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
, Larry Hoddick, Bar No. 237527
Email: LHoddick@dc.rr.com
LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C.
74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5
Palm Desert, California 92260
Telephone (760) 636-5256
Fax (760) 299-4220
Robert Stempler, State Bar N0. 160299
SoCalConsumerLawyer@Gmai1.com
Email:
CONSUMER LAW OFFICE 0F MAY 0 8 20
B
~-
ROBERT STEMPLER, APC ’
8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 ,fl/
Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1-2331
Telephone (323) 486-01 02
Fax: (323) 488-6895
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CIVIL DISTRICT
14
15 BILLY C. HENRY, Case Number CIVDSl822222
16 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. Sl4
17 vs. REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
18 SUNRISEFORD,INC.; RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
DANIEL BRUNCATI; TNTERROGATORIES, SET 1 FROM JAMES
19 ROBERT BRUNCATI; Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
BRUNCATI
JAMES BRUNCATI; and
20 DOES 2 through 50, Inclusive; Date:May 15, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
21 Defendants. Dept. $14 (Civil District Courthouse)
22
23
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28
-0-
REPLY BRIEF 1N SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET FROM THE BRUNCATI DEFENDANTS
l
I. INTRODUCTION
Getting straight-forward answers to 13 Special Interrogatories from an individual defendant
should not require court intervention. Yet, the motion did not request a penny in sanctions. Plaintiff
simply needs these interrogatories answered to prepare the case for trial and/or settlement. The
motion seeks, as authorized by the Code, Defendants’ boilerplate obj ections t0 all 13 interrogatories
overruled and further answers to the interrogatories, set 1, numbers 1 through 13, as stated in the
Separate Statement. None 0f the objections are specific, which makes them improper. (See Korea
Data Systems C0. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 15 13, 1516 [herein “Korea Data”.)
Defendants filed a “combined opposition” for the special interrogatories. On May 8, 2023,
10 the Court ordered all three motions be heard on May 15, 2023 to save on Judicial Resources.
11
12 II. DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION DOES NOT OFFER A SINGLE JUSTIFICATION FOR
13 OBJECTING TO EACH AND EVERY INTERROGATORY WITH SEVERAL
14 BOILERPLATE OBJECTIONS
15 Defendant obj ected to each and every interrogatory using the same objections, none ofwhich
16 were specific t0 a particular interrogatory. By definition, each of the objections were improper and
17 boilerplate, under Korea Data, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 15 16. Defendant’s opposition does not
18 offer a single justification for asserting many objections, despite the rule that a party asserting
19 objections has the burden to justify each. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Ca1.2d 210, 220—221
20 [addressing a motion t0 compel further responses t0 interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. C0. v.
21 Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
22 The Supreme Court stated: “It is an abuse ofdiscovery t0 assert ‘an unmeritorious obj ection
”
23 to discovery.’ (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, quoting Code Civ. Proc. §
24 2023 .01 0§§, subd. (e).) Defendants’ argument that none ofthe evasive responses would be different,
25 does not explain why Counsel did not agree t0 withdraw the objections during meet and confer.
26 Thus, the Court should overruled Defendant’s objections and order a further response to the
27 interrogatories without any objections.
28
-1-
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET FROM THE BRUNCATI DEFENDANTS
1
Document Filed Date
May 08, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 23, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
, Larry Hoddick, Bar No. 237527 Email: LHoddick@dc.rr.com LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C. 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5 Palm Desert, California 92260 Telephone (760) 636-5256 Fax (760) 299-4220 Robert Stempler, State Bar N0. 160299 SoCalConsumerLawyer@Gmai1.com Email: CONSUMER LAW OFFICE 0F MAY 0 8 20 B ~- ROBERT STEMPLER, APC ’ 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 ,fl/ Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1-2331 Telephone (323) 486-01 02 Fax: (323) 488-6895 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CIVIL DISTRICT 14 15 BILLY C. HENRY, Case Number CIVDSl822222 16 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. Sl4 17 vs. REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY 18 SUNRISEFORD,INC.; RESPONSES TO SPECIAL DANIEL BRUNCATI; TNTERROGATORIES, SET 1 FROM JAMES 19 ROBERT BRUNCATI; Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv BRUNCATI JAMES BRUNCATI; and 20 DOES 2 through 50, Inclusive; Date:May 15, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. 21 Defendants. Dept. $14 (Civil District Courthouse) 22 23 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 -0- REPLY BRIEF 1N SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FROM THE BRUNCATI DEFENDANTS l I. INTRODUCTION Getting straight-forward answers to 13 Special Interrogatories from an individual defendant should not require court intervention. Yet, the motion did not request a penny in sanctions. Plaintiff simply needs these interrogatories answered to prepare the case for trial and/or settlement. The motion seeks, as authorized by the Code, Defendants’ boilerplate obj ections t0 all 13 interrogatories overruled and further answers to the interrogatories, set 1, numbers 1 through 13, as stated in the Separate Statement. None 0f the objections are specific, which makes them improper. (See Korea Data Systems C0. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 15 13, 1516 [herein “Korea Data”.) Defendants filed a “combined opposition” for the special interrogatories. On May 8, 2023, 10 the Court ordered all three motions be heard on May 15, 2023 to save on Judicial Resources. 11 12 II. DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION DOES NOT OFFER A SINGLE JUSTIFICATION FOR 13 OBJECTING TO EACH AND EVERY INTERROGATORY WITH SEVERAL 14 BOILERPLATE OBJECTIONS 15 Defendant obj ected to each and every interrogatory using the same objections, none ofwhich 16 were specific t0 a particular interrogatory. By definition, each of the objections were improper and 17 boilerplate, under Korea Data, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 15 16. Defendant’s opposition does not 18 offer a single justification for asserting many objections, despite the rule that a party asserting 19 objections has the burden to justify each. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Ca1.2d 210, 220—221 20 [addressing a motion t0 compel further responses t0 interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. C0. v. 21 Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) 22 The Supreme Court stated: “It is an abuse ofdiscovery t0 assert ‘an unmeritorious obj ection ” 23 to discovery.’ (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 24 2023 .01 0§§, subd. (e).) Defendants’ argument that none ofthe evasive responses would be different, 25 does not explain why Counsel did not agree t0 withdraw the objections during meet and confer. 26 Thus, the Court should overruled Defendant’s objections and order a further response to the 27 interrogatories without any objections. 28 -1- REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FROM THE BRUNCATI DEFENDANTS 1