On August 23, 2018 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Henry, Billy C,
Sunrise Ford Inc A California Corporation,
and
Bruncati, Daniel,
Bruncati, James,
Bruncati, Robert,
Does 2 Through 50,
Ford Motor Company,
Ford Motor Credit Company,
Sunrise Ford, Inc.,
for Business Tort
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Adam K. Obeid, Esq. (SBN 2471 88)
CEDAR ADAMS, P.C. a n _ A
D
27 Orchard Road Suite 103
"
*fi»"?.1:‘~AL1F0RNIA
’
OR COUHI CL L
SUCFQEURrhTY OF SAi‘fiagfigfi?&O
Lake Forest, CA 92630 SAN BERNARD
(949) 350—1 889
ako@cedaradams.com MAY 0 2 2023
Attorneys for Defendants Daniel Bruncati; {,4th ~21."
BY
Robert Bruncati; James Bruncati WISH“ .zzfili‘m. DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
9
lO
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT — CIVIL DIVISION
ll
BILLY C. HENRY, CASE NO.: CIVDS1822222
12
Assigned for all purposes to the
13
Hon. Jeffrey R Erickson
Plaintiff, Dept. Sl4
l4
VS. COMBINED OPPOSITION OF
15
DEFENDANTS JAMES BRUNCATI AND
16
ROBERT BRUNCATI TO PLAINTIFF’S
SUNRISE FORD, INC; MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
l7 DANIEL BRUNCATI; RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
ROBERT BRUNCATI; INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE);
18
JAMES BRUNCATI; and DECLARATION OF JAMES BRUNCATI;
l9 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive,
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
DECLARATION OF ROBERT
BRUNCATI
20
Defendants. Hearing:
21
Date: May 15, 2023
22 Time: 8:30am
Dept: Sl4
23
Complaint Filed: August 23, 201 8
24
Trial Date: None Set
25 ‘
‘J
26
VIA FACSIMILE “firm;
27 /"
u;
A
,/’_“
28
[Iellar
‘17
Adamh‘ NC.
Orchard Roml
COMBINED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL ROGS
Sllilv 103
Lulu, Form. CA 92630 -1
1. PROCEDURAL NOTATION — ONE OPPOSITION FOR TWO
DEFENDANTS:
In order to conserve judicial resources, time and money, Defendants James Bruncati
and Robert Bruncati (collectively “Defendants” and singularly “Defendant”), jointly and
severally, hereby combine their oppositions to Plaintiffs Separate Motions to Compel
Further Responses To Special Interrogatories ~ General (Set One), that have been set for
hearing on May 15, 2023. Defendants request that the Court apply this Combined
Opposition to each of Plaintiff’s separate motions to compel currently scheduled for
hearing on May 15, 2023, as applicable.
10 2. INTRODUCTION:
ll Plaintiff continues t0 harass defendants with baseless motions to compel in an effort
12 to artificially inflate costs and fees. As will be explained below, Defendants provided
13 appropriate supplemental responses that are Code compliant, and despite receiving Code
l4 compliant material responses, Plaintiff proceeded to file motions t0 compel with regard to
15 said supplemental responses. For the reasons set forth herein, all ofthe motions to compel
l6 further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) should be denied.
17 3. DEFENDANTS PROVIDED CODE COMPLIANT SUPPLEMENTAL
18 RESPONSES:
19 Plaintiff submitted a Separate Statement for James Bruncati and Robert Bruncati.
20 The “argument” section of said Separate Statements is identical in form and substance with
21 regard to each item in dispute. In simplest form, Defendants have summarized the
22 responses at issue per the Separate Statement as set forth below:
23
24 As T0 James Bruncati As to Robert Bruncati
25
Special Interrogatories (General)(Set One) Special Interrogatories (Genera1)(Set One)
26 o Nos. 1—13 o Nos. 1—7
27
28
Adams.
COMBINED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL ROGS
limlur I'JL
27 0rchard Rand
Suilv I03
laku Furnsl. IIA 92630 —2
Document Filed Date
May 02, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 23, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Adam K. Obeid, Esq. (SBN 2471 88) CEDAR ADAMS, P.C. a n _ A D 27 Orchard Road Suite 103 " *fi»"?.1:‘~AL1F0RNIA ’ OR COUHI CL L SUCFQEURrhTY OF SAi‘fiagfigfi?&O Lake Forest, CA 92630 SAN BERNARD (949) 350—1 889 ako@cedaradams.com MAY 0 2 2023 Attorneys for Defendants Daniel Bruncati; {,4th ~21." BY Robert Bruncati; James Bruncati WISH“ .zzfili‘m. DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 9 lO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT — CIVIL DIVISION ll BILLY C. HENRY, CASE NO.: CIVDS1822222 12 Assigned for all purposes to the 13 Hon. Jeffrey R Erickson Plaintiff, Dept. Sl4 l4 VS. COMBINED OPPOSITION OF 15 DEFENDANTS JAMES BRUNCATI AND 16 ROBERT BRUNCATI TO PLAINTIFF’S SUNRISE FORD, INC; MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER l7 DANIEL BRUNCATI; RESPONSES TO SPECIAL ROBERT BRUNCATI; INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); 18 JAMES BRUNCATI; and DECLARATION OF JAMES BRUNCATI; l9 DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv DECLARATION OF ROBERT BRUNCATI 20 Defendants. Hearing: 21 Date: May 15, 2023 22 Time: 8:30am Dept: Sl4 23 Complaint Filed: August 23, 201 8 24 Trial Date: None Set 25 ‘ ‘J 26 VIA FACSIMILE “firm; 27 /" u; A ,/’_“ 28 [Iellar ‘17 Adamh‘ NC. Orchard Roml COMBINED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL ROGS Sllilv 103 Lulu, Form. CA 92630 -1 1. PROCEDURAL NOTATION — ONE OPPOSITION FOR TWO DEFENDANTS: In order to conserve judicial resources, time and money, Defendants James Bruncati and Robert Bruncati (collectively “Defendants” and singularly “Defendant”), jointly and severally, hereby combine their oppositions to Plaintiffs Separate Motions to Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories ~ General (Set One), that have been set for hearing on May 15, 2023. Defendants request that the Court apply this Combined Opposition to each of Plaintiff’s separate motions to compel currently scheduled for hearing on May 15, 2023, as applicable. 10 2. INTRODUCTION: ll Plaintiff continues t0 harass defendants with baseless motions to compel in an effort 12 to artificially inflate costs and fees. As will be explained below, Defendants provided 13 appropriate supplemental responses that are Code compliant, and despite receiving Code l4 compliant material responses, Plaintiff proceeded to file motions t0 compel with regard to 15 said supplemental responses. For the reasons set forth herein, all ofthe motions to compel l6 further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) should be denied. 17 3. DEFENDANTS PROVIDED CODE COMPLIANT SUPPLEMENTAL 18 RESPONSES: 19 Plaintiff submitted a Separate Statement for James Bruncati and Robert Bruncati. 20 The “argument” section of said Separate Statements is identical in form and substance with 21 regard to each item in dispute. In simplest form, Defendants have summarized the 22 responses at issue per the Separate Statement as set forth below: 23 24 As T0 James Bruncati As to Robert Bruncati 25 Special Interrogatories (General)(Set One) Special Interrogatories (Genera1)(Set One) 26 o Nos. 1—13 o Nos. 1—7 27 28 Adams. COMBINED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL ROGS limlur I'JL 27 0rchard Rand Suilv I03 laku Furnsl. IIA 92630 —2