Preview
1 DOWNEY BRAND LLP
WILLIAM R. WARNE (Bar No. 141280)
2 ANNIE S. AMARAL (Bar No. 238189)
621 Capitol Mall, 18tii Floor j ZOISGGT 12 PM^3: \3
3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4731
Telephone: 916.444.1000
4 Facsimile: 916.444.2100
bwame@dpwneybrMid.com
5 aamaral@downeybrand.com
6 Attomeys for Plaintiff
CHARLES SOMERS, individually and astioisfeefor tiie
7 CHARLES SOMERS LIVING TRUST
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNL\
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 CHARLES SOMERS, individually and as CASENO. 34-2018-00229212
tiustee for tiie CHARLES SOMERS
12 LIVING TRUST, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
PH OF PLAINTIFF CHARLES SOMERS'S
I-I 13 Plaintiff, MOTION t o COMPEL DEFENDANT DR.
h-l
Q JAMES LONGORIA'S F X I R T H E R
z 14 DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
•< INtERR^
ffl
16 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a
o 17 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which
Q
18 consists of, according to him, the "core individuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at
19 issue in the request. Thereafter, rather than list "each PERSON," as requested, Dr. Longoria
20 instead responds in part that these "core individuals" include "all representatives of SBM that
21 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well knovm to plaintiff...."
22 This answer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an
23 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraighfforward as the information reasonably available to
24 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[w]here the
25 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought
26 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers"
27 to a proper question. (Deyo, j'Mpra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Dr. Longoria's response does not
28 provide Somers with the names of the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS
1 in each request, and Somers can orily guess as to what Dr. Lorigoria mearis by the "core
2 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories ofthe "core individuals," it seeks
3 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact. Dr. Longoria is obligated to
4 provide this information, even if he believes that informatiori is already knowri to Somers.
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
6 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidericirig the COMPANY'S shareholders.
7 (As used hereiu, the term "DOCUMENT" means, without limitatiori, ariy written, typed,
8 printed, recorded, or graphic matter, however preserved, produced, or reproduced, of any type or
9 description, regardless of origin or location, including, without limitation, written
10 COMMUNICATIONS, any birider, coverriote,certificate, letter, corresporiderice, record, table,
11 chart, analysis, graph, schedule, report, test, study memoraridum, note, list, diary, log, calendar,
12 telex, message, including, but not limited to, interoffice and infra-office COMMUNICATION,
PH
hJ
hJ 13 questionnaire, bill, purchase order, shipping order, contract, memorandum of confract, agreement,
Q
14 assignment, license, certificate, permit, ledger, ledger entry, book of account, order, invoice,
<
Pi
ffl 15 receipt, statement, financial data, acknowledgment, computer or data processing card, computer
>^
Ui
16 or data processing disk, computer-generated matter, photograph, photographic negative,
O: 17 phonograph recording,franscriptor log of any such recording, projection, videotape, film,
Q
18 microfiche and all other data compilations from which information can be obtained or franslated,
19 reports and/or summaries of investigations, drafts and revisions of drafts of any DOCUMENTS,
20 and original preliminary notes or sketches.)
21 (As used herein, the term "COMMUNICATION" means any letters, correspondence, e-
22 mails, facsimilefransmissions,telegrams, messages, textmiessages, instant messages, voicemail
23 messages, DOCUMENTS memorializing verbal communications and/or discussions, and any
24 other vmtten or recorded coriimunicatiori, regardless of format.)
25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2;
26 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidencirig". Subject to and without
27 waiving said objection see documents produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production
28 of documents. Discovery is ongoirig.
1533744.1 4 ' '
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS
1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE;
2 A. Dr. Longoria?s Obiections Are Without Merit.
3 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is
4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague arid ambiguous,
5 thereby preveuting Somersfromcuring ariy supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assumirig the
6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case lawrioriethelessrequires Dr. Longoria to
7 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra,
8 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfforward and in plain English, arid
9 Dr. Longoria undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his irivolvemerit iri
10 the facts uuderlying this case arid his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise
11 scope and meaning of these requests.
12 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referring to "Dbcumentis Produced in Response to
PH
h-l
Plaintiff is Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoice; Section 2030.230.
h-l
Q
14 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section
ffl 15 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to
>-
z 16 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of orfromdocuments. Nor does Dr.
o 17 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that
18 would permit Somers to locate and identify the documentsfromwhich the answer to the
19 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone
20 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the
21 information is availablefroma mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.)
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
23 IDENTIFY each PERSON with knowledge ofthe COMPANY'S present officers.
24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
25 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "knowledge". Over broad as to the term
26 "Person". Unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, the core
27 individuals who are likely to be aware of LC's officers are the parties hereto, all representatives
28 of SBM that worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are all well known to plaintiff,
1533744.1 5
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS
1 and the attomeys who have performed work for LC including Wilson Sonsini, Downey Brand and
2 Bill Wame, Ian Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel.
3 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
4 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit
5 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague arid ambiguous. This objectiou is
6 fiivolous. These objections db not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
7 thereby preventirig Somers from curirig ariy supposed ambiguity. Regardless, everi assumirig the
8 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
9 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra,
10 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfforward and iri plairi English, and
11 Dr. Lorigoria undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in
12 the facts underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise
ffl
h-l
h-l 13 scope and meaning of these requests.
Q
14 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad arid unduly burdensome
<
ffl
ffl 15 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis. Dr. Longoria must object that Somers
Ui
16 intended to create an imreasonable burden or that the burden of this discovery "clearly outweighs
o 17 the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Q
18 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020, subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Stii at p. 549.) And, again. Dr.
19 Longoria's objections fail to even attempt to support any contention that Sorners's requests are
20 overly broad and unduly burdensome, despite Dr. Longoria's obligatiori to do so. "An 'objection
21 based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.'"
22 {Williams, supra, 3 Cal.'Sth at p. 549'[quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 417].)
23 In any event. Dr. Lorigoria cannot meet his biirdeh for this bbjectibn, as it is narrowly tailored and
24 highly relevant to Somers's claims against Dr. Longoria.
25 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incomplete.
26 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a
27 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list wliich
28 consists of, according to him, the "core individuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS
1 issue in the request. Thereafter, rather thari list "each PERSON," as requested, Dr. Lorigoria
2 iristead responds in part that these "core individuals" include "all representatives of SBM that
3 worked with LC Therapeutics,'Inc. whose ideritities are well knowri to plaintiff . . . . "
4 Moreover, this answer is completely inappropriate aridrioiu-esponsive;Each ariswer to ari
5 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraighfforward as the information reasonably available to
6 the resporidirig party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[wjhere the
7 questiori is specific arid explicit, ari ariswer that supplies only a portion of the information sought
8 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers"
9 to a proper question. {Deyo, supra, 84 Cal,App.3d at p. 783.) Dr. Longoria's response does not
10 provide Somers with the names bf the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue
11 iri each request, arid Somers can only guess as to what Dr. Longoria means by the "core
12 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," it seeks
PH
h-l
h-l 13 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact: Dr. Longoria is obligated to
Q
14 provide this information, even if he believes that infonnation is already known to Somers.
<
Pi
ffl 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
ffl
16 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing tiie COMPANY'S present officers.
o 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Q
18 Objection — vague arid ambiguous as to the term; "evidencing". Subject to and without
19 waiving said objectiori see documents prbduced in response to plaintiff s requests for production
20 of documents. Discovery and Investigation are ongoing.
21 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
22 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit.
23 Dr. Longoria objects that this inferrogafory is vague arid ambiguous. This bbjection is
24 fiivolous. These objections do riot state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
25 thereby preveuting Soriiers from curirig any suppbsed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
26 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case lawrionethelessrequires Dr. Longoria tb
27 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
28 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL- SPECDVL ROGS
1 uridoubtedly has ari understanding of its intended meanirig giveri his involvement in the facts
2 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complairit, which details the precise scope arid
3 meaning of these requests.
4 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referringto "Documents Produced in Response to
Plaintiff's Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230.
5
6 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section
7 2030.230. Dr. Lorigoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to
8 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of orfromdocuments. Nor does Dr.
9 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that
10 would permit Somers to locate and identify the documentsfromwhich the answer to the
11 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone
12 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the
ffl
h-l
h-l
13 information is availablefroma mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.)
Q 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
<
ffl 15
ffl State, by name and position, all past officers of the COMPANY.
16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
ffl
17 James Longoria and Roy Chin. See docmrients produced iri response to plaintiffs requests
Q 18 for production of documents.
19 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
20 A. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referring to "Documents Produced in Response to
Plaintiffs Requests for Production'^ FaU to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230.
21
22 This response falls far short of satisfyirig the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section
23 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that ariswering the interrogatory would require him to
24 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of or,fromdocuments. Nor does Dr.
25 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive dpcumerits, or offer ariy other details that
26 would permit Somers to locate arid ideritify the documerits from which the answer to the
27 interrogatory may be ascertairied. Irideed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone
28 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the
1533744.1 8
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS ~~
1 informatiori is available from a mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.)
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
3 IDENTIFY each PERSON with knowledge of the COMPANY'S past officers.
4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
5 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "kriowledge". Over broad as to the term
6 "Person". Unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, the core
7 individuals who are likely to be aware of LC's past officers are the parties hereto, all
8 representatives of SBM that worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are all well
9 known to plaintiff, and the attomeys who have performed work for LC including Wilson Sonsini,
10 Downey Brand arid Bill Wame, lari Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel.
11 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE;
12 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit.
ffl
h-I
h-l 13 Dr. Longoria objects that this iiiterrogaitory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is
Q
14 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
<
Pi
ffl 15 thereby preventirig Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
ffl
16 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
Z'
o 17 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
Q
18 CaLApp.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfjForward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria
19 undoubtedly has an understandirig of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts
20 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and
21 meanirig of these requests.
22 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome
23 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis, Dr. Longoria must object that Somers
24 intended to create an unreasonable burden or that the burden bf this discbvery "clearly outweighs
25 the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence."
26 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020, subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Stii at p. 549.) And, again, Dr.
27 Longoria's objections fail to even attempt to support any coritentiori that Somers's requests are
28 overly broad and unduly burderisome, despite Dr. Lorigpria's obligation to do so. "An 'objectiori
1533744.1 9- " •
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL- SPECL\L ROGS
1 based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work requfred.'"
2 {Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Sth at p. 549 [quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 417].)
3 In any event, Dr. Lorigoria cannot meet his burden for this objection, as it is narrowly tailored and
4 highly relevant to Somers's claims agairist Dr. Lorigoria.
5 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incomplete.
6 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a
7 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which
8 consists of, according to him, the "core iridividuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at
9 issue iri the request. Thereafter, rather thau list "each PERSON," as requested, Dr. Lorigoria
10 iristead resporids iri part that these "core iridividuals" iriclude "all representatives of SBM that
11 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well knowri to plairitiff...."
12 Moreover, this ariswer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an
ffl
h-l 13 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraighfforward as the informatiori reasoriably available to
h-I
Q
:z; 14 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[w]here the
<
ffl
ffl 15 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought
Ui
16 is wholly iiisufficient. Likewise, a party iriay not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers"
o 17 to a proper question. (Deyo, swpra, 84 Cal.App.3d atp. 783.) Dr. Longoria's response does not
18 provide Somers with the names of the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue
19 in each request, and Somers can only guess as to what Dr. Longoria means by the "core
20 individuals;" The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," it seeks
21 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact. Dr. Longoria is obligated to
22 provide this informatiori, even if he believes that iriformatiori is; already knOwn to Somers.
23 INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
24 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing the COMPANY'S past officers.
25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
26 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidericirig". Subject to and without
27 waiving said objection see documents produced iri response to plaintiffs requests for production
28 of documents.
1533744.1 1 0
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS
1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
2 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit.
3 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is
4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague arid ambiguous,
5 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nbnetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
7 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
8 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and iri plairi Eriglish, and Dr. Longoria
9 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts
10 uriderlyirig this case arid his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope arid
11 meariirig of these requests.
12 B. Dr. Longoria's Riesponsesi Referring to '^Documents Produced in Response to
ffl Plaintiffs Requests for Production" FaU to Properly Invoke Section 2030;230.
h-l 13
hJ
Q
14 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section
<
Pi
ffl 15 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to
Ui 16 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of orfromdocumerits. Nor does Dr.
o 17 Lorigoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that
o
18 would permit Somers to locate arid identify the documentsfromwhich the answer to the
19 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone
20 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained iri Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the
21 informatiori is availablefroma mass of documents is insufficierit." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.)
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
23 State, by name and position, all present members of the COMPANY'S board of directors.
24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
25 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "position" in the context of this
26 interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving this objection — James Longoria.
27 ///
28 ///
1533744.1 11
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS
1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
2 A. Dr. Longoria's .Objections Are Without Merit.
3 Dr. Longoria objects that this iriterrpgatbry is vague,and ambigubus. This objection is
4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vagiie and ambiguous,
5 thereby preventirig Somersfromcuririg ariy supposed, ariibiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law norietheless requires Dr. Longoria to
7 provide a response because theriatureof the iriformatiori sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
8 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward arid iri plairi English, and Dr. Longoria
9 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts
10 imderlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope arid
11 meariirig of these requests.
12 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Incomplete and Evasive.
PH
h-l
h-l 13 Dr. Longoria's answer provides the names of directors, biit not their positions. It is
Q
14 unclear why the term "positiori" is vague arid ambiguous, ais directors of a board may hold
<
Pi
ffl 15 positions, such as Chairman, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. Dr. Longoria's responses to
>^
ffl
16 this interrogatory are thus incomplete and evasive.
o 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
18 IDENTIFY each PERSON witii kriowledge of tiie COMPANY'S present board of
19 directors.
20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
21 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "kriowledge". Over broad as to the term
22 "Persori". Uriduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objectioris, the core
23 iridividuals who are likely to be aware of LC' s board members are. the parties hereto, all
24 represeritatives of SBM that worked with LC therapeutics, Iric. whbse ideritities are all well
25 knbwn tb plaintiff, and.the attbriieys who have performed work for, LC iricludirig \yilsori Sorisini,
26 Downey Brand and Bill Wame, Ian Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel.
27 ///
28 ///
1533744.1 12
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL-SPECLAL ROGS
1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
2 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit.
3 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is
4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
5 thereby preventirig Somers from curirig any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, everi assumirig the
6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
7 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
8 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is,sfraightforward arid iri plairi English, and Dr. Longoria
9 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meanirig giveri his irivolvement in the facts
10 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and
11 meanirig of these requests.
12 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome
ffl
hJ
h-l 13 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis, Dr. Longoria must object that Somers
Q
14 intended to create an unreasonable burden or that the biirden of this discovery "clearly outweighs
<
ffl
ffl 15 the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
>^
ffl
16 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020, subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5tii at p. 549.) Arid, agairi, Dr.
o 17 Longoria's objections fail to even aittempt to support any contention that Somers's requests are
Q
18 overly broad and unduly burdensome, despite Dr. Longoria's obligation to do so. "An 'objection
19 based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required."'
20 {Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549 [quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 417].)
21 In ariy everit, Dr. Longoria cannot meet his burden for this objection, as it is narrowly tailored arid
22 highly relevant to Somers's claims agaiost Dr. Lorigoria.
23 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive arid Incomplete.
24 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a
25 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which
26 consists of, accordirig to him, the "core iridividuals" likely to be aware ofthe particular fact at
27 issue iri the request. Thereafter, rather than list "each PERSON," as; requested, Dr. Longoria
28 instead resporids iri part that these "core iridividuals" iuclude "all represeritatives of SBM that
1533744.1 13
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS
1 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well known to plaintiff...."
2 Moreover, this answer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an
3 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraightforward as the information reasonably available to
4 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[wjhere the
5 question is. specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought
6 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusioriary answers"
7 to a proper question. {Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Dr. Lbngoria's response does not
8 provide Somers with the names of the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue
9 in each request, and Somers can only guess as to what Dr. Lorigoria means by the "core
10 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," they
11 seek the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact. Dr. Longoria is obligated to
12 provide this information, even if he believes that information is already known to Somers.
PH
hJ
13 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Q
14 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing tiie COMP ANY's present board of directors.
<
Pi
ffl 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
>^
Ui 16 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidencing". Subject to and without
O 17 waiving said objection see documents produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production
Q
18 of documents.
19 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
20 A. Dr. Longoria's Objections Are Without Merit.
21 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and anibiguous. This objectiori is
22 frivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
23 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
24 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. LongOria to
25 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
26 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and iri plairi English, and Dr. Longoria
27 undoubtedly has an uuderstandirig of its iriterided meaning given his involvemerit iri the facts
28 Uriderlyirig this case arid his review of Somers's complairit^ which details the^precise scope and
1533744.1 14
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL^J. ROGS
1 meaning of these requests.
2 B. Dr. Longoria's .Responses Referring to "Documents Produced in Response to
^ Plaintiffs Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230.
4 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section
5 2030.230. Dr. Longoria doesriotassert that arisweririg the interrogatory would require him to
6 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of or from documents. Nor does Dr.
7 Longoria provide the Bates rarige for the responsive documents, or offer ariy other details that
8 would permit Somers to locate arid ideritify the documerits from which the ariswer to the
9 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone
10 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the
11 information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.)
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
ffl
h-l
hJ
13 State, by name and position, all past members of the COMPANY'S board of directors.
Q
14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
<
ai
ffl 15 Objection — vague arid ambigubus as to the term "positiori" iri the context of this
>^
ffl
16 interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving this objection — Roy Chin, James Longoria and
O 17 very briefly Peter Bemadicou.
Q
18 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
19 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit.
20 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objectiori is
21 fiivolous. These objectious do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
22 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
23 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
24 . provide a resporise because the nature of the iriformatiori sought is apparerit. (Deyo, supra, 84
25 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and iri plairi Eriglish, arid Dr. Lorigoria
26 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts
27 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and
28 meanirig of these requests.
1533744.1 15
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS
1 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Incompliete and Evasive.
2 Dr. Longoria objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term "position" is vague
3 and ambiguous. His answer provides the names bf directors, but not their positions. It is unclear
4 why the term "position" is vague and ambiguous, as directors of a board may hold positions, such
5 as Chairman, Vice Chair, Secretary, arid Treasurer. Dr. Lorigoria's resporises to this iriterrogatory
6 are thus incomplete and evasive.
7 INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
8 IDENTIFY each PERSON with knowledge of the COMPANY'S past board of directors.
9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12;
10 Objectiori — vague arid ambiguous as to the term "knowledge". Over broad as to the term
11 "Persori". Uriduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, the core
12 individuals who are likely to be aware of LC's board members are the parties hereto, all
ffl
h-l
hJ
13 representatives of SBM that worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are all well
Q
14 known to plaintiff, and the attomeys who have performed work for LC iricluding Wilson Sonsini,
<
Pi
m 15 Downey Brarid and Bill Wame, Ian Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel.
1^
ffl 16 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
O 17 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Mierit.
Q
18 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and anibiguous. This objectiori is
19 fiivolous. These objectioris do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
20 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, eveu assuming the
21 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law norietheless reqiiires Dr. Longoria to
22 provide a resporise because the nature of the information soiight is' apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
23 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria
24 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts
25 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and
26 meaning of these requests.
27 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome
28 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis, Dr. Longoria must object that Somers
1533744.1 16
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS
1 intended to create an unreasonable burden or that the burden of this discovery "clearly outweighs
2 the likelihood that the infonriatiori soughtiwill lead to the discovery of admissible eviderice."
3 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020,'subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Stii kt p. 549.) And, again,
4 Dr. Longoria's objectioris fail to everi attempt to support ariy contention that Somers's requests
5 are overly broad and unduly burdensome, despite Dr. Longoria's obligation to do so. "An
6 'objection based upon burderi must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work
7 required.'" (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549 [quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d
8 at p. 417].) In any event. Dr. Lorigoria cannot meet his;burden for this objection, as it is narrowly
9 tailored and highly relevant to Somers's claims agairist Dr. Longoria.
10 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incomplete.
11 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to ideritify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a
12 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dbdges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which
ffl
hJ
hJ
13 consists of, according to him, the "core individuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at
Q
14 issue in the request. Thereafter, rather than list "eiach PERSON," as requested. Dr. Longoria
<
ffl
ffl 15 instead responds in part that these "core individuals" include ''all representatives of SBM that
>-
ffl
16 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well known to plaintiff...."
O 17 This answer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an
Q
18 interrogatory must bei"as complete and sfraightforward as the information reasonably available to
19 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[wjhere the
20 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sbught
21 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers"
22 to a proper question. {Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.). Dr. Longoria's response does not
23 provide Sbmers with the names of the iridividuals with kriowledge of the particular facts at issue
24 in each request, and Somers cari only guess as to what Dr. Lorigoria means by the "core
25 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," it seeks
26 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact; Dr. LongOria is obligated to
27 provide this information, even if he believes that information is afready knowri to Somers.
28 ///
1533744.1 17
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
2 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing the COMPANY'S past board of directors.
3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
4 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidencirig". Subject to and without
5 waiving said objection see documerits produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production
6 of documents.
7 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
8 A. Dr. Longoria's Objeetions Are Without Merit.
9 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is
10 fiivolous. These objections do not state how my of these requests are vague arid ambiguous,
11 thereby preveutirig Somers from curirig any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
12 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
ffl
hJ 13 provide a response because the nature of the informafion sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
hJ
Q
14 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria
<
Pi
ffl 15 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meanirig ^veri his irivolvement in the facts
Ui 16 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complairit, which details the precise scope arid .
Z
17 meaning of these requests.
o
Q 18 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referririjg to "Documerits Produced.in.Response to
Plaintiff s Requests for Production" FaU tb Properlv Invoke Section 2030.230.
19
20 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section
21 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to
22 prepare or make a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or frbrri dbcuments. Nor does Dr.
23 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that
24 would permit Somers to locate and identify the documents from which the answer to the
25 iriterrogatory may be ascertairied. Irideed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone
26 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the
27 information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.)
28
1533744.1 18
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 14;
2 IDENTIFY each PERSON who made a loan to the COMPANY.
3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
4 Objectiori — vague arid ambiguous as to the term "loari." Subject to arid without waivirig
5 said objectiori — Charles Somers, possibly the Charles Somers Living Tmst, possibly SBM, arid
6 James Longoria.
7 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE;
8 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit.
9 Dr. Longoria objects that this iriterrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is
10 fiivolous. These objections do riot state how ariy of these requests are vague and ambiguous,
11 thereby preveutirig Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
12 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
ffl
hJ 13 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {F>eyo, supra, 84
h-l
Q
14 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward arid in plain English, and Dr. Lorigoria
<
Pi
ffl. 15 undoubtedly has an understandirig of its interided meaning given his involvement in the facts
>
ffl 16 Uriderlyirig this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and
o 17 meaning of these requests.
Q
18 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incompliete.
19 A response iridicatirig that an entity "possibly" rriade a loan is not a complete aod
20 sfraightforward ariswer. (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) It is Dr. Longoria's duty to
21 provide fiill and complete resporises to these requests; respbuses containirig guesswork arid
22 conjecture are not acceptable.
23 INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
24 For each loan that has beeri made to the COMPANY, state the date and amourit of the
25 loan.
26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
27 Objectiori — vague arid ambiguous as to the term "ievidencirig" and requires the
28 compilatiori, audit or summary. Subject to arid without waiving said objection see documents
1533744.1 19
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS
1 produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production of documents. Further, this
2 interrogatory requires the review of informatiori that is preseritly in the possessiori of plairitiff arid
3 his/its representatives.
4 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE;
5 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit.
6 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is
7 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague arid ambiguous,
8 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the
9 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to
10 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84
11 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria
12 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaiung given his involvement in the facts
ffl
hJ
hJ 13 underlying this case and his review of Somers's coriiplaint,-which details the precise scope arid
Q
2 14 meanirig of these requests.
<
Pi
ffl 15 B. Dr. Longoria's Resporiises Are Evasivie and Incomplete.
>
Ui 16 The fact that Somers or a third party may already have possession of these documents
o 17 does not alter Dr. Longoria's obligation to fiilly and completely answer these interrogatories. To
Q
18 the extent Dr. Longoria intends to answer this interrogatory by invoking section 2030.230, he
19 must comply with the requirements sef forth, above and specify, in sufficient detail, the writings
20 from which the answer cari be ascertained.
21 C. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referring to "Documents'Produced. in Response to
Plairitifrs Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230.
23 This response falls far short of satisfying the standa
Preview
1 DOWNEY BRAND LLP WILLIAM R. WARNE (Bar No. 141280) 2 ANNIE S. AMARAL (Bar No. 238189) 621 Capitol Mall, 18tii Floor j ZOISGGT 12 PM^3: \3 3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4731 Telephone: 916.444.1000 4 Facsimile: 916.444.2100 bwame@dpwneybrMid.com 5 aamaral@downeybrand.com 6 Attomeys for Plaintiff CHARLES SOMERS, individually and astioisfeefor tiie 7 CHARLES SOMERS LIVING TRUST 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNL\ 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 CHARLES SOMERS, individually and as CASENO. 34-2018-00229212 tiustee for tiie CHARLES SOMERS 12 LIVING TRUST, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT PH OF PLAINTIFF CHARLES SOMERS'S I-I 13 Plaintiff, MOTION t o COMPEL DEFENDANT DR. h-l Q JAMES LONGORIA'S F X I R T H E R z 14 DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL •< INtERR^ ffl 16 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a o 17 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which Q 18 consists of, according to him, the "core individuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at 19 issue in the request. Thereafter, rather than list "each PERSON," as requested, Dr. Longoria 20 instead responds in part that these "core individuals" include "all representatives of SBM that 21 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well knovm to plaintiff...." 22 This answer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an 23 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraighfforward as the information reasonably available to 24 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[w]here the 25 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought 26 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers" 27 to a proper question. (Deyo, j'Mpra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Dr. Longoria's response does not 28 provide Somers with the names of the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS 1 in each request, and Somers can orily guess as to what Dr. Lorigoria mearis by the "core 2 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories ofthe "core individuals," it seeks 3 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact. Dr. Longoria is obligated to 4 provide this information, even if he believes that informatiori is already knowri to Somers. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 6 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidericirig the COMPANY'S shareholders. 7 (As used hereiu, the term "DOCUMENT" means, without limitatiori, ariy written, typed, 8 printed, recorded, or graphic matter, however preserved, produced, or reproduced, of any type or 9 description, regardless of origin or location, including, without limitation, written 10 COMMUNICATIONS, any birider, coverriote,certificate, letter, corresporiderice, record, table, 11 chart, analysis, graph, schedule, report, test, study memoraridum, note, list, diary, log, calendar, 12 telex, message, including, but not limited to, interoffice and infra-office COMMUNICATION, PH hJ hJ 13 questionnaire, bill, purchase order, shipping order, contract, memorandum of confract, agreement, Q 14 assignment, license, certificate, permit, ledger, ledger entry, book of account, order, invoice, < Pi ffl 15 receipt, statement, financial data, acknowledgment, computer or data processing card, computer >^ Ui 16 or data processing disk, computer-generated matter, photograph, photographic negative, O: 17 phonograph recording,franscriptor log of any such recording, projection, videotape, film, Q 18 microfiche and all other data compilations from which information can be obtained or franslated, 19 reports and/or summaries of investigations, drafts and revisions of drafts of any DOCUMENTS, 20 and original preliminary notes or sketches.) 21 (As used herein, the term "COMMUNICATION" means any letters, correspondence, e- 22 mails, facsimilefransmissions,telegrams, messages, textmiessages, instant messages, voicemail 23 messages, DOCUMENTS memorializing verbal communications and/or discussions, and any 24 other vmtten or recorded coriimunicatiori, regardless of format.) 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2; 26 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidencirig". Subject to and without 27 waiving said objection see documents produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production 28 of documents. Discovery is ongoirig. 1533744.1 4 ' ' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS 1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE; 2 A. Dr. Longoria?s Obiections Are Without Merit. 3 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is 4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague arid ambiguous, 5 thereby preveuting Somersfromcuring ariy supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assumirig the 6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case lawrioriethelessrequires Dr. Longoria to 7 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 8 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfforward and in plain English, arid 9 Dr. Longoria undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his irivolvemerit iri 10 the facts uuderlying this case arid his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise 11 scope and meaning of these requests. 12 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referring to "Dbcumentis Produced in Response to PH h-l Plaintiff is Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoice; Section 2030.230. h-l Q 14 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section ffl 15 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to >- z 16 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of orfromdocuments. Nor does Dr. o 17 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that 18 would permit Somers to locate and identify the documentsfromwhich the answer to the 19 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone 20 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the 21 information is availablefroma mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.) 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 23 IDENTIFY each PERSON with knowledge ofthe COMPANY'S present officers. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 25 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "knowledge". Over broad as to the term 26 "Person". Unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, the core 27 individuals who are likely to be aware of LC's officers are the parties hereto, all representatives 28 of SBM that worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are all well known to plaintiff, 1533744.1 5 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS 1 and the attomeys who have performed work for LC including Wilson Sonsini, Downey Brand and 2 Bill Wame, Ian Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel. 3 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 4 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit 5 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague arid ambiguous. This objectiou is 6 fiivolous. These objections db not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous, 7 thereby preventirig Somers from curirig ariy supposed ambiguity. Regardless, everi assumirig the 8 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to 9 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 10 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfforward and iri plairi English, and 11 Dr. Lorigoria undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in 12 the facts underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise ffl h-l h-l 13 scope and meaning of these requests. Q 14 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad arid unduly burdensome < ffl ffl 15 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis. Dr. Longoria must object that Somers Ui 16 intended to create an imreasonable burden or that the burden of this discovery "clearly outweighs o 17 the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Q 18 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020, subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Stii at p. 549.) And, again. Dr. 19 Longoria's objections fail to even attempt to support any contention that Sorners's requests are 20 overly broad and unduly burdensome, despite Dr. Longoria's obligatiori to do so. "An 'objection 21 based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.'" 22 {Williams, supra, 3 Cal.'Sth at p. 549'[quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 417].) 23 In any event. Dr. Lorigoria cannot meet his biirdeh for this bbjectibn, as it is narrowly tailored and 24 highly relevant to Somers's claims against Dr. Longoria. 25 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incomplete. 26 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a 27 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list wliich 28 consists of, according to him, the "core individuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS 1 issue in the request. Thereafter, rather thari list "each PERSON," as requested, Dr. Lorigoria 2 iristead responds in part that these "core individuals" include "all representatives of SBM that 3 worked with LC Therapeutics,'Inc. whose ideritities are well knowri to plaintiff . . . . " 4 Moreover, this answer is completely inappropriate aridrioiu-esponsive;Each ariswer to ari 5 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraighfforward as the information reasonably available to 6 the resporidirig party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[wjhere the 7 questiori is specific arid explicit, ari ariswer that supplies only a portion of the information sought 8 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers" 9 to a proper question. {Deyo, supra, 84 Cal,App.3d at p. 783.) Dr. Longoria's response does not 10 provide Somers with the names bf the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue 11 iri each request, arid Somers can only guess as to what Dr. Longoria means by the "core 12 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," it seeks PH h-l h-l 13 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact: Dr. Longoria is obligated to Q 14 provide this information, even if he believes that infonnation is already known to Somers. < Pi ffl 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: ffl 16 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing tiie COMPANY'S present officers. o 17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Q 18 Objection — vague arid ambiguous as to the term; "evidencing". Subject to and without 19 waiving said objectiori see documents prbduced in response to plaintiff s requests for production 20 of documents. Discovery and Investigation are ongoing. 21 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 22 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit. 23 Dr. Longoria objects that this inferrogafory is vague arid ambiguous. This bbjection is 24 fiivolous. These objections do riot state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous, 25 thereby preveuting Soriiers from curirig any suppbsed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 26 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case lawrionethelessrequires Dr. Longoria tb 27 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 28 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL- SPECDVL ROGS 1 uridoubtedly has ari understanding of its intended meanirig giveri his involvement in the facts 2 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complairit, which details the precise scope arid 3 meaning of these requests. 4 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referringto "Documents Produced in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230. 5 6 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 7 2030.230. Dr. Lorigoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to 8 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of orfromdocuments. Nor does Dr. 9 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that 10 would permit Somers to locate and identify the documentsfromwhich the answer to the 11 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone 12 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the ffl h-l h-l 13 information is availablefroma mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.) Q 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: < ffl 15 ffl State, by name and position, all past officers of the COMPANY. 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: ffl 17 James Longoria and Roy Chin. See docmrients produced iri response to plaintiffs requests Q 18 for production of documents. 19 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 20 A. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referring to "Documents Produced in Response to Plaintiffs Requests for Production'^ FaU to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230. 21 22 This response falls far short of satisfyirig the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 23 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that ariswering the interrogatory would require him to 24 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of or,fromdocuments. Nor does Dr. 25 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive dpcumerits, or offer ariy other details that 26 would permit Somers to locate arid ideritify the documerits from which the answer to the 27 interrogatory may be ascertairied. Irideed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone 28 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the 1533744.1 8 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS ~~ 1 informatiori is available from a mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.) 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 3 IDENTIFY each PERSON with knowledge of the COMPANY'S past officers. 4 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 5 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "kriowledge". Over broad as to the term 6 "Person". Unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, the core 7 individuals who are likely to be aware of LC's past officers are the parties hereto, all 8 representatives of SBM that worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are all well 9 known to plaintiff, and the attomeys who have performed work for LC including Wilson Sonsini, 10 Downey Brand arid Bill Wame, lari Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel. 11 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE; 12 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit. ffl h-I h-l 13 Dr. Longoria objects that this iiiterrogaitory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is Q 14 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous, < Pi ffl 15 thereby preventirig Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the ffl 16 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to Z' o 17 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 Q 18 CaLApp.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraighfjForward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria 19 undoubtedly has an understandirig of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts 20 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and 21 meanirig of these requests. 22 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome 23 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis, Dr. Longoria must object that Somers 24 intended to create an unreasonable burden or that the burden bf this discbvery "clearly outweighs 25 the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence." 26 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020, subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Stii at p. 549.) And, again, Dr. 27 Longoria's objections fail to even attempt to support any coritentiori that Somers's requests are 28 overly broad and unduly burderisome, despite Dr. Lorigpria's obligation to do so. "An 'objectiori 1533744.1 9- " • SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL- SPECL\L ROGS 1 based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work requfred.'" 2 {Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Sth at p. 549 [quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 417].) 3 In any event, Dr. Lorigoria cannot meet his burden for this objection, as it is narrowly tailored and 4 highly relevant to Somers's claims agairist Dr. Lorigoria. 5 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incomplete. 6 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a 7 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which 8 consists of, according to him, the "core iridividuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at 9 issue iri the request. Thereafter, rather thau list "each PERSON," as requested, Dr. Lorigoria 10 iristead resporids iri part that these "core iridividuals" iriclude "all representatives of SBM that 11 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well knowri to plairitiff...." 12 Moreover, this ariswer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an ffl h-l 13 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraighfforward as the informatiori reasoriably available to h-I Q :z; 14 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[w]here the < ffl ffl 15 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought Ui 16 is wholly iiisufficient. Likewise, a party iriay not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers" o 17 to a proper question. (Deyo, swpra, 84 Cal.App.3d atp. 783.) Dr. Longoria's response does not 18 provide Somers with the names of the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue 19 in each request, and Somers can only guess as to what Dr. Longoria means by the "core 20 individuals;" The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," it seeks 21 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact. Dr. Longoria is obligated to 22 provide this informatiori, even if he believes that iriformatiori is; already knOwn to Somers. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 24 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing the COMPANY'S past officers. 25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 26 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidericirig". Subject to and without 27 waiving said objection see documents produced iri response to plaintiffs requests for production 28 of documents. 1533744.1 1 0 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS 1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 2 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit. 3 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is 4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague arid ambiguous, 5 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nbnetheless requires Dr. Longoria to 7 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 8 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and iri plairi Eriglish, and Dr. Longoria 9 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts 10 uriderlyirig this case arid his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope arid 11 meariirig of these requests. 12 B. Dr. Longoria's Riesponsesi Referring to '^Documents Produced in Response to ffl Plaintiffs Requests for Production" FaU to Properly Invoke Section 2030;230. h-l 13 hJ Q 14 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section < Pi ffl 15 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to Ui 16 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of orfromdocumerits. Nor does Dr. o 17 Lorigoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that o 18 would permit Somers to locate arid identify the documentsfromwhich the answer to the 19 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone 20 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained iri Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the 21 informatiori is availablefroma mass of documents is insufficierit." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.) 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 23 State, by name and position, all present members of the COMPANY'S board of directors. 24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 25 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "position" in the context of this 26 interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving this objection — James Longoria. 27 /// 28 /// 1533744.1 11 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS 1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 2 A. Dr. Longoria's .Objections Are Without Merit. 3 Dr. Longoria objects that this iriterrpgatbry is vague,and ambigubus. This objection is 4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vagiie and ambiguous, 5 thereby preventirig Somersfromcuririg ariy supposed, ariibiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law norietheless requires Dr. Longoria to 7 provide a response because theriatureof the iriformatiori sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 8 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward arid iri plairi English, and Dr. Longoria 9 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts 10 imderlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope arid 11 meariirig of these requests. 12 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Incomplete and Evasive. PH h-l h-l 13 Dr. Longoria's answer provides the names of directors, biit not their positions. It is Q 14 unclear why the term "positiori" is vague arid ambiguous, ais directors of a board may hold < Pi ffl 15 positions, such as Chairman, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. Dr. Longoria's responses to >^ ffl 16 this interrogatory are thus incomplete and evasive. o 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 18 IDENTIFY each PERSON witii kriowledge of tiie COMPANY'S present board of 19 directors. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 21 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "kriowledge". Over broad as to the term 22 "Persori". Uriduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objectioris, the core 23 iridividuals who are likely to be aware of LC' s board members are. the parties hereto, all 24 represeritatives of SBM that worked with LC therapeutics, Iric. whbse ideritities are all well 25 knbwn tb plaintiff, and.the attbriieys who have performed work for, LC iricludirig \yilsori Sorisini, 26 Downey Brand and Bill Wame, Ian Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel. 27 /// 28 /// 1533744.1 12 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL-SPECLAL ROGS 1 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 2 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit. 3 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is 4 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous, 5 thereby preventirig Somers from curirig any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, everi assumirig the 6 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to 7 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 8 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is,sfraightforward arid iri plairi English, and Dr. Longoria 9 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meanirig giveri his irivolvement in the facts 10 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and 11 meanirig of these requests. 12 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome ffl hJ h-l 13 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis, Dr. Longoria must object that Somers Q 14 intended to create an unreasonable burden or that the biirden of this discovery "clearly outweighs < ffl ffl 15 the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." >^ ffl 16 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020, subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5tii at p. 549.) Arid, agairi, Dr. o 17 Longoria's objections fail to even aittempt to support any contention that Somers's requests are Q 18 overly broad and unduly burdensome, despite Dr. Longoria's obligation to do so. "An 'objection 19 based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required."' 20 {Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549 [quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 417].) 21 In ariy everit, Dr. Longoria cannot meet his burden for this objection, as it is narrowly tailored arid 22 highly relevant to Somers's claims agaiost Dr. Lorigoria. 23 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive arid Incomplete. 24 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to identify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a 25 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dodges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which 26 consists of, accordirig to him, the "core iridividuals" likely to be aware ofthe particular fact at 27 issue iri the request. Thereafter, rather than list "each PERSON," as; requested, Dr. Longoria 28 instead resporids iri part that these "core iridividuals" iuclude "all represeritatives of SBM that 1533744.1 13 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL\L ROGS 1 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well known to plaintiff...." 2 Moreover, this answer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an 3 interrogatory must be "as complete and sfraightforward as the information reasonably available to 4 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[wjhere the 5 question is. specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought 6 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusioriary answers" 7 to a proper question. {Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Dr. Lbngoria's response does not 8 provide Somers with the names of the individuals with knowledge of the particular facts at issue 9 in each request, and Somers can only guess as to what Dr. Lorigoria means by the "core 10 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," they 11 seek the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact. Dr. Longoria is obligated to 12 provide this information, even if he believes that information is already known to Somers. PH hJ 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Q 14 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing tiie COMP ANY's present board of directors. < Pi ffl 15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: >^ Ui 16 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidencing". Subject to and without O 17 waiving said objection see documents produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production Q 18 of documents. 19 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 20 A. Dr. Longoria's Objections Are Without Merit. 21 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and anibiguous. This objectiori is 22 frivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous, 23 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 24 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. LongOria to 25 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 26 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and iri plairi English, and Dr. Longoria 27 undoubtedly has an uuderstandirig of its iriterided meaning given his involvemerit iri the facts 28 Uriderlyirig this case arid his review of Somers's complairit^ which details the^precise scope and 1533744.1 14 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECL^J. ROGS 1 meaning of these requests. 2 B. Dr. Longoria's .Responses Referring to "Documents Produced in Response to ^ Plaintiffs Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230. 4 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 5 2030.230. Dr. Longoria doesriotassert that arisweririg the interrogatory would require him to 6 prepare or make a compilation, absfract, audit, or summary of or from documents. Nor does Dr. 7 Longoria provide the Bates rarige for the responsive documents, or offer ariy other details that 8 would permit Somers to locate arid ideritify the documerits from which the ariswer to the 9 interrogatory may be ascertained. Indeed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone 10 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the 11 information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.) 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: ffl h-l hJ 13 State, by name and position, all past members of the COMPANY'S board of directors. Q 14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: < ai ffl 15 Objection — vague arid ambigubus as to the term "positiori" iri the context of this >^ ffl 16 interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving this objection — Roy Chin, James Longoria and O 17 very briefly Peter Bemadicou. Q 18 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 19 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit. 20 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objectiori is 21 fiivolous. These objectious do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous, 22 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 23 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to 24 . provide a resporise because the nature of the iriformatiori sought is apparerit. (Deyo, supra, 84 25 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and iri plairi Eriglish, arid Dr. Lorigoria 26 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts 27 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and 28 meanirig of these requests. 1533744.1 15 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS 1 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Incompliete and Evasive. 2 Dr. Longoria objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the term "position" is vague 3 and ambiguous. His answer provides the names bf directors, but not their positions. It is unclear 4 why the term "position" is vague and ambiguous, as directors of a board may hold positions, such 5 as Chairman, Vice Chair, Secretary, arid Treasurer. Dr. Lorigoria's resporises to this iriterrogatory 6 are thus incomplete and evasive. 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 8 IDENTIFY each PERSON with knowledge of the COMPANY'S past board of directors. 9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12; 10 Objectiori — vague arid ambiguous as to the term "knowledge". Over broad as to the term 11 "Persori". Uriduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving said objections, the core 12 individuals who are likely to be aware of LC's board members are the parties hereto, all ffl h-l hJ 13 representatives of SBM that worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are all well Q 14 known to plaintiff, and the attomeys who have performed work for LC iricluding Wilson Sonsini, < Pi m 15 Downey Brarid and Bill Wame, Ian Carter, William Ferguson and Jason Harrel. 1^ ffl 16 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: O 17 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Mierit. Q 18 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and anibiguous. This objectiori is 19 fiivolous. These objectioris do not state how any of these requests are vague and ambiguous, 20 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, eveu assuming the 21 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law norietheless reqiiires Dr. Longoria to 22 provide a resporise because the nature of the information soiight is' apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 23 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria 24 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaning given his involvement in the facts 25 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and 26 meaning of these requests. 27 Dr. Longoria's objections this interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdensome 28 similarly lacks merit. To validly object on this basis, Dr. Longoria must object that Somers 1533744.1 16 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS 1 intended to create an unreasonable burden or that the burden of this discovery "clearly outweighs 2 the likelihood that the infonriatiori soughtiwill lead to the discovery of admissible eviderice." 3 (Code Civ. Proc, § 2017.020,'subd. (a); Williams, supra, 3 Cal.Stii kt p. 549.) And, again, 4 Dr. Longoria's objectioris fail to everi attempt to support ariy contention that Somers's requests 5 are overly broad and unduly burdensome, despite Dr. Longoria's obligation to do so. "An 6 'objection based upon burderi must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work 7 required.'" (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549 [quoting West Pico Furniture, supra, 56 Cal.2d 8 at p. 417].) In any event. Dr. Lorigoria cannot meet his;burden for this objection, as it is narrowly 9 tailored and highly relevant to Somers's claims agairist Dr. Longoria. 10 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incomplete. 11 This interrogatory asks Dr. Longoria to ideritify "each PERSON" with knowledge of a 12 particular fact, but Dr. Longoria dbdges the question. To do so, he "identifies" a list which ffl hJ hJ 13 consists of, according to him, the "core individuals" likely to be aware of the particular fact at Q 14 issue in the request. Thereafter, rather than list "eiach PERSON," as requested. Dr. Longoria < ffl ffl 15 instead responds in part that these "core individuals" include ''all representatives of SBM that >- ffl 16 worked with LC Therapeutics, Inc. whose identities are well known to plaintiff...." O 17 This answer is completely inappropriate and nonresponsive. Each answer to an Q 18 interrogatory must bei"as complete and sfraightforward as the information reasonably available to 19 the responding party permits." (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Moreover, "[wjhere the 20 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sbught 21 is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers" 22 to a proper question. {Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.). Dr. Longoria's response does not 23 provide Sbmers with the names of the iridividuals with kriowledge of the particular facts at issue 24 in each request, and Somers cari only guess as to what Dr. Lorigoria means by the "core 25 individuals." The request does not seek the names or categories of the "core individuals," it seeks 26 the name of each individual with knowledge of a particular fact; Dr. LongOria is obligated to 27 provide this information, even if he believes that information is afready knowri to Somers. 28 /// 1533744.1 17 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 2 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT evidencing the COMPANY'S past board of directors. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 4 Objection — vague and ambiguous as to the term "evidencirig". Subject to and without 5 waiving said objection see documerits produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production 6 of documents. 7 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 8 A. Dr. Longoria's Objeetions Are Without Merit. 9 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is 10 fiivolous. These objections do not state how my of these requests are vague arid ambiguous, 11 thereby preveutirig Somers from curirig any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 12 request is "somewhat ambiguous," Califomia case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to ffl hJ 13 provide a response because the nature of the informafion sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 hJ Q 14 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria < Pi ffl 15 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meanirig ^veri his irivolvement in the facts Ui 16 underlying this case and his review of Somers's complairit, which details the precise scope arid . Z 17 meaning of these requests. o Q 18 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referririjg to "Documerits Produced.in.Response to Plaintiff s Requests for Production" FaU tb Properlv Invoke Section 2030.230. 19 20 This response falls far short of satisfying the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 21 2030.230. Dr. Longoria does not assert that answering the interrogatory would require him to 22 prepare or make a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or frbrri dbcuments. Nor does Dr. 23 Longoria provide the Bates range for the responsive documents, or offer any other details that 24 would permit Somers to locate and identify the documents from which the answer to the 25 iriterrogatory may be ascertairied. Irideed, Somers is unable to perform this task at all, let alone 26 "as readily as the responding party can." As explained in Deyo, "[a] broad statement that the 27 information is available from a mass of documents is insufficient." (84 Cal.App.3d at p. 784.) 28 1533744.1 18 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 14; 2 IDENTIFY each PERSON who made a loan to the COMPANY. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 4 Objectiori — vague arid ambiguous as to the term "loari." Subject to arid without waivirig 5 said objectiori — Charles Somers, possibly the Charles Somers Living Tmst, possibly SBM, arid 6 James Longoria. 7 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE; 8 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit. 9 Dr. Longoria objects that this iriterrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is 10 fiivolous. These objections do riot state how ariy of these requests are vague and ambiguous, 11 thereby preveutirig Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 12 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to ffl hJ 13 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {F>eyo, supra, 84 h-l Q 14 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward arid in plain English, and Dr. Lorigoria < Pi ffl. 15 undoubtedly has an understandirig of its interided meaning given his involvement in the facts > ffl 16 Uriderlyirig this case and his review of Somers's complaint, which details the precise scope and o 17 meaning of these requests. Q 18 B. Dr. Longoria's Responses Are Evasive and Incompliete. 19 A response iridicatirig that an entity "possibly" rriade a loan is not a complete aod 20 sfraightforward ariswer. (Civ. Code Proc, § 2030.220, subd. (a).) It is Dr. Longoria's duty to 21 provide fiill and complete resporises to these requests; respbuses containirig guesswork arid 22 conjecture are not acceptable. 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 24 For each loan that has beeri made to the COMPANY, state the date and amourit of the 25 loan. 26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 27 Objectiori — vague arid ambiguous as to the term "ievidencirig" and requires the 28 compilatiori, audit or summary. Subject to arid without waiving said objection see documents 1533744.1 19 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL - SPECIAL ROGS 1 produced in response to plaintiffs requests for production of documents. Further, this 2 interrogatory requires the review of informatiori that is preseritly in the possessiori of plairitiff arid 3 his/its representatives. 4 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE; 5 A. Dr. Longoria's Obiections Are Without Merit. 6 Dr. Longoria objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. This objection is 7 fiivolous. These objections do not state how any of these requests are vague arid ambiguous, 8 thereby preventing Somers from curing any supposed ambiguity. Regardless, even assuming the 9 request is "somewhat ambiguous," California case law nonetheless requires Dr. Longoria to 10 provide a response because the nature of the information sought is apparent. {Deyo, supra, 84 11 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) Somers's request is sfraightforward and in plain English, and Dr. Longoria 12 undoubtedly has an understanding of its intended meaiung given his involvement in the facts ffl hJ hJ 13 underlying this case and his review of Somers's coriiplaint,-which details the precise scope arid Q 2 14 meanirig of these requests. < Pi ffl 15 B. Dr. Longoria's Resporiises Are Evasivie and Incomplete. > Ui 16 The fact that Somers or a third party may already have possession of these documents o 17 does not alter Dr. Longoria's obligation to fiilly and completely answer these interrogatories. To Q 18 the extent Dr. Longoria intends to answer this interrogatory by invoking section 2030.230, he 19 must comply with the requirements sef forth, above and specify, in sufficient detail, the writings 20 from which the answer cari be ascertained. 21 C. Dr. Longoria's Responses Referring to "Documents'Produced. in Response to Plairitifrs Requests for Production" Fail to Properly Invoke Section 2030.230. 23 This response falls far short of satisfying the standa