On February 28, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Phillips, Derek,
and
Does 1 Through 50,
Gonzales, Destiny,
Gonzales, Teanna,
Penn, Marquis,
Provest Realty Inc.A California Corporation,
Zamfir, Pompiliu Manuel,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ROBERT A. HUFNAGEL (State BarNo. 210280) F D i L E
RESNICK & LOUIS, RC. SagEURggs gggALIFORNIA
J 3:23;; NARD'NO
Attorneys at Law
SA NFE‘RN'WM Emma
'
- “’- ‘f‘
3350 Shelby Street, Suite 200
Ontario, CA 91764 MAR O 2 2021
Telephone (909) 458-01 10
Facsimile (909) 281—3510
rhufnagel@r1attomeys.com BY M‘y’éw ,
ANGELNE’ GARCJA, DEPUTY
\OOOQONKlI-PUJNH
AttorneysfbrAttorneysfor Defendants, PROVESTREALTY, INC, a California Corporation
and POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR, an individual
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEREK PHILLIPS, an individual Case No. CIVDSZOO61 97
(Assigned for all purposes to Honorable John M.
Tomberlin, Judge, Dept. S33)
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS PROVEST REALTY, INC.’S
VS. AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR’S
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
DESTINY GONZALES, an individual; MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF
DERE P I L
TEANNA GONZALES, an 1nd1v1dual;
. . .
INTERIEOIakTgEIEg EgglgNE; AND FOR
MARQUIS PENN, an individual; PROVEST vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
MONETARY SANCTIONS
REATLY INC, a California corporation;
POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR, and individual; [Motion to Compel Filed Concurrently
Herewith]
and DOES l through 50 inclusive,
NNNNNNNNNHHH—ap—u—n—‘HHH
MQONM-th—‘OKOOONQU‘I-hwlv—‘O
Date: March 30, 2021
Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: S33
Complaint Filed: February 28, 2020
Pursuant to Rule 3.1020 of the California Rules of Court, DEFENDANTS PROVEST
REALTY, INC. AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR (“Defendants”) submit the following Separate
Statement In Support Of Motion To Compel Plaintiff Derek Phillips To Form Interrogatories, Set One
And For Monetary Sanctions for which Defendants seek a further response from Plaintiff DEREK
PHILLIPS (“Plaintiff”). The following are the Form Interrogatories, Set One verbatim, Plaintiff‘s
1
DEFENDANTS PROVEST REALTY, INC.’S AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR’S SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DEREK PHILLIPS TO FORM
[NTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
responses as the Responding Party verbatim, and the reasons why further responses should be
compelled.
FORM INTERROGATORIES
Form Interrogatory 1.1:
\OOONONUl-JklaJNH
State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship t0 you of each PERSON who
prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses t0 these interrogatories. (Do not identify
anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.)
Plaintiff’s Response:
Responding Party objects on each of the following grounds:
(1) To the extent the interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-client
privilege or the work product doctrine (Evid. Code, § 950 et seq., Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.010
et seq.); and
(2) To the extent the interrogatory is rendered vague and ambiguous as to “prepared or
assisted” and “preparation” (Deyo v Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771).
Legal Authoritv in Support offlrther Response:
Califomia Code 0f Civil Procedure § 2030.220 provides that:
(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and
straightforward information reasonably responding party
NNNNNNNNNt—t—Ir—ay—awwp—ap—np—‘H
as the available t0 the
ooflam-wa—‘OKOOONOUl-hwlvh‘o
pennits.
(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the
extent possible.
(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond
fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good
faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry t0 other natural persons or
organizations, except where the information is equally available t0 the propounding
party.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has a duty to provide complete and straightforward responses as
possible to these interrogatories given the information available and known the Plaintiff. The Court in
2
DEFENDANTS PROVEST REALTY, INC.’S AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR’S SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DEREK PHILLIPS TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Document Filed Date
March 02, 2021
Case Filing Date
February 28, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ROBERT A. HUFNAGEL (State BarNo. 210280) F D i L E RESNICK & LOUIS, RC. SagEURggs gggALIFORNIA J 3:23;; NARD'NO Attorneys at Law SA NFE‘RN'WM Emma ' - “’- ‘f‘ 3350 Shelby Street, Suite 200 Ontario, CA 91764 MAR O 2 2021 Telephone (909) 458-01 10 Facsimile (909) 281—3510 rhufnagel@r1attomeys.com BY M‘y’éw , ANGELNE’ GARCJA, DEPUTY \OOOQONKlI-PUJNH AttorneysfbrAttorneysfor Defendants, PROVESTREALTY, INC, a California Corporation and POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR, an individual SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEREK PHILLIPS, an individual Case No. CIVDSZOO61 97 (Assigned for all purposes to Honorable John M. Tomberlin, Judge, Dept. S33) Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS PROVEST REALTY, INC.’S VS. AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DESTINY GONZALES, an individual; MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DERE P I L TEANNA GONZALES, an 1nd1v1dual; . . . INTERIEOIakTgEIEg EgglgNE; AND FOR MARQUIS PENN, an individual; PROVEST vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv MONETARY SANCTIONS REATLY INC, a California corporation; POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR, and individual; [Motion to Compel Filed Concurrently Herewith] and DOES l through 50 inclusive, NNNNNNNNNHHH—ap—u—n—‘HHH MQONM-th—‘OKOOONQU‘I-hwlv—‘O Date: March 30, 2021 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: S33 Complaint Filed: February 28, 2020 Pursuant to Rule 3.1020 of the California Rules of Court, DEFENDANTS PROVEST REALTY, INC. AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR (“Defendants”) submit the following Separate Statement In Support Of Motion To Compel Plaintiff Derek Phillips To Form Interrogatories, Set One And For Monetary Sanctions for which Defendants seek a further response from Plaintiff DEREK PHILLIPS (“Plaintiff”). The following are the Form Interrogatories, Set One verbatim, Plaintiff‘s 1 DEFENDANTS PROVEST REALTY, INC.’S AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DEREK PHILLIPS TO FORM [NTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS responses as the Responding Party verbatim, and the reasons why further responses should be compelled. FORM INTERROGATORIES Form Interrogatory 1.1: \OOONONUl-JklaJNH State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship t0 you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses t0 these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) Plaintiff’s Response: Responding Party objects on each of the following grounds: (1) To the extent the interrogatory seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege or the work product doctrine (Evid. Code, § 950 et seq., Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.010 et seq.); and (2) To the extent the interrogatory is rendered vague and ambiguous as to “prepared or assisted” and “preparation” (Deyo v Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771). Legal Authoritv in Support offlrther Response: Califomia Code 0f Civil Procedure § 2030.220 provides that: (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward information reasonably responding party NNNNNNNNNt—t—Ir—ay—awwp—ap—np—‘H as the available t0 the ooflam-wa—‘OKOOONOUl-hwlvh‘o pennits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry t0 other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available t0 the propounding party. Accordingly, Plaintiff has a duty to provide complete and straightforward responses as possible to these interrogatories given the information available and known the Plaintiff. The Court in 2 DEFENDANTS PROVEST REALTY, INC.’S AND POMPILIU MANUEL ZAMFIR’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF DEREK PHILLIPS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS