Preview
1 POOLE &
John H.
SHAFFERY, LLP
Shaffery (SBN 1601 19)
F 9
s""¢9‘ff,°n"i§g|%§;fAni1'?om1a
““
2 Silviana Dumitrescu (SBN 285461) . v
3 Email: sdumitrescuOOleshaffer.cOm l 7 (U18
4
:22
Telephone: (213) 439-5390 Y 3.. 3°”?
5 Facsimile: (213) 439-0183
Attorneys for Defendants,
6 VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION and CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — SOUTHEAST DISTRICT
9
E .. 10 GERARDO HERNANDEZ Lead Case No.2 BC687338
E 3,3 (Related Case No..' BC690072)
>- 11 Plaintiffs,
E .2 [Assigned to Hon. Margaret Bernal, Dept. ‘‘F”]
L33 § 5 12 vs.
L‘-1 5 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
L: 3 13 VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION, OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
4.‘ 2,”g PAVESTONE CORPORATION, CONRADO RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
I l" 14 MONTENEGRO, JR., HOME DEPOT, HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT
<_/2 ,3, U.S.A., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S
3'. Z’ 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET
'3; E 3 ONE)
5 g 16 Defendants.
A 3 [Motion to Compel Further Responses and
V E 5 17 [Proposed Order led concurrently herewith.]
L 1.~ -——
E 18 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS Res ID: 587918736819
V 19 Date: January 31, 2019
Dept.: “C”
20 Time: 1:30 pm
21 Complaint Filed: December 18, 2017
Trial Date: Vacated
22
23
24
25
26 ///
27 ///
‘i i’ 1
F:\Clienls2\l0l4\l800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATIOMPLEADINGS\MTC Funher SROGs\MTC.Funher.SROGsl.Sep.Stmt..docx
=:;, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOT1ON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
EL HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.‘S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
1 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Defendant, CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR. (“Defendant”), submits the following
3 Separate Statement in support of his Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff, GERARDO
4 HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”), to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 52, 53, 54, 73, 74, and 75,
5 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.30, et seq. and California Rules of Court, Rule
6 3.1345.
7 Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request
i 8 must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include
9 a motion to compel irther responses to interrogatories. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd.
g g 10 (a)(2).)
>- 11 Furthermore,
E E g 12 [t]he separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each
LL; interrogatory...) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested--
"LL, § 13 the following: (1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection
4, 3Q demand; (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any ,1rther
E E:U" 14 responses or answers; (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for
Y3‘ 5;§ compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in
E5 15 dispute...(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the
_} 5.:
5 16 response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to
O 36* a particular discovery request isdeemed necessary are based on the response to
O 3: 7- some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set
“- E 3 17 forth
E E 18 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c).)
if 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52:
20 Do YOU contend that you followed all of HOME DEPOT’S policies and procedures
21 regarding the safe loading and/or unloading of merchandise and/or cargo from trailers at the
22 SUBJECT DOCK that were in effect at the time of the INCIDENT?
23 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52:
24 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not full
25 and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P. 2030.060 et seq. in that it requires
25 Responding Party to make reference to outside materials/documents, the description and
27 contents of which are uncertain and inadequately defined in the Interrogatory. Further, the
"ii ? 2
fjjf F:\Clients2\l0l4\l800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATl0N\PLEADlNGS\MTC FurtherSROGs\MTC.Funher.SROGsl .Sep.Stml..t:locx
':.E: ' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT or MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
;_-3| HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
. . O O
1 Interrogatory is compound, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory calls
2 for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this
3 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege, Rodriguez v.
4 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v.Superior Court
5 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert
6 evidence the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the
7 provisions of C.C.P. § 2034. See, County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d
8 1446, 1456.
9 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE:
§ 3 10 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to
:1: 11 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies
E.. -. : 12 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d
E 13 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties,
E 14 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of
E5 15 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.)
5: E Q 16 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must I
E E 17 “have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after
5 E 18 a reasonable opportunity for irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd.
1 19 (3>.>
20 Here, Defendant seeks the factual bases for Plaintiffs contention that he followed all of
21 Home Depot’s policies and procedures regarding safe loading and unloading at the subject dock that
22 were in effect at the time of theiincident, which is a proper subject of interrogatories. (See Deyo v.
23 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 (Deyo), italicsadded.) Defendant isentitled to a
24 response. If Plaintiff has no facts, witnesses, or documents in support of his contentions, he must
25 so state. 1
26
27
.~‘-.;*
28 nTaImF_
j; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT oF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
n HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, mes SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
. . O O
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53:
2 IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of YOUR contention that you followed allof
3 HOME DEPOT’S policies and procedures regarding the safe loading and/or unloading of
4 merchandise and/or cargo from trailers at the SUBJECT DOCK that were in effect at the time of
5 the INCIDENT.
6 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 53:
7 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not full '
8 and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P. 2030.060 et seq. in that it requires
9 Responding Party to make reference to outside materials/documents, the description and
E33 10 contents of which are uncertain and inadequately defined in the Interrogatory. Further, the
E 11 Interrogatory is compound, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory calls
E 12 for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this
if E 13 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege, Rodriguez v.
: 14 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v.Superior Court
53 15 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert
8 16 evidence the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the
E E 17 provisions of C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d
E E 18 1446, 1456.
V 19 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE:
20 Discovery necessarily serves the inction of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to
21 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies
22 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d
23 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties,
24 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of
25 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.)
26 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must
F 27 “have evidentiary support or, if specically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after
=17 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MoTIoN To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
iii: HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
. . O O
1 a reasonable opportunity for irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd.
2 (b)(3)-)
3 Here, Defendant seeks the factual bases for Plaintiffs contention that he followed all of
4 Home Depot’s policies and procedures regarding safe loading and unloading at the subject dock that
5 were in effect at the time of the incident, which is a proper subject of interrogatories. (See Deyo v.
6 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 (Deyo), italicsadded.) Defendant isentitled to a
7 response. If Plaintiff has no facts, witnesses, or documents in support of his contentions, he must
8 so state.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54:
ga 10 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention that you followed all of
11 HOME DEPOT’S policies and procedures regarding the safe loading and/or unloading of
E‘. 12 merchandise and/or cargo from trailers at the SUBJECT DOCK that were in effect at the time of
g 13 the INCIDENT.
14 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 54:
ii 15 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not full
16 and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P. 2030.060 et seq. in that it requires
2 17 Responding Party to make reference to outside materials/documents, the description and
18 contents of which are uncertain and inadequately dened in the Interrogatory. Further, the
If 19 Interrogatory is compound, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory calls
20 for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this
21 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege, Rodriguez v.
22 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v. Superior Court
23 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert
24 evidence the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the
25 provisions of C.C.P. § 2034. See, County 0fLos Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d
26 1446, 1456.
'Ii- '?' 5
28
‘:3’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MoTIoN To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, .IR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
. . O O
1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE:
2 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to
3 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies
4 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d
5 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties,
6 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of
7 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.)
8 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must
9 “have evidentiary Support or, if specically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after
g g 10 a reasonable opportunity for irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd.
Tr‘-i 11 (b)(3)-)
E 12 Here, Defendant seeks the factual bases for Plaintiffs contention that he followed all of
g 13 Home Depot’s policies and procedures regarding safe loading and unloading at the subject clock that
14 were in effect at the time of the incident, which is a proper subject of interrogatories. (See Deyo v.
{ii 15 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 (Deyo), italicsadded.) Defendant isentitled to a
E 16 response. If Plaintiff has no facts, witnesses, or documents in support of his contentions, he must
2 E 17 so state. '
g 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73:
V 19 Do YOU contend that you clearly communicated with HOME DEPOT personnel, including
20 but not limited to Home Depot employee, Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process
21 concerning this INCIDENT?
22 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73:
23 Objection. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound,
24 vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Further, this Interrogatory isunintelligible, vague, and
25 ambiguous as to the terms "clearly communicated" and "entire unloading process". This Interrogatory
26 calls for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this
27 Interrogatory Seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege, Rodriguez v.
28
'»:i§§‘ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT or MOTION To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES nv PLAINTIFF GERARDO
EB HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
. . O O
1 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v.Superior Court
2 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory Seeks the premature disclosure of expert evidence
3 the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the provisions of
4 C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1456.
5 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE:
6 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to
7 detennine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies
8 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d
. 9 276, 281 (Burke) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties,
§ .3 10 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of
E 11 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.)
9:: 12 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must
13 “have evidentiary support or, if specically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after
14 a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd.
15 <3>.)
S 16 This interrogatory asks whether Plaintiff contends that he clearly communicated with Home
E E 17 Depot personnel, including Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process. Plaintiff
E 18 objected on various grounds, including that the interrogatories seek attorney work—product and
V 19 expert opinion, and failed to provide substantive responses. Pursuant to the above authority, the
20 interrogatories are appropriate in that they seek to determine what the Plaintiffs contentions are and
21 what facts and documents he relies upon in support.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74: .
23 IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of YOUR contention that you clearly
24 communicated with HOME DEPOT personnel, including but not limited to Home Depot employee,
25 Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process concerning this INCIDENT.
26
:‘%-27
28
-: _j SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
I33 HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SFECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
. . O O
1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74:
2 Objection. Responding Patty objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound,
3 vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Further, this Interrogatory isunintelligible, vague, and
4 ambiguous as to the terms "c1early communicated" and "entire unloading process". This Interrogatory
5 calls for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this
6 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege, Rodriguez v.
7 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v. Superior Court
8 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure ofexpert evidence
9 the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the provisions of
g 3 10 C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLosAngeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1456.
:14 11 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE:
El 12 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to
E E 13 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies
14 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d
5;; 15 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties,
5: E 16 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of
E E 17 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.)
E 18 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must
V 19 “have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after
20 a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd.
21 (b)(3)-)
22 This interrogatory asks whether Plaintiff contends that he clearly communicated with Home
23 Depot personnel, including Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process, and if so, to
24 identify all persons with knowledge (i.e., witnesses). Plaintiff objected on various grounds,
25 including that the interrogatories seek attorney work-product and expert opinion, and failed to
26 provide substantive responses. Pursuant to the above authority, the interrogatories are appropriate
_,,_
27 in that they seek to determine what the Plaintiffs contentions are and what facts and documents he '
28
:3: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
H: HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.‘S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
. . O O
1 relies upon in support.
2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75:
3 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS in support of YOUR contention that you clearly
4 communicated with HOME DEPOT personnel, including but not limited to Home Depot employee,
5 Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process concerning this INCIDENT.
6 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75:
7 Objection. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound,
8 vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Further, this Interrogatory isunintelligible, vague, and
9 ambiguous as to the terms "clearly communicated" and "entire unloading process". This Interrogatory
§ 3 10 calls for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this
:2 11 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege, Rodriguez v.
E‘ 12 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsmari Mfg. v. Superior Court
13 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert evidence
E 14 the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the provisions of
15 C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLosAngeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, l456.
'53 ii’ 16 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE:
E E 17 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to
E 18 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies
V 19 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v.Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d
20 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties,
21 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use Of interrogatories for the purpose of
22 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.)
23 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must
24 “have evidentiary support Or, if specically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after
25 a reasonable opportunity for Irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd.
26 (b)(3)-) '
5.; 27 This interrogatory asks whether Plaintiff contends that he clearly communicated with Home
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
,},'_.f_‘, HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
1 Depot personnel, including Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process, and if so, to
2 identify all documents in support. Plaintiff objected on various grounds, including that the
3 interrogatories seek attorney work-product and expert opinion, and failed to provide substantive
4 responses. Pursuant to the above authority, the interrogatories are appropriate in that they seek to
5 determine what the Plaintiffs contentions are and what facts and documents he relies upon in
6 support.
7
8 DATED: December 17, 2018 POOLE & SHAFFERY, I__.LP
9
_ / /‘
§ 3 10 :
3: 5 John Shaffery 4
:;-< 3, 3 11 Silviana Dumitrescu
§ 5 Attorneys for Defendants,
m g § 12 VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION and
.'-=-5 S CONRADO MONTEGENRO, JR.
L:-: 3 E 13
*5 s.Ӥ
L-'.:E ‘ 14
.“'2
!.'~,:"§
E I
15
'-’ 332 16
h : Q
.I—I 18-
I;:_!
g E 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ii}? 10
F:\C|ients2\l0l4\I800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATlON\PLEADlNGS\MTC FunherSROGs\MTC,Funher.SROGsl.Sep.Stmt..docx
'5-}?' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT or MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF cERARDo
.5] HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Gerardo Hernandez v. Valenzuela Transortation et al .
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: BC687338
3
Iam em P lo Y ed in the _ County ofLOs An g eles, State of California; I am Over the age of 18
4 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 400 South Hope Street, Suite 720,
LOS Angeles, California 90071. My electronic service address is: dblandonooleshaffer.com.
5
On December 17, 2018, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled: SEPARATE
6 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY
PLAINTIFF GERARDO HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO
7 JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) on the interested party(ies) in said actiori
as indicated in the attached service list as follows:
8
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST
9
g M 10 Cl 3;Mail Federal: I served a true copy of the above referenced document(s) by enclosing
3 § said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the party(ies) listed in the attached
>.. Q 11 service list and placing such envelope or package with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United
Q: § ,2 States mail at Los Angeles, California.
5;} “’S 12
:.';_. 5‘ B Mail State : I am readily familiar with Poole & Shaffery, LLP’s practice for the
L. § 2 13 collection and processing of mail with the United States Postal Service. I enclosed the above
<1 52,’
§ referenced document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the party(ies) listed in the
: E "‘ 14 attached service list.Such envelope will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the
U’) § § above date in the ordinary course of business at the business address shown above; and such
'57-‘5 15 inLI/Ielopedwas pllaced for collection and mailing on the above date according to Poole & Shaffery,
>---;’
5 1 ’s or Inary usmess prac Ices.
M
I-*
""‘ W ~ 16
. 0 Ed 9'.
9 i E 17 Cl y Facsimile Transmission: I caused the above referenced document(s) to be transmitted to
"' *5 E a facsimile machine maintained by the party(ies) listed in the attached service list at the facsimile
5:Ȥ 18 machine telephone number as last given by that party(ies).
V 19 Executed on December 17, 2018, at Los Angeles, California.
20 [State] Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
21
Cl [Federal] I declare that I am employed in the OIIIC6 of a member Of the bar of this Court at
22 whose direction this service was made.
23 1
/ ": .-~- ‘ . '-.—~—'~'
24 kV__/Q CC/( "(eA'_...~"‘
25 Daisy Blandon, Declarant
26
27
’.i : " 11
jjf F:\Clients2\l0l4\l800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION\PLEADINGS\MTC FunherSROGs\MTC.Funher.SROGsl .Sep.Stmt..docx
‘;?:’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
.1. . HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
I A SERVICE LIST
Gerardo Hernandez v. Valenzuela Transortation et al .
2 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case NO.: BC687338
3
4 J. Derek Pakiz cfaenzaokasmith.com
mthomsonrobertreeves1aw.cOm Christopher E. Faenza
5 Marc B. Thompson 11oonOkasmith.cOm
6 THE REEVES LAW GROUP Lauren A. R. Loon
200 W. Santa Ana Blvd. 6”‘ floor YOKA & SMITH, LLP
7 Santa Ana, CA 92701 445 South Figueroa St., 38”‘ Floor
Phone: (714) 550-6000 Los Angeles, CA 90071
8 Fax: (714) 550-6015 Phone: (213) 427-2300
Fax: (213) 427-2330
9 Counselfor Plaintiff, Gerardo Hernandez
Counselfor Defendants/Cross-Complaints,
_: 10 Quickrete International, Inc. LLC and
§ § dvasueztb1aw.net Associated Counselfor Defendants/Cr0ss-
__‘ 5 3 11 Davil Vasquez Complaints, Pavestone, LLC
/" 3- E AndrewKOrnOffatblaw.net
E 3 Q 12 Andrew Kornoff
;f" ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO,
‘If 5. ~5413 NOVELL & JIMENEZ, APC
:2 g 1851 E. First St. Suite 100
E‘
‘.1’ 14 Santa Ana, CA 92705
(‘E E O Phone: (714)245-8888
;_ 8; E 15 Fax: (714)245-8880
5 E 5 16 Counselfor Plainti"/Defendan
Q 5 1} Cross-Complamt, Home Depot
0
C-4
=%{*5
52 17
8 S
V’0P‘
E-' 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 '
26
.1‘? 27
'. :~—»'
12
F:\Clients2\1014\1800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTAT1ON\PLEADINGS\MTC Further SROGs\MTC.FunheI.SROGsl.Sep.Stmt..docx
jg; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO
._7-In HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
Make a Reservation I Journal Tahnologies Court Portal Page 1of 2
‘
xx - ’“"'
Vi
Journal Technologies Court Portal
‘<\’~;":.%.‘>H
Make a Reservation
GERARDO HERNANDEZ VS VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION ET AL
Case Number: BC687338 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Premises Liability (e.g.s|ip & fall)
Date Filed: 2017-12-18
Location: Norwalk Courthouse - Department F
Reservation
Case Name:
GERARDO HERNANDEZ VS VALENZUELA Case Number:
TRANSPORTATION ET AL BC687338
Type: Status:
Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses RESERVED
Party: Location:
JR. CON RADO MONTENEGRO (Defendant) Norwalk Courthouse - Department C
Date/Time: Number of Motions:
01/31/2019 1:30 PM 1 '
Reservation lD: Confirmation Code:
587918736819 CR-QTTUJ K4KRWN52NDYH
Fees
Description Fee Qty Amount
Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 60.00 1 60.00
Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1 1.65
TOTAL $61.65
Payment
Amount: Type:
$61.65 MasterCard
Account Number: Authorization:
XXXX9406 12144E
https://portal-lasc.j oumaltech.com/public-portal/?q=calendar/reserve 12/17/2018
Preview
1 POOLE & John H. SHAFFERY, LLP Shaffery (SBN 1601 19) F 9 s""¢9‘ff,°n"i§g|%§;fAni1'?om1a ““ 2 Silviana Dumitrescu (SBN 285461) . v 3 Email: sdumitrescuOOleshaffer.cOm l 7 (U18 4 :22 Telephone: (213) 439-5390 Y 3.. 3°”? 5 Facsimile: (213) 439-0183 Attorneys for Defendants, 6 VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION and CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR. 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — SOUTHEAST DISTRICT 9 E .. 10 GERARDO HERNANDEZ Lead Case No.2 BC687338 E 3,3 (Related Case No..' BC690072) >- 11 Plaintiffs, E .2 [Assigned to Hon. Margaret Bernal, Dept. ‘‘F”] L33 § 5 12 vs. L‘-1 5 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT L: 3 13 VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION, OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 4.‘ 2,”g PAVESTONE CORPORATION, CONRADO RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO I l" 14 MONTENEGRO, JR., HOME DEPOT, HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT <_/2 ,3, U.S.A., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S 3'. Z’ 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET '3; E 3 ONE) 5 g 16 Defendants. A 3 [Motion to Compel Further Responses and V E 5 17 [Proposed Order led concurrently herewith.] L 1.~ -—— E 18 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS Res ID: 587918736819 V 19 Date: January 31, 2019 Dept.: “C” 20 Time: 1:30 pm 21 Complaint Filed: December 18, 2017 Trial Date: Vacated 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// ‘i i’ 1 F:\Clienls2\l0l4\l800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATIOMPLEADINGS\MTC Funher SROGs\MTC.Funher.SROGsl.Sep.Stmt..docx =:;, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOT1ON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO EL HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.‘S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Defendant, CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR. (“Defendant”), submits the following 3 Separate Statement in support of his Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff, GERARDO 4 HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”), to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 52, 53, 54, 73, 74, and 75, 5 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.30, et seq. and California Rules of Court, Rule 6 3.1345. 7 Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request i 8 must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include 9 a motion to compel irther responses to interrogatories. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. g g 10 (a)(2).) >- 11 Furthermore, E E g 12 [t]he separate statement must include--for each discovery request (e.g., each LL; interrogatory...) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-- "LL, § 13 the following: (1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection 4, 3Q demand; (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any ,1rther E E:U" 14 responses or answers; (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for Y3‘ 5;§ compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in E5 15 dispute...(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the _} 5.: 5 16 response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to O 36* a particular discovery request isdeemed necessary are based on the response to O 3: 7- some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set “- E 3 17 forth E E 18 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (c).) if 19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 20 Do YOU contend that you followed all of HOME DEPOT’S policies and procedures 21 regarding the safe loading and/or unloading of merchandise and/or cargo from trailers at the 22 SUBJECT DOCK that were in effect at the time of the INCIDENT? 23 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 24 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not full 25 and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P. 2030.060 et seq. in that it requires 25 Responding Party to make reference to outside materials/documents, the description and 27 contents of which are uncertain and inadequately defined in the Interrogatory. Further, the "ii ? 2 fjjf F:\Clients2\l0l4\l800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATl0N\PLEADlNGS\MTC FurtherSROGs\MTC.Funher.SROGsl .Sep.Stml..t:locx ':.E: ' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT or MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO ;_-3| HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) . . O O 1 Interrogatory is compound, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory calls 2 for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this 3 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege, Rodriguez v. 4 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v.Superior Court 5 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert 6 evidence the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the 7 provisions of C.C.P. § 2034. See, County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 8 1446, 1456. 9 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE: § 3 10 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to :1: 11 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies E.. -. : 12 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d E 13 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties, E 14 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of E5 15 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.) 5: E Q 16 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must I E E 17 “have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after 5 E 18 a reasonable opportunity for irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. 1 19 (3>.> 20 Here, Defendant seeks the factual bases for Plaintiffs contention that he followed all of 21 Home Depot’s policies and procedures regarding safe loading and unloading at the subject dock that 22 were in effect at the time of theiincident, which is a proper subject of interrogatories. (See Deyo v. 23 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 (Deyo), italicsadded.) Defendant isentitled to a 24 response. If Plaintiff has no facts, witnesses, or documents in support of his contentions, he must 25 so state. 1 26 27 .~‘-.;* 28 nTaImF_ j; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT oF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO n HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, mes SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) . . O O 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 2 IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of YOUR contention that you followed allof 3 HOME DEPOT’S policies and procedures regarding the safe loading and/or unloading of 4 merchandise and/or cargo from trailers at the SUBJECT DOCK that were in effect at the time of 5 the INCIDENT. 6 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 53: 7 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not full ' 8 and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P. 2030.060 et seq. in that it requires 9 Responding Party to make reference to outside materials/documents, the description and E33 10 contents of which are uncertain and inadequately defined in the Interrogatory. Further, the E 11 Interrogatory is compound, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory calls E 12 for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this if E 13 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege, Rodriguez v. : 14 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v.Superior Court 53 15 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert 8 16 evidence the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the E E 17 provisions of C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d E E 18 1446, 1456. V 19 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE: 20 Discovery necessarily serves the inction of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to 21 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies 22 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 23 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties, 24 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of 25 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.) 26 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must F 27 “have evidentiary support or, if specically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after =17 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MoTIoN To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO iii: HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) . . O O 1 a reasonable opportunity for irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. 2 (b)(3)-) 3 Here, Defendant seeks the factual bases for Plaintiffs contention that he followed all of 4 Home Depot’s policies and procedures regarding safe loading and unloading at the subject dock that 5 were in effect at the time of the incident, which is a proper subject of interrogatories. (See Deyo v. 6 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 (Deyo), italicsadded.) Defendant isentitled to a 7 response. If Plaintiff has no facts, witnesses, or documents in support of his contentions, he must 8 so state. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54: ga 10 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention that you followed all of 11 HOME DEPOT’S policies and procedures regarding the safe loading and/or unloading of E‘. 12 merchandise and/or cargo from trailers at the SUBJECT DOCK that were in effect at the time of g 13 the INCIDENT. 14 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0. 54: ii 15 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not full 16 and complete in and of itself in violation of C.C.P. 2030.060 et seq. in that it requires 2 17 Responding Party to make reference to outside materials/documents, the description and 18 contents of which are uncertain and inadequately dened in the Interrogatory. Further, the If 19 Interrogatory is compound, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. This Interrogatory calls 20 for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this 21 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-work product privilege, Rodriguez v. 22 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v. Superior Court 23 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert 24 evidence the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the 25 provisions of C.C.P. § 2034. See, County 0fLos Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 26 1446, 1456. 'Ii- '?' 5 28 ‘:3’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MoTIoN To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, .IR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) . . O O 1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE: 2 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to 3 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies 4 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 5 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties, 6 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of 7 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.) 8 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must 9 “have evidentiary Support or, if specically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after g g 10 a reasonable opportunity for irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. Tr‘-i 11 (b)(3)-) E 12 Here, Defendant seeks the factual bases for Plaintiffs contention that he followed all of g 13 Home Depot’s policies and procedures regarding safe loading and unloading at the subject clock that 14 were in effect at the time of the incident, which is a proper subject of interrogatories. (See Deyo v. {ii 15 Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783-784 (Deyo), italicsadded.) Defendant isentitled to a E 16 response. If Plaintiff has no facts, witnesses, or documents in support of his contentions, he must 2 E 17 so state. ' g 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73: V 19 Do YOU contend that you clearly communicated with HOME DEPOT personnel, including 20 but not limited to Home Depot employee, Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process 21 concerning this INCIDENT? 22 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73: 23 Objection. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound, 24 vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Further, this Interrogatory isunintelligible, vague, and 25 ambiguous as to the terms "clearly communicated" and "entire unloading process". This Interrogatory 26 calls for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this 27 Interrogatory Seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege, Rodriguez v. 28 '»:i§§‘ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT or MOTION To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES nv PLAINTIFF GERARDO EB HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) . . O O 1 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v.Superior Court 2 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory Seeks the premature disclosure of expert evidence 3 the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the provisions of 4 C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLos Angeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1456. 5 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE: 6 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to 7 detennine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies 8 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d . 9 276, 281 (Burke) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties, § .3 10 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of E 11 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.) 9:: 12 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must 13 “have evidentiary support or, if specically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after 14 a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. 15 <3>.) S 16 This interrogatory asks whether Plaintiff contends that he clearly communicated with Home E E 17 Depot personnel, including Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process. Plaintiff E 18 objected on various grounds, including that the interrogatories seek attorney work—product and V 19 expert opinion, and failed to provide substantive responses. Pursuant to the above authority, the 20 interrogatories are appropriate in that they seek to determine what the Plaintiffs contentions are and 21 what facts and documents he relies upon in support. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74: . 23 IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of YOUR contention that you clearly 24 communicated with HOME DEPOT personnel, including but not limited to Home Depot employee, 25 Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process concerning this INCIDENT. 26 :‘%-27 28 -: _j SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO I33 HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SFECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) . . O O 1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74: 2 Objection. Responding Patty objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound, 3 vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Further, this Interrogatory isunintelligible, vague, and 4 ambiguous as to the terms "c1early communicated" and "entire unloading process". This Interrogatory 5 calls for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this 6 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege, Rodriguez v. 7 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsman Mfg. v. Superior Court 8 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure ofexpert evidence 9 the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the provisions of g 3 10 C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLosAngeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1456. :14 11 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE: El 12 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to E E 13 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies 14 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 5;; 15 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties, 5: E 16 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use of interrogatories for the purpose of E E 17 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.) E 18 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must V 19 “have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after 20 a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. 21 (b)(3)-) 22 This interrogatory asks whether Plaintiff contends that he clearly communicated with Home 23 Depot personnel, including Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process, and if so, to 24 identify all persons with knowledge (i.e., witnesses). Plaintiff objected on various grounds, 25 including that the interrogatories seek attorney work-product and expert opinion, and failed to 26 provide substantive responses. Pursuant to the above authority, the interrogatories are appropriate _,,_ 27 in that they seek to determine what the Plaintiffs contentions are and what facts and documents he ' 28 :3: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO H: HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.‘S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) . . O O 1 relies upon in support. 2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75: 3 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS in support of YOUR contention that you clearly 4 communicated with HOME DEPOT personnel, including but not limited to Home Depot employee, 5 Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process concerning this INCIDENT. 6 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75: 7 Objection. Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound, 8 vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Further, this Interrogatory isunintelligible, vague, and 9 ambiguous as to the terms "clearly communicated" and "entire unloading process". This Interrogatory § 3 10 calls for a legal conclusion and/or opinion. Responding Party further objects on the grounds this :2 11 Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-work product privilege, Rodriguez v. E‘ 12 McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 647-648; Scottsmari Mfg. v. Superior Court 13 (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. This Interrogatory seeks the premature disclosure of expert evidence E 14 the proper time and place for the disclosure of which isset forth and governed by the provisions of 15 C.C.P. § 2034. See, County ofLosAngeles v. Superior Court, (1991) 224 Cal.App.3d 1446, l456. '53 ii’ 16 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE: E E 17 Discovery necessarily serves the function of testing the pleadings, i.e.,enabling a party to E 18 determine what his opponent's contentions are and what facts [witnesses and documents] he relies V 19 upon to support his contentions. (Burke v.Superior Court of Sacramento County (1969) 71 Cal.2d 20 276, 281 (Burke.) To the extent that interrogatories are used to clarify the contentions of the parties, 21 they are an adjunct to the pleadings. (Ibid.) Indeed, liberal use Of interrogatories for the purpose of 22 clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the pleadings is encouraged by the courts. (Ibid.) 23 Furthermore, the allegations and other factual contentions in the operative complaint must 24 “have evidentiary support Or, if specically so identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after 25 a reasonable opportunity for Irther investigation or discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. 26 (b)(3)-) ' 5.; 27 This interrogatory asks whether Plaintiff contends that he clearly communicated with Home SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO ,},'_.f_‘, HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 Depot personnel, including Marcus Betanzos, throughout the entire unloading process, and if so, to 2 identify all documents in support. Plaintiff objected on various grounds, including that the 3 interrogatories seek attorney work-product and expert opinion, and failed to provide substantive 4 responses. Pursuant to the above authority, the interrogatories are appropriate in that they seek to 5 determine what the Plaintiffs contentions are and what facts and documents he relies upon in 6 support. 7 8 DATED: December 17, 2018 POOLE & SHAFFERY, I__.LP 9 _ / /‘ § 3 10 : 3: 5 John Shaffery 4 :;-< 3, 3 11 Silviana Dumitrescu § 5 Attorneys for Defendants, m g § 12 VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION and .'-=-5 S CONRADO MONTEGENRO, JR. L:-: 3 E 13 *5 s.”§ L-'.:E ‘ 14 .“'2 !.'~,:"§ E I 15 '-’ 332 16 h : Q .I—I 18- I;:_! g E 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ii}? 10 F:\C|ients2\l0l4\I800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATlON\PLEADlNGS\MTC FunherSROGs\MTC,Funher.SROGsl.Sep.Stmt..docx '5-}?' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT or MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF cERARDo .5] HERNANDEZ To DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Gerardo Hernandez v. Valenzuela Transortation et al . Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: BC687338 3 Iam em P lo Y ed in the _ County ofLOs An g eles, State of California; I am Over the age of 18 4 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 400 South Hope Street, Suite 720, LOS Angeles, California 90071. My electronic service address is: dblandonooleshaffer.com. 5 On December 17, 2018, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled: SEPARATE 6 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO 7 JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) on the interested party(ies) in said actiori as indicated in the attached service list as follows: 8 PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST 9 g M 10 Cl 3;Mail Federal: I served a true copy of the above referenced document(s) by enclosing 3 § said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the party(ies) listed in the attached >.. Q 11 service list and placing such envelope or package with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United Q: § ,2 States mail at Los Angeles, California. 5;} “’S 12 :.';_. 5‘ B Mail State : I am readily familiar with Poole & Shaffery, LLP’s practice for the L. § 2 13 collection and processing of mail with the United States Postal Service. I enclosed the above <1 52,’ § referenced document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the party(ies) listed in the : E "‘ 14 attached service list.Such envelope will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the U’) § § above date in the ordinary course of business at the business address shown above; and such '57-‘5 15 inLI/Ielopedwas pllaced for collection and mailing on the above date according to Poole & Shaffery, >---;’ 5 1 ’s or Inary usmess prac Ices. M I-* ""‘ W ~ 16 . 0 Ed 9'. 9 i E 17 Cl y Facsimile Transmission: I caused the above referenced document(s) to be transmitted to "' *5 E a facsimile machine maintained by the party(ies) listed in the attached service list at the facsimile 5:»§ 18 machine telephone number as last given by that party(ies). V 19 Executed on December 17, 2018, at Los Angeles, California. 20 [State] Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 21 Cl [Federal] I declare that I am employed in the OIIIC6 of a member Of the bar of this Court at 22 whose direction this service was made. 23 1 / ": .-~- ‘ . '-.—~—'~' 24 kV__/Q CC/( "(eA'_...~"‘ 25 Daisy Blandon, Declarant 26 27 ’.i : " 11 jjf F:\Clients2\l0l4\l800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION\PLEADINGS\MTC FunherSROGs\MTC.Funher.SROGsl .Sep.Stmt..docx ‘;?:’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO .1. . HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) I A SERVICE LIST Gerardo Hernandez v. Valenzuela Transortation et al . 2 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case NO.: BC687338 3 4 J. Derek Pakiz cfaenzaokasmith.com mthomsonrobertreeves1aw.cOm Christopher E. Faenza 5 Marc B. Thompson 11oonOkasmith.cOm 6 THE REEVES LAW GROUP Lauren A. R. Loon 200 W. Santa Ana Blvd. 6”‘ floor YOKA & SMITH, LLP 7 Santa Ana, CA 92701 445 South Figueroa St., 38”‘ Floor Phone: (714) 550-6000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 8 Fax: (714) 550-6015 Phone: (213) 427-2300 Fax: (213) 427-2330 9 Counselfor Plaintiff, Gerardo Hernandez Counselfor Defendants/Cross-Complaints, _: 10 Quickrete International, Inc. LLC and § § dvasueztb1aw.net Associated Counselfor Defendants/Cr0ss- __‘ 5 3 11 Davil Vasquez Complaints, Pavestone, LLC /" 3- E AndrewKOrnOffatblaw.net E 3 Q 12 Andrew Kornoff ;f" ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO, ‘If 5. ~5413 NOVELL & JIMENEZ, APC :2 g 1851 E. First St. Suite 100 E‘ ‘.1’ 14 Santa Ana, CA 92705 (‘E E O Phone: (714)245-8888 ;_ 8; E 15 Fax: (714)245-8880 5 E 5 16 Counselfor Plainti"/Defendan Q 5 1} Cross-Complamt, Home Depot 0 C-4 =%{*5 52 17 8 S V’0P‘ E-' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' 26 .1‘? 27 '. :~—»' 12 F:\Clients2\1014\1800-HERNANDEZ V. VALENZUELA TRANSPORTAT1ON\PLEADINGS\MTC Further SROGs\MTC.FunheI.SROGsl.Sep.Stmt..docx jg; SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF GERARDO ._7-In HERNANDEZ TO DEFENDANT CONRADO MONTENEGRO, JR.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Make a Reservation I Journal Tahnologies Court Portal Page 1of 2 ‘ xx - ’“"' Vi Journal Technologies Court Portal ‘<\’~;":.%.‘>H Make a Reservation GERARDO HERNANDEZ VS VALENZUELA TRANSPORTATION ET AL Case Number: BC687338 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Premises Liability (e.g.s|ip & fall) Date Filed: 2017-12-18 Location: Norwalk Courthouse - Department F Reservation Case Name: GERARDO HERNANDEZ VS VALENZUELA Case Number: TRANSPORTATION ET AL BC687338 Type: Status: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses RESERVED Party: Location: JR. CON RADO MONTENEGRO (Defendant) Norwalk Courthouse - Department C Date/Time: Number of Motions: 01/31/2019 1:30 PM 1 ' Reservation lD: Confirmation Code: 587918736819 CR-QTTUJ K4KRWN52NDYH Fees Description Fee Qty Amount Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 60.00 1 60.00 Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1 1.65 TOTAL $61.65 Payment Amount: Type: $61.65 MasterCard Account Number: Authorization: XXXX9406 12144E https://portal-lasc.j oumaltech.com/public-portal/?q=calendar/reserve 12/17/2018