Preview
\r
WWWNEL
F l L E D
Kevin SBN 170274
Wattles, Esq.
s.
'
$3335 8:93” OF CAL'FORN'A
SBN 172310
Steven s. Nimoy, Esq. _ SAN BERNARgTNB§g§g§F$0
‘
WNH SOLTMAN, LEVITT, FLAHERTY & WATTLES LLP
9O E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 300 JUN 2 6 2023
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Telephone: (805) 497-7706 I
Facsimile: (805)497-1147 _
5Y5 ergio Villanueva,
DepEtT/
Attorneys for Defendant,
ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
ll MIGUEL GOMEZ, an individual, CASE NO: CIVSB2208957
12 Complaint filed: April 29, 2022
Plaintiff,
l3 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS
l4 VS. MANAGEMENT INC.’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER. RESPONSES TO
15 INTERROGATORIES
ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC., a Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
l6 California Corporation; HANKOOK TIRE [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Motion and
AMERICA CORPORATION, a Tennessee Motion to Compel Further Responses and
17 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Declaration 0f Steven S. Nimoy, Esq.]
inclusive,
18 Date: August 9, 2023
Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
l9 Dept: 826
20
21
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22
Defendant ILink Business Management, Inc. (“ILink”) hereby submits its separate statement ofitems
23 I
in dispute regarding Plaintiff Miguel Gomez’s responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One and
24
Form Interrogatories — General, as follows:
25
FORM INTERROGATORY 6.4:
26
Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of
27
Civil Procedure sections 2034.210—2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTHCARE PROVIDER for any
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.’S MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
1
H:\PZl-2080\Discovery\Moti0ns to Compel Further Responses\MTC ~ Separate Statement [Rev].wpd
injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;
(b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
© the dates you received consultation, examination, or treatment, and
(d) the changes to date.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 6.4:
Objection. Use 0f the term “INCIDENT” with regard t0 this litigation renders this question vague,
ambiguous and impossible t0 know what specifically is being asked. The complaint in this matter alleges
many potential liability-creating events over a significant period of time that may or may not be an
10 “INCIDENT” as that term is vaguely defined in these general application form interrogatories. Without
11 waiving this objection, and in light of such objection, the responding party responds as follows: Yes I did
12 and In lieu of responding fully to this request by preparing a compilation, audit or summary ofor from the
13 documents, I will produce all non privileged documents responsive t0 this category that are in my custody
14 and/or control that are responsive to this question. In accordance with CiVi-l Code of Procedure Section
15 2030.23 0, please see documents produced ih response to Defendant’ s Request for Production ofDo cuments
l6 Propounded to Plaintiff, Set One.
l7 REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE
18 Code of Civ. Proc.§ 2030.210(a) provides only three options for a party in responding to
l9 interrogatories: (1) an answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) an exercise 0f the
'20 party's option t0 produce writings, or an objection to the particular interrogatory. Code 0f Civ. Proc. §
(3)
21 2030.210(a) (emphasis added). Relatedly, Code of Civ. Proc.§ 2030.220 requires complete and
22 straightforward respons es, requiring that each answer be “as complete and straightforward as the information
23 reasonably available to the responding party permits” and that if an answer cannot be answered completely,
24 it be answered to the extent possible. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.220.
25 In response to interrogatory 6.2, Plaintiffclaims to have suffered fiom fi'ustration, loss ofconfidence,
26 nervousness, humiliation, embarrassment, depression and anxiety. In response to 6.4, Plaintiff states that
27 he did receive treatment or consultation from a health care provider and states that in lieu ofresponding to
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.’S MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
2
H:\P21-2080\Discovery\Motions to Compel Further Responses\MTC - Separate Statement [Rev] .wpd
Preview
\r WWWNEL F l L E D Kevin SBN 170274 Wattles, Esq. s. ' $3335 8:93” OF CAL'FORN'A SBN 172310 Steven s. Nimoy, Esq. _ SAN BERNARgTNB§g§g§F$0 ‘ WNH SOLTMAN, LEVITT, FLAHERTY & WATTLES LLP 9O E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 300 JUN 2 6 2023 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Telephone: (805) 497-7706 I Facsimile: (805)497-1147 _ 5Y5 ergio Villanueva, DepEtT/ Attorneys for Defendant, ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 ll MIGUEL GOMEZ, an individual, CASE NO: CIVSB2208957 12 Complaint filed: April 29, 2022 Plaintiff, l3 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS l4 VS. MANAGEMENT INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER. RESPONSES TO 15 INTERROGATORIES ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC., a Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv l6 California Corporation; HANKOOK TIRE [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Motion and AMERICA CORPORATION, a Tennessee Motion to Compel Further Responses and 17 Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Declaration 0f Steven S. Nimoy, Esq.] inclusive, 18 Date: August 9, 2023 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. l9 Dept: 826 20 21 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 Defendant ILink Business Management, Inc. (“ILink”) hereby submits its separate statement ofitems 23 I in dispute regarding Plaintiff Miguel Gomez’s responses to Form Interrogatories-Employment, Set One and 24 Form Interrogatories — General, as follows: 25 FORM INTERROGATORY 6.4: 26 Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of 27 Civil Procedure sections 2034.210—2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTHCARE PROVIDER for any 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1 H:\PZl-2080\Discovery\Moti0ns to Compel Further Responses\MTC ~ Separate Statement [Rev].wpd injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; © the dates you received consultation, examination, or treatment, and (d) the changes to date. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 6.4: Objection. Use 0f the term “INCIDENT” with regard t0 this litigation renders this question vague, ambiguous and impossible t0 know what specifically is being asked. The complaint in this matter alleges many potential liability-creating events over a significant period of time that may or may not be an 10 “INCIDENT” as that term is vaguely defined in these general application form interrogatories. Without 11 waiving this objection, and in light of such objection, the responding party responds as follows: Yes I did 12 and In lieu of responding fully to this request by preparing a compilation, audit or summary ofor from the 13 documents, I will produce all non privileged documents responsive t0 this category that are in my custody 14 and/or control that are responsive to this question. In accordance with CiVi-l Code of Procedure Section 15 2030.23 0, please see documents produced ih response to Defendant’ s Request for Production ofDo cuments l6 Propounded to Plaintiff, Set One. l7 REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE 18 Code of Civ. Proc.§ 2030.210(a) provides only three options for a party in responding to l9 interrogatories: (1) an answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) an exercise 0f the '20 party's option t0 produce writings, or an objection to the particular interrogatory. Code 0f Civ. Proc. § (3) 21 2030.210(a) (emphasis added). Relatedly, Code of Civ. Proc.§ 2030.220 requires complete and 22 straightforward respons es, requiring that each answer be “as complete and straightforward as the information 23 reasonably available to the responding party permits” and that if an answer cannot be answered completely, 24 it be answered to the extent possible. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.220. 25 In response to interrogatory 6.2, Plaintiffclaims to have suffered fiom fi'ustration, loss ofconfidence, 26 nervousness, humiliation, embarrassment, depression and anxiety. In response to 6.4, Plaintiff states that 27 he did receive treatment or consultation from a health care provider and states that in lieu ofresponding to 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ILINK BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2 H:\P21-2080\Discovery\Motions to Compel Further Responses\MTC - Separate Statement [Rev] .wpd