Preview
1 SPERTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER, LLP
Matthew Donald Umhofer (SBN 206607)
2 Diane H. Bang (SBN 271939)
1990 South Bundy Dr., Suite 705
3 Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 826-4700
4 Facsimile: (310) 826-4711
matthew@spertuslaw.com
5 diane@spertuslaw.com
6 Attorneys for Mark Schaub and TLG Ltd.
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
9
10 MARK SCHAUB, an individual;
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Case No.: 20CV02113
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
TLG LTD., a Hong Kong limited
11 liability company,
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
Hon. Donna D. Geck
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 Plaintiffs,
13 PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S
v. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
14 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
ANDREW WYLES WATERS, an COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
individual; FCP CORPORATE (HK) TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY BY
15 LTD., a Hong Kong limited liability DEFENDANT FCP PRIVATE, LLC
company; FCP PRIVATE, LLC, a
16 California limited liability
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 [Notice of Motion to Compel Further
17 inclusive, Responses to Interrogatories; Notice of
Motion to Compel Further Responses to
18 Defendants. Requests for Admissions; Notice of
Motion to Compel Further Responses to
19 Requests for Production; Memorandum
of Points & Authorities; Declaration of
20 Diane Bang and Exhibits; and Request
for Judicial Notice filed concurrently]
21
Hearing Date: August 12, 2022
22 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: 4
23
SAC filed: June 14, 2021
24 Trial: Not set
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 I. PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S FORM INTERROGATORIES
2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
3 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance
4 through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary,
5 pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the
6 damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each
7 policy state:
8 (a) the kind of coverage;
9 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company;
10 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 (d) the policy number;
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the
13 policy;
14 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute
15 exists between you and the insurance company; and
16 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the
17 policy.
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
19 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
20 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
21 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
22 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
23 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
24 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
25 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
26 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
27 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
28 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
1.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
2 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
3 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
4 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
5 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
6 NO. 4.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
7 A motion to be relieved as counsel is not a legal basis for objecting to
8 discovery. Parties are expected to engage in discovery in good faith and not abuse
9 the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include unmeritorious
10 objections to discovery without substantial justification and making evasive
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 responses. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010.
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” Lopez v.
13 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 590.
14 “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
15 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either
16 is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
17 discovery of admissible evidence.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. “[T]he
18 scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.”
19 Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 754,
20 767.
21 Given that the standard of relevance is also applied liberally, and “any doubt
22 is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery,” FCP Private’s relevance
23 objection to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories is frivolous and asserted in bad faith.
24 Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249.
25 FCP Private’s objection to the term “INCIDENT” is in bad faith. As stated
26 in the Judicial Council-drafted form, “INCIDENT” is defined as “the
27 circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other
28 occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.”
2.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 In addition, California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.210 expressly
2 authorizes the discovery of a defendant’s liability insurance in order to facilitate
3 settlement.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2:
6 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions
7 that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute.
8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2:
9 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
10 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
13 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
14 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
15 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
16 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
17 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
18 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
19 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
21 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
22 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
23 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
24 NO. 4.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
25 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
26
27
28
3.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1:
2 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the
3 INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property:
4 (a) describe the property;
5 (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
6 (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property
7 and how the amount was calculated; and
8 (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone
9 number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.
10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1:
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
13 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
14 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
15 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
16 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
17 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
18 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
19 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
20 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
21 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
23 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
24 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
25 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
26 NO. 7.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
27 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
28
4.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2:
2 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property
3 referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate
4 or evaluation state:
5 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who
6 prepared it and the date prepared;
7 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who
8 has a copy of it; and
9 (c) the amount of damage stated.
10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2:
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
13 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
14 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
15 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
16 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
17 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
18 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
19 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
20 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
21 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
23 to the subject matter of the case.
24 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
25 NO. 7.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
26 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
27
28
5.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1:
2 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for
3 each item of damage state:
4 (a) the nature;
5 (b) the date it occurred;
6 (c) the amount; and
7 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to
8 whom an obligation was incurred.
9 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1:
10 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
13 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
14 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
15 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
16 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
17 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
18 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
19 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
20 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
22 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
23 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
24 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
25 NO. 9.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
26 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
27
28
6.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2:
2 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of
3 damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the
4 name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each
5 DOCUMENT.
6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2:
7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
8 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
9 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
10 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
13 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
14 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
15 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
16 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
17 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
19 to the subject matter of the case.
20 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
21 NO. 9.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
22 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
23
24 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1:
25 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
26 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately
27 before or after the INCIDENT;
28 (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;
7.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any
2 individual at the scene; and
3 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has
4 knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of
5 Civil Procedure section 2034).
6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1:
7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
8 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
9 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
10 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
13 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
14 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
15 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
16 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
17 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
19 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
20 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
21 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
22 NO. 12.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
23 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
24
25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
26 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed
27 any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:
28
8.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual
2 interviewed;
3 (b) the date of the interview; and
4 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who
5 conducted the interview.
6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
8 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
9 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
10 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
13 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
14 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
15 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
16 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
17 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
19 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
20 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
21 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
22 NO. 12.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
23 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
24
25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3:
26 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a
27 written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If
28 so, for each statement state:
9.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from
2 whom the statement was obtained;
3 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who
4 obtained the statement;
5 (c) the date the statement was obtained; and
6 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who
7 has the original statement or a copy.
8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3:
9 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
10 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
13 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
14 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
15 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
16 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
17 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
18 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
19 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
21 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
22 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
23 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
24 NO. 12.3 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
25 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
26
27
28
10.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4:
2 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any
3 photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual
4 concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiffs injuries? If so, state:
5 (a) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotape;
6 (b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped;
7 (c) the date the photographs, films, or videotapes were taken;
8 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking
9 the photographs, films, or videotapes; and
10 (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes.
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4:
13 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
14 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
15 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
16 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
17 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
18 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
19 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
20 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
21 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
22 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
23 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
25 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
26 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
27
28
11.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 12.4 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5:
6 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any
7 diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed
8 by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-
9 2034.310) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state:
10 (a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model);
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 (b) the subject matter; and
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who
13 has it.
14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5:
15 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
16 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
17 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
18 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
19 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
20 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
21 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
22 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
23 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
24 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
25 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
27 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
28 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
12.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 12.5 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6:
6 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so,
7 state:
8 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON
9 who made the report;
10 (b) the date and type of report made;
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 whom the report was made; and
13 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who
14 has the original or a copy of the report.
15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6:
16 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
17 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
18 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
19 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
20 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
21 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
22 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
23 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
24 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
25 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
26 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
28
13.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
2 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
3 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
4 NO. 12.6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
5 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
6
7 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.1:
8 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any
9 PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or
10 regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT?
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated.
13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.1:
14 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
15 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
16 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
17 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
18 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
19 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
20 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
21 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
22 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
23 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
24 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
26 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
27 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
28
14.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 14.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1:
6 Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative
7 defense in your pleadings and for each:
8 (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative
9 defense;
10 (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support
13 your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and
14 telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.
15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1:
16 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
17 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
18 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
19 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
20 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
21 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
22 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
23 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
24 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
25 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
26 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
28 to the subject matter of the case.
15.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 15.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1:
6 Is your response to each request for admission served with these
7 interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an
8 unqualified admission:
9 (a) state the number of the request;
10 (b) state all facts upon which you base your response;
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and
13 (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support
14 your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the
15 PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.
16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1:
17 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
18 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earl
Preview
1 SPERTUS, LANDES & UMHOFER, LLP Matthew Donald Umhofer (SBN 206607) 2 Diane H. Bang (SBN 271939) 1990 South Bundy Dr., Suite 705 3 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 826-4700 4 Facsimile: (310) 826-4711 matthew@spertuslaw.com 5 diane@spertuslaw.com 6 Attorneys for Mark Schaub and TLG Ltd. 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 9 10 MARK SCHAUB, an individual; TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Case No.: 20CV02113 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP TLG LTD., a Hong Kong limited 11 liability company, 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 Hon. Donna D. Geck LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 Plaintiffs, 13 PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S v. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN 14 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ANDREW WYLES WATERS, an COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES individual; FCP CORPORATE (HK) TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY BY 15 LTD., a Hong Kong limited liability DEFENDANT FCP PRIVATE, LLC company; FCP PRIVATE, LLC, a 16 California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 [Notice of Motion to Compel Further 17 inclusive, Responses to Interrogatories; Notice of Motion to Compel Further Responses to 18 Defendants. Requests for Admissions; Notice of Motion to Compel Further Responses to 19 Requests for Production; Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Declaration of 20 Diane Bang and Exhibits; and Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently] 21 Hearing Date: August 12, 2022 22 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 4 23 SAC filed: June 14, 2021 24 Trial: Not set 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 I. PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S FORM INTERROGATORIES 2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 3 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance 4 through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, 5 pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the 6 damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each 7 policy state: 8 (a) the kind of coverage; 9 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; 10 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 (d) the policy number; 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the 13 policy; 14 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute 15 exists between you and the insurance company; and 16 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the 17 policy. 18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 19 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 20 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 21 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 22 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 23 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 24 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 25 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 26 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 27 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 28 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 1. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 2 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 3 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 4 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 5 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 6 NO. 4.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 7 A motion to be relieved as counsel is not a legal basis for objecting to 8 discovery. Parties are expected to engage in discovery in good faith and not abuse 9 the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include unmeritorious 10 objections to discovery without substantial justification and making evasive TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 responses. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” Lopez v. 13 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 590. 14 “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is 15 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either 16 is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 17 discovery of admissible evidence.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. “[T]he 18 scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.” 19 Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 754, 20 767. 21 Given that the standard of relevance is also applied liberally, and “any doubt 22 is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery,” FCP Private’s relevance 23 objection to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories is frivolous and asserted in bad faith. 24 Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249. 25 FCP Private’s objection to the term “INCIDENT” is in bad faith. As stated 26 in the Judicial Council-drafted form, “INCIDENT” is defined as “the 27 circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other 28 occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” 2. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 In addition, California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.210 expressly 2 authorizes the discovery of a defendant’s liability insurance in order to facilitate 3 settlement. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 6 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions 7 that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. 8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 9 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 10 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 13 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 14 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 15 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 16 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 17 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 18 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 19 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 21 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 22 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 23 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 24 NO. 4.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 25 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 26 27 28 3. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1: 2 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the 3 INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property: 4 (a) describe the property; 5 (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; 6 (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property 7 and how the amount was calculated; and 8 (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone 9 number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price. 10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1: TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 13 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 14 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 15 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 16 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 17 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 18 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 19 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 20 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 21 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 23 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 24 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 25 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 26 NO. 7.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 27 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 28 4. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2: 2 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property 3 referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate 4 or evaluation state: 5 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who 6 prepared it and the date prepared; 7 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who 8 has a copy of it; and 9 (c) the amount of damage stated. 10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2: TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 13 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 14 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 15 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 16 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 17 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 18 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 19 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 20 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 21 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 23 to the subject matter of the case. 24 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 25 NO. 7.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 26 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 27 28 5. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1: 2 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for 3 each item of damage state: 4 (a) the nature; 5 (b) the date it occurred; 6 (c) the amount; and 7 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to 8 whom an obligation was incurred. 9 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1: 10 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 13 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 14 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 15 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 16 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 17 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 18 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 19 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 20 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 22 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 23 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 24 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 25 NO. 9.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 26 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 27 28 6. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2: 2 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of 3 damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the 4 name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each 5 DOCUMENT. 6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2: 7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 8 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 9 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 10 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 13 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 14 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 15 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 16 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 17 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 19 to the subject matter of the case. 20 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 21 NO. 9.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 22 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 23 24 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: 25 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: 26 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately 27 before or after the INCIDENT; 28 (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; 7. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any 2 individual at the scene; and 3 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has 4 knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of 5 Civil Procedure section 2034). 6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: 7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 8 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 9 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 10 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 13 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 14 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 15 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 16 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 17 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 19 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 20 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 21 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 22 NO. 12.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 23 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 24 25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: 26 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed 27 any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: 28 8. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual 2 interviewed; 3 (b) the date of the interview; and 4 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who 5 conducted the interview. 6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: 7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 8 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 9 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 10 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 13 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 14 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 15 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 16 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 17 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 19 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 20 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 21 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 22 NO. 12.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 23 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 24 25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: 26 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a 27 written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If 28 so, for each statement state: 9. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from 2 whom the statement was obtained; 3 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who 4 obtained the statement; 5 (c) the date the statement was obtained; and 6 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who 7 has the original statement or a copy. 8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: 9 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 10 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 13 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 14 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 15 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 16 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 17 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 18 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 19 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 20 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 21 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 22 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 23 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 24 NO. 12.3 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 25 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 26 27 28 10. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4: 2 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any 3 photographs, films, or videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual 4 concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiffs injuries? If so, state: 5 (a) the number of photographs or feet of film or videotape; 6 (b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, filmed, or videotaped; 7 (c) the date the photographs, films, or videotapes were taken; 8 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking 9 the photographs, films, or videotapes; and 10 (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 has the original or a copy of the photographs, films, or videotapes. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.4: 13 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 14 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 15 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 16 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 17 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 18 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 19 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 20 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 21 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 22 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 23 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 25 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 26 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 27 28 11. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 12.4 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5: 6 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any 7 diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed 8 by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210- 9 2034.310) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state: 10 (a) the type (i.e., diagram, reproduction, or model); TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 (b) the subject matter; and 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who 13 has it. 14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.5: 15 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 16 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 17 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 18 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 19 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 20 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 21 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 22 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 23 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 24 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 25 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 27 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 28 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 12. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 12.5 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: 6 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, 7 state: 8 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON 9 who made the report; 10 (b) the date and type of report made; TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 whom the report was made; and 13 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who 14 has the original or a copy of the report. 15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: 16 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 17 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 18 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 19 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 20 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 21 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 22 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 23 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 24 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 25 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 26 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 28 13. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 2 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 3 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 4 NO. 12.6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 5 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 6 7 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.1: 8 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any 9 PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or 10 regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated. 13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 14.1: 14 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 15 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 16 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 17 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 18 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 19 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 20 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 21 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 22 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 23 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 24 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 26 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 27 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 28 14. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 14.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: 6 Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative 7 defense in your pleadings and for each: 8 (a) state all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative 9 defense; 10 (b) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 (c) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support 13 your denial or special or affirmative defense, and state the name, ADDRESS, and 14 telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: 16 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 17 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 18 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 19 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 20 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 21 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 22 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 23 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 24 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 25 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 26 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 27 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 28 to the subject matter of the case. 15. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE FCP PRIVATE 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 15.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: 6 Is your response to each request for admission served with these 7 interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an 8 unqualified admission: 9 (a) state the number of the request; 10 (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and 13 (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support 14 your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the 15 PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. 16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: 17 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 18 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earl