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 ANDREW WYLES
company; FCP PRIVATE, LLC, a WATERS
16 California limited liability
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 [Notice of Motion to Compel Further
17 inclusive, Responses to Interrogatories; Notice of
18 Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Defendants. Requests for Admissions; Notice of
19 Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Requests for Production; Memorandum
20 of Points & Authorities; Declaration of
Diane Bang and Exhibits; and Request
21 for Judicial Notice filed concurrently]
22 Hearing Date: August 12, 2022
Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
23 Dept.: 4
24 SAC filed: June 14, 2021
Trial: Not set
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 I. PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S FORM INTERROGATORIES
2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2:
3 State the date and place of your birth.
4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2:
5 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
6 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
7 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
8 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
9 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
10 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
13 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
14 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022.
15 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
16 NO. 2.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
17 A motion to be relieved as counsel is not a legal basis for objecting to
18 discovery. Parties are expected to engage in discovery in good faith and not abuse
19 the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include unmeritorious
20 objections to discovery without substantial justification and making evasive
21 responses. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010.
22 “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” Lopez v.
23 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 590.
24 “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
25 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either
26 is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
27 discovery of admissible evidence.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. “[T]he
28 scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.”
1.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 754,
2 767.
3 Given that the standard of relevance is also applied liberally, and “any doubt
4 is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery,” Defendant Waters’
5 relevance objection to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories is frivolous and asserted in
6 bad faith. Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249.
7 Defendant Waters’ objection to the term “INCIDENT” is in bad faith. As
8 stated in the Judicial Council-drafted form, “INCIDENT” is defined as “the
9 circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other
10 occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.”
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3:
13 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so, state:
14 (a) the state or other issuing entity;
15 (b) the license number and type;
16 (c) the date of issuance; and
17 (d) all restrictions.
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3:
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.
2.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 2.3 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5:
6 State:
7 (a) your present residence ADDRESS;
8 (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and
9 (c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS.
10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5:
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.
21 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
22 NO. 2.5 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
23 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra.
24
25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6:
26 State:
27 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or
28 place of self- employment; and
3.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 (b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work
2 for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before
3 the INCIDENT until today.
4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6:
5 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
6 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
7 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
8 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
9 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
10 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
13 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
14 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022.
15 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
16 NO. 2.6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
17 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra.
18
19 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.7:
20 State:
21 (a) the name and ADDRESS of each school or other academic or vocational
22 institution you have attended, beginning with high school;
23 (b) the dates you attended;
24 (c) the highest grade level you have completed; and
25 (d) the degrees received.
26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.7:
27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
28 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
4.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
2 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
3 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
4 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
5 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
6 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
7 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
8 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022.
9 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
10 NO. 2.7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra.
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12
13 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8:
14 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state:
15 (a) the city and state where you were convicted;
16 (b) the date of conviction;
17 (c) the offense; and
18 (d) the court and case number.
19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.8:
20 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
21 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
22 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
23 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
24 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
25 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
26 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
27 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
28
5.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
2 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022.
3 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
4 NO. 2.8 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
5 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra.
6
7 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11:
8 At the time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for
9 any PERSON? If so, state:
10 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON: and
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 (b) a description of your duties.
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11:
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
6.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 2.11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
6 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance
7 through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary,
8 pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the
9 damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each
10 policy state:
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 (a) the kind of coverage;
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company;
13 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;
14 (d) the policy number;
15 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the
16 policy;
17 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute
18 exists between you and the insurance company; and
19 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the
20 policy.
21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
22 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
23 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
24 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
25 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
26 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
27 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
28 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
7.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
2 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
3 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
4 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
6 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
7 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous.
8 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
9 NO. 4.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
10 A motion to be relieved as counsel is not a legal basis for objecting to
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 discovery. Parties are expected to engage in discovery in good faith and not abuse
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include unmeritorious
13 objections to discovery without substantial justification and making evasive
14 responses. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010.
15 “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” Lopez v.
16 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 590.
17 “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
18 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either
19 is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
20 discovery of admissible evidence.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. “[T]he
21 scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.”
22 Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 754,
23 767.
24 Given that the standard of relevance is also applied liberally, and “any doubt
25 is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery,” Defendant Waters’
26 relevance objection to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories is frivolous and asserted in
27 bad faith. Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249.
28
8.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 Defendant Waters’ objection to the term “INCIDENT” is in bad faith. As
2 stated in the Judicial Council-drafted form, “INCIDENT” is defined as “the
3 circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other
4 occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.”
5 In addition, California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.210 expressly
6 authorizes the discovery of a defendant’s liability insurance in order to facilitate
7 settlement.
8
9 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2:
10 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute.
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2:
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
9.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 4.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1:
6 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the
7 INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property:
8 (a) describe the property;
9 (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
10 (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 and how the amount was calculated; and
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone
13 number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.
14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1:
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.
10.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 7.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2:
5 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property
6 referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate
7 or evaluation state:
8 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who
9 prepared it and the date prepared;
10 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 has a copy of it; and
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 (c) the amount of damage stated.
13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2:
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.
27
28
11.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 7.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.1:
6 Do you attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the INCIDENT?
7 (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through 8.8).
8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.1:
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. 8.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
25 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
26
27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.2:
28 State:
12.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 (a) the nature of your work;
2 (b) your job title at the time of the INCIDENT; and
3 (c) the date your employment began.
4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.2:
5 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
6 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
7 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
8 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
9 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
10 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
13 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
14 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
15 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
17 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
18 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
19 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
20 NO. 8.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
21 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
22
23 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.4:
24 State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the
25 amount was calculated.
26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.4:
27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
28 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
13.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
2 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
3 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
4 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
5 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
6 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
7 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
8 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
9 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
13 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
14 NO. 8.4 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
15 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
16
17 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.6:
18 State the dates you did not work and for which you lost income as a result of
19 the INCIDENT.
20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.6:
21 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
22 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
23 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
24 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
25 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
26 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the
27 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was
28 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’
14.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the
2 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects
3 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably
4 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant
5 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this
6 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
7 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
8 NO. 8.6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
9 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
10
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.7:
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 State the total income you have lost to date as a result of the INCIDENT and
13 how the amount was calculated.
14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.7:
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.
15.
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS
1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
2 NO. 8.7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra.
4
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.8:
6 Will you lose income in the future as a result of the INCIDENT? If so, state:
7 (a) the facts upon which you base this contention;
8 (b) an estimate of the amount;
9 (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and
10 (d) how the claim for future income is calculated.
TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
11 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.8:
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the
13 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date
14 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an
15 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the
16 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after
17 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused
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 ANDREW WYLES company; FCP PRIVATE, LLC, a WATERS 16 California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 [Notice of Motion to Compel Further 17 inclusive, Responses to Interrogatories; Notice of 18 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants. Requests for Admissions; Notice of 19 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production; Memorandum 20 of Points & Authorities; Declaration of Diane Bang and Exhibits; and Request 21 for Judicial Notice filed concurrently] 22 Hearing Date: August 12, 2022 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. 23 Dept.: 4 24 SAC filed: June 14, 2021 Trial: Not set 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 I. PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S FORM INTERROGATORIES 2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2: 3 State the date and place of your birth. 4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2: 5 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 6 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 7 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 8 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 9 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 10 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 13 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 14 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. 15 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 16 NO. 2.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 17 A motion to be relieved as counsel is not a legal basis for objecting to 18 discovery. Parties are expected to engage in discovery in good faith and not abuse 19 the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include unmeritorious 20 objections to discovery without substantial justification and making evasive 21 responses. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010. 22 “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” Lopez v. 23 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 590. 24 “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is 25 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either 26 is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 27 discovery of admissible evidence.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. “[T]he 28 scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.” 1. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 754, 2 767. 3 Given that the standard of relevance is also applied liberally, and “any doubt 4 is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery,” Defendant Waters’ 5 relevance objection to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories is frivolous and asserted in 6 bad faith. Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249. 7 Defendant Waters’ objection to the term “INCIDENT” is in bad faith. As 8 stated in the Judicial Council-drafted form, “INCIDENT” is defined as “the 9 circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other 10 occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3: 13 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so, state: 14 (a) the state or other issuing entity; 15 (b) the license number and type; 16 (c) the date of issuance; and 17 (d) all restrictions. 18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3: 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. 2. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 2.3 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5: 6 State: 7 (a) your present residence ADDRESS; 8 (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and 9 (c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS. 10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5: 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. 21 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 22 NO. 2.5 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 23 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra. 24 25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6: 26 State: 27 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or 28 place of self- employment; and 3. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 (b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work 2 for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before 3 the INCIDENT until today. 4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6: 5 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 6 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 7 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 8 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 9 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 10 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 13 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 14 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. 15 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 16 NO. 2.6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 17 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra. 18 19 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.7: 20 State: 21 (a) the name and ADDRESS of each school or other academic or vocational 22 institution you have attended, beginning with high school; 23 (b) the dates you attended; 24 (c) the highest grade level you have completed; and 25 (d) the degrees received. 26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.7: 27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 28 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 4. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 2 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 3 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 4 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 5 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 6 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 7 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 8 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. 9 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 10 NO. 2.7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 13 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8: 14 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: 15 (a) the city and state where you were convicted; 16 (b) the date of conviction; 17 (c) the offense; and 18 (d) the court and case number. 19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.8: 20 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 21 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 22 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 23 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 24 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 25 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 26 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 27 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 28 5. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 2 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. 3 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 4 NO. 2.8 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 5 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra. 6 7 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11: 8 At the time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for 9 any PERSON? If so, state: 10 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON: and TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 (b) a description of your duties. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11: 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 6. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 2.11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 2.2, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 6 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance 7 through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, 8 pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the 9 damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each 10 policy state: TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 (a) the kind of coverage; 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; 13 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; 14 (d) the policy number; 15 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the 16 policy; 17 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute 18 exists between you and the insurance company; and 19 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the 20 policy. 21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 22 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 23 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 24 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 25 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 26 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 27 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 28 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 7. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 2 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 3 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 4 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 6 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 7 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “INCIDENT” is vague and ambiguous. 8 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9 NO. 4.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 10 A motion to be relieved as counsel is not a legal basis for objecting to TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 discovery. Parties are expected to engage in discovery in good faith and not abuse 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include unmeritorious 13 objections to discovery without substantial justification and making evasive 14 responses. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010. 15 “California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights.” Lopez v. 16 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 590. 17 “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is 18 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either 19 is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 20 discovery of admissible evidence.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010. “[T]he 21 scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense.” 22 Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 754, 23 767. 24 Given that the standard of relevance is also applied liberally, and “any doubt 25 is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery,” Defendant Waters’ 26 relevance objection to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories is frivolous and asserted in 27 bad faith. Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1249. 28 8. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 Defendant Waters’ objection to the term “INCIDENT” is in bad faith. As 2 stated in the Judicial Council-drafted form, “INCIDENT” is defined as “the 3 circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, or other 4 occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding.” 5 In addition, California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.210 expressly 6 authorizes the discovery of a defendant’s liability insurance in order to facilitate 7 settlement. 8 9 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 10 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 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 9. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 4.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1: 6 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the 7 INCIDENT? If so, for each item of property: 8 (a) describe the property; 9 (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; 10 (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 and how the amount was calculated; and 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone 13 number of the seller, the date of sale, and the sale price. 14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1: 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. 10. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 7.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2: 5 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property 6 referred to in your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate 7 or evaluation state: 8 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who 9 prepared it and the date prepared; 10 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 has a copy of it; and 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 (c) the amount of damage stated. 13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2: 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. 27 28 11. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 7.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.1: 6 Do you attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the INCIDENT? 7 (If your answer is “no,” do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through 8.8). 8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.1: 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. 8.1 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 25 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 26 27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.2: 28 State: 12. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 (a) the nature of your work; 2 (b) your job title at the time of the INCIDENT; and 3 (c) the date your employment began. 4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.2: 5 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 6 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 7 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 8 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 9 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 10 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 13 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 14 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 15 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 16 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 17 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 18 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 19 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 20 NO. 8.2 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 21 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 22 23 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.4: 24 State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the 25 amount was calculated. 26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.4: 27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 28 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 13. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 2 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 3 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 4 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 5 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 6 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 7 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 8 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 9 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 13 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 14 NO. 8.4 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 15 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 16 17 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.6: 18 State the dates you did not work and for which you lost income as a result of 19 the INCIDENT. 20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.6: 21 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 22 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 23 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 24 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 25 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 26 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant the 27 extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was 28 based on a material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ 14. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 counsel is not able to provide full and complete responses at this time, thus the 2 reason for the requested extension to January 29, 2022. Responding Party objects 3 to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably 4 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is irrelevant 5 to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this 6 Interrogatory on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 7 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8 NO. 8.6 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 9 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 10 TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.7: 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 State the total income you have lost to date as a result of the INCIDENT and 13 how the amount was calculated. 14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.7: 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. 15. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE WATERS 1 REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2 NO. 8.7 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: 3 See the reasons stated in connection with Form Interrogatory No. 4.1, supra. 4 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.8: 6 Will you lose income in the future as a result of the INCIDENT? If so, state: 7 (a) the facts upon which you base this contention; 8 (b) an estimate of the amount; 9 (c) an estimate of how long you will be unable to work; and 10 (d) how the claim for future income is calculated. TELEPHONE 310-826-4700; FACSIMILE 310-826-4711 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP 11 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.8: 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the 13 case scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date 14 when the motion was filed on October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an 15 extension of time to January 29, 2022, for the Defendants to respond to the 16 discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was relieved and after 17 Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused