Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Superior Court of California
RYAN E. COSGROVE (SBN 277907) County of Santa Barbara
ryan.cosgrove@nelsonmullins.com Darrel E.E. Parker, Executive Officer
SHAWTINA LEWIS (SBN 259255)
shawtina.IeWis@nelsonmullins.com 10/21/2019
10/21/20191:47 1:47 PM
19191 S. Vermont Ave., Suite 900 By:
By: Sharon Leyden, Deputy
Torrance, CA 90502
Telephone: 424.221.7400
Facsimile: 424.221.7499
DARIN J. LANG (admitted pro hac vice)
darin.lang@nelsonmu11ins.com
1400 Wewatta Street , Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303.583.9922
Facsimile: 303.583.9999
Attorneys for Defendant
LLI’
10 GENERAL MOTORS LLC
11
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12
AT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8t ANGELES
13
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
LOS
14
MULLINS
LILIANA BLANCARTE and Case No.: 18CV00233
15 ROQUE RUBIO,
Assigned for all purposes to:
NELSON
16 Plaintiffs, Honorable Timothy J. Stafi’el
17 V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE
OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
18 GTS TAX & INSURANCE, LLC, a Limited COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY
Liability Company; RITO GUTIERREZ, an LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1)
19 Individual; GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR
20 50, inclusive, PRODUCTION, SET N0. TWO; AND
(3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET
21 Defendants. NO. TWO
22 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND/OR HER
23 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,405.00
24
Date: December 11, 2019
25 Time: 8:30 am.
Place: Dept SMI
26
27 Action Filed: January 12, 2018
Trial Date: TBD
28
1
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 11, 2019, at the hour of 8:30 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard in Department SMl of the above-entitled court, located at 312
East Cook Street, Santa Maria, CA 93454, General Motors LLC (“GM LLC”) will move the
Court for an order compelling plaintiff Liliana Blancalte, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
sections 2030.300 and 2031.310, to provide further responses to (1) Special Interrogatory Nos.
13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 24; (2) Requests for Production Nos. 13—18, 20, and 21; and (3)
Form Interrogatory N0. 17.1, from the second sets of discovery propounded by GM LLC.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that GM LLC will seek monetary sanctions in the
amount of $3,405.00 against Liliana Blancarte and/or her counsel, Lari—Joni & Bassell, LLP,
LLP
10 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2030.300 and 2031.310.
11 GM LLC’s motion is based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 authorities, the concurrently filed separate statement, the declaration of Ryan E. Cosgrove, the
AT
5: ANGELES
13 complaint on file herein, all the other pleadings on file with this court, and any further oral or
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
Los
14
MULLINS
15
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
NELSON
16 Dated: October 21, 2019
SCARBOROUGH LLP
17
18
19
20
By:
RYAN E.
W CO‘SQROVE
SHAWTINA LEWIS
YQ
Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO‘ TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION.
On January 15, 2016, plaintiff Liliana Blancarte (“Plaintiff’) was driving a fourteen year
old 2002 model year Chevy Trailblazer owned by her employer, Defendant GTS TAX &
Insurance, LLC (“GTS”). Plaintiff was on a curve in the transition from Highway 1 to US.
Highway 135 , driving more than 20 mph in excess of the posted speed limit, when she drove the
Trailblazer off the road, causing itto enter a grassy median t0 the left of the highway and roll
over, end—0ver—end, at least twice. At some point during the roll sequence, Plaintiff was ejected
from the Trailblazer as a result of her failure to wear the available seatbelt.
LLP
10 On June 20, 2019, GM LLC served the second sets of special interrogatories, requests for
11 production and form interrogatories, as well as the first set of requests for admissions, to Plaintiff
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 Liliana Blancarte. (Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4.) The discovery was propounded to obtain information about
AT
8: ANGELES
13 Plaintiffs claims against GM LLC, such as the defects she contends existed in the seat belt, how
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
LOS
14 she was injured by a defect in the vehicle and the facts on which she relies to support her
MULLINS
15 contention the incident was not caused by her negligence.
NELSON
16 After numerous extensions, Plaintiff served “responses” to the discovery on September
17 11, 2019. (Exhs. 5, 6, 7.) Although the requests for admissions were designed to eliminate
18 issues in the case, Plaintiff denied all seventeen (17) of the requests.
19 On September 12, 2019, counsel for GM LLC sent a detailed letter to Plaintiff s counsel
20 outlining the deficiencies in Plaintiff’ 5 responses. The letter also indicated GM LLC would file a
21 motion to compel if Plaintiff did not provide further responses. Yet, Plaintiff neither served
22 further responses to the discovery in issue nor did Plaintiff’s counsel even respond to the letter.
23 (Exh. 14; Cosgrove Dec]., 1] 5.)
24 On September 26, 2019, counsel for GM LLC sent an email to Plaintiffs counsel
25 regarding the lack of response to the meet and confer letter that was sent on September 12, 2019.
26 Counsel for GM LLC also stated it appeared plaintiffs do not wish to engage in the meet and
27 confer process and formal motion practice would be required. Again, Plaintiff’s counsel did not
28 respond to the correspondence. (Exh. 15; Cosgrove Decl., fl 6.)
3
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE T0 (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
Accordingly, GM LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter an order compelling
Plaintiff to provide verified further responses to (1) Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19,
22, 23 and 24; (2) Requests for Production Nos. 13-18, 20, and 21; and (3) Form Interrogatory
No. 17.1, from the second sets of discovery propounded by GM LLC. GM LLC fufiher requests
an order requiring Plaintiff and/0r her counsel to pay GM LLC’s costs associated with this
motion.
11. LEGAL ARGUMENT.
A. GM LLC MADE A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO INFORMALLY RESOLVE
THE MATTER PRIOR TO FILING THE MOTION, WHICH WAS IGNORED
LLP
10 BY PLAINTIFF.
11 Prior to filing this motion, GM LLC attempted to resolve this matter informally with
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 counsel for Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff’s counsel never responded to counsel for GM LLC’s
AT
8: ANGELES
13 attempts to meet and confelt Moreover, Plaintiff did not provide further responses. (Cosgrove
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
L05
14 Decl., fl] 5, 6; Exhs. 14,15.)
MULLINS
15 Accordingly, Plaintiff refused to engage in the meet and confer process to avoid the filing
NELSON
16 of this motion.
17 B. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE FURTHER
18 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23
19 £31.23.-
20 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 states the propounding party may move for an
21 order compelling ful’ther responses to interrogatories if the responses are incomplete, inadequate,
22 or evasive. Here, GM LLC properly served intelTogatories to Plaintiff. After Plaintiff served
23 deficient responses, GM LLC attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to obtain complete
24 responses to no avail. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide further responses to
25 the requests in issue.
26 1. Special Interrogatorv Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19.
27 These interrogatories asked plaintiff to provide facts and evidence to support her
28 contentions against GM LLC in this action. Rather than provide a complete and straightforward
4
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
response as required by the Code, plaintiff stated she is “neither an expert nor has technical legal
knowledge.”
Plaintiff’s responses ignore established Califomia law that states an interrogatory can
require a pafiy to state her contentions as to either factual or legal issues and it is “not
objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the
application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed
in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (b).)
Thus, plaintiff must “disclose the evidentiary facts underlying each such contention, as well as
each allegation of [her] complaint or affirmative defense.” (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003)
LLP
10 112 CaLApp.4th 285, 301.)
11 Fufiher, plaintiff must disclose facts and information known to her attorney, agents,
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 consultants, family members and expert witnesses. (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189
AT
é: ANCELES
13 Ca1.App.2d 6, 11-12; Sigersez‘h v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Ca1.App.3d 427, 433 [facts and
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
Los
14 information known to expefi witnesses must furnished in response to inten'ogatories]; Jones v.
MULLINS
15 Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534, 552 [party expected to make inquiry of family
members].)
NELSON
16
17 Plaintiff cannot plead ignorance to the evidence that is known to her attorneys and expert
18 witnesses. As such, plaintiff should be ordered to provide further responses to these
19 interrogatories.
20 2. Sgecial Interrogatoyx No. 22.
21 This interrogatory asked plaintiff to state her annual earnings for the last ten years.
22 Although plaintiff provided some limited earning information from 2015, she did not provide her
23 annual eamings for the last ten years.
24 “Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of
25 the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded
26 conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne
27 (1978) 84 Ca1.App.3d 771, 783.) Plaintiff must provide a further response with the earning
28 information for the past ten years.
5
GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COWEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
3. Sgecial Interrogatogy N0. 23.
This interrogatory asked plaintiff to identify each person on whom she relies to support
her claim of damages as a result of the incident. Rather than provide a proper response, plaintiff
merely objected and refused to provide a response.
Plaintiff’s objections are asserted in bad faith, as defendant is clearly entitled to learn the
identities of the individuals upon whom plaintiff relies to support her claim of damages. The
interrogatory seeks to find the evidentiary basis for plaintiff s damages claims, information to
which defendant has a statutory right. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4th 1539,
1546 [information that may assist in evaluating a case, preparing for trial, 01‘settling the matter is
LLP
10 relevant for pmposes of discovery].) Plaintiff must be ordered to provide a further response with
11 the information.
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 4. Special Interrogatom N0. 24.
AT
8:
plaintiff to future medical
ANGELES
13 This intem‘ogatory asked describe the treatment she contends is
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
LOS
14 necessary for the injuries she sustained in the incident. Rather than provide a proper response,
MULLINS
15 plaintiff merely objected and refused to provide a response.
NELSON
16 Plaintiffs objections are asserted in bad faith, as defendant is clearly entitled to learn the
17 future medical treatment plaintiff contends she needs, which is an essential element of her claim
18 of damages. The interrogatory seeks to find the evidentiary basis for plaintiff’s damages claims,
19 information to which defendant has a statutory right. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33
20 Ca1.App.4th 1539, 1546 [information that may assist in evaluating a case, preparing for trial, or
21 settling the matter is relevant for purposes of discovery].) Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a
22 further response with the information.
23 C. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE FURTHER
24 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 13-18, 20, AND 21.
25 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 state the propounding party may move for an
26 order compelling fufiher responses to requests for production if the responses are incomplete,
27 inadequate, or evasive. Here, GM LLC properly served requests for production to Plaintiff. After
28 Plaintiff served deficient responses, GM LLC attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to
6
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCAR’I‘E TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM IN'I'ERROGA'I‘ORIES, SET NO. TWO
obtain complete responses to no avail. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide
further responses to the requests in issue.
1. Request Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
These requests sought the documents on which Plaintiff relics to support her defect claims
against GM LLC. Rather than provide a single document in response to these requests (or even a
written response to the requests), Plaintiff merely asserted groundless objections, such as
relevance, vague and ambiguous, overbroad, oppressive and harassing, and an invasion of
privacy.
Discovery necessarily serves the function of “testing the pleadings” and enabling a pafiy
LLP
10 to determine what his opponent’s contentions are and What evidence plaintiff relies upon to
11 support her contentions. (Burke v‘ Superior Court (1969) 71 Ca1.2d 276, 281.) Defendant is
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 clearly entitled to the documents on which plaintiff relies to support her defect claim. Well-
AT
& ANGELES
13 established precedent dictates liberal policies underlying discovery procedures. (Pacific Tel. &
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
LOS
14 Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 171.) Here, defendant’s requests seek the
MULLINS
15 evidentiary basis for plaintiffs defect claim, information to which defendant has a statutory right.
NELSON
16 (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4th 1539, 1546 [information that may assist in
17 evaluating a case, preparing for trial, or settling the matter is relevant for pulposes of discovery].)
18 GM LLC is clearly entitled to the documents on which Plaintiff relies to support her
19 claims against it in this action. To the extent Plaintiff wants to claim there are documents in her
20 possession that are privileged and should not be produced, she failed to provide a privilege log in
21 Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (0). Accordingly, Plaintiff
22 should be compelled to provide further responses to these requests.
23 2. Reguest N0. 20.
24 This request sought the documents upon which Plaintiff relies in making any claim for
25 loss of past or future income. In response, Plaintiff stated she will comply in pan and produced a
26 few time sheets from 2015 and 2016.
27 First, defendant cannot determine Whether Plaintiff Withheld any documents from
28 production. Although Plaintiff referenced several privileges in her objections, she failed to
7
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM YNTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
describe what documents were withheld and she failed to provide a privilege log in Violation of
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c). Plaintiff must identify What
documents she withheld.
Second, Plaintiff only produced a few time sheets from 2015 and 2016. It is unclear
whether Plaintiff failed to produce additional documents in suppox’t of her claim or whether the
documents produced constitute the entirety of the documents in her possession to support her
claims for loss of past or future income. Plaintiff must clarify these issues in a further response.
3. Request N0. 21
This request sought the documents reflecting the future medical treatment Plaintiff
LLP
10 contends is necessary for the injuries she contends were sustained in the incident. Rather than
11 provide an appropriate response, Plaintiff merely asserted objections and refused to provide any
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 documents/responsive information, such as relevance, vague and ambiguous, overbroad,
AT
6: ANGELES
13 oppressive and harassing, and an invasion of privacy.
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
LOS
14 Discovery necessarily serves the function of “testing the pleadings” and enabling a party
MULLINS
15 to detelmine what his opponent’s contentions are and What evidence she relies upon to support
NELSON
16 her contentions. (Burke v. qaerz'or Court (1969) 71 Ca1.2d 276, 281.) Defendant is clearly
17 entitled to the documents on which plaintiff relies to support her claim for future medical
18 damages. Well-established precedent dictates liberal policies underlying discovery procedures.
19 (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca1.3d 161, 171.) Here, defendant’s requests
20 seek the evidentiary basis forplaintiffs claims for future medical damages, information to which
21 defendant has a statutory right. (Gonzalez v, Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546
22 [information that may assist in evaluating a case, preparing for trial, or settling the matter is
23 relevant for pulposes of discovery].)
24 GM LLC is clearly entitled to the documents on which Plaintiff relies to support her
25 claim that she needs future medical treatment. To the extent Plaintiff wants to claim there are
26 documents in her possession that are privileged and should not be produced, she failed to provide
27 a privilege log in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (0).
28 Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide a further response to this request.
8
GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGA'I'ORIES, SET NO. 'I'WO
D. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE A FURTHER
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 states the propounding party may move for an
order compelling fufiher responses to inten‘ogatories if the responses are incomplete, inadequate,
or evasive. Here, GM LLC properly served Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 to Plaintiff to obtain the
basis for her responses to requests for admissions. After Plaintiff sewed a deficient response, GM
LLC attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to obtain a complete response to no avail.
Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide a further response to the interrogatory.
Form Interrogatory N0. 17.1 sought all facts, witnesses with knowledge of those facts and
LLP
10 documents that support each of Plaintiff’s responses to requests for admissions that were not an
11 unqualified admission. In response to this interrogatory, Plaintiff failed to provide the facts and/0r
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 evidence on which she relies to base her denials of Request for Admission Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
AT
&
9,10,11,12 and
ANGELES
13 8, 13.
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
Los
14 Plaintiff failed to admit each request for admission and, as a result, was required to State
MULLINS
15 all facts, witnesses and documents upon which she relied to base the responses to the requests.
NELSON
16 Yet, Plaintiff did not provide the required information and merely asserted frivolous objections.
17 Plaintiff is required to identify all facts, Witnesses and documents that support each of the
18 responses to the requests for admissions which were denied. Obviously, Plaintiff did not provide
19 the required information in this response as required by the Code.
20 E. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
21 PLAINTIFF AND/0R HER COUNSEL.
22 Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), states that a misuse of the
23 discovery process is found when a party fails “to respond or to submit an authorized method of
24 discovery.” Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), provides that
25‘ the “court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the
26 discovery process pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone
27 as a result of that conduct. If a monetary sanction is authorized the court shall impose that
28 sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial jusrification or
9
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COM'PEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET NO, TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET N0. TWO
that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Emphasis added.) Finally,
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310 instruct the Court to impose a monetary
sanction against Plaintiff and/or her counsel.
Plaintiff and/or her counsel clearly abused the discovery process in this case by asserting
inapplicable objections and refusing to provide responses to the discovery in issue. There is also
absolutely no substantial justification for asserting legally invalid objections to proper discovery.
Moreover, Plaintiff and her counsel refused to engage in the meet and confer process to avoid the
filing of this motion. As a result of the refusal to provide appropriate responses and meet and
confer in good faith, GM LLC has incum‘ed and will incur reasonable expenses and attorney’s
LLP
10 fees in connection with this motion, which carries with it a $60.00 filing fee. As the declaration of
11 Ryan E. Cosgrove establishes, GM LLC incurred expenses and fees in connection with this
SCARBOROUGH
LAW
12 motion. Accordingly, this Court is respectfully requested to order Plaintiff and/0r her counsel to
AT
& associated with this motion.
so that GM LLC is reimbursed for the costs
ANGELES
13 pay at least $3,405.00,
RILEY
III.
ATTORNEYS
Los
14 CONCLUSION.
MULLINS
15 GM LLC respectfully requests that this Coum enter an order compelling Plaintiff to
NELSON
16 provide verified further responses to (1) Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and
17 24; (2) Requests for Production Nos. 13—18, 20, and 21; and (3) Form Interrogatory No. 17.1,
18 from the second sets of discovery propounded by GM LLC. GM LLC further requests an order
19 requiring Plaintiff and/or her counsel to pay defendant’s costs associated with this motion.
20
21 Dated: October 21, 2019 NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
22
23
24
By:
RYAN E
SHAWTINA
GROV
WIS
V
25 Attomeys 1°01 Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
26
27
28
10
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO, TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM FNTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 19191 South Vermont Ave.,
Suite 900, Torrance, California 90502. On October 21, 2019, I served the within:
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET N0.
TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
(BY MAIL) By placing such document(s) in a sealed envelope, with postage
thereon fully prepaid for first class mail, for collection and mailing at Nelson
Mullins LLP following ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar with the
10 practice at Nelson Mullins LLP for collection and processing of correspondence
LLP
for mailing with the United States Postal Service, said practice being that in the
11 ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited in the United States
SCARBOROUGH Postal Service the same day as it is placed for collection.
LAW
12
(BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) By placing such document(s)
&
AT
ANGELES
RILEY
13 I] in a sealed envelope,
for collection and overnight mailing at Nelson Mullins LLP following ordinary
ATTORNEYS
LOS
14 business practice. I am readily familiar with the practice at Nelson Mullins LLP
MULLINS
for collection and processing of overnight service mailing, said practice being that
15 in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the overnight
messenger service, Federal Express, for delivery as addressed.
NELSON
16
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) By causing such document(s) to be delivered by
17 El hand, as addressed by delivering same to First Legal Services with instructions that
18
it be personally served.
(BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) By transmitting such document(s) electronically
19
B from my e-mail address at Nelson Mullins LLP, to the person(s) at the electronic
20 mail addresses listed above.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 21, 2019, at
22 Torrance, Califomia.
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (I) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Torsten M. Bassell, Esq.
Lari—Joni & Bassell, LLP
3 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460
Los Angeles, CA 90025
4 Telephone: (310) 803—9088
Facsimile: (310) 803—9084
5 Email: Torsten@lbjlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Liliana Blancarte and Rogue Rubia
Robert M. Moss, Esq.
7 Robert M. Moss, Inc.
1717 Foufih Street, 3rd Floor
8 Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 260-7650
9 Facsimile: (310) 260—7654
Email: rrmnosslaw@h0tmail.com
LLP
10 Attorneys for GTS Tax & Insurance, LLC and Rita Gutierrez
1 1
SCARBOROUGH
Andrew Hollins, Esq.
AW 12 Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley
T
AT
ELES
600 Anton Blvd, 11th Floor
5:
ANG
13 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RILEY
ATTORNEYS
Telephone: (949) 507—6700
LOS
14 Facsimile: (213) 312—2001
MULLINS
Email: Andrew.hollins@ropers.com
15 Altorneys for Rita Gutierrez
NELSON
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGA'I‘ORIES, SET NO, T W0
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP Superior Court of California RYAN E. COSGROVE (SBN 277907) County of Santa Barbara ryan.cosgrove@nelsonmullins.com Darrel E.E. Parker, Executive Officer SHAWTINA LEWIS (SBN 259255) shawtina.IeWis@nelsonmullins.com 10/21/2019 10/21/20191:47 1:47 PM 19191 S. Vermont Ave., Suite 900 By: By: Sharon Leyden, Deputy Torrance, CA 90502 Telephone: 424.221.7400 Facsimile: 424.221.7499 DARIN J. LANG (admitted pro hac vice) darin.lang@nelsonmu11ins.com 1400 Wewatta Street , Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303.583.9922 Facsimile: 303.583.9999 Attorneys for Defendant LLI’ 10 GENERAL MOTORS LLC 11 SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 AT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8t ANGELES 13 RILEY ATTORNEYS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA LOS 14 MULLINS LILIANA BLANCARTE and Case No.: 18CV00233 15 ROQUE RUBIO, Assigned for all purposes to: NELSON 16 Plaintiffs, Honorable Timothy J. Stafi’el 17 V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO 18 GTS TAX & INSURANCE, LLC, a Limited COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY Liability Company; RITO GUTIERREZ, an LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) 19 Individual; GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR 20 50, inclusive, PRODUCTION, SET N0. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 21 Defendants. NO. TWO 22 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND/OR HER 23 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,405.00 24 Date: December 11, 2019 25 Time: 8:30 am. Place: Dept SMI 26 27 Action Filed: January 12, 2018 Trial Date: TBD 28 1 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 11, 2019, at the hour of 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard in Department SMl of the above-entitled court, located at 312 East Cook Street, Santa Maria, CA 93454, General Motors LLC (“GM LLC”) will move the Court for an order compelling plaintiff Liliana Blancalte, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310, to provide further responses to (1) Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 24; (2) Requests for Production Nos. 13—18, 20, and 21; and (3) Form Interrogatory N0. 17.1, from the second sets of discovery propounded by GM LLC. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that GM LLC will seek monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,405.00 against Liliana Blancarte and/or her counsel, Lari—Joni & Bassell, LLP, LLP 10 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2030.300 and 2031.310. 11 GM LLC’s motion is based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 authorities, the concurrently filed separate statement, the declaration of Ryan E. Cosgrove, the AT 5: ANGELES 13 complaint on file herein, all the other pleadings on file with this court, and any further oral or RILEY ATTORNEYS documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion. Los 14 MULLINS 15 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & NELSON 16 Dated: October 21, 2019 SCARBOROUGH LLP 17 18 19 20 By: RYAN E. W CO‘SQROVE SHAWTINA LEWIS YQ Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO‘ TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION. On January 15, 2016, plaintiff Liliana Blancarte (“Plaintiff’) was driving a fourteen year old 2002 model year Chevy Trailblazer owned by her employer, Defendant GTS TAX & Insurance, LLC (“GTS”). Plaintiff was on a curve in the transition from Highway 1 to US. Highway 135 , driving more than 20 mph in excess of the posted speed limit, when she drove the Trailblazer off the road, causing itto enter a grassy median t0 the left of the highway and roll over, end—0ver—end, at least twice. At some point during the roll sequence, Plaintiff was ejected from the Trailblazer as a result of her failure to wear the available seatbelt. LLP 10 On June 20, 2019, GM LLC served the second sets of special interrogatories, requests for 11 production and form interrogatories, as well as the first set of requests for admissions, to Plaintiff SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 Liliana Blancarte. (Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4.) The discovery was propounded to obtain information about AT 8: ANGELES 13 Plaintiffs claims against GM LLC, such as the defects she contends existed in the seat belt, how RILEY ATTORNEYS LOS 14 she was injured by a defect in the vehicle and the facts on which she relies to support her MULLINS 15 contention the incident was not caused by her negligence. NELSON 16 After numerous extensions, Plaintiff served “responses” to the discovery on September 17 11, 2019. (Exhs. 5, 6, 7.) Although the requests for admissions were designed to eliminate 18 issues in the case, Plaintiff denied all seventeen (17) of the requests. 19 On September 12, 2019, counsel for GM LLC sent a detailed letter to Plaintiff s counsel 20 outlining the deficiencies in Plaintiff’ 5 responses. The letter also indicated GM LLC would file a 21 motion to compel if Plaintiff did not provide further responses. Yet, Plaintiff neither served 22 further responses to the discovery in issue nor did Plaintiff’s counsel even respond to the letter. 23 (Exh. 14; Cosgrove Dec]., 1] 5.) 24 On September 26, 2019, counsel for GM LLC sent an email to Plaintiffs counsel 25 regarding the lack of response to the meet and confer letter that was sent on September 12, 2019. 26 Counsel for GM LLC also stated it appeared plaintiffs do not wish to engage in the meet and 27 confer process and formal motion practice would be required. Again, Plaintiff’s counsel did not 28 respond to the correspondence. (Exh. 15; Cosgrove Decl., fl 6.) 3 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE T0 (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO Accordingly, GM LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified further responses to (1) Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24; (2) Requests for Production Nos. 13-18, 20, and 21; and (3) Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, from the second sets of discovery propounded by GM LLC. GM LLC fufiher requests an order requiring Plaintiff and/0r her counsel to pay GM LLC’s costs associated with this motion. 11. LEGAL ARGUMENT. A. GM LLC MADE A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO INFORMALLY RESOLVE THE MATTER PRIOR TO FILING THE MOTION, WHICH WAS IGNORED LLP 10 BY PLAINTIFF. 11 Prior to filing this motion, GM LLC attempted to resolve this matter informally with SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 counsel for Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff’s counsel never responded to counsel for GM LLC’s AT 8: ANGELES 13 attempts to meet and confelt Moreover, Plaintiff did not provide further responses. (Cosgrove RILEY ATTORNEYS L05 14 Decl., fl] 5, 6; Exhs. 14,15.) MULLINS 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff refused to engage in the meet and confer process to avoid the filing NELSON 16 of this motion. 17 B. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE FURTHER 18 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 19 £31.23.- 20 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 states the propounding party may move for an 21 order compelling ful’ther responses to interrogatories if the responses are incomplete, inadequate, 22 or evasive. Here, GM LLC properly served intelTogatories to Plaintiff. After Plaintiff served 23 deficient responses, GM LLC attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to obtain complete 24 responses to no avail. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide further responses to 25 the requests in issue. 26 1. Special Interrogatorv Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19. 27 These interrogatories asked plaintiff to provide facts and evidence to support her 28 contentions against GM LLC in this action. Rather than provide a complete and straightforward 4 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO response as required by the Code, plaintiff stated she is “neither an expert nor has technical legal knowledge.” Plaintiff’s responses ignore established Califomia law that states an interrogatory can require a pafiy to state her contentions as to either factual or legal issues and it is “not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (b).) Thus, plaintiff must “disclose the evidentiary facts underlying each such contention, as well as each allegation of [her] complaint or affirmative defense.” (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) LLP 10 112 CaLApp.4th 285, 301.) 11 Fufiher, plaintiff must disclose facts and information known to her attorney, agents, SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 consultants, family members and expert witnesses. (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 AT é: ANCELES 13 Ca1.App.2d 6, 11-12; Sigersez‘h v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Ca1.App.3d 427, 433 [facts and RILEY ATTORNEYS Los 14 information known to expefi witnesses must furnished in response to inten'ogatories]; Jones v. MULLINS 15 Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534, 552 [party expected to make inquiry of family members].) NELSON 16 17 Plaintiff cannot plead ignorance to the evidence that is known to her attorneys and expert 18 witnesses. As such, plaintiff should be ordered to provide further responses to these 19 interrogatories. 20 2. Sgecial Interrogatoyx No. 22. 21 This interrogatory asked plaintiff to state her annual earnings for the last ten years. 22 Although plaintiff provided some limited earning information from 2015, she did not provide her 23 annual eamings for the last ten years. 24 “Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of 25 the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded 26 conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne 27 (1978) 84 Ca1.App.3d 771, 783.) Plaintiff must provide a further response with the earning 28 information for the past ten years. 5 GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COWEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 3. Sgecial Interrogatogy N0. 23. This interrogatory asked plaintiff to identify each person on whom she relies to support her claim of damages as a result of the incident. Rather than provide a proper response, plaintiff merely objected and refused to provide a response. Plaintiff’s objections are asserted in bad faith, as defendant is clearly entitled to learn the identities of the individuals upon whom plaintiff relies to support her claim of damages. The interrogatory seeks to find the evidentiary basis for plaintiff s damages claims, information to which defendant has a statutory right. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4th 1539, 1546 [information that may assist in evaluating a case, preparing for trial, 01‘settling the matter is LLP 10 relevant for pmposes of discovery].) Plaintiff must be ordered to provide a further response with 11 the information. SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 4. Special Interrogatom N0. 24. AT 8: plaintiff to future medical ANGELES 13 This intem‘ogatory asked describe the treatment she contends is RILEY ATTORNEYS LOS 14 necessary for the injuries she sustained in the incident. Rather than provide a proper response, MULLINS 15 plaintiff merely objected and refused to provide a response. NELSON 16 Plaintiffs objections are asserted in bad faith, as defendant is clearly entitled to learn the 17 future medical treatment plaintiff contends she needs, which is an essential element of her claim 18 of damages. The interrogatory seeks to find the evidentiary basis for plaintiff’s damages claims, 19 information to which defendant has a statutory right. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 20 Ca1.App.4th 1539, 1546 [information that may assist in evaluating a case, preparing for trial, or 21 settling the matter is relevant for purposes of discovery].) Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a 22 further response with the information. 23 C. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE FURTHER 24 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 13-18, 20, AND 21. 25 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 state the propounding party may move for an 26 order compelling fufiher responses to requests for production if the responses are incomplete, 27 inadequate, or evasive. Here, GM LLC properly served requests for production to Plaintiff. After 28 Plaintiff served deficient responses, GM LLC attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to 6 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCAR’I‘E TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM IN'I'ERROGA'I‘ORIES, SET NO. TWO obtain complete responses to no avail. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide further responses to the requests in issue. 1. Request Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. These requests sought the documents on which Plaintiff relics to support her defect claims against GM LLC. Rather than provide a single document in response to these requests (or even a written response to the requests), Plaintiff merely asserted groundless objections, such as relevance, vague and ambiguous, overbroad, oppressive and harassing, and an invasion of privacy. Discovery necessarily serves the function of “testing the pleadings” and enabling a pafiy LLP 10 to determine what his opponent’s contentions are and What evidence plaintiff relies upon to 11 support her contentions. (Burke v‘ Superior Court (1969) 71 Ca1.2d 276, 281.) Defendant is SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 clearly entitled to the documents on which plaintiff relies to support her defect claim. Well- AT & ANGELES 13 established precedent dictates liberal policies underlying discovery procedures. (Pacific Tel. & RILEY ATTORNEYS LOS 14 Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 171.) Here, defendant’s requests seek the MULLINS 15 evidentiary basis for plaintiffs defect claim, information to which defendant has a statutory right. NELSON 16 (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4th 1539, 1546 [information that may assist in 17 evaluating a case, preparing for trial, or settling the matter is relevant for pulposes of discovery].) 18 GM LLC is clearly entitled to the documents on which Plaintiff relies to support her 19 claims against it in this action. To the extent Plaintiff wants to claim there are documents in her 20 possession that are privileged and should not be produced, she failed to provide a privilege log in 21 Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (0). Accordingly, Plaintiff 22 should be compelled to provide further responses to these requests. 23 2. Reguest N0. 20. 24 This request sought the documents upon which Plaintiff relies in making any claim for 25 loss of past or future income. In response, Plaintiff stated she will comply in pan and produced a 26 few time sheets from 2015 and 2016. 27 First, defendant cannot determine Whether Plaintiff Withheld any documents from 28 production. Although Plaintiff referenced several privileges in her objections, she failed to 7 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM YNTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO describe what documents were withheld and she failed to provide a privilege log in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (c). Plaintiff must identify What documents she withheld. Second, Plaintiff only produced a few time sheets from 2015 and 2016. It is unclear whether Plaintiff failed to produce additional documents in suppox’t of her claim or whether the documents produced constitute the entirety of the documents in her possession to support her claims for loss of past or future income. Plaintiff must clarify these issues in a further response. 3. Request N0. 21 This request sought the documents reflecting the future medical treatment Plaintiff LLP 10 contends is necessary for the injuries she contends were sustained in the incident. Rather than 11 provide an appropriate response, Plaintiff merely asserted objections and refused to provide any SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 documents/responsive information, such as relevance, vague and ambiguous, overbroad, AT 6: ANGELES 13 oppressive and harassing, and an invasion of privacy. RILEY ATTORNEYS LOS 14 Discovery necessarily serves the function of “testing the pleadings” and enabling a party MULLINS 15 to detelmine what his opponent’s contentions are and What evidence she relies upon to support NELSON 16 her contentions. (Burke v. qaerz'or Court (1969) 71 Ca1.2d 276, 281.) Defendant is clearly 17 entitled to the documents on which plaintiff relies to support her claim for future medical 18 damages. Well-established precedent dictates liberal policies underlying discovery procedures. 19 (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca1.3d 161, 171.) Here, defendant’s requests 20 seek the evidentiary basis forplaintiffs claims for future medical damages, information to which 21 defendant has a statutory right. (Gonzalez v, Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 22 [information that may assist in evaluating a case, preparing for trial, or settling the matter is 23 relevant for pulposes of discovery].) 24 GM LLC is clearly entitled to the documents on which Plaintiff relies to support her 25 claim that she needs future medical treatment. To the extent Plaintiff wants to claim there are 26 documents in her possession that are privileged and should not be produced, she failed to provide 27 a privilege log in Violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, subdivision (0). 28 Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide a further response to this request. 8 GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO‘ TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGA'I'ORIES, SET NO. 'I'WO D. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PROVIDE A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 states the propounding party may move for an order compelling fufiher responses to inten‘ogatories if the responses are incomplete, inadequate, or evasive. Here, GM LLC properly served Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 to Plaintiff to obtain the basis for her responses to requests for admissions. After Plaintiff sewed a deficient response, GM LLC attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to obtain a complete response to no avail. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled to provide a further response to the interrogatory. Form Interrogatory N0. 17.1 sought all facts, witnesses with knowledge of those facts and LLP 10 documents that support each of Plaintiff’s responses to requests for admissions that were not an 11 unqualified admission. In response to this interrogatory, Plaintiff failed to provide the facts and/0r SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 evidence on which she relies to base her denials of Request for Admission Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AT & 9,10,11,12 and ANGELES 13 8, 13. RILEY ATTORNEYS Los 14 Plaintiff failed to admit each request for admission and, as a result, was required to State MULLINS 15 all facts, witnesses and documents upon which she relied to base the responses to the requests. NELSON 16 Yet, Plaintiff did not provide the required information and merely asserted frivolous objections. 17 Plaintiff is required to identify all facts, Witnesses and documents that support each of the 18 responses to the requests for admissions which were denied. Obviously, Plaintiff did not provide 19 the required information in this response as required by the Code. 20 E. THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST 21 PLAINTIFF AND/0R HER COUNSEL. 22 Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), states that a misuse of the 23 discovery process is found when a party fails “to respond or to submit an authorized method of 24 discovery.” Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), provides that 25‘ the “court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the 26 discovery process pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone 27 as a result of that conduct. If a monetary sanction is authorized the court shall impose that 28 sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial jusrification or 9 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COM'PEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET NO, TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET N0. TWO that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Emphasis added.) Finally, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310 instruct the Court to impose a monetary sanction against Plaintiff and/or her counsel. Plaintiff and/or her counsel clearly abused the discovery process in this case by asserting inapplicable objections and refusing to provide responses to the discovery in issue. There is also absolutely no substantial justification for asserting legally invalid objections to proper discovery. Moreover, Plaintiff and her counsel refused to engage in the meet and confer process to avoid the filing of this motion. As a result of the refusal to provide appropriate responses and meet and confer in good faith, GM LLC has incum‘ed and will incur reasonable expenses and attorney’s LLP 10 fees in connection with this motion, which carries with it a $60.00 filing fee. As the declaration of 11 Ryan E. Cosgrove establishes, GM LLC incurred expenses and fees in connection with this SCARBOROUGH LAW 12 motion. Accordingly, this Court is respectfully requested to order Plaintiff and/0r her counsel to AT & associated with this motion. so that GM LLC is reimbursed for the costs ANGELES 13 pay at least $3,405.00, RILEY III. ATTORNEYS Los 14 CONCLUSION. MULLINS 15 GM LLC respectfully requests that this Coum enter an order compelling Plaintiff to NELSON 16 provide verified further responses to (1) Special Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 17 24; (2) Requests for Production Nos. 13—18, 20, and 21; and (3) Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, 18 from the second sets of discovery propounded by GM LLC. GM LLC further requests an order 19 requiring Plaintiff and/or her counsel to pay defendant’s costs associated with this motion. 20 21 Dated: October 21, 2019 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 22 23 24 By: RYAN E SHAWTINA GROV WIS V 25 Attomeys 1°01 Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC 26 27 28 10 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO, TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM FNTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 19191 South Vermont Ave., Suite 900, Torrance, California 90502. On October 21, 2019, I served the within: GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET N0. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY MAIL) By placing such document(s) in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid for first class mail, for collection and mailing at Nelson Mullins LLP following ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar with the 10 practice at Nelson Mullins LLP for collection and processing of correspondence LLP for mailing with the United States Postal Service, said practice being that in the 11 ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited in the United States SCARBOROUGH Postal Service the same day as it is placed for collection. LAW 12 (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) By placing such document(s) & AT ANGELES RILEY 13 I] in a sealed envelope, for collection and overnight mailing at Nelson Mullins LLP following ordinary ATTORNEYS LOS 14 business practice. I am readily familiar with the practice at Nelson Mullins LLP MULLINS for collection and processing of overnight service mailing, said practice being that 15 in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the overnight messenger service, Federal Express, for delivery as addressed. NELSON 16 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) By causing such document(s) to be delivered by 17 El hand, as addressed by delivering same to First Legal Services with instructions that 18 it be personally served. (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) By transmitting such document(s) electronically 19 B from my e-mail address at Nelson Mullins LLP, to the person(s) at the electronic 20 mail addresses listed above. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 21, 2019, at 22 Torrance, Califomia. 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (I) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Torsten M. Bassell, Esq. Lari—Joni & Bassell, LLP 3 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90025 4 Telephone: (310) 803—9088 Facsimile: (310) 803—9084 5 Email: Torsten@lbjlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Liliana Blancarte and Rogue Rubia Robert M. Moss, Esq. 7 Robert M. Moss, Inc. 1717 Foufih Street, 3rd Floor 8 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 260-7650 9 Facsimile: (310) 260—7654 Email: rrmnosslaw@h0tmail.com LLP 10 Attorneys for GTS Tax & Insurance, LLC and Rita Gutierrez 1 1 SCARBOROUGH Andrew Hollins, Esq. AW 12 Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley T AT ELES 600 Anton Blvd, 11th Floor 5: ANG 13 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RILEY ATTORNEYS Telephone: (949) 507—6700 LOS 14 Facsimile: (213) 312—2001 MULLINS Email: Andrew.hollins@ropers.com 15 Altorneys for Rita Gutierrez NELSON 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY LILIANA BLANCARTE TO (1) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO; (2) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. TWO; AND (3) FORM INTERROGA'I‘ORIES, SET NO, T W0