Motion to Compel Discovery in Aga John vs xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx et al| Trellis.Law

Track Case Changes

Download Document Print Document

On December 15, 2015 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between John, Aga, and Ahmadzdeh, Xxxxxx, Aj Limousine Service Llc, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, for Unlimited Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.

Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
8/19/2016 11:18:04 AM
By: Narzralli Baksh, Deputy
~
FORM INTERROGATORIES BY ASKING PARTY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T0 ANSWERING PARTY AGA JOHN. SET NO. ONE
(Declaration of Mark R. Wietstock, Exs. 1. 5). ................................................................
1

II. FORM INTERROGATORIES BY ASKING PARTY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
10 TO ANSWERING PARTY AGA JOHN. SET NO. TWO
(Declaration of Mark R. Wietstock. Exs. 2, 61. ................................................................
8
11

12 III. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES BY PROPOUNDING PARTY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TO RESPONDING PARTY AGA JOHN SET NO. ONE
l3 (Declaration of Mark R. Wietstock Exs. 3,ﬂ.. . ... .. 15

14
IV. DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY PROPOUNDING
15 PARTY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TO RESPONDING PARTY AGA JOHN.
SET NO. ONE (Declaration of Mark R. Wietstock, Exs. 4A 8). ......................................
38
l6
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(ii)
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
1. FORM INTERROGATORIES BY ASKING PARTY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TO ANSWERING
PARTY AGA JOHN. SET NO. ONE (Dec. of Mark R. Wietstock, Exs. 1, 5).

Form Interrogatog No. 3.6:

Have you done business under a ﬁctitious name during the past 10 years? If so, for each
ﬁctitious name state:

a) the name;

b) the dates each was used;

c) the state and county of each ﬁctitious name ﬁling; and
d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
10 AGA JOHN Answer to Form Interrogatorv No. 3.6:
ll Yes. Noble House Antiques. Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves its right to

12 amend this response.

l3 Argument: AGA JOHN’S response plainly failed to answer all subparts of the question, in

14 {liolation Mg); § 2030.220.

15 Form Interrogatogy No. 3.7:

l6 Within the past ﬁve years has any public entity registered or licensed your business? If so, for
l7 each license or registration:

18 a) identify the license or registration;

19 b) state the name of the public entity; and
20 0) state the dates of issuance and expiration.
21 AGA JOHN Answer to Form Interrogatoyy No. 3.7:
22 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the terms “registered” and

23 “licensed” are vague, ambiguous and overly broad. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory 0n the

24 grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the action and not reasonably
25 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery is continuing. Responding Party

26 reserves its right to amend this response.

27 Argument: AGA J OHN’S “objections” are without merit, and its response is transparently

28 evasive. A request for information on public registration or licensure of any business(es) conducted by

1

Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
this company in any location such business is conducted is obviously not “vague, :3 cc ambiguous” or

“overbroad,” and the information sought is highly and directly relevant to, e.g, development of an
accurate and complete proﬁle of the company’s overall corporate structure and business activities.

Form Interrogatom No. 7.1:

Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so,
for each item of property:

a) describe the property;
‘

b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the
10 amount was calculated; and

11 d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the seller,

12 the date of sale, and the sale price.

13 AGA JOHN Answer to Form Interrogatog No. 7.1:

14 This interrogatory is unanswerable based on Propounding Party’s failure to deﬁne or specify the

15 “INCIDENT.” Propounding Party’s deﬁnition of the “INCIDENT” and this action do not involve a

16 vehicle. Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves its right to amend this response.

17 Argument: AGA JOHN’S objection is without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has speciﬁcally

18 deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories: “INCIDENT means: The

19 transaction alleged at pp. 4: 14 to 5:3 of [AGA J OHN’s] Complaint ...” i.e., the “transaction” by which

20 Warren and Marlene Miller were allegedly defrauded out of $22,000. Further, the inquiry about

21 “property damage” is not limited to “vehicles.” The interrogatory plainly states “... damage to a vehicle

22 or other property ...” AGA JOHN must be compelled to answer this question. Does the company claim

23 any kind ofproperty damage associated with the “incident” alleged by AGA JOHN? If yes, AGA JOHN
24 must say so and fully answer the subparts of not only this question, but also amend its answers to

25 Interrogatory Nos. 7.2 and 7.3 accordingly, both of Which spring from any ajﬁrmative answer to

26 Interrogatory 7.1. If AGA JOHN claims no property damage associated with this “incident,” then the
27 company must be compelled to so state, under oath.

28

2
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
Form Interrogatogy No. 9.1:
Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage
state:

a) the nature;

b) the date it occurred;

c) the amount; and

d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation

was incurred.

AGA JOHN’S Response to Form Interrogatorv No. 9.1:

10 Objection. This interrogatory is unanswerable based on Propounding Party’s deﬁnition of the

ll “INCIDENT.” Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves its right to amend this response.

12 Argument: Aga J ohn’s “objection” is without merit, for the same reasons stated above with

l3 respect to AGA J OHN’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 7.1. This interrogatory is a “catch-all”

14 request for information on all other kinds of “damages” allegedly incurred by AGA JOHN as a result of
15 the Miller “incident” alleged at pp. 4:14 to 5:3 of AGA JOHN’S Complaint, if the company has actually
l6 incurred any such damages at all. This interrogatory speciﬁcally calls upon AGA JOHN to “put up or

l7 shut up” on the subject of the company ’s alleged monetary damages. Defendant xxxxxxxxx is

18 plainly entitled to a full, complete and detailed answer to this question, and all its subpaﬂs and not just

19 a “cut and paste” repetition of the bald allegations made in the company’s Complaint.

20 Form Interrogatog No. 9.2:

21 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in
22 interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number

23 of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.
24 AGA JOHN’S Response to Form Interrogatorv No. 9.2:
25 Objection. This interrogatory is unanswerable based on Propounding Party’s deﬁnition of the
26 “INCIDENT.” Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves its right to amend this response.

27 Argument: Aga J ohn’s “objection” is without merit, for the same reasons stated above with

28 respect to AGA JOHN’S response to Form Interrogatory Nos. 7.1 and 9.1. Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.1

3
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
and 9.2 are a “catch-all” request for all information (9.1) and documentation (9.2) on all other kinds of
“damages” allegedly incurred by AGA JOHN as a result of the Miller “incident” alleged at pp. 4:14 to
5:3 of AGA JOHN’S Complaint, if the company (as opposed to the Millers) has actually incurred any

such damages at all. These interrogatories (9.1, 9.2) speciﬁcally call upon AGA JOHN to “put up or

shut up” on the subject of the company’s alleged monetary damages. xxxxxxxxx is plainly entitled

to full, complete and detailed answers to both questions ...and not just a “cut and paste” repetition of the
bald allegations made in the company’s Complaint.

Form Interrogatom 12.1:

State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
10 a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the

ll INCIDENT;

12 b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;

13 0) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and

14 d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the
15 INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section
l6 2034).

l7 AGA JOHN’S Response to Form Interrogatorv N0. 12.1:

18 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as
19 to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks

20 information protected by the attorney-glient privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or other

21 applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private

22 information from third parties. Responding Party objects to interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly

23 burdensome and oppressive to the extent it requires Responding Party to identify multiple persons with
24 information about a series of events occurring over an extended period of time and giving rise to this

25 action. Subject to an without in any way waiving the foregoing general and speciﬁc objections, and to

26 the extent it understands this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: Individuals that may

27 have knowledge of the events surrounding Propounding Party’s allegations include, without limitation,

28 Defendants, Warren Miller, Marlene Miller, and Responding Party’s employees, agents and

4
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
representatives. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its investigation at this

early stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as its

discovery and investigation uncover additional information regarding potential witnesses.

Argument: AGA J OHN’S objections are without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has

specifically deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) 0f the Form Interrogatories, as previously

indicated: the rug purchase transaction with Warren and Marlene Miller that allegedly occurred in July

2014. On AGA JOHN’S assertion of attomey—client/work product privileges, exactly how does a

demand for identiﬁcation of witnesses possibly violate such privileges? How can a paﬁy who has been

sued investigate the plaintiffs claims without disclosure of what this plaintiff/its attorney apparently
10 consider undiscoverable “private information of third parties,” e. g, the names, addresses and telephone
ll numbers of potential witnesses? Finally, this Form Interrogatory 12.1 does not “require Responding

12 Party to identify multiple persons with information about a series of events occurring over an extended
13 period of time ...” It requires AGA JOHN to state, under oath, the names, addresses and telephone

14 numbers of all persons with any personal knowledge of the “incident” alleged by AGA JOHN. AGA
15 J OHN’s partial answer is also evasive, in violation of the requirements ofﬂﬂ §§ 2030.220 and

16 2030.240, in that it completely fails to provide the required name, address and telephone information for,

17 e.g., “Responding Party’s employees, agents and representatives.”

18 Form Interrogatogy N0. 12.4:

19 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, ﬁlms, or
20 videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT 0r plaintiffs injuries? If
21 so, state:

22 a) the number of photographs or feet of ﬁlm or videotape;

23 b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, ﬁlmed, or videotaped;

24 c) the date the photographs, ﬁlms, or videotapes were taken;

25 d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs,
26 ﬁlms or videotapes; and

27 e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a

28 copy of the photographs, ﬁlms or Videotapes.

5
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
AGA JOHN Response to Form Interrogatorv No. 12.4:

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

information protected by the attorney—client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/ or other

applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory t0 the extent that it seeks private
information from third parties. Subject to and without in any way waiving the foregoing general and

speciﬁc objection, and to the extent it understands this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as

follows: Yes. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its investigation at this early

stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as its discovery

10 and investigation uncover additional information.

11 Argument: AGA JOHN’S objections are without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has

12 specifically deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories, as previously
13 indicated: the rug purchase transaction with Warren and Marlene Miller that allegedly occurred in July

14 2014. On AGA JOHN’S assertion of attorney-client/work product privileges, exactly how does a
15 demand for identiﬁcation ofphotographs, ﬁlm or videotape evidence possibly Violate such privileges?

16 How can a party who has been sued investigate the plaintiff’s claims without disclosure of what this
17 plaintiff/its attorney apparently consider undiscoverable “private information of third parties,” the
e. g. ,

18 names, addresses and telephone numbers of potential creators, possessors of, and/or witnesses to

19 photographic/f1Im/Videotape evidence? AGA JOHN’S partial answer is also evasive, in violation of the
20 requirements 0fC_.C_._P_ §§ 2030.220 and 2030.240, in that the response given answers the question in the

21 afﬁrmative, and then completely fails to answer the required subparts.

22 Form Interrogatog No. 12.6:

23 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state:

24 a) the name, title, identiﬁcation number and employer of the PERSON who made the report;
25 b) the date and type of report made;
26 c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was
27 made; and

28 ////
6
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a
copy of the report.
AGA JOHN Response to Form Interrogatorv No. 12.6:

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as
to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work—product doctrine, and/or other

applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private
information of third parties. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its

investigation at this early stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this

10 response as its discovery and investigation uncover additional information.

11 Argument: AGA JOHN’S objections are without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has

12 speciﬁcally deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories, as previously
13 indicated: the rug purchase transaction with Warren and Marlene Miller that allegedly occurred in July

14 2014. On AGA J OHN’s assertion of attomey—client/work product privileges, exactly how does a

15 demand for disclosure ofpolice or other “reports ” possibly violate such privileges? How can a party

16 who has been sued investigate the plaintiff” 3 claims Without disclosure of what this plaintiff/its attorney

17 apparently consider undiscoverable “private information of third parties,” e.g., the names, addresses and
18 telephone numbers of potential creators of, or witnesses to any such reports? AGA JOHN’S “response”
19 is no response at all. The answer to this question is, e. g.,YES, or NO, and if the answer is YES, the
20 responding party is required to answer all the subparts.

21 Form Interrogatorv N0. 12.7:

22 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so,
23 for each inspection state:

24 a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection
25 (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-

26 2034.310; and

27 b) the date of the inspection.
28 / / / /

7
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
AGA JOHN Response to Form Interrogatog No. 12.7 :

Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as
to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or other

applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private

information of third parties. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its

investigation at this early stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this

response as its discovery and investigation uncover additional information.

Argument: AGA JOHN’S objections are without merit. Asking Party xxxxxxxxx has

10 speciﬁcally deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories, as previously

11 indicated: the rug purchase transaction with Warren and Marlene Miller that allegedly occurred in July

12 2014. On AGA JOHN ’s assertion of attomey—client/work product privileges, exactly how does a

13 demand for disclosure ofinspectors/inspections possibly violate such privileges? How can a party who

14 has been sued investigate the plaintiffs claims without disclosure of what this plaintiff/its attorney
15 apparently consider undiscoverable “private information of third patties,” e. g. , the names, addresses and
16 telephone numbers of persons involved with any such investigations? AGA JOHN’S “response” is no

17 response at all. The answer to this question is, e.g., YES, or NO,‘and if the answer is YES, the
18 responding party is required to answer the entirety of the question.
19

20 11. FORM INTERROGATORIES BY ASKING PARTY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TO

21 ANSWERING PARTY AGA JOHN. SET N0. TWO (Decl. of Mark R. Wietstock, Exs. 2,Q.

22 Form Interrogatoyy No. 7.1:

23 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so,
24 for each item of property:

25 a) describe the property;

26 b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
27 c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the
28 amount was calculated; and

8
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the seller,

the date of sale, and the sale price.

AGA JOHN Answer to Form Interroggtorv N0. 7 .1:

This interrogatory is unanswerable based on Propounding Party’s failure to deﬁne or specify the

“INCIDENT.” Propounding Party’s deﬁnition of the “INCIDENT” and this action do not involve a

vehicle. Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves its right to amend this response.

Argument: AGA JOHN’S objection is without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has Speciﬁcally

deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories (separate/distinct from the

“incident” which was the subject of the Defendants’ ﬁrst set of Form Interrogatories): “INCIDENT

10 means: The conduct alleged at p. 524—9 of [AGA JOHN’S] Complaint ...” i.e., AGA JOHN’S allegation

ll of misappropriation/misuse of trade secrets, etc, by the Defendants sued by the company. Further, the

12 inquiry about “property damage” is not limited to “vehicles.” The interrogatory plainly states “...

l3 damage to a vehicle or other property ...” AGA JOHN must be compelled to answer this question.
14 Does the company claim any kind ofproperly damage associated with the “incident” alleged by AGA

15 JOHN? If yes, AGA JOHN must say so and fully answer the subparts of not only this question, but also

l6 amend its answers to Interrogatory Nos. 7.2 and 7.3 accordingly, both of which spring ﬁom any
l7 aﬂirmative answer to Interrogatory 7.1. If AGA JOHN claims no property damage associated with this
18 “incident,” then the company must be compelled to so state, under oath.

19 Form Interrogatogy No. 9.1:

20 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage
21 state:

22 a) the nature;

23 b) the date it occurred;

24 0) the amount; and

25 d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation
26 was incurred.

27 / / / /

28 / / / /

9
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
AGA JOHN’S Response to Form Interrogatorv No. 9.1:

Objection. This interrogatory is unanswerable based on Propounding Party’s deﬁnition of the
“INCIDENT.” Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves its right to amend this response.

Argument: Aga John’s “objection” is without merit, for the same reasons stated above with

respect to AGA J OHN’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 7.1. This interrogatory is a “catch-all”

request for information on all other kinds of “damages” allegedly incurred by AGA JOHN as a result of
the “inciden ” alleged at p. 524—9 of AGA J OHN’s Complaint, if the company has actually incurred any
such damages at all. This interrogatory speciﬁcally calls upon AGA JOHN to “put up or shut up” on the
subject of the company’s alleged monetary damages arising from their claim that the MOSADEGHIS
10 ever engaged in some unlawful misappropriation/misuse of any “trade secret” or “conﬁdential
ll information” of AGA JOHN. Defendant xxxxxxxxx is plainly entitled to a full, complete and
12 detailed answer to this question, and all its subparts and not just a “cut and paste” repetition of the
l3 bald allegations made in the company’s Complaint.

14 Form Interrogatog No. 9.2:

15 Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in
16 interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number

17 of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.
l8 AGA JOHN’S Response to Form Interrogatorv No. 9.2:

19 Objection. This interrogatory is unanswerable based on Prepounding Party’s deﬁnition of the

20 “INCIDENT.” Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves its right to amend this response.

21 Argument: Aga John’s “objection” is without merit, for the same reasons stated above with

22 respect to AGA JOHN’S response to Form Interrogatory Nos~ 7.1 and 9.1. Form Interrogatory Nos. 9.1

23 and 9.2 are a “catch-all” request for all information (9.1) and documentation (9.2) on all other kinds of
24 “damages ” allegedly manned by AGA JOHN as a result of the “incident” alleged at p. 524-9 of AGA
25 JOHN’S Complaint, if the company has actually incunred any such damages at all. These interrogatories

26 (9.1, 9.2) speciﬁcally call upon AGA JOHN to “put up or shut up” on the subject of the company’s
27 alleged monetary damages arising from their claim that the MOSADEGHIS ever engaged in some

28 unlawful misappropriation/misuse of any “trade secre ” or “conﬁdential information” of AGA JOHN.

1 0
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
The MOSADEGHIS are plainly entitled to full, complete and detailed answers to both questions ...and

not just a “cut and paste” repetition of the bald allegations made in the company’s Complaint.

Form Interrogatogy 12.1:

State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the

INCIDENT;

b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;

0) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and

(:1) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the

10 INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section

ll 2034).

12 AGA JOHN’S Response to Form Interrogatongy No. 12.1:

13 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

14 to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
15 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or other

l6 applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private

17 information from third parties. Responding Party objects to interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly

18 burdensome and oppressive to the extent it requires Responding Party to identify multiple persons with
19 information about a series of events occurring over an extended period of time and giving rise to this

20 action. Subject to an without in any way waiving the foregoing general and speciﬁc objections, and to

21 the extent it understands this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: Individuals that may

22 have knowledge of the events surrounding Propounding Party’s allegations include, without limitation,

23 Defendants, Warren Miller, Marlene Miller, and Responding Party’s employees, agents and

24 representatives. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its investigation at this

25 early stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as its

26 discovery and investigation uncover additional information regarding potential witnesses.

27 Argument: AGA J OHN’s objections are without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has

28 speciﬁcally deﬁned thé word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories, as previously

11
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
indicated: AGA JOHN’S allegation that the MOSADEGHIS misappropriated or misused AGA JOHN’S

“trade secret” or “conﬁdential information.” On AGA JOHN’S assertion of attorney—client/work product

privileges, exactly how does a demand for identification of witnesses possibly Violate such privileges?
How can a party who has been sued investigate the plaintiff” 5 claims without disclosure of What this
plaintiff/its attorney apparently consider undiscoverable “private information of third parties,” e. g, the

names, addresses and telephone numbers of potential witnesses? Finally, this Form Interrogatory 12.1

does not “require Responding Party to identify multiple persons with information about a series of

events occurring over an extended period of time ...” It requires AGA JOHN to state, under oath, the

names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons with any personal knowledge of the “incident”
10 alleged by AGA JOHN. AGA JOHN’S partial answer is also evasive, in violation of the requirements of
11 Q §§ 2030.220 and 2030.240, in that it completely fails to provide the required name, address and

12 telephone information for, e. g.,“Responding Party’s employees, agents and representatives.”

13 Form Interrogatog N0. 12.4:

14 Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any photographs, ﬁlms, or

15 Videotapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the INCIDENT or plaintiffs injuries? If
16 so, state:

17 a) the number of photographs or feet of ﬁlm or videotape;
18 b) the places, objects, or persons photographed, ﬁlmed, or videotaped;

19 c) the date the photographs, ﬁlms, or Videotapes were taken;

20 d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual taking the photographs,
21 ﬁlms or Videotapes; and

22 e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a

23 copy of the photographs, ﬁlms or Videotapes.
24 AGA JOHN Response to Form Interrogatorv N0. 12.4:

25 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

26 to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks

27 information protected by the attorney—client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or other

28 applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private

12
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
'

information from third parties. Subject to and without in any way waiving the foregoing general and

speciﬁc objection, and to the extent it understands this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as

follows: Yes. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its investigation at this early

stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response as its discovery

and investigation uncover additional information.

Argument: AGA JOHN’S objections are without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has

specifically deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories, as previously

indicated: 'AGA J OHN’s allegation that the MOSADEGHIS misappropriated or misused AGA JOHN ’s

“trade secret” or “conﬁdential information.” On AGA JOHN’S assertion of attorney-client/work product

10 privileges, exactly how does a demand for identification ofphotographs, film or videotape evidence
ll possibly Violate such privileges? How can a party who has been sued investigate the plaintiff 3 claims

l2 without disclosure of what this plaintiff/its attorney apparently consider undiscoverable “private

l3 information of third parties,” e.g., the names, addresses and telephone numbers of potential creators,

14 possessors of, and/or witnesses to photographic/ﬁlm/videotape evidence? AGA J OHN’s partial answer
15 is also evasive, in violation of the requirements of 9L3 §§ 2030.220 and 2030.240, in that the response

l6 given answers the question in the afﬁrmative, and then completely fails to answer the required subparts.

17 Form Interrogatog N0. 12.6:

18 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state:
19 a) the name, title, identiﬁcation number and employer of the PERSON who made the report;
20 b) the date and type of report made;
21 c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was
22 made; and

23 d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a
24 copy of the report.
25 AGA JOHN Response to Form Interrogatogx No. 12.6:

26 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as

27 to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
28 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or other

13
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private

information of third parties. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its

investigation at this early stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this

respoﬁse as its discovery and investigation uncover additional information.

Argument: AGA J OHN’s objections are without merit. Defendant xxxxxxxxx has

speciﬁcally deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories, as >previ0usly

indicated: AGA JOHN’S allegation that the MOSADEGHIS misappropriated or misused AGA JOHN’S

“trade secret” or “conﬁdential information.” On AGA J OHN’s assertion of attorney-client/work product
privileges, exactly how does a demand for disclosure ofpolice or other “reports” possibly Violate such

10 privileges? How can a party who has been sued investigate the plaintiff’s claims without disclosure of

ll what this plaintiff/ its attorney apparently consider undiscoverable “private information of third parties,”

12 e. g.,the names, addresses and telephone numbers of potential creators of, or witnesses to any such
13 reports? AGA J OHN’S “response” is no response at all. The answer to this question is, e.g., YES, or

14 NO, and if the answer is YES, the responding party is required to answer all the subparts.
15 Form lnterrogatogy No. 12.7 :

16 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF inspected the scene of the INCIDENT? If so,
17 for each inspection state:

18 a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual making the inspection
19 (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-
20 2034.310; and

21 b) the date of the inspection.
22 AGA JOHN Response to Form Interrogatorv No. 12.7 :

23 Respoﬁding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as
24 to the term “INCIDENT.” Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
25 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or other

26 applicable privileges. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private
27 information of third parties. Responding Party’s response to this interrogatory is based on its

28 investigation at this early stage of the litigation. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this

14
Separate Statement in Support of Motion for Order(s) Compelling Further Response, etc.
response as its discovery and investigation uncover additional information.

Argument: AGA J OHN’S objections are without merit. Asking Party xxxxxxxxx has

specifically deﬁned the word “INCIDENT,” at Sec. 4(a)(2) of the Form Interrogatories, as previously

indicated: AGA JOHN’S allegation that the MOSADEGHIS misapprop

Case Info

Judge

Herman, James E Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 19, 2016

Case Filing Date

December 15, 2015

County

Category

Unlimited Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07)

Status

Dismissed

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.