Motion for Protective Order in ANZALDUA vs HOME DEPOT USA INC| Trellis.Law

On February 03, 2020 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Rigoberto Anzaldua, and Home Depot Usa Inc, Kyle Goodsell, for Unlimited Civil Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Tort in the District Court of Riverside County.

Preview
1 Tracy L. Hughes, Esq. (SBN 232283)
Thanh K. Nguyen, Esq. (SBN 194026)
2 Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck, LLP
3 Park Plaza, Suite 1500
3 Irvine, CA 92614-8558
Phone: 949-864-3400; Fax: 949-864-9000
4 Email: tracy.hughes@knchlaw.com
thanh.nguyen@knchlaw.com
5
Attorneys for Defendant
6 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE – PALM SPRINGS COURTHOUSE

22 this matter may be heard in Department PS2 of the above-entitled Court, Defendant, HOME

23 DEPOT USA, INC. (hereinafter “Defendant”), shall move, and hereby do move, for a protective

24 order directing that the deposition of Elizabeth Gower (Soukup) will not be taken. Defendant will

25 also move the Court for an order that Plaintiff RIGOBERTO ANZALDUA, an individual

26 (“Plaintiff”), and his counsel, Igor Fradkin, pay as sanctions the sum of $1,945 as the reasonable

27 costs and attorney fees incurred by Defendant for these proceedings. Good cause exists to grant

28 this motion as the deponent, Mrs. Elizabeth Gower (Soukup) has no personal knowledge of the
1
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 subject events and any knowledge she does have is protected as attorney client communications
2 and work product.
3 This motion is made pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 2025.420, 2025, et seq., this notice of motion,
4 the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of Elizabeth Soukup, the
5 declaration of Thanh Nguyen, the exhibits attached hereto in support of this motion, the records
6 and files in this action, and upon such oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at
7 the time of hearing of this motion.
8 Defendant’s counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
9 § 2016.040 as detailed in the Declaration of Nguyen filed herewith.
10
DATED: January 7, 2022 Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck, LLP
11

13 Tracy L. Hughes, Esq.
Thanh K. Nguyen, Esq.
14 Attorneys for Defendant,
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
15

28
2
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION/STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained injuries due to a collision
4 with a metal flatbed and/or cart pushed by Defendants' employee at the Home Depot in Indio,
5 California, on June 9, 2019. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff indicated that he was “ok,”
6 and acknowledged that he “should have been paying attention to where [he] was going.”
7 Declaration of Nguyen (Decl. Nguyen) ⁋ 2. In fact, Plaintiff proceeded to make his purchases
8 and leave the store with his family. Decl. Nguyen ⁋ 3. The incident was not reported to Home
9 Depot at that time. Id. Rather, Plaintiff returned to the store shortly thereafter to first file a formal
10 report with the store. Id.
11 Despite the relative simplicity of this matter, on August 26, 2020, Plaintiff served his first
12 set of written discovery requests on Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. (“Home Depot”) which
13 included Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, form
14 interrogatories and special interrogatories. Decl. Nguyen ⁋4. On October 13, 2020, Defendant
15 Home Depot served its responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Number One) and
16 identified two potential witnesses to the subject incident, Artemia Heredia and Lisa Chastain.
17 Decl. Nguyen ⁋5, attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s responses
18 to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set Number One). At that time, Defendant also served its
19 responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set Number One) and Plaintiff’s Special
20 Interrogatories (Set Number One). Decl. Nguyen ⁋6, attached hereto as Exhibit B and C are true
21 and correct copies of verifications for Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for
22 Admissions (Set Number One) and Special Interrogatories (Set Number One), respectively. On
23 November 12, 2020, Plaintiff served his second set of written discovery requests, which included
24 Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. Decl. Nguyen ⁋7.
25 On December 22, 2020, Home Depot served its responses to all of Plaintiff’s second set of
26 written discovery requests. Decl. Nguyen ⁋ 8, attached hereto as Exhibit D and E are true and
27 correct copies of verifications for Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions
28 (Set Number Two) and Request for Production (Set Number Two), respectively.
3
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 These discovery responses were verified by Elizabeth Soukup (previously known as
2 Elizabeth Gower) (hereinafter referred to as “Elizabeth Soukup”), the person authorized by the
3 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. to execute the discovery verifications on its behalf as required under
4 CCP 2030.250(b), 2031.240(b) and 2033.250(b); see Defendant’s Verifications attached as
5 Exhibits B, C, D, and E. Within its Form Interrogatory responses, Home Depot identified two (2)
6 people as witnesses to the incident, Home Depot employees Artemia Heredia and Lisa Chastain,
7 an employee and assistant manager for Home Depot, respectively. See Exhibit A, Defendant’s
8 Response to Form Interrogatory 12.1.
9 Nearly one year later, Plaintiff then served the Defendant on October 19, 2021 with
10 Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Home Depot’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) for
11 eight (8) separate categories in addition to eighteen (18) requests for production of documents.
12 Decl. Nguyen ⁋ 9, attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Notice
13 of Deposition for Home Depot USA, Inc. Person Most Knowledgeable and Request for
14 Documents. On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff also served his Notice of Deposition for the only two
15 Home Depot employees identified by Defendant in its Form Interrogatories as potential witnesses
16 to the subject incident, Artemia Heredia and Lisa Chastain. Decl. of Nguyen ⁋ 9, attached as
17 Exhibit G and H are true and correct copies of Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Artemia
18 Heredia and Lisa Chastain, respectively.
19 In addition to these two witnesses, and despite not being identified as a witness to this
20 matter, Plaintiff also noticed the deposition of the Defendant’s authorized representative to sign
21 its verifications, Elizabeth Soukup. Decl. of Nguyen ⁋ 10, attached as Exhibit I is a true and
22 correct copy of Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Elizabeth Gower (Soukup). Given that
23 Elizabeth Soukup has no personal knowledge of the incident and all information she has related to
24 the incident is privileged attorney-client communications and work product, Defendant served its
25 objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Elizabeth Soukup on December 17, 2021
26 because, among other things, she has no testimony that is admissible at trial. Decl. of Nguyen ⁋
27 11, attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Notice
28 of Deposition for Elizabeth Gower (Soukup). As discussed further below, despite raising these
4
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 issues with Plaintiff’s counsel and attempting to resolve this issue before the need to file this
2 Motion, Plaintiff has refused to withdraw his Notice of Deposition for Mrs. Gower (Soukup).
3 Decl. of Nguyen ⁋ 12, attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of meet and confer
4 correspondence. Instead Plaintiff has refused to respond to any of the issues raised by Defendant
5 and maintains the contention his ungrounded contention Mrs. Soukup’s deposition is necessary.
6 Id. As a result of Plaintiff’s untenable position, Defendant has been forced to seek Court
7 intervention by filing this subject Motion for Protective Order.
8 II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER
9 Good cause exists to grant Defendant Home Depot’s motion and issue a protective order.
10 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.420(a) and “[b]efore, during, or
11 after a deposition, any party, . . . may promptly move for a protective order.” Furthermore, “[t]he
12 court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party,
13 deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment,
14 or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited
15 to, one or more of the following directions: (1) That the deposition not be taken at all . . .” CCP §
16 2025.420(b); Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 261.
17 As California case law has long held “when a plaintiff seeks to depose a corporate . . .
18 official . . . , and that official moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition, the trial court
19 should first determine whether the plaintiff has shown good cause that the official has unique or
20 superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. If not, as will presumably often be
21 the case in the instance of a large national or international corporation, the trial court should
22 issue the protective order and first require the plaintiff to obtain the necessary discovery through
23 less-intrusive methods.” Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282,
24 1289. The Liberty Mutual court further explained that “less intrusive methods” of discovery
25 include:
26 1. Interrogatories “to explore the state of his or her knowledge or
involvement in plaintiff’s case”;
27
2. The deposition of “employees with appropriate knowledge and
28
5
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 involvement in the subject matter of the litigation”; and
2 3. Finally, “the organizational deposition of the corporation itself, which
will require the corporation to produce for deposition the most
3
qualified officer or employee to testify on its behalf as to the specified
4 matters to be raised at the deposition.”
Id. The court went on to state that “[a]ssuming these less intrusive avenues be exhausted, and the
5
plaintiff can make a showing of good cause that the official possesses necessary information to
6
the case, the trial court may then lift the protective order and allow the deposition to proceed.” Id.
7
i. Mrs. Soukup Merely Executed Discovery Verifications That Home Depot, as a
8
Corporation, Could Not Execute for Itself.
9
By law, Home Depot, as a corporate defendant, is unable to verify discovery responses
10
itself. See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.250(b), 2031.240(b) and 2033.250(b). Instead, as a
11
Defendant corporation, it is required under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.250(b), 2031.240(b)
12
and 2033.250(b), to have “one of its officers or agents . . . sign the response under oath on behalf
13
of that party.” This agent/representative is Mrs. Elizabeth Soukup, a senior litigation specialist
14
that works out of Home Depot’s legal department. Declaration of Soukup (Decl. Soukup) ⁋ 2; see
15
Defendant’s Verifications attached as Exhibits B, C, D, and E. As this Court is well aware, the
16
act of an individual signing a corporation’s answers to discovery is in no way an acknowledgment
17
of personal knowledge. Mrs. Soukup’s signed the discovery answers not to signify that she
18
personally has knowledge about the facts or issues in the case, but that the corporation did. If
19
Home Depot was capable of signing its name with a pen, it would have. Ultimately, however,
20
Home Depot’s inability to do so does not somehow permeate Mrs. Soukup with the personal
21
knowledge of a large corporation or of anything related to the subject incident.
22
ii. Mrs. Soukup Has No Personal Knowledge Of The Incident. Any Knowledge She
23
Does Have Is Protected as Attorney-Client Communications And Work Product.
24
Mrs. Elizabeth Soukup is a senior litigation specialist that works out of Home Depot’s
25
legal department located at the Home Depot Store Support Center (Home Depot’s corporate
26
headquarters) in Atlanta, Georgia. Decl. Soukup ⁋ 2. Mrs. Soukup’s involvement in this action
27
arises solely out of her job responsibilities as the internal Home Depot senior litigation specialist
28
6
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 assigned to the case. Id. ⁋⁋ 3-4. As the assigned senior litigation specialist, Mrs. Soukup assisted
2 in gathering documents and information, as requested by Home Depot’s counsel in this matter,
3 and provided that to Home Depot’s counsel so that she could respond to Plaintiff’s discovery
4 requests on behalf of Home Depot. Id. ⁋ 5; Decl. Nguyen ⁋ 12. All of Mrs. Soukup efforts in this
5 matter have been solely in the capacity as the assigned senior litigation specialist, and she has no
6 personal knowledge regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit. Decl. Soukup ⁋⁋ 6-7. Further,
7 Home Depot has no intention of calling Mrs. Soukup as a witness in this case as she has no
8 personal knowledge concerning any of the issues in this case, and what she has learned about the
9 case is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. Id. at ⁋⁋ 5-7.
10 iii. Plaintiff has not exhausted its available “less intrusive methods” of discovery.
11 Plaintiff has recently deposed Artemia Heredia, the Home Depot employee involved in the
12 alleged incident, and the person designated by Home Depot as “the most qualified officer or
13 employee to testify on its behalf as to the specified matters” identified in Plaintiff’s Notice of
14 Deposition for Home Depot’s PMK. Decl. Nguyen ⁋11. Most importantly, Plaintiff’s Notice of
15 Deposition included these first two categories for the PMK:
16 1. The facts of the underlying incident that is the subject of this
litigation;
17

18 2. Defendant’s investigation into the facts of the underlying
INCIDENT that is the subject of this litigation;
19

20 See Exhibit F, pg. 2. Despite having had an opportunity to depose the employee directly involved

21 in the alleged incident on the above categories, Plaintiff still somehow believes that Mrs. Soukup,

22 who lives in Georgia, “has unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information”

23 that would warrant her deposition.

24 Although Plaintiff has already deposed Home Depot’s designated PMK, Plaintiff has yet

25 to depose the percipient witnesses identified by Defendant in its form interrogatories, assistant

26 manager for Home Depot, Lisa Chastain. Decl. Nguyen ⁋11. Even more, Plaintiff recently

27 served Defendant on November 22, 2021 with Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Home Depot’s

28 Person Most Knowledgeable for Loss Prevention (“PMK for Loss Prevention”). See Exhibit L is
7
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Home Depot USA, Inc. Person
2 Most Knowledgeable and Request for Loss Prevention. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Plaintiff
3 to depose these witnesses first and/or propound written interrogatories in order to meet his
4 burden to establish the good cause that Mrs. Soukup has the “unique or superior personal
5 knowledge of discoverable information” to warrant deposing her. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,
6 (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th a 1289.
7 iv. Mrs. Soukup’s Knowledge Is Protected As Privileged Communication And Work
8 Product.
9 As California courts have recognized, “Evidence Code section 954 provides that a client
10 has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential
11 communication between the client and lawyer. Evidence Code section 951 defines ‘client’ as a
12 person ‘who, directly or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer for the purpose
13 of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from him in his professional capacity.’”
14 Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1495. The Zurich
15 court went on to note that “the ‘privilege extends to communications which are intended to be
16 confidential, if they are made to attorneys, . . . , business associates, or agents of the party . . . ,
17 when disclosure of the communication is reasonably necessary to further the interest of the
18 litigant.’” Id. at 1496 (emphasis in original).
19 Here, all of Mrs. Soukup’s knowledge with regard to this incident is derived solely from
20 her job responsibilities as the internal Home Depot senior litigation specialist assigned to the case.
21 Decl. Soukup. ⁋⁋ 3-4. As the assigned senior litigation specialist, Mrs. Soukup assisted in
22 gathering documents and information, as requested by Home Depot’s counsel in this matter, and
23 provided that information to Home Depot’s counsel so that they could review and utilize that to
24 respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on behalf of Home Depot, truthfully and accurately. Id.
25 ⁋ 5; Decl. Nguyen ⁋ 12. Based on Mrs. Soukup’s privileged communications with Home Depot’s
26 counsel who assisted in preparing these responses, she reviewed the discovery responses and
27 provided the verifications. Decl. Soukup ⁋ 7. Therefore, all of Mrs. Soukup efforts in this matter
28 have been solely in the capacity as the assigned senior litigation specialist, and she has no
8
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 personal knowledge regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit. Id. at ⁋⁋ 6-7. As such, any
2 knowledge she may have is protected under the attorney client work product and communication
3 privilege. See Evidence Code 954; see also Zurich American Ins. Co, 155 Cal.App.4th at 1495.
4 III. DEFENDANT MADE A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THIS
5 MATTER.
6 On December 9, 2021, Defendant’s counsel, Hannah Green, contacted Plaintiff’s counsel,
7 Daniel Azizi, to discuss Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Elizabeth Soukup. Decl. Nguyen ⁋
8 12. On December 13, 2021, Ms. Green also contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, Igor Fradin. Ms. Green
9 expressed to Mr. Azizi and Mr. Fradkin that Mrs. Soukup was merely a corporate representative
10 required to sign Defendant’s written discovery verifications as required under Code of Civil
11 Procedure §§ 2030.250(b), 2031.240(b) and 2033.250(b). Id. Ms. Green further explained that
12 Ms. Soukup had no personal knowledge of the subject incident and that her knowledge was
13 limited to information derived from Home Depot’s counsel’s review of the available information
14 related to the subject incident. Id. at ⁋ 13. However, despite two voicemails, respectively on
15 December 9 and December 13, and courtesy follow-up written correspondence on December 17,
16 Ms. Green received no response.
17 IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS
18 Defendant Home Depot also moves the Court for an order that Plaintiff (and/or his
19 attorney) pay as Sanctions the sum of $1,945.00 as the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred
20 by Defendant for these proceedings. Prior to this motion, Defendant’s counsel made a reasonable
21 and good faith effort to resolve informally the issue presented by repeatedly explaining
22 Defendant’s position via telephone. Decl. Nguyen ⁋ 13. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s counsel was
23 not interested in considering Defendant’s position, and refused to work amicably with Defendant
24 to resolve this issue without court intervention. As addressed in great deal above, Plaintiff’s
25 counsel’s actions were nothing more than gamesmanship, and amount to an abuse of the
26 discovery process. As a result, Defendant has incurred and will incur fees, reasonable costs, and
27 attorney fees for bringing this motion in the amount of $1,945.
28 //
9
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 V. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, Defendant HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. respectfully requests its
3 motion for a protective order directing that the deposition of Elizabeth Soukup not be taken.
4 Additionally, Defendant Home Depot also requests this Court order Plaintiff, and his attorneys, to
5 pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $1,945.
6
DATED: January 7, 2022 Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck, LLP
7

9 Tracy L. Hughes, Esq.
Thanh K. Nguyen, Esq.
10 Attorneys for Defendant,
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
11

28
10
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH (GOWER) SOUKUP
2 I, Elizabeth (Gower) Soukup, declare:
3 1. I am over the age of twenty-one (21), am of sound mind and am duly authorized and
4 qualified to make this declaration. This declaration is given based upon my personal knowledge. If
5 called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify as follows:
6 2. I am employed by Home Depot in Atlanta, Georgia. I am a senior litigation
7 specialist for Home Depot and have been in this role since, August 2012. At all times since my
8 employment with Home Depot, I have worked in the legal department at Home Depot’s corporate
9 headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.
10 3. I am the Home Depot senior litigation specialist assigned to this case, and as such,
11 coordinated efforts to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests.
12 4. All of my efforts in connection with this case have been solely in my capacity as a
13 senior litigation specialist, and as such, I have expected my communications to be protected by
14 the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
15 5. I assisted in gathering documents and information, as requested by Home Depot’s
16 counsel in this matter, and have provided that to Home Depot’s counsel so that they could
17 respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests.
18 6. While I did verify Home Depot’s written discovery responses, I relied on Home
19 Depot’s counsel, to whom I provided documents and information, to review and utilize that
20 information to prepare the responses truthfully and accurately. Based on my communications with
21 Home Depot’s counsel who assisted in preparing the responses, I reviewed Home Depot’s written
22 discovery responses and provided the signed verifications.
23 7. I have no personal knowledge regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit, and my
24 knowledge regarding this lawsuit originates from attorney-client communications and attorney
25 work product investigations.
26 8. Additionally, I reside in Georgia, which is over 150 miles from the judicial venue
27 of the present action.
28 ///
11
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
2 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 7 th day, of January 2022 in Atlanta, Georgia.
3
________________________________________
4 Elizabeth Soukup, Declarant
5

28
12
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 DECLARATION OF THANH NGUYEN
2 I, THANH NGUYEN, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice law in all the courts of the State of
4 California, and am an associate in the law firm of Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck, attorneys
5 of record for Defendant, HOME DEPOT USA, INC. As such, I have personal knowledge of the
6 files and pleadings in this matter, as well as the facts stated below. If called upon as a witness, I
7 could and would competently testify as follows:
8 2. On November 9, 2021, Home Depot Employee, Artemia Heredia, appeared and
9 attended his deposition originally noticed by Downtown L.A. Law Group.
10 3. On September 14, 2021 plaintiff, Rigoberto Anzaldua, appeared and attended his
11 deposition originally noticed by Defendant, Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
12 4. On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff served his first set of written discovery requests on
13 Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. (“Home Depot”) which included Plaintiff’s requests for
14 production of documents, requests for admissions, form interrogatories and special
15 interrogatories.
16 5. On October 13, 2020, Defendant Home Depot served its responses to Plaintiff’s
17 Form Interrogatories (Set Number One). Defendant identified two Home Depot employees,
18 Artemia Heredia and Lisa Chastain, Interrogatories as potential witnesses to the subject incident.
19 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s
20 Form Interrogatories (Set Number One).
21 6. On October 13, 2020, Defendant Home Depot also served its responses to
22 Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set Number One) and to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories
23 (Set Number One). Attached hereto as Exhibit B and C are true and correct copies of
24 verifications for Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set Number One)
25 and Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Number One), respectively.
26 7. On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff served his second set of written discovery
27 requests on Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. (“Home Depot”) which included Plaintiff’s
28 requests for production of documents and requests for admissions.
13
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 8. On December 22, 2020, Home Depot served its responses to all of Plaintiff’s
2 second set of written discovery requests. Attached hereto as Exhibit D and E are true and
3 correct copies of verifications for Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions
4 (Set Number Two) and Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Set Number Two), respectively.
5 9. Nearly one year later, Plaintiff served the Defendant on October 19, 2021 with
6 Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Home Depot’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Request for
7 Documents. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of
8 Deposition for Home Depot USA, Inc. Person Most Knowledgeable and Request for Documents.
9 9. On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff served his Notice of Deposition for the only two
10 Home Depot employees identified by Defendant in its Form Interrogatories as potential witnesses
11 to the subject incident. Attached as Exhibit G and H are true and correct copies of Plaintiff’s
12 Notice of Deposition for Artemia Heredia and Lisa Chastain, respectively.
13 10. On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff also noticed the deposition of the Defendant’s
14 authorized representative, Elizabeth Gower (Soukup). Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct
15 copy of Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Elizabeth Gower (Soukup).
16 11. Defendant served its objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Elizabeth
17 Soukup on December 17, 2021. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s
18 Objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition for Elizabeth Gower (Soukup).
19 12. On December 9, Defendant’s counsel, Hannah Green, contacted Daniel Azizi and
20 left a voicemail detailing that Mrs. Soukup was merely a corporate representative required to sign
21 Defendant’s written discovery verifications as required under Code of Civil Procedure §§
22 2030.250(b), 2031.240(b) and 2033.250(b). Ms. Green explained that Ms. Soukup had no
23 personal knowledge of the subject incident and that her knowledge was limited to information
24 derived from Home Depot’s counsel’s review of the available information related to the subject
25 incident. On December 13, Ms. Green contacted Igor Fradkin and left a voicemail reiterating this
26 information. On December 17, Ms. Green sent follow-up email correspondence to Mr. Azizi and
27 Mr. Fradkin regarding these concerns. However, Ms. Green received no reply. Attached as
28 Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Ms. Green’s correspondence with Plaintiff’s counsel.
14
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
1 13. Plaintiff has deposed the Person Most Knowledgeable and Request for Documents
2 and has noticed the deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable for Loss Prevention, both of
3 whom are not Elizabeth Soukup. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s
4 Notice of Deposition for Home Depot USA, Inc. Person Most Knowledgeable as Loss Prevention
5 and Request for Document Production.
6 14. I have spent 5.3 hours preparing this motion and supporting declarations and
7 attached exhibits. The filing fee is $60 in addition to the service fee for filing, which I anticipate
8 will be approximately $25. I anticipate spending an additional 3 hours to analyze plaintiff’s
9 opposition and to prepare a reply thereto. I also anticipate spending another 1 hour appearing for
10 the motion. My office’s billing rate on this file is $200 x 9.3 = $1,860 + $60 +$25 = $1,945.
11 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
12 Declaration was executed on this 7th day of January 2021, in Irvine, California.
13

16 THANH NGUYEN, Declarant
17

28
15
437160_1.DOC
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH GOWER (SOUKUP)
EXHIBIT “A”
1 Tracy L. Hughes, Esq. (SBN 232283)
Thanh K. Nguyen, Esq. (SBN 194026)
2 Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck, LLP
3 Park Plaza, Suite 1500
3 Irvine, CA 92614-8558
949-864-3400; fax: 949-864-9000
4
Attorneys for Defendant
5 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE – PALM SPRINGS COURTHOUSE

9
RIGOBERTO ANZALDUA, an individual ) Case No. PSC2002300
10 )
Plaintiff, ) Assigned for All Purposes to:
11 ) Judge David M. Chapman
v. ) Dept. PS2
12 )
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware ) DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
13 corporation; KYLE GOODSELL, an ) INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF,
individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, ) RIGOBERTO ANZALDUA’S FORM
14 ) INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
Defendants. )
15 ) Action Date: 6/11/20
) Trial Date: None
16 )
)
17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, RIGOBERTO ANZALDUA
18 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.
19 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
20 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.010, 2030.020, 2030.030, 2030.060 and
21 2030.080, defendant HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. responds to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories,
22 Set One, as follows:
23 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
24 It should be noted that this Responding Party has not fully completed investigation of the
25 facts relating to this case, has not fully completed discovery in this action and has not completed
26 preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based upon such information and
27 documents which are presently available to and specifically known to this Responding Party and
28 disclose only those contentions which presently occur to such Responding Party. It is anticipated
1
404546.1
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply
2 additional facts, add meaning to known facts, as well as establish new factual conclusions and
3 legal contentions, all of which will lead to substantial additions to, changes in and variations from
4 the contentions herein set forth.
5 The following responses are given without prejudice to the Responding Party’s rights to
6 produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts which this Responding Party may later
7 recall. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as
8 additional facts are ascertained, as analyses are made, legal research is completed and contentions
9 are made. The responses contained herein are made in a good
10 faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal
11 contentions as is presently known, but should in no way be prejudicial to the propounding party in
12 relation to further discovery, research, and/or analysis.
13 RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
15 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON
16 who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not
17 identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.)
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
19 Elizabeth Gower, Home Depot Litigation Paralegal, with the assistance of employees and
20 representatives of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., and with the assistance and advice of counsel, upon
21 which she relied.
22 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:
23 Are you a corporation? If so, state:
24 (a) the name stated in the current articles of incorporation;
25 (b) all other names used by the corporation during the past 10 years and the dates each
26 was used;
27 (c) the date and place of incorporation;
28 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and
2
404546.1
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California.
2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.1:
3 Yes.
4 (a) Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
5 (b) The Home Depot.
6 (c) August 8, 1989, Delaware.
7 (d) 2455 Paces Ferry Road, NW, Blvd. C-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30339.
8 (e) Yes.
9 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2:
10 Are you a partnership? If so, state:
11 (a) the current partnership name;
12 (b) all other names used by the partnership during the past 10 years and the dates each
13 was used;
14 (c) whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what
15 jurisdiction;
16 (d) the name and ADDRESS of each general partner; and
17 (e) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.2:
19 No.
20 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3:
21 Are you a limited liability company? If so, state:
22 (a) the name stated in the current articles of organization;
23 (b) all other names used by the company during the past 10 years and the date each
24 was used;
25 (c) the date and place of filing of the articles of organization;
26 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business; and
27 (e) whether you are qualified to do business in California.
28 ///
3
404546.1
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.3:
2 No.
3 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4:
4 Are you a joint venture? If so, state:
5 (a) the current joint venture name;
6 (b) all other names used by the joint venture during the past 10 years and the dates
7 each was used;
8 (c) the name and ADDRESS of each joint venturer; and
9 (d) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.4:
11 No.
12 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 3.5:
13 Are you an unincorporated association? If so, state:
14 (a) the current unincorporated association name;
15 (b) all other names used by the unincorporated association during the past 10 years
16 and the dates each was used; and
17 (c) the ADDRESS of the principal place of business.
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY

Case Info

Judge

Ronald L. Johnson Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 07, 2022

Case Filing Date

February 03, 2020

County

Parties

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

Party Discovery: ANZALDUA vs HOME DEPOT USA INC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties