of governmental. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Danville, California on July 20, 2021. ____________________________________ Kristin Schieber X PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B & D L A W G R O U P, A PL C . 10 70 0 S A N TA M O N IC A B O U LE V A R D , S U IT E 2 00 L O S A N G E LE S , C A LI F O R N IA 9 00 25 (3 10 ) 4 24 -5 25 2 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 23, 2021, I served the foregoing documents described: • PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; • MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; &; • SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT THEREOF 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 Tim.Fama@sfcityatty.org anita.murdock@sfcityatty.org Mark L. Dawson, Esq. Norton and Melnik, APC 500 La Gonda Way Suite 295 Danville, CA 94526 (925)743-1148 mdawson@nortonmelnik.com chamze@nortonmelnik.com kschieber@nortonmelnik.com __X__ (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) By e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed based on notice provided that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic this office will not be able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. __X__ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on the 23th day of July 2021 at Los Angeles, California. _____________________________ Tara Foroughi Tara Foroughi