Preview
KERMANI LLP
Ramin Kermani-Nejad (SBN 268070) F I L E D
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Mohamad Ahmad (SBN 27591 1) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Afnan Shukry (SBN 330522) SAN BERNARDINO O’STRICT
2719 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 250
MAY 1 5 2023
Santa Monica, CA 90403
T: (424) 253.4254 I
F: (888) 959.8749
BY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, PATVY STROH. DEPUTY
\DOOQONUI-h
BEATRIZ ALVAREZ, YOLANDA LAMAS,
A.R. by and through her guardian ad litem EUGENIA ALVAREZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
BEATRIZ ALVAREZ, YOLANDA LAMAS, CASE NO. CIVSB2129650
11 and A.R. by and through her guardian ad litem
EUGENIA ALVAREZ, PLAINTIFFS BEATRIZ ALVAREZ’S,
12 YOLANDA LAMAS’, and A.R.’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff,
13 HUMBERTO PARRA AND DAY-LEE FOOD,
INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’
14 V.
FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
15 HUMBERTO PARRA, DAY-LEE FOODS INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND
INC.., and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
16 AGAINST LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,200;
Defendants.
17 DECLARATION OF JASON R. DOUCETTE
18
DATE: May 25, 2023
19 TIME: 8:30AM
DEPT; $29
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -1-
28 PLAINTIFFS BEATRIZ ALVAREZ’S, YOLANDA LAMAS’, and A.R.’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS HUMBERTO PARRA AND DAY-LEE FOOD, INC.’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE
UIAUJN
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants’ Motions are in direct response to Plaintiffs’ request for trial preference. While
defense counsel will undoubtedly deny this, his words speak for themselves. In his meet and confer,
©0040
subsequent correspondence, and these Motions, he frequently cites in obvious disdain that
Plaintiffs
obtained an order for trial preference. Such an order, however, Plaintiffs’ right. It certainly
is does
not give license to Defendant to dump frivolous discovery and file unnecessary motions. It also does
11 not make amending discovery responses any less time consuming. While Defendant will claim he
12 needed to file these Motions when he did, the facts prove otherwise. To begin, Plaintiffs’ responses
13 were already in substantial compliance. Defendant’s insistent on further responses ignores the actual
14 responses and the law. Additionally, Defendant failed to make a good faith effort at informal
15 resolution. Defense counsel also only provided Plaintiffs seven (7) to amend their responses. When
16 requested, he refused to provide any additional time at time. Funher, this Motion was not due until
17 May 3rd, 2023. By that time, Defendant already had amended responses which even complied with
18 Defendants’ hyper technical interpretation 0f the Code. A party cannot claim (at least credibly) that
19 it needed court intervention when it obtained what it wanted long before it ever could have by court
20 intervention.
21 To compound the matter, the same day Plaintiff‘s counsel is filing this Opposition, he is
22 finishing 291 additional discovery requests, because Defendant refuses to provide more than a one-
23 week discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel could have easily obtained a protective order for the discovery
24 abuse. He, however, always seeks to cooperate with opposing counsel and avoid wasting
precious
25 courtroom time. Unfortunately, on this case, he is appears to be the only one who does not want t0
26
27 -2-
28 PLAINTIFFS BEATRIZ ALVAREZ’S, YOLANDA LAMAS’, and A.R.’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS HUMBERTO PARRA AND DAY-LEE FOOD, INC.’S MOTION T0
COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE
Preview
KERMANI LLP Ramin Kermani-Nejad (SBN 268070) F I L E D SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Mohamad Ahmad (SBN 27591 1) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Afnan Shukry (SBN 330522) SAN BERNARDINO O’STRICT 2719 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 250 MAY 1 5 2023 Santa Monica, CA 90403 T: (424) 253.4254 I F: (888) 959.8749 BY Attorneys for Plaintiffs, PATVY STROH. DEPUTY \DOOQONUI-h BEATRIZ ALVAREZ, YOLANDA LAMAS, A.R. by and through her guardian ad litem EUGENIA ALVAREZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BEATRIZ ALVAREZ, YOLANDA LAMAS, CASE NO. CIVSB2129650 11 and A.R. by and through her guardian ad litem EUGENIA ALVAREZ, PLAINTIFFS BEATRIZ ALVAREZ’S, 12 YOLANDA LAMAS’, and A.R.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, 13 HUMBERTO PARRA AND DAY-LEE FOOD, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ 14 V. FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 15 HUMBERTO PARRA, DAY-LEE FOODS INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND INC.., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 16 AGAINST LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,200; Defendants. 17 DECLARATION OF JASON R. DOUCETTE 18 DATE: May 25, 2023 19 TIME: 8:30AM DEPT; $29 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -1- 28 PLAINTIFFS BEATRIZ ALVAREZ’S, YOLANDA LAMAS’, and A.R.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS HUMBERTO PARRA AND DAY-LEE FOOD, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE UIAUJN MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendants’ Motions are in direct response to Plaintiffs’ request for trial preference. While defense counsel will undoubtedly deny this, his words speak for themselves. In his meet and confer, ©0040 subsequent correspondence, and these Motions, he frequently cites in obvious disdain that Plaintiffs obtained an order for trial preference. Such an order, however, Plaintiffs’ right. It certainly is does not give license to Defendant to dump frivolous discovery and file unnecessary motions. It also does 11 not make amending discovery responses any less time consuming. While Defendant will claim he 12 needed to file these Motions when he did, the facts prove otherwise. To begin, Plaintiffs’ responses 13 were already in substantial compliance. Defendant’s insistent on further responses ignores the actual 14 responses and the law. Additionally, Defendant failed to make a good faith effort at informal 15 resolution. Defense counsel also only provided Plaintiffs seven (7) to amend their responses. When 16 requested, he refused to provide any additional time at time. Funher, this Motion was not due until 17 May 3rd, 2023. By that time, Defendant already had amended responses which even complied with 18 Defendants’ hyper technical interpretation 0f the Code. A party cannot claim (at least credibly) that 19 it needed court intervention when it obtained what it wanted long before it ever could have by court 20 intervention. 21 To compound the matter, the same day Plaintiff‘s counsel is filing this Opposition, he is 22 finishing 291 additional discovery requests, because Defendant refuses to provide more than a one- 23 week discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel could have easily obtained a protective order for the discovery 24 abuse. He, however, always seeks to cooperate with opposing counsel and avoid wasting precious 25 courtroom time. Unfortunately, on this case, he is appears to be the only one who does not want t0 26 27 -2- 28 PLAINTIFFS BEATRIZ ALVAREZ’S, YOLANDA LAMAS’, and A.R.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS HUMBERTO PARRA AND DAY-LEE FOOD, INC.’S MOTION T0 COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE