Preview
1 Jesse B. Chrisp, Esq. (State Bar No. 262518)
Gregory W. Jemison, Esq. (State Bar No. 312072)
2 Gina Fortino Dickson, Esq. (State Bar No. 343775)
LAW OFFICES OF J. CHRISP
3 6997 Highway 29
Lower Lake, CA 95493
4 Telephone: (707) 994-0529
Facsimile: (707) 995-3529
5 Email: eservice@chrisplaw.com
6 Anna Dubrovsky, Esq., (State Bar No. 197116)
Pavel Krepkiy, Esq. (State Bar No. 269855)
7 ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC.
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2015
8 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 746-1477
9 Facsimile: (415) 746-1478
E-mail: anna@dubrovskylawyers.com
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
11 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA
MIRANDA BY GAL – DAVID MIRANDA,
12 WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL –RUDY MIRANDA
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF SONOMA
15 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA Case No.: SCV-270065
MIRANDA BY GAL – DAVID MIRANDA,
16 WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL – RUDY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
MIRANDA, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
17 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff(s), DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA
18 MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER
vs. WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES;
19 PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS;
MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, TO SIGN AN AUTHORIZATION FOR
20 CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC, PRODUCTION OF HIS CELLPHONE
WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, RECORDS; AND DEFENDANT WADE
21 INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, TRANSPORTATION TO PAY COSTS
AND FEES FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR
22 Defendant(s). AT ITS PMQ DEPOSITION; REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS
23
Assigned to Hon. Oscar Pardo for All Purposes
24
Date:
25 Time 3:00 p.m.
Dept.: 19
26
Filed Date: January 25, 2022
27 Trial Date: April 26, 2024
28
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 On February 4, 2020, Stephanie Miranda (“Decedent”) was driving north on Highway 101
4 in a 2016 Mazda. She tragically collided with the rear of an 18-wheeled tractor-trailer that was
5 illegally parked on the shoulder of the highway at the off-ramp for Bicentennial Way in Santa
6 Rosa. She died of her injuries. On January 25, 2022, Plaintiffs, the heirs of the Decedent, filed a
7 complaint against the driver, Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, and his employers, Carrera Garcia
8 Transport LLC, and Wade Transportation Company, Inc., for wrongful death stemming from the
9 subject fatal crash. The Court is familiar with the disputed facts in connection with the crash by
10 virtue of recent denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, an
11 independent witness who arrived at the scene within seconds after the impact testified in deposition
12 that the trailer had no lights. In addition, the intended destination of the beer delivery for Mr.
13 Madrigal was several miles further north and it is still a mystery why he decided to take the subject
14 off-ramp. Mr. Madrigal testified in his deposition that he believed he took several videos with his
15 cell phone immediately after the impact. Only one video was produced. In addition, Mr.
16 Madrigal’s cell phone use in the two hours leading up to the crash is directly relevant to the facts
17 of the crash and could reveal potential witnesses.
18 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT MOTION
19 On October 5, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for
20 Admissions, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special Interrogatories,
21 Set One. (Declaration of Jesse B. Chrisp, (“Chrisp Decl.,” ¶ 2.)
22 On December 15, 2022, Defendant Madrigal served responses to Form Interrogatories, Set
23 One, Request for Admissions, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special
24 Interrogatories, Set One. (Chrisp Decl., ¶ 3.)
25 On January 11, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent meet and confer correspondence outlining
26 deficiencies in Mr. Madrigal’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories,
27 Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Declaration of Pavel Krepkiy,
28 (“Krepkiy Decl.,” ¶ 2.)
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 On February 10, 2023, Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiffs’ initial meet and confer
2 letter outlining their position and stated that supplemental responses would follow. (Krepkiy Decl.,
3 ¶ 3.)
4 Plaintiffs’ counsel sent several follow up e-mails. Finally, on February 24, 2023 Mr.
5 Madrigal’s counsel indicated amended responses would be provided and extended Plaintiffs’
6 motion to compel deadline to two weeks after service of the amended responses. (Krepkiy Decl.,
7 ¶ 4.)
8 Plaintiff’s counsel continued to follow up with defense counsel requesting formal amended
9 discovery responses. On June 12, 2023, defense counsel again confirmed that formal amended
10 discovery responses would be provided. To date, amended responses have not been received.
11 (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 5.)
12 A. Subpoena For Defendant’s Cell Phone Records
13 In Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer in connection with his cell phone
14 records (Request for Production No. 30), defense counsel indicated that Mr. Mardigal was not able
15 to produce the records, but indicated that his carrier was AT&T and also provided his phone
16 number at the time of the crash. Plaintiffs’ counsel, promptly sent a blank cell phone records
17 release authorization to defense counsel for Mr. Madrigal to execute in order for Plaintiffs to
18 subpoena the records on March 6, 2023. Defendant’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the
19 authorization and agreed to request that Mr. Madrigal sign an authorization required by his
20 cellphone provider so that Plaintiffs can receive Madrigal’s cellphone records pursuant to Code of
21 Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a). The signed authorization has not been produced thus far. Plaintiffs
22 have no choice but to file a motion to compel for Madrigal to sign the authorization so Plaintiffs
23 can receive responsive records. (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 6.)
24 The Cell phone authorization issue was also discussed at Defendant Madrigal’s deposition,
25 wherein defense counsel agreed to have Mr. Madrigal execute the cellphone authorization.
26 (Madrigal Depo at pg. 163:1-13) (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 7.)
1 MS. DUBROVSKY: So there are two outstanding
27 2 items remaining. One is that counsel promised that we
3 going to get a subpoena executed by Mr. Madrigal so we
28 4 can subpoena his cell phone records that have been
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
5 subject to meet and confer, and the second issue is the
1 6 outstanding videos taken by Madrigal on his cell phone
7 at the scene.
2 8 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first of all, I didn't
9 promise to execute a subpoena. I said we could do an
3 10 authorization for the temp to get a subpoena for the
11 cell phone records for a limited period of time before
4 12 and after the accident.
13 MS. DUBROVSKY: Correct.
5
6 B. Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Properly Noticed PMQ Deposition and Failure
7 to Reimburse Plaintiff for the Costs of the Deposition
8 On July 21, 2023, Plaintiffs noticed the PMQ deposition of Defendant Wade
9 Transportation for August 21, 2023. Having received no response, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent several
10 e-mails in an attempt to confirm the deposition was going forward. On August 9, 2023, Ms. Elaine
11 Berman, a paralegal from defense counsel’s firm sent an e-mail in which she provided alternative
12 dates for the deposition of Wade PMQ. One of the available dates was September 5, 2023.
13 Plaintiffs’ counsel promptly served an Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant Wade for
14 September 5, 2023. (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 9.)
15 On September 1, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent defense counsel an e-mail confirming the
16 deposition of Wade set for September 5, 2023. Plaintiffs’ counsel arranged for a court reporter
17 and videographer for said deposition. On September 5, 2023, the PMQ for Defendant Wade
18 Transportation failed to appear at their deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail to defense
19 counsel at approximately 10:15 a.m. advising them that Plaintiffs’ counsel, court reporter and
20 videographer were in the Zoom meeting waiting for the defense. A few minutes later, in a
21 telephone call with defense counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel was advised that Wade was not appearing
22 at the deposition that morning. No justification was provided. (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 10.)
23 As a result of Defendant Wade’s failure to appear at the deposition, costs were incurred in
24 the amount of $885.00 for the court reporter and videographer. On September 18, 2023, Mr.
25 Krepkiy sent the invoices to defense counsel, who confirmed that he forwarded the invoices to his
26 client for payment. As of the writing of this motion, costs have not been reimbursed. (Krepkiy
27 Decl., ¶ 11.)
28 In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Anna Dubrovsky spent three (3) hours preparing for the
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 subject deposition and an additional 30 minutes waiting for the defendants to appear and making
2 a non-appearance record. (Dubrovsky Decl.)
3 On January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent additional meet and confer correspondence
4 regarding Defendant, Mauricio Madrigal’s discovery responses, cell phone records, and costs
5 incurred for the deposition of Defendant Wade Transportation’s PMQ. Plaintiffs have not received
6 a response. (Chrisp Decl., ¶ 4.)
7 III. THIS COURT IS EMPOWERED TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
8 FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
9 SET ONE
10 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 states in pertinent part:
11 (a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party
may move for an order compelling a further response if the
12 propounding party deems that any of the following apply:
(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or
13 incomplete.
(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under
14 Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of
those documents is inadequate.
15 (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too
general.
16
17 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 in relevant part provides:
18 (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete
and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the
19 responding party permits.
(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be
20 answered to the extent possible.
(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge
21 sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so
22 state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or
23 organizations, except where the information is equally available to
the propounding party.
24
25 In this case, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s responses are evasive and/or incomplete,
26 his objections are without merit and/or too general and made in bad faith. Defendant Madrigal
27 agreed to serve amended discovery responses but failed to do so.
28 On these bases, the Plaintiffs bring this motion seeking an order from the court compelling
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 Defendant to provide full, complete, and verified responses to the interrogatories at issue as set
2 forth in the Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement filed concurrently with this memorandum of points and
3 authorities.
4 IV. THIS COURT IS EMPOWERED TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
6 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 states in pertinent part:
7 (a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order
8
compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party
9 deems that any of the following apply:
10 (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate,
11 incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too
12
general.
13
Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 entitles the parties to discover:
14
“any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
15 involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
16
admissible evidence.” (emphasis added).
17
18 Plaintiffs may move to compel a further response to a request for production if Defendant’s
19 statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; a representation of inability to comply is
20 inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or if an objection in the response is without merit or too
21 general. (CCP §§ 2031.310(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).) As demonstrated by Plaintiffs’ Separate
22 Statement filed concurrently herewith, Defendant’s responses that are at issue by this motion meet
23 one or more of the qualifications set for in CCP §§ 2031.310(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).
24 Further, Defendant’s counsel agreed to have Mr. Madrigal sign an authorization required
25 by his cellphone provider so that Plaintiffs can receive Madrigal’s cellphone records pursuant to
26 Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a). The signed authorization has not be produced thus far.
27 ///
28 ///
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 A. Mr. Madrigal’s Cell Phone Records Are Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the
2 Discovery of Admissable Evidence and Do Not Contain Privileged Confidential
3 Information That Warrants Protection from Disclosure.
4 Mr. Madrigal’s cell phone records from the date of the crash, limited to two hours before
5 the crash and two hours after are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable
6 evidence. There are disputes as to the facts of the crash, the reason for the stop by the Defendant
7 driver on the shoulder, the time of the stop, the time of the impact, etc. Plaintiffs are entitled to
8 know if he was on a call during his stop, What if he was on a call during his stop? What if he was
9 texting during the relevant time? In addition, Mr. Madrigal’s cell phone use during the trip, prior
10 to the crash and during the crash is relevant to his fitness to be a truck driver, and claims against
11 his employer for negligent hiring, retention, and training.
12 Defendant's privacy objection is without merit. Given the highly probative value of this
13 information, and its direct relation to the lawsuit, including liability determination, any privacy
14 rights that Defendant retains are outweighed by Plaintiffs’ right to an independent investigation of
15 this information.
16 Any person to whom Mr. Madrigal spoke or texted with in the two hours before the crash
17 and two hours after is a percipient witness. The law is clear that the identity of witnesses is not
18 protected and must be produced in discovery when requested. (See Coito v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 54
19 Cal. 4th 480, 502; see also Puerto v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1251-52.) The
20 discovery of phone numbers without the identification of the person to whom the phone number
21 belongs does not invade any third person’s confidentiality and clearly falls within the permissible
22 discovery parameters set forth in Puerto, supra, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242. The court in that case
23 held that a party was entitled to obtain the contact information, including telephone numbers, of
24 witnesses who were employees of the defendant and had been identified by a defendant in
25 responses to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1. The appellate court struck down a requirement imposed
26 by the trial court that, before disclosure of the contact information, the witnesses had to first be
27 contacted by the defendant and asked to “opt in” to having their information disclosed. In rejecting
28 this opt in provision, the court applied the balancing test articulated in Pioneer Electronics (USA),
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 360, to determine if there was any need to impose
2 restrictions on the discovery to protect the privacy interests of the witnesses in keeping their
3 contact information confidential, explaining:
4 Here, just as in Pioneer, the requested information, while personal, is not
particularly sensitive, as it is merely contact information, not medical or financial
5 details, political affiliations, sexual relationships, or personnel information…As the
Supreme Court pointed out in Pioneer, the information sought by petitioners here—
6 the location of witnesses—is generally discoverable, and it is neither unduly
personal nor overly intrusive. (Pioneer, at p. 373.) In some respects, the potential
7 intrusion here is even less significant than that in Pioneer, because here the
requested disclosure does not involve individuals' identities, which had already
8 been disclosed by Wild Oats prior to the filing of the motion to compel. There
simply is no evidence that disclosure of the contact information for these already
9 identified witnesses is a transgression of the witnesses' privacy that is “sufficiently
serious in [its] nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an
10 egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right.”
11 (Puerto, supra, 158 Cal. App. 4th at 1253.) The identities and phone numbers of the
12 persons Defendant communicated with are relevant and must be produced.
13 On these bases, the Plaintiffs bring this motion seeking an order from the court compelling
14 Defendant to provide full, complete, and verified responses to the request for production at issue
15 as set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement filed concurrently with this Memorandum of
16 Points and Authorities; and sign the authorization required by his cellphone provider.
17 B. The Court Should Compel Defendant Madrigal to Produce All Videos In His
18 Possession
19 Defendant Madrigal testified at his deposition that he filmed “several” videos with his cell
20 phone shortly after the impact. To date, only one video has been produced to Plaintiffs. Any videos
21 of the incident in Mr. Madrigal’s are are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
22 admissible evidence. The videos in Mr. Madrigal’s possession may show whether or not there
23 were any lights illuminated on the truck.
2 Q. Now, at some point, you took the video with
24 3 your cell phone. Do you remember that?
4 A. Yes. The whole time, I was taking videos. In
25 5 fact, I have turned those over to you guys.
6 Q. How many videos did you take?
26 7 A. I don't know. I took several videos.
8 Q. More than two?
27 9 A. Perhaps. I don't know.
28 Madrigal Depo at: Pg. 116:2-9; 120:6-25; 121:1-25; 122:1-22.
8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 V. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL DEFENDANT WADE TRANSPORTATION
2 COMPANY INC. TO PAY EXPENSES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THEIR
3 PMQ’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITION
4 Under C.C.P. Section 2025.450 (g) (1), the court shall grand Plaintiffs’ request for costs,
5 and attorneys’ fees assocaited with Wade’s failure to appear at a properly noticed deposition,
6 without objection and without good cause.
7 On September 5, 2023, the PMQ for Defendant Wade Transportation failed to appear at
8 their properly noticed deposition. No objection was served. As a result of Defendant Wade’s
9 failure to appear at the deposition, costs were incurred in the amount of $885.00 for the court
10 reporter and videographer. On September 18, 2023, Mr. Krepkiy sent the invoices to defense
11 counsel, who confirmed he forwarded the invoices to his client for payment. As of the writing of
12 this motion, costs have not been reimbursed.
13 In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Anna Dubrovsky spent three (3) hours preparing for the
14 subject deposition and additional 30 minutes waiting for the Defendants to appear and making a
15 non-appearance record. (Dubrovsky Decl.)
16 VI. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD PLAINTIFFS’ REASONABLE EXPENSES,
17 INCLUDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THIS
18 MOTION
19 Monetary sanctions should be awarded for the Defendant’s unwillingness to abide by their
20 discovery obligations.
21 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(d) provides:
22 (d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
23 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel
24 further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one
subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that
25 other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
26
Per Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010, misuses of the discovery process include:
27 (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of
28 discovery.
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious
1 objection to discovery.
2 (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial
justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.
3
4 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 in relevant part provides:
5 I. The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one
6 engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney
advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses,
7 including attorney’s fees.
8 It is an abuse of discovery to serve objections that lack merit and not provide further
9 responses despite a stipulation to do so. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s
10 fees in connection with having to file this Motion against Defendant and their counsel of record,
11 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP, jointly and severally, in the total
12 amount of $9,040.00.
13 Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer on the issues, but defense counsel has failed to serve
14 adequate responses. Given the clear authority regarding answering interrogatories and requests for
15 production, the Defendant’s conduct here is without justification and warrants the imposition of
16 monetary sanctions.
17 Plaintiffs incurred four (6) hours preparing the moving papers for this Motion. In addition,
18 another two (2) hours will be required to review the Opposition, drafting the Reply, and appearing
19 in this matter. Plaintiffs therefore request sanctions in the amount of $5,560.00, which includes
20 attorneys’ fees as well as the Sixty Dollar ($60.00) filing fee. (Chrisp Decl., ¶ 5.); (Krepkiy Decl.,
21 ¶ 12.);
22 Plaintiffs incurred attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,625.00 in connection with the
23 preparation and appearance for the deposition of Wade PMQ on September 5, 2023, and costs in
24 the amount of $855.00.
25 VII. CONCLUSION
26 Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court order Defendant MAURICIO G. CEJA
27 MADRIGAL to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special
28 Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One propounded by
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 Plaintiffs; to sign an authorization required by his cellphone provider so that Plaintiffs can receive
2 Madrigal’s cellphone records pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a); produce all video
3 and photos taken by Mr. Madrigal; and Defendant WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
4 INC. and/or his counsel to pay costs and fees incurred as a result of Wade PMQ’s failure to appear
5 at its propery noticed deposition.
6
7 DATED: February 13, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF J. CHRISP
8
9 By: ___________________________
JESSE B. CHRISP
10 Attorney for Plaintiffs,
MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA
11 MIRANDA BY GAL – DAVID
MIRANDA, WYATT MIRANDA
12 BY GAL –RUDY MIRANDA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Lake. I am over the age
3 of 18 years and not a party to the action. My business address is 9667 Highway 29, Lower Lake,
4 CA 95457.
5 On February 13, 2024, I served the following document(s):
6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO
7 PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES; PRODUCE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS; TO SIGN AN AUTHORIZATION FOR PRODUCTION
8 OF HIS CELLPHONE RECORDS; AND DEFENDANT WADE TRANSPORTATION
TO PAY COSTS AND FEES FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ITS PMQ DEPOSITION;
9 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
10 Upon the following at the address(es) stated below:
11 Jeffrey M. Lenkov, Esq. Anna Dubrovsky, Esq.
12 Daniel J. Sullivan, Esq. Pavel Krepkiy, Esq.
MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC.
13 TRESTER LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2015
801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111
14 Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 Email: anna@dubrovskylawyers.com
Email: jml@manningllp.com pavel@dubrovskylawyers.com
15 djs@manningllp.com
16 egb@manningllp.com Attorney for Plaintiffs
17 Attorney for Defendant(s)
18
19 X ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the person at
20 the email address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission,
21 any electronic message that the transmission(s) was/were unsuccessful.
22 U.S. MAIL: by placing such files with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated
23 area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby mail is deposited in
24 U.S. Mailbox in the City of Lower Lake, California.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
26 foregoing is true and correct and that this document was executed on February 13, 2024.
27
____________________________
28
Ariana Ardoin
12
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Jesse B. Chrisp, Esq. (State Bar No. 262518) Gregory W. Jemison, Esq. (State Bar No. 312072) 2 Gina Fortino Dickson, Esq. (State Bar No. 343775) LAW OFFICES OF J. CHRISP 3 6997 Highway 29 Lower Lake, CA 95493 4 Telephone: (707) 994-0529 Facsimile: (707) 995-3529 5 Email: eservice@chrisplaw.com 6 Anna Dubrovsky, Esq., (State Bar No. 197116) Pavel Krepkiy, Esq. (State Bar No. 269855) 7 ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC. 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2015 8 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 746-1477 9 Facsimile: (415) 746-1478 E-mail: anna@dubrovskylawyers.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 11 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA MIRANDA BY GAL – DAVID MIRANDA, 12 WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL –RUDY MIRANDA 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SONOMA 15 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA Case No.: SCV-270065 MIRANDA BY GAL – DAVID MIRANDA, 16 WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL – RUDY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND MIRANDA, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 17 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff(s), DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA 18 MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER vs. WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES; 19 PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS; MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, TO SIGN AN AUTHORIZATION FOR 20 CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC, PRODUCTION OF HIS CELLPHONE WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, RECORDS; AND DEFENDANT WADE 21 INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, TRANSPORTATION TO PAY COSTS AND FEES FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR 22 Defendant(s). AT ITS PMQ DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 23 Assigned to Hon. Oscar Pardo for All Purposes 24 Date: 25 Time 3:00 p.m. Dept.: 19 26 Filed Date: January 25, 2022 27 Trial Date: April 26, 2024 28 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 On February 4, 2020, Stephanie Miranda (“Decedent”) was driving north on Highway 101 4 in a 2016 Mazda. She tragically collided with the rear of an 18-wheeled tractor-trailer that was 5 illegally parked on the shoulder of the highway at the off-ramp for Bicentennial Way in Santa 6 Rosa. She died of her injuries. On January 25, 2022, Plaintiffs, the heirs of the Decedent, filed a 7 complaint against the driver, Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, and his employers, Carrera Garcia 8 Transport LLC, and Wade Transportation Company, Inc., for wrongful death stemming from the 9 subject fatal crash. The Court is familiar with the disputed facts in connection with the crash by 10 virtue of recent denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, an 11 independent witness who arrived at the scene within seconds after the impact testified in deposition 12 that the trailer had no lights. In addition, the intended destination of the beer delivery for Mr. 13 Madrigal was several miles further north and it is still a mystery why he decided to take the subject 14 off-ramp. Mr. Madrigal testified in his deposition that he believed he took several videos with his 15 cell phone immediately after the impact. Only one video was produced. In addition, Mr. 16 Madrigal’s cell phone use in the two hours leading up to the crash is directly relevant to the facts 17 of the crash and could reveal potential witnesses. 18 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT MOTION 19 On October 5, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for 20 Admissions, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, 21 Set One. (Declaration of Jesse B. Chrisp, (“Chrisp Decl.,” ¶ 2.) 22 On December 15, 2022, Defendant Madrigal served responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 23 One, Request for Admissions, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special 24 Interrogatories, Set One. (Chrisp Decl., ¶ 3.) 25 On January 11, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent meet and confer correspondence outlining 26 deficiencies in Mr. Madrigal’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, 27 Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Declaration of Pavel Krepkiy, 28 (“Krepkiy Decl.,” ¶ 2.) 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 On February 10, 2023, Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiffs’ initial meet and confer 2 letter outlining their position and stated that supplemental responses would follow. (Krepkiy Decl., 3 ¶ 3.) 4 Plaintiffs’ counsel sent several follow up e-mails. Finally, on February 24, 2023 Mr. 5 Madrigal’s counsel indicated amended responses would be provided and extended Plaintiffs’ 6 motion to compel deadline to two weeks after service of the amended responses. (Krepkiy Decl., 7 ¶ 4.) 8 Plaintiff’s counsel continued to follow up with defense counsel requesting formal amended 9 discovery responses. On June 12, 2023, defense counsel again confirmed that formal amended 10 discovery responses would be provided. To date, amended responses have not been received. 11 (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 5.) 12 A. Subpoena For Defendant’s Cell Phone Records 13 In Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer in connection with his cell phone 14 records (Request for Production No. 30), defense counsel indicated that Mr. Mardigal was not able 15 to produce the records, but indicated that his carrier was AT&T and also provided his phone 16 number at the time of the crash. Plaintiffs’ counsel, promptly sent a blank cell phone records 17 release authorization to defense counsel for Mr. Madrigal to execute in order for Plaintiffs to 18 subpoena the records on March 6, 2023. Defendant’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the 19 authorization and agreed to request that Mr. Madrigal sign an authorization required by his 20 cellphone provider so that Plaintiffs can receive Madrigal’s cellphone records pursuant to Code of 21 Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a). The signed authorization has not been produced thus far. Plaintiffs 22 have no choice but to file a motion to compel for Madrigal to sign the authorization so Plaintiffs 23 can receive responsive records. (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 6.) 24 The Cell phone authorization issue was also discussed at Defendant Madrigal’s deposition, 25 wherein defense counsel agreed to have Mr. Madrigal execute the cellphone authorization. 26 (Madrigal Depo at pg. 163:1-13) (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 7.) 1 MS. DUBROVSKY: So there are two outstanding 27 2 items remaining. One is that counsel promised that we 3 going to get a subpoena executed by Mr. Madrigal so we 28 4 can subpoena his cell phone records that have been 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 5 subject to meet and confer, and the second issue is the 1 6 outstanding videos taken by Madrigal on his cell phone 7 at the scene. 2 8 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, first of all, I didn't 9 promise to execute a subpoena. I said we could do an 3 10 authorization for the temp to get a subpoena for the 11 cell phone records for a limited period of time before 4 12 and after the accident. 13 MS. DUBROVSKY: Correct. 5 6 B. Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Properly Noticed PMQ Deposition and Failure 7 to Reimburse Plaintiff for the Costs of the Deposition 8 On July 21, 2023, Plaintiffs noticed the PMQ deposition of Defendant Wade 9 Transportation for August 21, 2023. Having received no response, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent several 10 e-mails in an attempt to confirm the deposition was going forward. On August 9, 2023, Ms. Elaine 11 Berman, a paralegal from defense counsel’s firm sent an e-mail in which she provided alternative 12 dates for the deposition of Wade PMQ. One of the available dates was September 5, 2023. 13 Plaintiffs’ counsel promptly served an Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant Wade for 14 September 5, 2023. (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 9.) 15 On September 1, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent defense counsel an e-mail confirming the 16 deposition of Wade set for September 5, 2023. Plaintiffs’ counsel arranged for a court reporter 17 and videographer for said deposition. On September 5, 2023, the PMQ for Defendant Wade 18 Transportation failed to appear at their deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail to defense 19 counsel at approximately 10:15 a.m. advising them that Plaintiffs’ counsel, court reporter and 20 videographer were in the Zoom meeting waiting for the defense. A few minutes later, in a 21 telephone call with defense counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel was advised that Wade was not appearing 22 at the deposition that morning. No justification was provided. (Krepkiy Decl., ¶ 10.) 23 As a result of Defendant Wade’s failure to appear at the deposition, costs were incurred in 24 the amount of $885.00 for the court reporter and videographer. On September 18, 2023, Mr. 25 Krepkiy sent the invoices to defense counsel, who confirmed that he forwarded the invoices to his 26 client for payment. As of the writing of this motion, costs have not been reimbursed. (Krepkiy 27 Decl., ¶ 11.) 28 In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Anna Dubrovsky spent three (3) hours preparing for the 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 subject deposition and an additional 30 minutes waiting for the defendants to appear and making 2 a non-appearance record. (Dubrovsky Decl.) 3 On January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent additional meet and confer correspondence 4 regarding Defendant, Mauricio Madrigal’s discovery responses, cell phone records, and costs 5 incurred for the deposition of Defendant Wade Transportation’s PMQ. Plaintiffs have not received 6 a response. (Chrisp Decl., ¶ 4.) 7 III. THIS COURT IS EMPOWERED TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 8 FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, 9 SET ONE 10 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300 states in pertinent part: 11 (a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the 12 propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or 13 incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under 14 Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 15 (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. 16 17 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 in relevant part provides: 18 (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the 19 responding party permits. (b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be 20 answered to the extent possible. (c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge 21 sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so 22 state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or 23 organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party. 24 25 In this case, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s responses are evasive and/or incomplete, 26 his objections are without merit and/or too general and made in bad faith. Defendant Madrigal 27 agreed to serve amended discovery responses but failed to do so. 28 On these bases, the Plaintiffs bring this motion seeking an order from the court compelling 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 Defendant to provide full, complete, and verified responses to the interrogatories at issue as set 2 forth in the Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement filed concurrently with this memorandum of points and 3 authorities. 4 IV. THIS COURT IS EMPOWERED TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 6 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 states in pertinent part: 7 (a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order 8 compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party 9 deems that any of the following apply: 10 (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, 11 incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too 12 general. 13 Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 entitles the parties to discover: 14 “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter 15 involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 16 admissible evidence.” (emphasis added). 17 18 Plaintiffs may move to compel a further response to a request for production if Defendant’s 19 statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; a representation of inability to comply is 20 inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or if an objection in the response is without merit or too 21 general. (CCP §§ 2031.310(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).) As demonstrated by Plaintiffs’ Separate 22 Statement filed concurrently herewith, Defendant’s responses that are at issue by this motion meet 23 one or more of the qualifications set for in CCP §§ 2031.310(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3). 24 Further, Defendant’s counsel agreed to have Mr. Madrigal sign an authorization required 25 by his cellphone provider so that Plaintiffs can receive Madrigal’s cellphone records pursuant to 26 Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a). The signed authorization has not be produced thus far. 27 /// 28 /// 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 A. Mr. Madrigal’s Cell Phone Records Are Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the 2 Discovery of Admissable Evidence and Do Not Contain Privileged Confidential 3 Information That Warrants Protection from Disclosure. 4 Mr. Madrigal’s cell phone records from the date of the crash, limited to two hours before 5 the crash and two hours after are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable 6 evidence. There are disputes as to the facts of the crash, the reason for the stop by the Defendant 7 driver on the shoulder, the time of the stop, the time of the impact, etc. Plaintiffs are entitled to 8 know if he was on a call during his stop, What if he was on a call during his stop? What if he was 9 texting during the relevant time? In addition, Mr. Madrigal’s cell phone use during the trip, prior 10 to the crash and during the crash is relevant to his fitness to be a truck driver, and claims against 11 his employer for negligent hiring, retention, and training. 12 Defendant's privacy objection is without merit. Given the highly probative value of this 13 information, and its direct relation to the lawsuit, including liability determination, any privacy 14 rights that Defendant retains are outweighed by Plaintiffs’ right to an independent investigation of 15 this information. 16 Any person to whom Mr. Madrigal spoke or texted with in the two hours before the crash 17 and two hours after is a percipient witness. The law is clear that the identity of witnesses is not 18 protected and must be produced in discovery when requested. (See Coito v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 54 19 Cal. 4th 480, 502; see also Puerto v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1251-52.) The 20 discovery of phone numbers without the identification of the person to whom the phone number 21 belongs does not invade any third person’s confidentiality and clearly falls within the permissible 22 discovery parameters set forth in Puerto, supra, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1242. The court in that case 23 held that a party was entitled to obtain the contact information, including telephone numbers, of 24 witnesses who were employees of the defendant and had been identified by a defendant in 25 responses to Form Interrogatory No. 12.1. The appellate court struck down a requirement imposed 26 by the trial court that, before disclosure of the contact information, the witnesses had to first be 27 contacted by the defendant and asked to “opt in” to having their information disclosed. In rejecting 28 this opt in provision, the court applied the balancing test articulated in Pioneer Electronics (USA), 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 360, to determine if there was any need to impose 2 restrictions on the discovery to protect the privacy interests of the witnesses in keeping their 3 contact information confidential, explaining: 4 Here, just as in Pioneer, the requested information, while personal, is not particularly sensitive, as it is merely contact information, not medical or financial 5 details, political affiliations, sexual relationships, or personnel information…As the Supreme Court pointed out in Pioneer, the information sought by petitioners here— 6 the location of witnesses—is generally discoverable, and it is neither unduly personal nor overly intrusive. (Pioneer, at p. 373.) In some respects, the potential 7 intrusion here is even less significant than that in Pioneer, because here the requested disclosure does not involve individuals' identities, which had already 8 been disclosed by Wild Oats prior to the filing of the motion to compel. There simply is no evidence that disclosure of the contact information for these already 9 identified witnesses is a transgression of the witnesses' privacy that is “sufficiently serious in [its] nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an 10 egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right.” 11 (Puerto, supra, 158 Cal. App. 4th at 1253.) The identities and phone numbers of the 12 persons Defendant communicated with are relevant and must be produced. 13 On these bases, the Plaintiffs bring this motion seeking an order from the court compelling 14 Defendant to provide full, complete, and verified responses to the request for production at issue 15 as set forth in the Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement filed concurrently with this Memorandum of 16 Points and Authorities; and sign the authorization required by his cellphone provider. 17 B. The Court Should Compel Defendant Madrigal to Produce All Videos In His 18 Possession 19 Defendant Madrigal testified at his deposition that he filmed “several” videos with his cell 20 phone shortly after the impact. To date, only one video has been produced to Plaintiffs. Any videos 21 of the incident in Mr. Madrigal’s are are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 22 admissible evidence. The videos in Mr. Madrigal’s possession may show whether or not there 23 were any lights illuminated on the truck. 2 Q. Now, at some point, you took the video with 24 3 your cell phone. Do you remember that? 4 A. Yes. The whole time, I was taking videos. In 25 5 fact, I have turned those over to you guys. 6 Q. How many videos did you take? 26 7 A. I don't know. I took several videos. 8 Q. More than two? 27 9 A. Perhaps. I don't know. 28 Madrigal Depo at: Pg. 116:2-9; 120:6-25; 121:1-25; 122:1-22. 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 V. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL DEFENDANT WADE TRANSPORTATION 2 COMPANY INC. TO PAY EXPENSES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THEIR 3 PMQ’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITION 4 Under C.C.P. Section 2025.450 (g) (1), the court shall grand Plaintiffs’ request for costs, 5 and attorneys’ fees assocaited with Wade’s failure to appear at a properly noticed deposition, 6 without objection and without good cause. 7 On September 5, 2023, the PMQ for Defendant Wade Transportation failed to appear at 8 their properly noticed deposition. No objection was served. As a result of Defendant Wade’s 9 failure to appear at the deposition, costs were incurred in the amount of $885.00 for the court 10 reporter and videographer. On September 18, 2023, Mr. Krepkiy sent the invoices to defense 11 counsel, who confirmed he forwarded the invoices to his client for payment. As of the writing of 12 this motion, costs have not been reimbursed. 13 In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Anna Dubrovsky spent three (3) hours preparing for the 14 subject deposition and additional 30 minutes waiting for the Defendants to appear and making a 15 non-appearance record. (Dubrovsky Decl.) 16 VI. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD PLAINTIFFS’ REASONABLE EXPENSES, 17 INCLUDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THIS 18 MOTION 19 Monetary sanctions should be awarded for the Defendant’s unwillingness to abide by their 20 discovery obligations. 21 Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(d) provides: 22 (d) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 23 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel 24 further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that 25 other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. 26 Per Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010, misuses of the discovery process include: 27 (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of 28 discovery. 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious 1 objection to discovery. 2 (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. 3 4 Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 in relevant part provides: 5 I. The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one 6 engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, 7 including attorney’s fees. 8 It is an abuse of discovery to serve objections that lack merit and not provide further 9 responses despite a stipulation to do so. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s 10 fees in connection with having to file this Motion against Defendant and their counsel of record, 11 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP, jointly and severally, in the total 12 amount of $9,040.00. 13 Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer on the issues, but defense counsel has failed to serve 14 adequate responses. Given the clear authority regarding answering interrogatories and requests for 15 production, the Defendant’s conduct here is without justification and warrants the imposition of 16 monetary sanctions. 17 Plaintiffs incurred four (6) hours preparing the moving papers for this Motion. In addition, 18 another two (2) hours will be required to review the Opposition, drafting the Reply, and appearing 19 in this matter. Plaintiffs therefore request sanctions in the amount of $5,560.00, which includes 20 attorneys’ fees as well as the Sixty Dollar ($60.00) filing fee. (Chrisp Decl., ¶ 5.); (Krepkiy Decl., 21 ¶ 12.); 22 Plaintiffs incurred attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,625.00 in connection with the 23 preparation and appearance for the deposition of Wade PMQ on September 5, 2023, and costs in 24 the amount of $855.00. 25 VII. CONCLUSION 26 Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court order Defendant MAURICIO G. CEJA 27 MADRIGAL to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special 28 Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One propounded by 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 Plaintiffs; to sign an authorization required by his cellphone provider so that Plaintiffs can receive 2 Madrigal’s cellphone records pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a); produce all video 3 and photos taken by Mr. Madrigal; and Defendant WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 4 INC. and/or his counsel to pay costs and fees incurred as a result of Wade PMQ’s failure to appear 5 at its propery noticed deposition. 6 7 DATED: February 13, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF J. CHRISP 8 9 By: ___________________________ JESSE B. CHRISP 10 Attorney for Plaintiffs, MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA 11 MIRANDA BY GAL – DAVID MIRANDA, WYATT MIRANDA 12 BY GAL –RUDY MIRANDA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Lake. I am over the age 3 of 18 years and not a party to the action. My business address is 9667 Highway 29, Lower Lake, 4 CA 95457. 5 On February 13, 2024, I served the following document(s): 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO 7 PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES; PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS; TO SIGN AN AUTHORIZATION FOR PRODUCTION 8 OF HIS CELLPHONE RECORDS; AND DEFENDANT WADE TRANSPORTATION TO PAY COSTS AND FEES FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ITS PMQ DEPOSITION; 9 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 Upon the following at the address(es) stated below: 11 Jeffrey M. Lenkov, Esq. Anna Dubrovsky, Esq. 12 Daniel J. Sullivan, Esq. Pavel Krepkiy, Esq. MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC. 13 TRESTER LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2015 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 14 Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 Email: anna@dubrovskylawyers.com Email: jml@manningllp.com pavel@dubrovskylawyers.com 15 djs@manningllp.com 16 egb@manningllp.com Attorney for Plaintiffs 17 Attorney for Defendant(s) 18 19 X ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the person at 20 the email address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, 21 any electronic message that the transmission(s) was/were unsuccessful. 22 U.S. MAIL: by placing such files with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated 23 area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby mail is deposited in 24 U.S. Mailbox in the City of Lower Lake, California. 25 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 26 foregoing is true and correct and that this document was executed on February 13, 2024. 27 ____________________________ 28 Ariana Ardoin 12 PROOF OF SERVICE