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
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
TELEPHONE 310‐826‐4700; FACSIMILE 310‐826‐4711
11 MARK SCHAUB, an individual; Case No.: 20CV02113
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
TLG LTD., a Hong Kong limited
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 liability company,
[Assigned to the Hon. Donna D. Geck,
13 Plaintiffs, Dept. SB-4]
14 v.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
15 ANDREW WYLES WATERS, an OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT
individual; FCP CORPORATE (HK) OF PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S
16 LTD., a Hong Kong limited liability MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
company; FCP PRIVATE, LLC, a RESPONSES TO WRITTEN
17 California limited liability DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT FCP
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 CORPORATE LTD. AND REQUEST
18 inclusive, FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $10,500.00
19 Defendants.
Hearing Date: May 27, 2022
20 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: 4
21
Action Filed: June 23, 2020
22 Trial Date: None Set
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FCP CORPORATE
1 DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG
2 I, Diane H. Bang, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before this Court, and I
4 represent Plaintiff Mark Schaub (“Plaintiff”). I submit this Supplemental
5 Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to
6 Written Discovery by Defendant FCP Corporate Ltd. (“Defendant”) and Request
7 for Sanctions (the “Motion”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
8 herein and, if called upon to do so, can testify competently to the facts in this
9 declaration.
10 2. On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion as to
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
TELEPHONE 310‐826‐4700; FACSIMILE 310‐826‐4711
11 Defendant FCP Corporate Ltd.’s responses to Plaintiff’s first sets of written
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12 discovery.
13 3. The Motion was filed concurrently with my declaration, which
14 attached FCP Corporate Ltd.’s objections to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories as
15 Exhibit B.
16 4. The Court noted in its May 6, 2022 Order, addressing and continuing
17 the hearing on the Motion, that FCP Corporate Ltd.’s objections to Plaintiff’s form
18 interrogatories were erroneously labeled by Defendant as the responses of
19 codefendant FCP Private, LLC.
20 5. On May 10, 2022, I requested clarification of the mislabeling from
21 Defendant’s former counsel, Cory Baker, who served the responses at issue in the
22 Motion. Mr. Baker clarified that Defendant had simply mislabeled its responses,
23 and indeed intended for the responses to serve as FCP Corporate Ltd.’s objections
24 to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories, rather than FCP Private, LLC’s.
25 6. On May 12, 2022, Mr. Baker sent to my office a corrected version of
26 FCP Corporate, Ltd.’s objections to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories,
27 relabeling the objections as FCP Corporate, Ltd.’s responses to Plaintiff’s form
28
1
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FCP CORPORATE
1 interrogatories but not amending or modifying them in substance. That corrected
2 version of the objections is attached hereto as Exhibit K, numbered sequentially
3 with the final exhibit (Ex. J) attached to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice,
4 filed concurrently with the motion. The Court may wish to consider this corrected
5 version of FCP Corporate, Ltd.’s responses in place of those attached as Exhibit B
6 to my February 15, 2022 Declaration in light of the correction by Defendant’s
7 former counsel.
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
9 that the foregoing is true and correct.
10 Executed this 17th day of May 2022, in Los Angeles, California.
Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP
TELEPHONE 310‐826‐4700; FACSIMILE 310‐826‐4711
11
1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12
13 Diane H. Bang
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FCP CORPORATE
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT K
1 REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & McROY LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
2 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel (805) 966-2440
3 Fax (805) 966-3320
Kevin R. Nimmons (State Bar No. 261577)
4 knimmons@rppmh.com
Cory T. Baker (State Bar No. 315763)
5 cbaker@rppmh.com
Attorneys for Defendants Andrew Wyles Waters
6 FCP Corporate Ltd., and FCP Private, LLC
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 ANACAPA DIVISION
11 MARK SCHAUB, an individual; TLG LTD., CASE NO.: 20CV02113
a Hong Kong limited liability company,
12 Case Assigned to Donna D. Geck
Dept. 4
13 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed: June 23, 2020
14 v. DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
15 ANDREW WYLES WATERS, an individual; SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-
FCP CORPORATE LTD., a Hong Kong GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
16 limited liability company; FCP PRIVATE,
LLC, a California limited liability corporation;
17 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB
22 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD
23 SET NUMBER: ONE
24
25 Defendant FCP CORPORATE LTD ("Responding Party" or "FCP Corporate") hereby
26 responds to the Form Interrogatories-General (Set One) ("Interrogatories"), propounded by
27 Plaintiff Mark Schaub ("Propounding Party" or "Schaub") as follows:
28 ///
1
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2 These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each answer is subject to
3 all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, and any and
4 all other objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of any statement herein if the
5 interrogatories were asked of, or any statements contained herein were made by, a witness
6 present and testifying in Court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may be
7 interposed at the time of trial.
8 Responding Party has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case and
9 has not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses are based upon information
10 presently available to Responding Party and are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s
11 right to utilize subsequently discovered facts.
12 Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no incidental or implied admissions are
13 intended hereby. The fact that Responding Party has answered any interrogatories should not be
14 taken as an admission that Responding Party accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth
15 or assumed by such interrogatory, or that such response constitutes admissible evidence. The
16 fact that Responding Party has answered part or all of any interrogatory is not intended and shall
17 not be construed to be a waiver by Responding Party of all or any part of any objection to any
18 interrogatory made by Responding Party.
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
3 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON
4 who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories.
5 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
6 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
7 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
8 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
9 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
10 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
11 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
12 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
13 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
14 29, 2022.
15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as
16 follows: Kevin R. Nimmons, of Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP, attorneys for Responding
17 Party; 1421 State Street, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; telephone 805-966-2440.
18 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:
19 Are you a corporation? If so, state:
20 (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation;
21 (b) all other names used by the corporation during the past 10 years and the dates each
22 was used;
23 (c) the date and place of incorporation;
24 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and
25 (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California.
26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:
27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
28 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
3
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
2 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
3 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
4 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
5 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
6 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
7 29, 2022.
8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as
9 follows: No.
10 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2:
11 Are you a partnership? If so, state:
12 (a) the current partnership name;
13 (b) all other names used by the partnership during the past 10 years and the dates each
14 was used;
15 (c) whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what jurisdiction;
16 (d) the name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and
17 (e) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2:
19 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
20 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
21 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
22 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
23 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
24 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
25 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
26 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
27 29, 2022.
28 ///
4
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as
2 follows: No.
3 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3:
4 Are you a limited liability company? If so, state:
5 (a) the name stated in the current articles of organization;
6 (b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each was
7 used;
8 (c) the date and place of filing of the articles of organization;
9 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and
10 (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California.
11 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3:
12 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
13 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
14 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
15 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
16 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
17 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
18 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
19 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
20 29, 2022.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as
22 follows: Yes.
23 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4:
24 Are you a joint venture? If so, state:
25 (a) the current joint venture name;
26 (b) all other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates each
27 was used;
28 (c) the name and ADDRESS of each joint venture; and;
5
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4:
3 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
4 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
5 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
6 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
7 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
8 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
9 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
10 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
11 29, 2022.
12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as
13 follows: No.
14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5:
15 Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state:
16 (a) the current unincorporated association name;
17 (b) all other names used by the unincorporated association during the past 10 years and
18 the dates each was used; and
19 (c) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5:
21 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
22 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
23 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
24 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
25 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
26 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
27 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
28
6
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
2 29, 2022.
3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as
4 follows: No.
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6:
6 Have you done business under a fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each
7 fictitious name state:
8 (a) the name;
9 (b) the dates each was used;
10 (c) the state and county of each fictitious name filing; and
11 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6:
13 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
14 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
15 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
16 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
17 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
18 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
19 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
20 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
21 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
22 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
23 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case.
24 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7:
25 Within the past five years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? If
26 so, for each license or registration:
27 (a) identify the license or registration;
28 (b) state the name of the public entity; and
7
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 (c) state the dates of issuance and expiration.
2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7:
3 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
4 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
5 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
6 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
7 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
8 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
9 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
10 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
11 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
12 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
13 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case.
14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
15 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which
16 you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability
17 coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out
18 of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state:
19 (a) the kind of coverage;
20 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company;
21 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;
22 (d) the policy number;
23 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy;
24 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between
25 you and the insurance company; and
26 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy.
27 ///
28 ///
8
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:
2 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
3 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
4 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
5 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
6 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
7 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
8 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
9 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
10 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
11 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
12 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory
13 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2:
15 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen
16 out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute.
17 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2:
18 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
19 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
20 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
21 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
22 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
23 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
24 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
25 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
26 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
27 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
28
9
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory
2 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
3 FORM INTERROGATORY NO.7.1:
4 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT?
5 If so, for each item of property:
6 (a) describe the property;
7 (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
8 (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the
9 amount was calculated; and
10 (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the
11 seller, the date of sale, and the sale price.
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1:
13 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
14 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
15 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
16 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
17 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
18 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
19 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
20 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
21 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
22 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
23 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory
24 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO.7.2:
26 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred to in
27 your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate or evaluation state:
28 ///
10
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared it and
2 the date prepared;
3 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has a copy of it;
4 and
5 (c) the amount of damage stated.
6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2:
7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
8 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
9 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
10 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
11 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
12 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
13 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
14 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
15 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
16 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
17 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case.
18 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1:
19 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of
20 damage state:
21 (a) the nature;
22 (b) the date it occurred;
23 (c) the amount; and
24 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an
25 obligation was incurred.
26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1:
27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
28 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
11
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
2 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
3 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
4 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
5 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
6 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
7 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
8 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
9 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory
10 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
11 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2:
12 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed
13 in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and
14 telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.
15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2:
16 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
17 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
18 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
19 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
20 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
21 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
22 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
23 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
24 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
25 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
26 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case.
27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO.12.1:
28 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
12
DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK
SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE
1 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after
2 the INCIDENT;
3 (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;
4 (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene;
5 and
6 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of
7 the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034)
8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1:
9 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled
10 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on
11 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for
12 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was
13 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant
14 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a
15 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide
16 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January
17 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
18 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
19 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory
20 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous.
21 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
22 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual
23 concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:
24 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed;
25
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 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP TELEPHONE 310‐826‐4700; FACSIMILE 310‐826‐4711 11 MARK SCHAUB, an individual; Case No.: 20CV02113 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 TLG LTD., a Hong Kong limited LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 liability company, [Assigned to the Hon. Donna D. Geck, 13 Plaintiffs, Dept. SB-4] 14 v. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION 15 ANDREW WYLES WATERS, an OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT individual; FCP CORPORATE (HK) OF PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB’S 16 LTD., a Hong Kong limited liability MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER company; FCP PRIVATE, LLC, a RESPONSES TO WRITTEN 17 California limited liability DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT FCP corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 CORPORATE LTD. AND REQUEST 18 inclusive, FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,500.00 19 Defendants. Hearing Date: May 27, 2022 20 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 4 21 Action Filed: June 23, 2020 22 Trial Date: None Set 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FCP CORPORATE 1 DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG 2 I, Diane H. Bang, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before this Court, and I 4 represent Plaintiff Mark Schaub (“Plaintiff”). I submit this Supplemental 5 Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to 6 Written Discovery by Defendant FCP Corporate Ltd. (“Defendant”) and Request 7 for Sanctions (the “Motion”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 8 herein and, if called upon to do so, can testify competently to the facts in this 9 declaration. 10 2. On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion as to Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP TELEPHONE 310‐826‐4700; FACSIMILE 310‐826‐4711 11 Defendant FCP Corporate Ltd.’s responses to Plaintiff’s first sets of written 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 discovery. 13 3. The Motion was filed concurrently with my declaration, which 14 attached FCP Corporate Ltd.’s objections to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories as 15 Exhibit B. 16 4. The Court noted in its May 6, 2022 Order, addressing and continuing 17 the hearing on the Motion, that FCP Corporate Ltd.’s objections to Plaintiff’s form 18 interrogatories were erroneously labeled by Defendant as the responses of 19 codefendant FCP Private, LLC. 20 5. On May 10, 2022, I requested clarification of the mislabeling from 21 Defendant’s former counsel, Cory Baker, who served the responses at issue in the 22 Motion. Mr. Baker clarified that Defendant had simply mislabeled its responses, 23 and indeed intended for the responses to serve as FCP Corporate Ltd.’s objections 24 to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories, rather than FCP Private, LLC’s. 25 6. On May 12, 2022, Mr. Baker sent to my office a corrected version of 26 FCP Corporate, Ltd.’s objections to Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories, 27 relabeling the objections as FCP Corporate, Ltd.’s responses to Plaintiff’s form 28 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FCP CORPORATE 1 interrogatories but not amending or modifying them in substance. That corrected 2 version of the objections is attached hereto as Exhibit K, numbered sequentially 3 with the final exhibit (Ex. J) attached to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, 4 filed concurrently with the motion. The Court may wish to consider this corrected 5 version of FCP Corporate, Ltd.’s responses in place of those attached as Exhibit B 6 to my February 15, 2022 Declaration in light of the correction by Defendant’s 7 former counsel. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 9 that the foregoing is true and correct. 10 Executed this 17th day of May 2022, in Los Angeles, California. Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP TELEPHONE 310‐826‐4700; FACSIMILE 310‐826‐4711 11 1990 SOUTH BUNDY DR., SUITE 705 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12 13 Diane H. Bang 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DIANE H. BANG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FCP CORPORATE EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT K 1 REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & McROY LLP 1421 State Street, Suite B 2 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Tel (805) 966-2440 3 Fax (805) 966-3320 Kevin R. Nimmons (State Bar No. 261577) 4 knimmons@rppmh.com Cory T. Baker (State Bar No. 315763) 5 cbaker@rppmh.com Attorneys for Defendants Andrew Wyles Waters 6 FCP Corporate Ltd., and FCP Private, LLC 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 ANACAPA DIVISION 11 MARK SCHAUB, an individual; TLG LTD., CASE NO.: 20CV02113 a Hong Kong limited liability company, 12 Case Assigned to Donna D. Geck Dept. 4 13 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed: June 23, 2020 14 v. DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK 15 ANDREW WYLES WATERS, an individual; SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES- FCP CORPORATE LTD., a Hong Kong GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 16 limited liability company; FCP PRIVATE, LLC, a California limited liability corporation; 17 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB 22 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD 23 SET NUMBER: ONE 24 25 Defendant FCP CORPORATE LTD ("Responding Party" or "FCP Corporate") hereby 26 responds to the Form Interrogatories-General (Set One) ("Interrogatories"), propounded by 27 Plaintiff Mark Schaub ("Propounding Party" or "Schaub") as follows: 28 /// 1 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2 These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each answer is subject to 3 all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, and any and 4 all other objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of any statement herein if the 5 interrogatories were asked of, or any statements contained herein were made by, a witness 6 present and testifying in Court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may be 7 interposed at the time of trial. 8 Responding Party has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case and 9 has not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses are based upon information 10 presently available to Responding Party and are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s 11 right to utilize subsequently discovered facts. 12 Except for explicit facts admitted herein, no incidental or implied admissions are 13 intended hereby. The fact that Responding Party has answered any interrogatories should not be 14 taken as an admission that Responding Party accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth 15 or assumed by such interrogatory, or that such response constitutes admissible evidence. The 16 fact that Responding Party has answered part or all of any interrogatory is not intended and shall 17 not be construed to be a waiver by Responding Party of all or any part of any objection to any 18 interrogatory made by Responding Party. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: 3 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON 4 who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. 5 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: 6 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 7 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 8 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 9 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 10 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 11 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 12 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 13 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 14 29, 2022. 15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as 16 follows: Kevin R. Nimmons, of Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP, attorneys for Responding 17 Party; 1421 State Street, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA 93101; telephone 805-966-2440. 18 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: 19 Are you a corporation? If so, state: 20 (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation; 21 (b) all other names used by the corporation during the past 10 years and the dates each 22 was used; 23 (c) the date and place of incorporation; 24 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and 25 (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California. 26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1: 27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 28 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 3 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 2 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 3 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 4 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 5 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 6 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 7 29, 2022. 8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as 9 follows: No. 10 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2: 11 Are you a partnership? If so, state: 12 (a) the current partnership name; 13 (b) all other names used by the partnership during the past 10 years and the dates each 14 was used; 15 (c) whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what jurisdiction; 16 (d) the name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and 17 (e) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2: 19 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 20 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 21 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 22 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 23 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 24 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 25 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 26 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 27 29, 2022. 28 /// 4 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as 2 follows: No. 3 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3: 4 Are you a limited liability company? If so, state: 5 (a) the name stated in the current articles of organization; 6 (b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each was 7 used; 8 (c) the date and place of filing of the articles of organization; 9 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and 10 (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California. 11 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3: 12 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 13 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 14 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 15 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 16 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 17 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 18 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 19 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 20 29, 2022. 21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as 22 follows: Yes. 23 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4: 24 Are you a joint venture? If so, state: 25 (a) the current joint venture name; 26 (b) all other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates each 27 was used; 28 (c) the name and ADDRESS of each joint venture; and; 5 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4: 3 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 4 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 5 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 6 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 7 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 8 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 9 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 10 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 11 29, 2022. 12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as 13 follows: No. 14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5: 15 Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state: 16 (a) the current unincorporated association name; 17 (b) all other names used by the unincorporated association during the past 10 years and 18 the dates each was used; and 19 (c) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5: 21 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 22 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 23 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 24 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 25 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 26 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 27 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 28 6 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 2 29, 2022. 3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds as 4 follows: No. 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6: 6 Have you done business under a fictitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each 7 fictitious name state: 8 (a) the name; 9 (b) the dates each was used; 10 (c) the state and county of each fictitious name filing; and 11 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business. 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.6: 13 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 14 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 15 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 16 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 17 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 18 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 19 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 20 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 21 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 22 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 23 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. 24 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7: 25 Within the past five years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? If 26 so, for each license or registration: 27 (a) identify the license or registration; 28 (b) state the name of the public entity; and 7 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 (c) state the dates of issuance and expiration. 2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.7: 3 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 4 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 5 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 6 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 7 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 8 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 9 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 10 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 11 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 12 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 13 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. 14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 15 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which 16 you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability 17 coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out 18 of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: 19 (a) the kind of coverage; 20 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; 21 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; 22 (d) the policy number; 23 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; 24 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between 25 you and the insurance company; and 26 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. 27 /// 28 /// 8 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1: 2 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 3 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 4 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 5 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 6 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 7 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 8 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 9 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 10 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 11 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 12 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory 13 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 15 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen 16 out of the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. 17 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.2: 18 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 19 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 20 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 21 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 22 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 23 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 24 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 25 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 26 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 27 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 28 9 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory 2 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 3 FORM INTERROGATORY NO.7.1: 4 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? 5 If so, for each item of property: 6 (a) describe the property; 7 (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; 8 (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the 9 amount was calculated; and 10 (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the 11 seller, the date of sale, and the sale price. 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1: 13 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 14 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 15 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 16 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 17 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 18 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 19 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 20 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 21 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 22 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 23 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory 24 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO.7.2: 26 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred to in 27 your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate or evaluation state: 28 /// 10 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared it and 2 the date prepared; 3 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has a copy of it; 4 and 5 (c) the amount of damage stated. 6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2: 7 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 8 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 9 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 10 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 11 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 12 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 13 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 14 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 15 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 16 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 17 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. 18 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1: 19 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of 20 damage state: 21 (a) the nature; 22 (b) the date it occurred; 23 (c) the amount; and 24 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an 25 obligation was incurred. 26 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.1: 27 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 28 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 11 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 2 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 3 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 4 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 5 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 6 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 7 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 8 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 9 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory 10 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 11 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2: 12 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed 13 in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and 14 telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2: 16 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 17 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 18 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 19 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 20 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 21 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 22 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 23 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 24 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 25 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 26 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. 27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO.12.1: 28 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: 12 DEFENDANT FCP CORPORATE LTD'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK SCHAUB'S FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL, SET NO. ONE 1 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after 2 the INCIDENT; 3 (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; 4 (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; 5 and 6 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of 7 the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034) 8 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1: 9 Defendants’ counsel has filed a motion to be relived as counsel from the case scheduled 10 to be heard on January 7, 2022—the earliest possible hearing date when the motion was filed on 11 October 12, 2021. Defendants’ counsel requested an extension of time to January 29, 2022, for 12 the Defendants to respond to the discovery requests after Defendants’ current counsel was 13 relieved and after Defendants obtain substitute counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to grant 14 the extension. Because Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was based on a 15 material breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, Defendants’ counsel is not able to provide 16 full and complete responses at this time, thus the reason for the requested extension to January 17 29, 2022. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information 18 that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is 19 irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. Responding Party further objects to this Interrogatory 20 on the grounds that the term "INCIDENT" is vague and ambiguous. 21 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: 22 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual 23 concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: 24 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; 25