Preview
y ORIGINAL V
Angelica Acosta Samaniego, SBN 235423
VARNER & BRANDT LLP __
Mm 5; :-
;_, '51
j
3750 University Avenue, Suite 61 0 5"“9‘03‘ COW‘I'OE CH
. . . .
COUNTY 0F SAN BERN»
RlverSIde, Cahforma 92501 SAN BERNARDWO DIS
Telephone: (951) 274—7777 .
Mn
Facsimile: (951)274-7770 S‘
§ 5553
z-
FEB £9 “a
>
Attorneys for Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant L ~{Aé’2gim‘g [IdJ ,
JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. AND CLEM: g-v. TFJC
W..-‘ ;__,
.
FARRAR AEROSPACE, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GSTH
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11
JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. Case N0.: CIVDSI930132
12
Assigned for all purposes t0: A8
Plaintiffs, Hon. Thomas S. Garza
Dept. $27
13 V.
XVd
14 SANDY ACOSTA, an individual and TO
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
DBA CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS & DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
15
PAINT and CHINO AIRCRAFT FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
INTERIORS / CAI, and DOES 1 through FOR ADMISSIONS
16
50, inclusive,
17 Complaint Filed: October 2019 8,
AND RELATED CROSS'ACTIONS Cross—Complaint Filed: December 13, 2019
18 Trial: February 7, 2022
19
20 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“PLAINTIFF’ or
21 “JC”) who hereby provides its Opposition t0 Defendant’s Motion t0 Compel Further Responses t0
22 Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions as follows:
23 I. INTRODUCTION
24 This discovery dispute ostensibly arises as a result ofJC’s responses t0 Defendant’s written
25 discovery served on it by Plaintiff. Ultimately, the dispute between the parties involves Set One 0f
26 Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions. T0 say that the
27 process has been acrimonious would be an understatement. This opposition will address just the
28 Requests for Admissions, and the other discovery matters will be addressed in separate oppositions.
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL — REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
discussion of the
For purposes of understanding the entirety 0f the situation, a brief
discovery history is justified. While this dispute is ostensibly about Plaintiff’s responses, t0 the
in truth the dispute between the parties goes
first set of discovery demands served by Defendant,
JC’s first sets of
much deeper. Prior t0 the first Covid-19 shutdowns in March, 2020, responses t0
written discovery were pending. Defendant failed to serve responses (which were due April 13,
Telephone calls were made
2020), and attempts to contact opposing counsel were unsuccessful.
Plaintiff did not rush t0 file
and not returned, and correspondence was sent but was unanswered.
\OOO\]O\
motions, but waited nearly two full months before finally filing motions to compel responses on
June 1, 2020. Still n0 word was received from the opposing counsel, until Defendant served papers
10 in opposition to the motions on July 10, 2020.
11 A phone call, letter, 0r a simple email would have sufficed to advise Plaintiff’ s counsel that
12 time was needed, and Plaintiff would have been happy to oblige Defendant in light of the unusual
circumstances resulting from the pandemic. Instead, Plaintiff was forced, by
Defendant’s lack of
13
communication, to g0 to the expense 0f preparing and filing motions to compel. In light of the
14
15 expense put forth by Plaintiff, it was not possible to waive sanctions against Defendant at the
the
16 hearing. Subsequently, sanctions (significantly less than Plaintiff’s expenses in bringing
17 motions) were imposed by the court.
18 Defense counsel has sought to use those sanctions as leverage when Plaintiff has made
19 requests for accommodation due to illness, or difficulty in obtaining information, and has 0n at least
20 two occasions angrily advised Plaintiff’s counsel that they should have thought before having
Defense counsel has verbally accosted Plaintiff’s counsel’s
21 sanctions imposed 0n the Defense.
22 administrative staff, referring to them as incompetent and unintelligent, not t0 mention a general
23 lack 0f civility when addressing issues on which there is disagreement.
24 The greater issue with such conduct, beyond it being inappropriate, is that it reveals what
reveals
25 appears t0 be the true intent and motivation 0f Defendant in bringing the present motions. It
26 that the true motive is t0 “get even,” and extract a “pound 0f flesh” from Plaintiff. Further leading
27 Plaintiff to this conclusion is the fact that, other than a few points raised by Defendant, which
28 Plaintiff has conceded (because they were reasonable), the bulk ofDefendant’s contentions relating
2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL — REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Preview
y ORIGINAL V Angelica Acosta Samaniego, SBN 235423 VARNER & BRANDT LLP __ Mm 5; :- ;_, '51 j 3750 University Avenue, Suite 61 0 5"“9‘03‘ COW‘I'OE CH . . . . COUNTY 0F SAN BERN» RlverSIde, Cahforma 92501 SAN BERNARDWO DIS Telephone: (951) 274—7777 . Mn Facsimile: (951)274-7770 S‘ § 5553 z- FEB £9 “a > Attorneys for Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant L ~{Aé’2gim‘g [IdJ , JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. AND CLEM: g-v. TFJC W..-‘ ;__, . FARRAR AEROSPACE, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GSTH FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC. Case N0.: CIVDSI930132 12 Assigned for all purposes t0: A8 Plaintiffs, Hon. Thomas S. Garza Dept. $27 13 V. XVd 14 SANDY ACOSTA, an individual and TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION DBA CHINO AIRCRAFT INTERIORS & DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 15 PAINT and CHINO AIRCRAFT FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS INTERIORS / CAI, and DOES 1 through FOR ADMISSIONS 16 50, inclusive, 17 Complaint Filed: October 2019 8, AND RELATED CROSS'ACTIONS Cross—Complaint Filed: December 13, 2019 18 Trial: February 7, 2022 19 20 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JETCRUZER INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“PLAINTIFF’ or 21 “JC”) who hereby provides its Opposition t0 Defendant’s Motion t0 Compel Further Responses t0 22 Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions as follows: 23 I. INTRODUCTION 24 This discovery dispute ostensibly arises as a result ofJC’s responses t0 Defendant’s written 25 discovery served on it by Plaintiff. Ultimately, the dispute between the parties involves Set One 0f 26 Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions. T0 say that the 27 process has been acrimonious would be an understatement. This opposition will address just the 28 Requests for Admissions, and the other discovery matters will be addressed in separate oppositions. 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL — REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS discussion of the For purposes of understanding the entirety 0f the situation, a brief discovery history is justified. While this dispute is ostensibly about Plaintiff’s responses, t0 the in truth the dispute between the parties goes first set of discovery demands served by Defendant, JC’s first sets of much deeper. Prior t0 the first Covid-19 shutdowns in March, 2020, responses t0 written discovery were pending. Defendant failed to serve responses (which were due April 13, Telephone calls were made 2020), and attempts to contact opposing counsel were unsuccessful. Plaintiff did not rush t0 file and not returned, and correspondence was sent but was unanswered. \OOO\]O\ motions, but waited nearly two full months before finally filing motions to compel responses on June 1, 2020. Still n0 word was received from the opposing counsel, until Defendant served papers 10 in opposition to the motions on July 10, 2020. 11 A phone call, letter, 0r a simple email would have sufficed to advise Plaintiff’ s counsel that 12 time was needed, and Plaintiff would have been happy to oblige Defendant in light of the unusual circumstances resulting from the pandemic. Instead, Plaintiff was forced, by Defendant’s lack of 13 communication, to g0 to the expense 0f preparing and filing motions to compel. In light of the 14 15 expense put forth by Plaintiff, it was not possible to waive sanctions against Defendant at the the 16 hearing. Subsequently, sanctions (significantly less than Plaintiff’s expenses in bringing 17 motions) were imposed by the court. 18 Defense counsel has sought to use those sanctions as leverage when Plaintiff has made 19 requests for accommodation due to illness, or difficulty in obtaining information, and has 0n at least 20 two occasions angrily advised Plaintiff’s counsel that they should have thought before having Defense counsel has verbally accosted Plaintiff’s counsel’s 21 sanctions imposed 0n the Defense. 22 administrative staff, referring to them as incompetent and unintelligent, not t0 mention a general 23 lack 0f civility when addressing issues on which there is disagreement. 24 The greater issue with such conduct, beyond it being inappropriate, is that it reveals what reveals 25 appears t0 be the true intent and motivation 0f Defendant in bringing the present motions. It 26 that the true motive is t0 “get even,” and extract a “pound 0f flesh” from Plaintiff. Further leading 27 Plaintiff to this conclusion is the fact that, other than a few points raised by Defendant, which 28 Plaintiff has conceded (because they were reasonable), the bulk ofDefendant’s contentions relating 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL — REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS