Party Discovery: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRAYTONSPURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

POBOX 6159

CO OW NKR Oh BR we Dm

SS 32R GD EUK

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., $.B. #73685

(| JUSTIN S. FISH, ESO, S.B. #250282

BRAYTONSPURCELL LLP ELECTRONICALLY
Attorneys at Law ‘ :
P.O. Box 6169 > FILED.
222 Rush Landing Road Superior Court of California,
Novato, California 94948 County of San Francisco
(415) 898-1555 : AUG 20 2010
‘Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestashestosT R@braytonlaw.com Clerk of the Court
BY: RAYMOND K. WONG
Attormeys for Plaintiff © Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CHARLES HUSBAND, ) ASBESTOS
: No. CGC-9-275098
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
vs. ) ‘DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT
CLEANERS, INC.’S SEPARATE
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*#P) _ STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF,
SET ONE
Date: September 2, 2010
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Room: 220, Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Trial Date: October 4, 2010

Action Filed: March 2, 2009

Plaintiff hereby submits the following response to Defendant’s Separate Statement in
Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compe! Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
One).

. 36: .
Do YOU receive Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits?

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52:

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) -

SSSehred 0581 Sphdae-eopreatctou TEMPLA. wea 1 ise
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONEof section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existi
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared ntecouatevion (pperly
Declaration 7.) Defense counsel's declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
Specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant's Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY _A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order,” (Emphasis added) Thé clear implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding arty must seek a
protective order within thé time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
§2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.Ap 4° 1159, 1165,
disapproved on other. grounds by ‘Sith v. Lewis ( 1869) 14 Cal.App.4® 1232. be

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to Tefuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35.

Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket Tosponse to 17 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and 1s the equivalent of no response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF'S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED

Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on
August 10, 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

As to each site of exposure where YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos
through any act or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY who DIRECTED
the work of TPC, (As used herein, “IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY” means state he
name, business address, home address if an individual and telephone number.) As used herein,
“DIRECTED” means instructing an individual on how to perform his job duties.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 37 provided.)

RESPONSE TO. ERROGATORY NOS. 36-52:

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly

K.lnjured\ 058 I sipldlvss-opp-mtesrope1 ou 2
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE.Fo OD OM BDH Bw Ww

pet te
CoC Oe HN KH HW FF Ww

woNM bY NY YN NY NY VY
Se AA A On SS

Declaration 7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories, Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when .
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seck a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
§2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4" 1159, 1165,
disapproved on other grounds by Smith v. Lewis (1999) 14 Cal.App.4" 1232.

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale-refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The

: proper remedy for'a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of:necessity:is

to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to Tefuse to answer any:
interrogatory after number 35.

Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is -
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 17 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and is the equivalent ofno response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

PLAINTIFI?S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL,
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED

Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on
August 10, 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested,.removed superfluous information that was contained in the original
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

AS to each site of exposure where YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos
through any act or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY who .
CONTROLLED the work of TPC. (As used herein, “CONTROLLED” means instructing an
individual on where to work and what job duties to perform and/or providing tools and materials
for the purpose of carrying out his job duties.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 38 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52:

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in Support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing!
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration {7.) Defense counsei’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to

 \injured2058) Sipldss opp mmte-rog-TEMPL A. wod 3 JSF
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE.oO 0 WN Dw BY Ww

the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff obj

LS 0 0 . jects to each Interrogator
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
CCP, 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE. COMPELLED:

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication 1s that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek’ a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
§2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4" 1159, 1165,
disapproved on other grounds by Smith v, Lewis (1999 14 Cal.App.4™ 1232.

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective.order within the statutory time, not-simply to refuse to answer any.
interrogatory after number 35. a :

_, Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to Which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatoriés, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 17 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and 1s the equivalent of no response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF’S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED
Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2610, and verification was served on

August 10,2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full

complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses. .

INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

As to each site of exposure where YOU contend that YOU were exposed to asbestos
through any act or omission of TPC, IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ENTITY who .
SUPERVI ED the work of TPC. “As used herein, “SUPERVISED” means directly supervising
an individual while he performed his job duties.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 39 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52:

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in Support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration surmmarily asserts without more __
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration [7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
ihe instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
Wt

K Arjuced\ 1050 Siphss-opp-otensgn-TEMPLA wd 4 isk
PLAINTIFE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE,~~ oS DP WN A Ww & &H NY

Oo ef YN DA WA Bw HN

RN YP Mw NN Nw
ea ao ek oN SS

C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
Code af Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party io seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot -
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding arty must seek a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
§2050.090(2). See Caranese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4" 1159, 1165,
isapptoved on other grounds by Smith v. Lewis (1999) 14 Cal. App.4® 1232.

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to refuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35. :

_, -Moreover,.Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is --- |
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which itis directed. .An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 17 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and is the equivalent of no response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a

- complete and verified response to this interrogatory. .

PLAINTIFF’S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED

Plainuff served amended responses on July 28, 2610, and verification was served on
August 10,2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
For each instance in which YOU contend that TPC DIRECTED, CONTROLLED or
SUPERVISED any of its employees, STATE ALL FACTS, to support YOUR contention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 40 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52: . “

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more _
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration §7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No, 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

Ut

KNojure $0581 5iptdvse-opp-mte-soe- TEMP A 5 “ise
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE2 Oe NY Dw eB ww

OD PQ DW Fw HN

en YN NN NN YD
CTA hw Ow YH FS

bo

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
§2030,090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal. App.4"" 1159, 1165,
disapproved on other grounds by Smith v. Lewis (1999) 14 Cal-App.4" 1232. ,

. Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to refuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35,

: loreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a Tesponding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse; is entirely improper. A-blanket response to 17:separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Cade and is the equivalent of no-response‘at all...

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory. Bot,

PLAINTIFF'S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED

Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on
August 10, 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections, Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses. ‘

INTERROGATORY NO. 41:

For each instance YOU contend that TPC DIRECTED, CONTROLLED OR
SUPERVISED the work of any of its employees, IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS, to support
YOUR contention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41:

(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 41 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52; *

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lalayeite Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.”_ (Epperly
Declaration 47.) Defense counsel's declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over Na, 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: _

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040{a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot

K Minjured\1 0581 Sip\dvse-opp-mte-10g-TEMPLA.wpd 6 Jsr
PLAINTIFP’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC,’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OP
ITS MOTION TG COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE,simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party nm
protective order within the time and in the manner required by. Code oF Chl Praceiae
§2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App 4? 1159, 1165.
disapproved on other grounds by Smith v. Lewis (1999) 14 Cal. App.4" 1232.0” ;

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to refuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35.

..,_ Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 1 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Cede and is the equivalent oF no response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

| PLAINTIFF’S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED — . . :

Plaintiff served amended responses-on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on
August 10, 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiffs amended
responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 42:

For each instance YOU contend that TPC DIRECTED, CONTROLLED OR
SUPERVISED the work of any of its employees, WITNESSES with knowledge to support
YOUR contention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42:

{No individual response to Interrogatory No. 42 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52:

Plainuff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayctie Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration 7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear Implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure »
§2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4” 1159, 1165,
disapproved on other grounds by ‘Spit y. Lewis (1999) 14 Cal App.4” 1232.

K Alnjured\t0S6! Stole\ss-opp-mte-tog:TEMPLA.wpd 7 JSF
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
(T§ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TQ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONEHere, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory ti i
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper the
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to refuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35.

_. Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection toa
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 1 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and 1s the equivalent of no response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF’S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED

Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on
August 10, 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original ..
responses: and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's:amended
responses. :

INTERROGATORY NO. 43:

If YOU contend YOU suffered any past or future loss of income due to YOUR asbestos-
related illness, disease and/or injury, please IDENTIFY ALL SOURCES of INCOME YOU
received in the five years prior to YOUR asbestos-related illness, disease and/or injury,

(For the purposes of these interrogatories, the phrase “IDENTIFY ALL SOURCES”
means state the date(s) on which income was received, the amount and source of INCOME. As
used herein, INCOME inciudes all sources of income or earnings, including but not limited to
salary, wages, tips, profits derived from rents, profits derived from the operation of a business,
unemployment benefits, workers compensation benefits, disability benefits, pension, investment
income and/or other sources of income.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43:

(No individual response to Interregatory No. 43 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52: .

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration 7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case~
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P, 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure

Kedeiured 581 pds. opp-ate-tog-TEMPL A. wpd 8 SE
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF. SET ONE§2030,090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4” 115
disapproved on other grounds by Smith v. Lente 330) 14 Oa ap eR. 59, 1165,

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to refuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35,

_,_ Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 17 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and is the equivalent of no response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF’S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT: BE COMPELLED . Podge :
’. Plaintiff served amended ‘responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served-on

‘August 10; 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and. provided all factual|

information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original .
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiffs full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 44: .

If YOU attribute any past or future loss of INCOME to YOUR asbestos-related illness,
disease and/or injury, please IDENTIFY THE INCOME.

(For the purpose of these interrogatories, “IDENTIFY THE INCOME” means state the
source of the INCOME, the date(s) for which INCOME was or will be lost, the total amount of
INCOME lost, and describe how YOU calculated the amount of loss.) :

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44:

(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 44 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS, 36-52:

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing].
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration 7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED: -
Code of Civil Procedure §2030.640(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party lo seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a
-protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
$2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4" 1159, 1165,
disapproved on other grounds by Sinith v. Lewis (1999) 14 Cal.App.4" 1232.

KAtnjurech 10961 S\pldirss-opyyntzerog-TEMPLA, 9 sr
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, [NC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF. SET ONEHere, Plaintiff failed to-file a motion for protective order within the i i
5 D statutory time. Hi
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is inaproper. The _
proper remedy for a responding arty to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
t a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to refuse to ans
interrogatory after Cee 35. y PY Swen any
. loreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a respondin: is

entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated Teparatele a must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to ] separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and 1s the equivalent of no response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF’S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED

Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on te
August 10, 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant; plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information:that was contained in the original
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, deféndant is in receipt of plaintiff's full --
and complete responses, and this motion is moot.as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses. so: eo,

INTERROGATORY NO. 45:

if YOU contend YOU suffered any past or future lass of INCOME due to YOUR
asbestos-related illness, disease and/or injury, please IDENTIFY EACH PERSON who has
knowledge of facts supporting YOUR contention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
(Ne individual response to Interrogatory No. 45 provided.)

SPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 36-52:
Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration §7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing,

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when

accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a

protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot

simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a
rotective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure

£2030.08049). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal App.4® 1159, 1165,
isapproved on other grounds b: Gnith vy, Lewis (1999) 14 Cal.App.4" 1232.

Here, Plainsifit failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s. interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
Hf ‘

RMetueed 20581 S\pldss-opp-mic-rog-TEMPLA.wod 10 JSF
PLAINTIPP’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
JTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE| INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

to file a protective order within the statutory time, not si
inerogaton fee order withi ry , hot simply to refuse to answer any

oreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party i
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, ea masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 17 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and is the equivalent orn response at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a

complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

FLAINTIEE *S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL

NTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED
Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on
August 10, 2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff explained and provided all factual
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original ~
responses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and-this motion is. moot as it- docs not address. plaintiff's amended ...-
responses. © ° ee ees eos : Powe,

If YOU contend YOU suffered any past of future loss of INCOME due to YOUR .
asbestos-related illness, disease and/or injury, please IDENTIFY EACH DOCUMENT which
supports YOUR contention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 46 provided.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS, 36-52:

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of defendant
TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision {c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration §7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s [nterrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing.

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
§2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4” 1159, 1165,
isapproved on other grounds by Smith v, Lewis (1999) 14 Cal. App.4® 1232. :

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory time. His
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within ihe statutory time, not simply to refuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35.

Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must

KcUnjuresh 1058  Sipldtess-o9p-mie-tog-TEMPLA wpd i ISE
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE.CO ND Bw De

mM NM NR NM MRM BR RD Rm ee eee
SIDA A &F ON = SF Be ew IY BDH Bw HY FE S

bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection to a
series of interrogatories, en masse, is entirely improper. A blanket response to 1 separate
interrogatories is not permitted under the Code and is the equivalent oF no response at all.
Accordingly, Plaintiff should be required to withdraw their objections and provide a
complete and verified response to this interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF’S REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
INTERROGATORY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED S SPECIAL

Plaintiff served amended responses on July 28, 2010, and verification was served on
August 10,2010. Therein, as requested by defendant, plaintiff. explained and provided all factualj |
information requested, removed superfluous information that was contained in the original
tesponses, and omitted inapplicable objections. Thus, defendant is in receipt of plaintiff's full
and complete responses, and this motion is moot as it does not address plaintiff's amended
responses.

INTERROGATORY NO. 47: |
- Af YOU. attribute-any. EXPENSES to YOUR asbestos-related illness, disease and/or °- sth
injury, please IDENTIFY THE EXPENSES. . Lot whe .

(For the pr ses of these interrogatories, “EXPENSES” means any costs or expenditur
payable to others which YOU and/or anyone on YOUR. behalf, incurred or paid, which YOU. «.:.
contend are.recoverable as damages in the present suit, including but not limited to: funeral
and/or burial expenses; medical expenses (doctor’s and other professional medical services costs,
hospital costs, medication costs, medical equipment costs, ambulance or medical transportation
costs, laboratory fees and/or any other costs arising from or attributable to medical care); travel
expenses; costs for care, upkeep or repair to any Physical pro erty (such as an automobile,
residence, farm or business); but excluding any loss of INCOME identified in response to Special
Interropatory. 19, et seg. As used herein “IDENTIFY THE EXPENSES” means state the date
each EXPENSE was incurred, the amount of each EXPENSE, to whom each EXPENSE was
paid or js owed, what each EXPENSE was for and describe the reason each EXPENSE was
incurred.)

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47:
(No individual response to Interrogatory No. 47 provided.)
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NOS, 36-52:

Plaintiff objects to the Declaration of Beau Lafayette Epperly, offered in support of
defendant TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’s additional number of Specially Prepared
Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One. The declaration summarily asserts without more
justification that “This number of questions is warranted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)
of section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the complexity or quantity of the existing
and potential issues in this matter merit this Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories.” (Epperly
Declaration 7.) Defense counsel’s declaration is fatally flawed in that it fails to state a.case-
specific reason as to why the complexity or the quantity of issues in this lawsuit is applicable to
the instant defendant, warranting the 52 Interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory
over No. 35 to extent that this set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories exceeds the limit under
C.C.P. 2033.040 without substantial justification. As such, defendant’s Interrogatories are
unnecessarily duplicative, unduly burdensome, and harassing. .

REASON WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE SHOULD BE COMPELLED:

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.040(a) clearly authorizes more than 35 interrogatories when
accompanied by a declaration of necessity, “subject to the right of the responding party to seek a
protective order.” (Emphasis, added) The clear implication is that the responding party cannot
simply object to more than 35 interrogatories. Rather, the responding party must seek a
protective order within the time and in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure
§2030.090(a). See Catanese v. Superior Court (Ray) (1996) 46 Cal.App.4” 1159, 1165,
disapproved on other grounds by Smith v. Lewis (1999) 14 Cal App.4" 1232.

%

KMnjurest1058 1 Stoidvss-opp-mlc-rog-TEMPLA, wed, 12 : ASE
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SET ONE.Here, Plaintiff failed to file a motion for protective order within the statutory tim i
wholesale refusal to answer any of TPC’s interrogatories over number 35 is improper. The
proper remedy for a responding party to challenge the sufficiency of a declaration of necessity is
to file a protective order within the statutory time, not simply to refuse to answer any
interrogatory after number 35.

_,_ Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §2030.201 mandates where a responding party is
entitled to object to a particular interrogatory, each objection must be stated separately and must
bear the same number or letter as the interrogatory to which it is directed. An objection toa
series of interrogatories, en ma