Preview
To: 19097088586 From: 18186962307 Date: 12/22/21 Time: 11:15 PM Page: 58/86
V \u
F I LE D
supemoa COURT
COUNW 0F SAN BERNARDINO
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC SAN BERNAnovNo DISTRICT
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq‘ Bar No.1 278622
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Bar No.: 310625 DEC 22 2021
Melissa R. Robinson, Esq. Bar No.1 336951
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
BY
Glendale, California 91203 DEPUTY
Kaliska Monticue
Telephone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-918-696-2307
Attorneys fin“ PLAINTIFFS
OOQG‘JI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
KENYA BRINSON, an individual; KENYA Case N0. CIVD82017097
\O BRINSON, on behalf 0f LENNOX M., a [Assignedfor all purpo sex t0 the Honorable Johr
minor individual A4 Tombei Zz'n Dept S3-3]
10
Plaintiffs, PLAINTlFF KENYA BRINSON, 0N
11
BEHALF 0F LENNOX st, A MINOR
V. INDIVIDUAL, SEPARATE STATEMENT
12 IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES T0
13 SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F
CORP, a California corporation, dba Nova DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) T0
14 Points Apartments; and DOES 1 through 50, DEFENDANT SOCAL PACIFIC MF
Inclusive, MANAGEMENT CORP AND REQUEST
.15
FOR MONETARY SANC'I'IONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANT SOCAL PACIFIC MF
16
MANAGEMENT CORP AND ITS
COUNSEL, GORDON REES SCULLY
17
MANSUKHANI, LLP, 1N THE AMOUNT
0F $1,935.00
18
FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH PLAINTIFF KENYA
19 BRINSON, 0N BEHZ4 LF OF LENNOX M. ’S, A
MINOR INDI VJ D UA L, MO TION T0 (:;'(:)MPEL
20 FUR THER RESP ONSES T0 REQ UESTS FOR
PR 0D UCTION 0F DOCWENTSL, SET ONE, T0
21 DEFENDANT SO CAL PA CIFIC MF MqNA GEMENT
CORP AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
22 A GAINST DEFENDANT A ND ITS CO UNSEL GORDON
REES SC ULLYMANSUKH4NI, LLP; DECLARA TION
23 0F HAIG B. KAZANDJMN. ESQ. & [PROPOSED]
ORDER]
24
Complaint Filed: August 24, 2020
Trial Date. October 25 2021
25
Hearing Date: March 9, 2022
26
Time: 9:00 am.
Dept: S33
27
///
28
1
PLAINTIFF LENNOX M. SEPARATE STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT OF PLAINTiFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
’
s
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUIVEENTS (SET ONE) TO DEFENDANT
TO: 19097088586 From: 18186962307 Date: 12/22/21 Time: 11:15 PM Page: 59/86
V \a
Pursuant t0 California Ruies ofCourt Rule 3.1345(a), PlaintiffKEN YA BRINSON, ON
BEHALF OF LENNOX M.’s, A MINOR INDIVIDUAL,hereby submits her separate statement
in support of her Motion t0 Compel Defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT
CORP’S fixrther responses to Plaintiff‘s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request
‘J‘I
Nos. 1-5 and 7—30.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
ANY and all DOCUMENTS that evidence ANY repair WORK at the SUBJECT
\OOOVO
PROPERTY at any time over the last ten (10) years.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
10 Responding Party objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly
11 burdensome, and oppressive. Without waiving, and subject t0, said objections, and according t0
12 its understanding 0f the request, Responding Party responds as follows:
13 Responding Party will produce all non-privileged documents in its possession, custody,
14 and control that are responsive to this request. Please see SOCALOOOI 1—00021; SOCALOOOZ4~
15 00035.
16 REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 REQUEST N0. 1:
17 The party who fails t0 serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand,
18 including one based 0n privilege 0r 0n the protection for work product under Chapter 4
5
19 (commencing with Section 2018.0 10).” CCP. 5*. 203 1.300(a). This request was duly sewed
20 upon Defendant 0n Fcbruaxy 10, 2021, and after more than five (5) months 0f extensions,
21 Defendant untimely sent Plaintiff its Discovery responses, on September 17, 2021, although
22 deficient and with objections included, despite numerous prior emails from Plaintiff stating that
23 Defendant had waived its objections because its responses were untimely.
24 Defendant not only failed to make timely objections 0n the basis 0f privilegs 0r any other
25 bases but also failed t0 provide a privilege 10g 0r to otherwise meet its burden of establishing the
26 existence of a privilege as to request n0. 1. As such, Defendant has waived its right t0 object to
27 any offhe questions propounded in set one 0f these requests and Defendant must thereby provide
28 responses free 0f objections.
2
PLAINTIFF LENNOX M.’s SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTiFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) TO DEFENDANT
Preview
To: 19097088586 From: 18186962307 Date: 12/22/21 Time: 11:15 PM Page: 58/86 V \u F I LE D supemoa COURT COUNW 0F SAN BERNARDINO HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC SAN BERNAnovNo DISTRICT Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq‘ Bar No.1 278622 Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Bar No.: 310625 DEC 22 2021 Melissa R. Robinson, Esq. Bar No.1 336951 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 BY Glendale, California 91203 DEPUTY Kaliska Monticue Telephone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-918-696-2307 Attorneys fin“ PLAINTIFFS OOQG‘JI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO KENYA BRINSON, an individual; KENYA Case N0. CIVD82017097 \O BRINSON, on behalf 0f LENNOX M., a [Assignedfor all purpo sex t0 the Honorable Johr minor individual A4 Tombei Zz'n Dept S3-3] 10 Plaintiffs, PLAINTlFF KENYA BRINSON, 0N 11 BEHALF 0F LENNOX st, A MINOR V. INDIVIDUAL, SEPARATE STATEMENT 12 IN SUPPORT 0F PLAINTIFF'S MOTION T0 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES T0 13 SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F CORP, a California corporation, dba Nova DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) T0 14 Points Apartments; and DOES 1 through 50, DEFENDANT SOCAL PACIFIC MF Inclusive, MANAGEMENT CORP AND REQUEST .15 FOR MONETARY SANC'I'IONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANT SOCAL PACIFIC MF 16 MANAGEMENT CORP AND ITS COUNSEL, GORDON REES SCULLY 17 MANSUKHANI, LLP, 1N THE AMOUNT 0F $1,935.00 18 FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH PLAINTIFF KENYA 19 BRINSON, 0N BEHZ4 LF OF LENNOX M. ’S, A MINOR INDI VJ D UA L, MO TION T0 (:;'(:)MPEL 20 FUR THER RESP ONSES T0 REQ UESTS FOR PR 0D UCTION 0F DOCWENTSL, SET ONE, T0 21 DEFENDANT SO CAL PA CIFIC MF MqNA GEMENT CORP AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 22 A GAINST DEFENDANT A ND ITS CO UNSEL GORDON REES SC ULLYMANSUKH4NI, LLP; DECLARA TION 23 0F HAIG B. KAZANDJMN. ESQ. & [PROPOSED] ORDER] 24 Complaint Filed: August 24, 2020 Trial Date. October 25 2021 25 Hearing Date: March 9, 2022 26 Time: 9:00 am. Dept: S33 27 /// 28 1 PLAINTIFF LENNOX M. SEPARATE STATEMENT 1N SUPPORT OF PLAINTiFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ’ s FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUIVEENTS (SET ONE) TO DEFENDANT TO: 19097088586 From: 18186962307 Date: 12/22/21 Time: 11:15 PM Page: 59/86 V \a Pursuant t0 California Ruies ofCourt Rule 3.1345(a), PlaintiffKEN YA BRINSON, ON BEHALF OF LENNOX M.’s, A MINOR INDIVIDUAL,hereby submits her separate statement in support of her Motion t0 Compel Defendant SOCAL PACIFIC MF MANAGEMENT CORP’S fixrther responses to Plaintiff‘s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request ‘J‘I Nos. 1-5 and 7—30. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: ANY and all DOCUMENTS that evidence ANY repair WORK at the SUBJECT \OOOVO PROPERTY at any time over the last ten (10) years. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: 10 Responding Party objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly 11 burdensome, and oppressive. Without waiving, and subject t0, said objections, and according t0 12 its understanding 0f the request, Responding Party responds as follows: 13 Responding Party will produce all non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, 14 and control that are responsive to this request. Please see SOCALOOOI 1—00021; SOCALOOOZ4~ 15 00035. 16 REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 REQUEST N0. 1: 17 The party who fails t0 serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, 18 including one based 0n privilege 0r 0n the protection for work product under Chapter 4 5 19 (commencing with Section 2018.0 10).” CCP. 5*. 203 1.300(a). This request was duly sewed 20 upon Defendant 0n Fcbruaxy 10, 2021, and after more than five (5) months 0f extensions, 21 Defendant untimely sent Plaintiff its Discovery responses, on September 17, 2021, although 22 deficient and with objections included, despite numerous prior emails from Plaintiff stating that 23 Defendant had waived its objections because its responses were untimely. 24 Defendant not only failed to make timely objections 0n the basis 0f privilegs 0r any other 25 bases but also failed t0 provide a privilege 10g 0r to otherwise meet its burden of establishing the 26 existence of a privilege as to request n0. 1. As such, Defendant has waived its right t0 object to 27 any offhe questions propounded in set one 0f these requests and Defendant must thereby provide 28 responses free 0f objections. 2 PLAINTIFF LENNOX M.’s SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTiFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) TO DEFENDANT