On October 08, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Acosta, Sandy,
Jetcruzer International, Llc.,
and
Acosta, Sandy,
Does 3 Through 50,
Guzman, Marvin J.,
Zepeda, Ulises A.,
for Fraud
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Féb.25.’2021 11:50AM x, x, No.6277 P. 5M8
‘
F I E D
David M. shabyn, Esq. (978m S%%E@N'$$39g§a32:ck§am"*
dshaby@shabyandassociates.com SAN BERNAWJINO DISTRICT
R. Chnstopher Harshman, Esq. (248214) _
charshman@shabyandassociates.com f-EB 2 5 202]
DAVID M. SHABY II 8c ASSOCIATES, APC
11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104
Culver City, California 90230
Telephone: 827-7171
E310;
Facmmile: 310 822—8529
AttomgisforDefendant and Cross—Complainant Sandy Acosta
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
10 Ietcruzer International, LLC, Case no. CIVDSl930132
11 Plaintiff
Assigned to the Hon. Tom Garza, Dept. 827
REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS T0 COMPEL
12 VS.
FURTHER
13 sandy ACOSta: 5t 4’: Further Declarétion 0f R. Christopher
Harshman; Response to Evidentjary Objections
14 Defendants.
filed concurrently herewith.
15 And Related Cross-Complaint Date; March 3, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
16
Department: 827
17
Complaint filed: October 8, 2019
Trial date: February 7, 2022
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
REPLY IN SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Fe'b.25.2'o21 11:50AM x, V No.6277 P. 6/18
Defendant and Cross-Complainant Sandy Acosta (“Acosta") hereby replies in support of her
Motions to Corhpel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One (“RPD Motion”), Further
Responses to Form Interrogatories — General, Set One ("FRogs Motion”), and Further Responses to
Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs Motion ”), responding to the oppositions filed by plaintiff
Jetcruzer International, LLC (“ Plaintiff”).
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Incomplete Responses (Not Code Compliant)
“ request” as sufficient, and
Plaintiff contends its will produce documents responsive to this
goes on to make incorrect assumptions about Ms. Acosta. (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s
10 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production] (“RPD Opp. ”), 4:5—16. This ignores
11 what Ms. Acosta established in her moving papers: The Plaintiff’s responses are not code compliant.
12 The Plaintiff is required to “state that the production demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in
13 part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or
”
14 control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included inv the production. (RPD
15 Motion 5:26-625, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.) A statement that the Plaintiff will produce
16 documents, without specifying if all documents are being produced or just some, is simply not made in
17 compliance with the Civil Discovery Act.
18 Inappropriate Objections
19 Next, the Plaintiff’s objections are not appropriate. They are the sort of non-difl'erentiated,
20 boilerplate, copied-andpasted objections courts pr0perly deem “nuisance” objections. Had the Plaintiff
'
21 provided responses compliant with section 2031.220 of the Civil Discovery Act (supra), verified under
“ ‘in
22 penalty of perjury (which, of course, Plaintiff‘s counsel’s statements meet and confer’
23 correspondence” (RPD Opp. 4:23), are not), the analysis might be different. Ms. Acosta finds it difficult
24 t0 believe that n0 other documents exist that are being withheld, responsive to forty (40) requests for
25 production, and finds it more likely Plaintiff is relying on its own opinion regarding what’s relevafit and
26 producing only a very limited, narrow in scope, selection of documents it wishes to produce. No.
27
1
The footer of this document incorrectly identifies it as “Plaintiff’s Opposition t0 Motion to Compel —
28 ”
Requests for Admissions.
2
REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Document Filed Date
February 25, 2021
Case Filing Date
October 08, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Féb.25.’2021 11:50AM x, x, No.6277 P. 5M8 ‘ F I E D David M. shabyn, Esq. (978m S%%E@N'$$39g§a32:ck§am"* dshaby@shabyandassociates.com SAN BERNAWJINO DISTRICT R. Chnstopher Harshman, Esq. (248214) _ charshman@shabyandassociates.com f-EB 2 5 202] DAVID M. SHABY II 8c ASSOCIATES, APC 11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104 Culver City, California 90230 Telephone: 827-7171 E310; Facmmile: 310 822—8529 AttomgisforDefendant and Cross—Complainant Sandy Acosta SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 10 Ietcruzer International, LLC, Case no. CIVDSl930132 11 Plaintiff Assigned to the Hon. Tom Garza, Dept. 827 REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS T0 COMPEL 12 VS. FURTHER 13 sandy ACOSta: 5t 4’: Further Declarétion 0f R. Christopher Harshman; Response to Evidentjary Objections 14 Defendants. filed concurrently herewith. 15 And Related Cross-Complaint Date; March 3, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. 16 Department: 827 17 Complaint filed: October 8, 2019 Trial date: February 7, 2022 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Fe'b.25.2'o21 11:50AM x, V No.6277 P. 6/18 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Sandy Acosta (“Acosta") hereby replies in support of her Motions to Corhpel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One (“RPD Motion”), Further Responses to Form Interrogatories — General, Set One ("FRogs Motion”), and Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs Motion ”), responding to the oppositions filed by plaintiff Jetcruzer International, LLC (“ Plaintiff”). REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Incomplete Responses (Not Code Compliant) “ request” as sufficient, and Plaintiff contends its will produce documents responsive to this goes on to make incorrect assumptions about Ms. Acosta. (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s 10 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production] (“RPD Opp. ”), 4:5—16. This ignores 11 what Ms. Acosta established in her moving papers: The Plaintiff’s responses are not code compliant. 12 The Plaintiff is required to “state that the production demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in 13 part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or ” 14 control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included inv the production. (RPD 15 Motion 5:26-625, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220.) A statement that the Plaintiff will produce 16 documents, without specifying if all documents are being produced or just some, is simply not made in 17 compliance with the Civil Discovery Act. 18 Inappropriate Objections 19 Next, the Plaintiff’s objections are not appropriate. They are the sort of non-difl'erentiated, 20 boilerplate, copied-andpasted objections courts pr0perly deem “nuisance” objections. Had the Plaintiff ' 21 provided responses compliant with section 2031.220 of the Civil Discovery Act (supra), verified under “ ‘in 22 penalty of perjury (which, of course, Plaintiff‘s counsel’s statements meet and confer’ 23 correspondence” (RPD Opp. 4:23), are not), the analysis might be different. Ms. Acosta finds it difficult 24 t0 believe that n0 other documents exist that are being withheld, responsive to forty (40) requests for 25 production, and finds it more likely Plaintiff is relying on its own opinion regarding what’s relevafit and 26 producing only a very limited, narrow in scope, selection of documents it wishes to produce. No. 27 1 The footer of this document incorrectly identifies it as “Plaintiff’s Opposition t0 Motion to Compel — 28 ” Requests for Admissions. 2 REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTIONS To COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES