On April 04, 2022 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Miranda, Lizbeth,
and
Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation,
Burlington Distribution Corp,
Does 1 Through 25,
Gonzales, Rosie,
Gonzalez, Rosa,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\z
MARCELO A. DIEGUEZ, ESQ. (SBN: 221951)
OMRI A. BEN-ARI, ESQ. (SBN: 291517)
MELISSA NEWMAN AVILA, ESQ. (SBN: 286487)
DIEFER LAW GROUP, P.C.
34204 Pacific Coast Highway F I L.
Dana Point, California 92629 supemoa coumEaFQ/‘LIFORNIA
Telephone: (949) 260-9131
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNAHDINO
SAN BERNAnmNo DIBTHICT
Facsimile: (949) 691-3235
Email: 1itigation@dicferlaw.com
AUG 09 2022
Atlameysfor PlaintiffLizbeth Miranda
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ll
12
LIZBETH MIRANDA, an individual,
l3 CASE NO.: CIVSB2207378
PLAINTIFF,
14
VS. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
15 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
l6 DIRECT CORPORATION dba FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
l7 WAREHOUSE, a New Jcrscy Corporation;
ROSIE GONZALES, an individual; and [Filed concurrently with Declaration 0f Omri A.
l8 DOES 1 through 25, inclusive Bcn—Ari; and [Proposed] Order]
l9 DEFENDANTS. Judge: Hon. Wilfred J Schneider, Jr.
Dept: S32
20 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_l_
DIEFIER LAW
GROUP, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SEPARATE STATEMENT
\y V
SEPARATE STATEMENT
Plaintiff LIZBETH MIRANDA (“Plaintiff”) hcrcby submits this Separate Statement in
support of his Motion to Compcl Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 1—13, and
awarding sanctions for $ 1 ,860.00 against DEFENDANT BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY
DIRECT CORPORATION dba BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE and its
attorneys, pursuant t0 California Rules of Court, Rulc 3.1345(a). Thc following are thc text 0fthc
relevant discovery request, thc text of each objection, and a statement of the factual and legal
reasons for compelling further, actual responses as to cach matter in dispute.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
11 All DOCUMENTS REFERRING or RELATING to all Arbitration agreements YOU
12 allege PLAINTIFF signed.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
l4 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the term “YOU” as defined by
15 Plaintiff is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and objectionable to the extent that the
l6 Request seeks the production 0f documents in the possession of Defendant’s attorneys and/or
l7 documents that arc in the possession, custody, or control of other defendant or its attorneys.
18 Defendant further obj ccts to this Request on the grounds that the phrase “REFERRING or
l9 RELATING to” as defined by Plaintiff is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and
20 objectionable as improperly encompassing attomey-Clicnt privileged and/or attorney work
21 product protected documents. Defendant obj ects to this Request on the grounds that thc Request
22 is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and unduly burdensome in seeking all documents
23 “REFERRING 0r RELATING to all Arbitration agreements.” Defendant objects on thc grounds
24 that the Request is improper as arbitration is the proper forum.
25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1
Defendant obj ccts to this Request 0n the grounds that thc term “YOU” as defined by
26
Plaintiff is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and objectionable to the extent that thc
27
Request seeks the production of documents in the possession 0f Defendant’s attorneys and/or
28
-2-
DIEFER LAW
GROUP. P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SEPARATE STATEMENT
Document Filed Date
August 09, 2022
Case Filing Date
April 04, 2022
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\z MARCELO A. DIEGUEZ, ESQ. (SBN: 221951) OMRI A. BEN-ARI, ESQ. (SBN: 291517) MELISSA NEWMAN AVILA, ESQ. (SBN: 286487) DIEFER LAW GROUP, P.C. 34204 Pacific Coast Highway F I L. Dana Point, California 92629 supemoa coumEaFQ/‘LIFORNIA Telephone: (949) 260-9131 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNAHDINO SAN BERNAnmNo DIBTHICT Facsimile: (949) 691-3235 Email: 1itigation@dicferlaw.com AUG 09 2022 Atlameysfor PlaintiffLizbeth Miranda SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ll 12 LIZBETH MIRANDA, an individual, l3 CASE NO.: CIVSB2207378 PLAINTIFF, 14 VS. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN 15 SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS l6 DIRECT CORPORATION dba FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS l7 WAREHOUSE, a New Jcrscy Corporation; ROSIE GONZALES, an individual; and [Filed concurrently with Declaration 0f Omri A. l8 DOES 1 through 25, inclusive Bcn—Ari; and [Proposed] Order] l9 DEFENDANTS. Judge: Hon. Wilfred J Schneider, Jr. Dept: S32 20 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _l_ DIEFIER LAW GROUP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SEPARATE STATEMENT \y V SEPARATE STATEMENT Plaintiff LIZBETH MIRANDA (“Plaintiff”) hcrcby submits this Separate Statement in support of his Motion to Compcl Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 1—13, and awarding sanctions for $ 1 ,860.00 against DEFENDANT BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY DIRECT CORPORATION dba BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE and its attorneys, pursuant t0 California Rules of Court, Rulc 3.1345(a). Thc following are thc text 0fthc relevant discovery request, thc text of each objection, and a statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further, actual responses as to cach matter in dispute. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 11 All DOCUMENTS REFERRING or RELATING to all Arbitration agreements YOU 12 allege PLAINTIFF signed. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: l4 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the term “YOU” as defined by 15 Plaintiff is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and objectionable to the extent that the l6 Request seeks the production 0f documents in the possession of Defendant’s attorneys and/or l7 documents that arc in the possession, custody, or control of other defendant or its attorneys. 18 Defendant further obj ccts to this Request on the grounds that the phrase “REFERRING or l9 RELATING to” as defined by Plaintiff is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and 20 objectionable as improperly encompassing attomey-Clicnt privileged and/or attorney work 21 product protected documents. Defendant obj ects to this Request on the grounds that thc Request 22 is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and unduly burdensome in seeking all documents 23 “REFERRING 0r RELATING to all Arbitration agreements.” Defendant objects on thc grounds 24 that the Request is improper as arbitration is the proper forum. 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 Defendant obj ccts to this Request 0n the grounds that thc term “YOU” as defined by 26 Plaintiff is vague and ambiguous and overly broad and objectionable to the extent that thc 27 Request seeks the production of documents in the possession 0f Defendant’s attorneys and/or 28 -2- DIEFER LAW GROUP. P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SEPARATE STATEMENT