Preview
1 Daniel J. Sullivan (State Bar No. 251455)
daniel.sullivan@manningkass.com
2 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
3 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-3012
4 Telephone: (213) 624-6900
Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
5
Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA
6 MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA
TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE
7 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
MANNING I KASS
11
MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA Case No. SCV-270065
12 MIRANDA BY GAL - DAVID MIRANDA,
WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL - RUDY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE
13 MIRANDA,, STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
14 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA
MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER
15 v. WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES
16 MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, Judge: Hon. Oscar A. Pardo
CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC, Date: April 17, 2024
17 WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Time: 3:00 p.m.
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,, Dept.: 19
18
Defendants. Assigned for All Purposes to:
19 Hon. Oscar A. Pardo, Dept. 19
20 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Action Filed: 01/25/2022
Trial Date: 10/13/2023
21
22 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
23 Defendant MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL (“Defendant”) , hereby submit his
24 response to plaintiff’s separate statement in support of his motion to compel.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 4885-3080-7729.1
///
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3:
2 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so, state:
3 (a) the state or other issuing entity;
4 (b) the license number and type;
5 (c) the date of issuance; and
6 (d) all restrictions.
7 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3:
8
Objection. This interrogatory requests information that is neither relevant to the action
9
herein nor is it likely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant’s license status is not admissible
10
evidence of liability. Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding
MANNING I KASS
11
Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy
12
and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, §
13
1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th
14
526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Subject to and without waiving
15
the foregoing objection, Responding Party states:
16
Yes.
17
(a) CA;
18
(b) F7640481, Class A;
19
(c) issued 7/5/22;
20
(d) none.
21
BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3:
22
Form Interrogatory No. 2.3 seeks information concerning the driver license that defendant
23
possessed at the time of the incident. His response suggests that the license was issued on
24
07/05/22. Defendant must state when the license that was in effect at the time of the incident was
25
issued.
26
27
28 4885-3080-7729.1 2
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S FOR FURTHER
2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 2.4:
3 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
4 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
6 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual
7 concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:
8 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed;
9 (b) the date of the interview; and
10 (c) the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the
MANNING I KASS
11 interview.
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
13 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
14 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects
15 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney-
16 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of
17 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214;
18 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory
19 is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is equally, or more, accessible to
20 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information
21 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its
22 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the
23 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV;
24 Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147
25 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of evidence
26 offered solely for impeachment. However, without waiving the aforementioned objections,
27 Responding Party responds as follows:
28 Pursuant
4885-3080-7729.1 to the provisions of Code of Civ.3Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma
2 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding
3 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
4 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2:
5 Form Interrogatories No. 12.2 and 12.3 seek identification of whether any witness was
6 interviewed in connection with the incident and whether any recorded statements were obtained.
7 The response referred to the investigation conducted by the law enforcement entities. It is unclear
8 from the response whether defendants interviewed any witnesses and/or obtained any recorded
9 statements from them. The statements prepared or provided by witnesses which do not contain
10 counsel’s evaluation or impressions of the case are not protected by work product and are
MANNING I KASS
11 discoverable. Nacht & Lewis Architects Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 212, 218-
12 219.).
13 All interviews of percipient witnesses are discoverable unless facts are disclosed to support
14 a specific incidence of privilege.
15 Defendant must indicate whether any interviews were done with any witnesses on behalf
16 of the defendants. If Defendant is claiming attorney-client privilege or work-product, Defendant
17 must provide a privilege log with specific information so that we can ascertain whether the
18 privilege claimed actually applies to the material or information. The party claiming the privilege
19 has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a
20 communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Wellpoint Health Networks,
21 Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 123. If work product is the claim, note that
22 witness statements and reports “obtained” by an attorney are not automatically protected by work
23 product doctrine. Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480; information does not become
24 privileged simply because it is transmitted to an attorney. “[A] litigant may not silence a witness
25 by having him reveal his information to the litigant’s attorney . . .” D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v.
26 Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 734. Accordingly, the adverse party may interview the
27 witness, or use interrogatories or deposition questioning in an effort to obtain the information that
28 4885-3080-7729.1
the witness provided to the attorney. See Coito, 54 Cal. 4th at 496.
4
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
2 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 12.2:
3 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
4 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3:
6 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or
7 recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement
8 state:
9 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the
10 statement was obtained;
MANNING I KASS
11 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the
12 statement;
13 (c) the date the statement was obtained; and
14 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original
15 statement or a copy.
16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3:
17 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
18 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects
19 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney-
20 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of
21 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214;
22 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory
23 is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is equally, or more, accessible to
24 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information
25 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its
26 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the
27 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV;
28 4885-3080-7729.1
Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147
5
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of evidence
2 offered solely for impeachment. However, without waiving the aforementioned objections,
3 Responding Party responds as follows:
4 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers
5 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma
6 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding
7 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
8 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3:
9 Form Interrogatories No. 12.2 and 12.3 seek identification of whether any witness was
10 interviewed in connection with the incident and whether any recorded statements were obtained.
MANNING I KASS
11 The response referred to the investigation conducted by the law enforcement entities. It is unclear
12 from the response whether defendants interviewed any witnesses and/or obtained any recorded
13 statements from them. The statements prepared or provided by witnesses which do not contain
14 counsel’s evaluation or impressions of the case are not protected by work product and are
15 discoverable. Nacht & Lewis Architects Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 212, 218-
16 219.).
17 All interviews of percipient witnesses are discoverable unless facts are disclosed to support
18 a specific incidence of privilege.
19 Defendant must indicate whether any interviews were done with any witnesses on behalf
20 of the defendants. If Defendant is claiming attorney-client privilege or work-product, Defendant
21 must provide a privilege log with specific information so that we can ascertain whether the
22 privilege claimed actually applies to the material or information. The party claiming the privilege
23 has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a
24 communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Wellpoint Health Networks,
25 Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 123. If work product is the claim, note that
26 witness statements and reports “obtained” by an attorney are not automatically protected by work
27 product doctrine. Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480; information does not become
28 4885-3080-7729.1
privileged simply because it is transmitted to an attorney. “[A] litigant may not silence a witness
6
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 by having him reveal his information to the litigant’s attorney . . .” D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v.
2 Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 734. Accordingly, the adverse party may interview the
3 witness, or use interrogatories or deposition questioning in an effort to obtain the information that
4 the witness provided to the attorney. See Coito, 54 Cal. 4th at 496.
5 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S FOR FURTHER
6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 12.3:
7 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
8 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Mr. Madrigal created a brief video in which he provides
9 a narration of the accident scene, which has been previously produced as part of Wade Transport’s
10 Responses to Requests for Production, to which Plaintiffs acknowledge possession of in their
MANNING I KASS
11 Motion (Plaintiff’s Motion, 8:20.) In addition, Driver Mauricio Madrigal made a recorded
12 statement to the insurance carrier on 2/24/20. A Privilege Log accompanies these responses
13 regarding this recording. (See Exhibit A.)
14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6:
15 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state:
16 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the
17 report;
(b) the date and type of report made;
18
(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was
19 made; and
20 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or
a copy of the report.
21
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6:
22 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
23 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects
24 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney-
25 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of
26 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214;
27 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory
28 4885-3080-7729.1
is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information
7 that is equally, or more, accessible to
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information
2 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its
3 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the
4 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV;
5 Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147
6 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert
7 witnesses covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this
8 interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. However,
9 without waiving the aforementioned objections, Responding Party responds as follows:
10 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party
MANNING I KASS
11 identifies to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the
12 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report
13 regarding the subject incident. Responding Party’s counsel are in receipt of copies and upon
14 information and believe the respective agencies remain in possession of the originals. Responding
15 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
16 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6:
17 Form Interrogatory No. 12.6 seeks identification of any reports prepared in connection
18 with the subject incident. From the response it is not clear whether any reports were prepared by
19 Mr. Madrigal. The documents sought constitute a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery.
20 Documents that are independently prepared by a party “do not become privileged communications
21 … merely because they are turned over to counsel.” See, Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v.
22 Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 119. See also, 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court, (2003)
23 113 Cal. App. 4th 1377, 1388. Moreover, to successfully invoke the attorney-client privilege, there
24 must be a communication which is intended to be confidential and is made in course of lawyer-
25 client relationship. Sullivan v. Superior Court (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 64.
26 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
27 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 12.6:
28 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
4885-3080-7729.1 8
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.3:
3 State the ADDRESS and location where your trip began and the ADDRESS and location
4 of your destination.
5 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.3:
6 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
7 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects
8 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney-
9 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of
10 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214;
MANNING I KASS
11 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory
12 is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is equally, or more, accessible to
13 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information
14 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its
15 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the
16 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV;
17 Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147
18 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert
19 witnesses covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. This interrogatory to the
20 extent it calls for an expert and/or legal opinion that Responding Party is not qualified to provide,
21 Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks
22 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. However, without waiving the
23 aforementioned objections, Responding Party responds as follows:
24 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers
25 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma
26 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding
27 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
28 4885-3080-7729.1 9
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.3:
2 Form Interrogatory No. 20.3 asks for the information as to where Mr. Madrigal’s trip
3 began and what was his destination. The was no response provided. Referring to the CHP report is
4 not appropriate in response to this Interrogatory.
5 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
6 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 20.3:
7 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
8 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
9 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4:
10 Describe the route that you followed from the beginning of your trip to the location of the
MANNING I KASS
11 INCIDENT, and state the location of each stop, other than routine traffic stops, during the trip
12 leading up to the INCIDENT.
13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4:
14 Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents
15 that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other
16 documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v.
17 Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87
18 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding
19 Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy
20 and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, §
21 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th
22 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. However, without waiving the
23 aforementioned objections, Responding Party states:
24 Responding Party began his trip in Carson, CA. He stopped in Castaic, CA for fuel and to
25 check his trailer load. He then travelled to Gilroy, CA where he ate lunch. He pulled over to the
26 shoulder of the Bicentennial Way off-ramp off of Highway 101 to check the exact location of his
27 destination, Eagle Distribution in Santa Rosa, CA. Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ.
28 Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP
4885-3080-7729.1 10
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit
2 Death Investigation Report. Responding Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
3 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4:
4 Form Interrogatory No. 20.4 asks for the information as to the route that Mr. Madrigal took
5 leading up to the incident. The response is not full and complete.
6 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
7 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4:
8 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
9 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
MANNING I KASS
11 If you contend Stephanie Miranda in any way contributed to the cause of the SUBJECT
12 COLLISION, please IDENTIFY by name and address all witnesses who can support that
13 contention with testimony.
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
15 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
16 “SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding
17 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by
18 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in
19 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.
20 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648.
21 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in
22 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54
23 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is
24 equally, or more, accessible to propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing.
25 Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and
26 confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and
27 impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S.
28 Const. Amend IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil
4885-3080-7729.1 11
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory
2 impermissibly requests an expert and/or legal opinion, Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22
3 Cal.App.4th 1255. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert witnesses
4 covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks
5 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. Subject to the forgoing
6 objections, Responding Party states:
7 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers
8 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma
9 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding
10 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
MANNING I KASS
11 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
12 Special Interrogatory No. 4 asks to identify any witnesses who could support defendant’s
13 contention that Stephanie Miranda may have contributed to the incident. The response referred to
14 the investigation conducted by the law enforcement entities. It is unclear from the response
15 whether there are any additional witnesses who are not identified in the CHP and Sheriff reports. It
16 is also unclear what are the witnesses that defendant identifies as the ones who they believe will
17 support their contention that Stephanie Miranda may have contributed to the incident.
18 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
19 FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 4:
20 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
21 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.)
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
23 If YOU had a cell phone or other 2-way communication device with YOU in the vehicle
24 YOU were driving at the time of the SUBJECT COLLISION, please provide the telephone
25 numbers for all such devices.
26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
27 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
28 4885-3080-7729.1
“SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding
12
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by
2 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in
3 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.
4 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648.
5 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in
6 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54
7 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is
8 equally, or more, accessible to propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing.
9 Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and
10 confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and
MANNING I KASS
11 impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S.
12 Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil
13 Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory
14 impermissibly requests an expert and/or legal opinion, Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22
15 Cal.App.4th 1255. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert witnesses
16 covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks
17 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. Subject to the forgoing
18 objections, Responding Party states:
19 His vehicle had been parked for three minutes. Responding Part’s phone use or lack
20 thereof is irrelevant and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Decedent hit a parked vehicle.
21 Responding Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing.
22 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
23 Special Interrogatories No. 25, 26, 27, 28 seek identification of defendant’s cell phone
24 number(s), cell phone provider, for the cell phone(s) that he had at the time of the crash,
25 specification of the devices, account holder information. There are disputes as to the facts of the
26 crash, the reason for the stop by the defendant driver on the shoulder, the time of the stop, the time
27 of the impact, etc. What if he was on a call during his stop? What if he was texting during the
28 4885-3080-7729.1
relevant time? In addition, defendant driver’s cell phone use during the trip, prior to the crash and
13
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 during the crash is relevant to his fitness to be a truck driver, and claims against his employer for
2 negligent hiring, retention and training. It is further relevant to determine whether these devices
3 were provided to Mr. Madrigal by his employer.
4 Defendant’s privacy objection is without merit. Given the highly probative value of this
5 information, and its direct relation to the lawsuit, including liability determination, any privacy
6 rights that defendant retains are outweighed by plaintiffs’ right to an independent investigation of
7 this information.
8 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
9 FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
10 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of
MANNING I KASS
11 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.)
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
13 If YOU had a cell phone in YOUR vehicle at the time of the SUBJECT COLLISION,
14 please state the manufacturer and model number of each such device.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
16 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
17 “SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding
18 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by
19 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in
20 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.
21 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648.
22 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in
23 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54
24 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is
25 equally, or more, accessible to propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing.
26 Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and
27 confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and
28 impermissibly
4885-3080-7729.1
invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S.
14
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil
2 Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory
3 impermissibly requests an expert and/or legal opinion, Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22
4 Cal.App.4th 1255. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert witnesses
5 covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks
6 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. Subject to the forgoing
7 objections, Responding Party states:
8 His vehicle had been parked for three minutes. Responding Part’s phone use or lack
9 thereof is irrelevant and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Decedent hit a parked vehicle.
10 Responding Party no longer has that device, but believes it was a Samsung. Responding Party’s
MANNING I KASS
11 investigation and discovery are continuing.
12 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
13 Special Interrogatories No. 25, 26, 27, 28 seek identification of defendant’s cell phone
14 number(s), cell phone provider, for the cell phone(s) that he had at the time of the crash,
15 specification of the devices, account holder information. There are disputes as to the facts of the
16 crash, the reason for the stop by the defendant driver on the shoulder, the time of the stop, the time
17 of the impact, etc. What if he was on a call during his stop? What if he was texting during the
18 relevant time? In addition, defendant driver’s cell phone use during the trip, prior to the crash and
19 during the crash is relevant to his fitness to be a truck driver, and claims against his employer for
20 negligent hiring, retention and training. It is further relevant to determine whether these devices
21 were provided to Mr. Madrigal by his employer.
22 Defendant’s privacy objection is without merit. Given the highly probative value of this
23 information, and its direct relation to the lawsuit, including liability determination, any privacy
24 rights that defendant retains are outweighed by plaintiffs’ right to an independent investigation of
25 this information.
26 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
27 FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
28 Defendant’s original response, which states Defendant “believes it was a Samsung,” is
4885-3080-7729.1 15
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 sufficient and responsive to the request. As such, no further responses is required. However,
2 further response was provided to Plaintiff nevertheless. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.)
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
4 If YOU had a cell phone with YOU in the vehicle YOU were driving at the time of the
5 SUBJECT COLLISION, please IDENTIFY the name of the providers(s) for your cell phone
6 service for all such phones or other such devices, if applicable.
7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
8 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term
9 “SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding
10 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by
MANNING I KASS
11 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in
12 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.
13 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648.
14 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in
15 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54
16 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is
17 equally, or more, accessible t
Preview
1 Daniel J. Sullivan (State Bar No. 251455) daniel.sullivan@manningkass.com 2 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 3 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 4 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 5 Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA 6 MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE 7 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 MANNING I KASS 11 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA Case No. SCV-270065 12 MIRANDA BY GAL - DAVID MIRANDA, WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL - RUDY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE 13 MIRANDA,, STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER 15 v. WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 16 MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, Judge: Hon. Oscar A. Pardo CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC, Date: April 17, 2024 17 WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Time: 3:00 p.m. INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,, Dept.: 19 18 Defendants. Assigned for All Purposes to: 19 Hon. Oscar A. Pardo, Dept. 19 20 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Action Filed: 01/25/2022 Trial Date: 10/13/2023 21 22 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 23 Defendant MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL (“Defendant”) , hereby submit his 24 response to plaintiff’s separate statement in support of his motion to compel. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 4885-3080-7729.1 /// RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3: 2 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so, state: 3 (a) the state or other issuing entity; 4 (b) the license number and type; 5 (c) the date of issuance; and 6 (d) all restrictions. 7 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3: 8 Objection. This interrogatory requests information that is neither relevant to the action 9 herein nor is it likely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant’s license status is not admissible 10 evidence of liability. Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding MANNING I KASS 11 Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy 12 and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 13 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 14 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Subject to and without waiving 15 the foregoing objection, Responding Party states: 16 Yes. 17 (a) CA; 18 (b) F7640481, Class A; 19 (c) issued 7/5/22; 20 (d) none. 21 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3: 22 Form Interrogatory No. 2.3 seeks information concerning the driver license that defendant 23 possessed at the time of the incident. His response suggests that the license was issued on 24 07/05/22. Defendant must state when the license that was in effect at the time of the incident was 25 issued. 26 27 28 4885-3080-7729.1 2 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S FOR FURTHER 2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 2.4: 3 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of 4 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: 6 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual 7 concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: 8 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; 9 (b) the date of the interview; and 10 (c) the name, ADDRESS and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the MANNING I KASS 11 interview. 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: 13 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 14 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects 15 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney- 16 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of 17 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214; 18 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory 19 is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is equally, or more, accessible to 20 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information 21 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its 22 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the 23 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 24 Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 25 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of evidence 26 offered solely for impeachment. However, without waiving the aforementioned objections, 27 Responding Party responds as follows: 28 Pursuant 4885-3080-7729.1 to the provisions of Code of Civ.3Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma 2 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding 3 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing. 4 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2: 5 Form Interrogatories No. 12.2 and 12.3 seek identification of whether any witness was 6 interviewed in connection with the incident and whether any recorded statements were obtained. 7 The response referred to the investigation conducted by the law enforcement entities. It is unclear 8 from the response whether defendants interviewed any witnesses and/or obtained any recorded 9 statements from them. The statements prepared or provided by witnesses which do not contain 10 counsel’s evaluation or impressions of the case are not protected by work product and are MANNING I KASS 11 discoverable. Nacht & Lewis Architects Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 212, 218- 12 219.). 13 All interviews of percipient witnesses are discoverable unless facts are disclosed to support 14 a specific incidence of privilege. 15 Defendant must indicate whether any interviews were done with any witnesses on behalf 16 of the defendants. If Defendant is claiming attorney-client privilege or work-product, Defendant 17 must provide a privilege log with specific information so that we can ascertain whether the 18 privilege claimed actually applies to the material or information. The party claiming the privilege 19 has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a 20 communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Wellpoint Health Networks, 21 Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 123. If work product is the claim, note that 22 witness statements and reports “obtained” by an attorney are not automatically protected by work 23 product doctrine. Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480; information does not become 24 privileged simply because it is transmitted to an attorney. “[A] litigant may not silence a witness 25 by having him reveal his information to the litigant’s attorney . . .” D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. 26 Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 734. Accordingly, the adverse party may interview the 27 witness, or use interrogatories or deposition questioning in an effort to obtain the information that 28 4885-3080-7729.1 the witness provided to the attorney. See Coito, 54 Cal. 4th at 496. 4 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 2 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 12.2: 3 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of 4 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 5 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: 6 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or 7 recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement 8 state: 9 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the 10 statement was obtained; MANNING I KASS 11 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the 12 statement; 13 (c) the date the statement was obtained; and 14 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original 15 statement or a copy. 16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: 17 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 18 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects 19 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney- 20 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of 21 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214; 22 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory 23 is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is equally, or more, accessible to 24 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information 25 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its 26 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the 27 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 28 4885-3080-7729.1 Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 5 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of evidence 2 offered solely for impeachment. However, without waiving the aforementioned objections, 3 Responding Party responds as follows: 4 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers 5 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma 6 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding 7 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing. 8 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.3: 9 Form Interrogatories No. 12.2 and 12.3 seek identification of whether any witness was 10 interviewed in connection with the incident and whether any recorded statements were obtained. MANNING I KASS 11 The response referred to the investigation conducted by the law enforcement entities. It is unclear 12 from the response whether defendants interviewed any witnesses and/or obtained any recorded 13 statements from them. The statements prepared or provided by witnesses which do not contain 14 counsel’s evaluation or impressions of the case are not protected by work product and are 15 discoverable. Nacht & Lewis Architects Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 212, 218- 16 219.). 17 All interviews of percipient witnesses are discoverable unless facts are disclosed to support 18 a specific incidence of privilege. 19 Defendant must indicate whether any interviews were done with any witnesses on behalf 20 of the defendants. If Defendant is claiming attorney-client privilege or work-product, Defendant 21 must provide a privilege log with specific information so that we can ascertain whether the 22 privilege claimed actually applies to the material or information. The party claiming the privilege 23 has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a 24 communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Wellpoint Health Networks, 25 Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 123. If work product is the claim, note that 26 witness statements and reports “obtained” by an attorney are not automatically protected by work 27 product doctrine. Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480; information does not become 28 4885-3080-7729.1 privileged simply because it is transmitted to an attorney. “[A] litigant may not silence a witness 6 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 by having him reveal his information to the litigant’s attorney . . .” D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. 2 Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 734. Accordingly, the adverse party may interview the 3 witness, or use interrogatories or deposition questioning in an effort to obtain the information that 4 the witness provided to the attorney. See Coito, 54 Cal. 4th at 496. 5 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S FOR FURTHER 6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 12.3: 7 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of 8 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Mr. Madrigal created a brief video in which he provides 9 a narration of the accident scene, which has been previously produced as part of Wade Transport’s 10 Responses to Requests for Production, to which Plaintiffs acknowledge possession of in their MANNING I KASS 11 Motion (Plaintiff’s Motion, 8:20.) In addition, Driver Mauricio Madrigal made a recorded 12 statement to the insurance carrier on 2/24/20. A Privilege Log accompanies these responses 13 regarding this recording. (See Exhibit A.) 14 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: 15 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: 16 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the 17 report; (b) the date and type of report made; 18 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was 19 made; and 20 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report. 21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: 22 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 23 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects 24 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney- 25 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of 26 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214; 27 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory 28 4885-3080-7729.1 is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information 7 that is equally, or more, accessible to RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information 2 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its 3 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the 4 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 5 Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 6 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert 7 witnesses covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this 8 interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. However, 9 without waiving the aforementioned objections, Responding Party responds as follows: 10 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party MANNING I KASS 11 identifies to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the 12 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report 13 regarding the subject incident. Responding Party’s counsel are in receipt of copies and upon 14 information and believe the respective agencies remain in possession of the originals. Responding 15 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing. 16 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.6: 17 Form Interrogatory No. 12.6 seeks identification of any reports prepared in connection 18 with the subject incident. From the response it is not clear whether any reports were prepared by 19 Mr. Madrigal. The documents sought constitute a routine and essential part of pretrial discovery. 20 Documents that are independently prepared by a party “do not become privileged communications 21 … merely because they are turned over to counsel.” See, Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. 22 Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 119. See also, 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court, (2003) 23 113 Cal. App. 4th 1377, 1388. Moreover, to successfully invoke the attorney-client privilege, there 24 must be a communication which is intended to be confidential and is made in course of lawyer- 25 client relationship. Sullivan v. Superior Court (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 64. 26 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 27 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 12.6: 28 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of 4885-3080-7729.1 8 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 2 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.3: 3 State the ADDRESS and location where your trip began and the ADDRESS and location 4 of your destination. 5 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.3: 6 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 7 “INCIDENT,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding Party objects 8 to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by the attorney- 9 client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in anticipation of 10 litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214; MANNING I KASS 11 Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. This interrogatory 12 is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is equally, or more, accessible to 13 propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. Disclosure of such information 14 impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its 15 employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the 16 privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 17 Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 18 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert 19 witnesses covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. This interrogatory to the 20 extent it calls for an expert and/or legal opinion that Responding Party is not qualified to provide, 21 Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks 22 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. However, without waiving the 23 aforementioned objections, Responding Party responds as follows: 24 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers 25 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma 26 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding 27 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing. 28 4885-3080-7729.1 9 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.3: 2 Form Interrogatory No. 20.3 asks for the information as to where Mr. Madrigal’s trip 3 began and what was his destination. The was no response provided. Referring to the CHP report is 4 not appropriate in response to this Interrogatory. 5 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 6 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 20.3: 7 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of 8 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 9 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4: 10 Describe the route that you followed from the beginning of your trip to the location of the MANNING I KASS 11 INCIDENT, and state the location of each stop, other than routine traffic stops, during the trip 12 leading up to the INCIDENT. 13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4: 14 Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents 15 that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other 16 documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. 17 Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 18 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding 19 Party’s right to privacy and confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy 20 and confidentiality, and impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 21 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 22 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. However, without waiving the 23 aforementioned objections, Responding Party states: 24 Responding Party began his trip in Carson, CA. He stopped in Castaic, CA for fuel and to 25 check his trailer load. He then travelled to Gilroy, CA where he ate lunch. He pulled over to the 26 shoulder of the Bicentennial Way off-ramp off of Highway 101 to check the exact location of his 27 destination, Eagle Distribution in Santa Rosa, CA. Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. 28 Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP 4885-3080-7729.1 10 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit 2 Death Investigation Report. Responding Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing. 3 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4: 4 Form Interrogatory No. 20.4 asks for the information as to the route that Mr. Madrigal took 5 leading up to the incident. The response is not full and complete. 6 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 7 FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 20.4: 8 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of 9 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: MANNING I KASS 11 If you contend Stephanie Miranda in any way contributed to the cause of the SUBJECT 12 COLLISION, please IDENTIFY by name and address all witnesses who can support that 13 contention with testimony. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 15 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 16 “SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding 17 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by 18 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in 19 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. 20 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. 21 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in 22 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54 23 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is 24 equally, or more, accessible to propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. 25 Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and 26 confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and 27 impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. 28 Const. Amend IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil 4885-3080-7729.1 11 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory 2 impermissibly requests an expert and/or legal opinion, Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 3 Cal.App.4th 1255. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert witnesses 4 covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks 5 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. Subject to the forgoing 6 objections, Responding Party states: 7 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civ. Proc. section 2030.230, Responding Party refers 8 to the CHP Traffic Collision Report, the CHP MAIT Supplemental Report, and the Sonoma 9 County Sheriff’s Office Coroner Investigations Unit Death Investigation Report. Responding 10 Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing. MANNING I KASS 11 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 12 Special Interrogatory No. 4 asks to identify any witnesses who could support defendant’s 13 contention that Stephanie Miranda may have contributed to the incident. The response referred to 14 the investigation conducted by the law enforcement entities. It is unclear from the response 15 whether there are any additional witnesses who are not identified in the CHP and Sheriff reports. It 16 is also unclear what are the witnesses that defendant identifies as the ones who they believe will 17 support their contention that Stephanie Miranda may have contributed to the incident. 18 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 19 FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 4: 20 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of 21 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.) 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 23 If YOU had a cell phone or other 2-way communication device with YOU in the vehicle 24 YOU were driving at the time of the SUBJECT COLLISION, please provide the telephone 25 numbers for all such devices. 26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 27 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 28 4885-3080-7729.1 “SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding 12 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by 2 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in 3 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. 4 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. 5 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in 6 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54 7 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is 8 equally, or more, accessible to propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. 9 Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and 10 confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and MANNING I KASS 11 impermissibly invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. 12 Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil 13 Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory 14 impermissibly requests an expert and/or legal opinion, Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 15 Cal.App.4th 1255. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert witnesses 16 covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks 17 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. Subject to the forgoing 18 objections, Responding Party states: 19 His vehicle had been parked for three minutes. Responding Part’s phone use or lack 20 thereof is irrelevant and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Decedent hit a parked vehicle. 21 Responding Party’s investigation and discovery are continuing. 22 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 23 Special Interrogatories No. 25, 26, 27, 28 seek identification of defendant’s cell phone 24 number(s), cell phone provider, for the cell phone(s) that he had at the time of the crash, 25 specification of the devices, account holder information. There are disputes as to the facts of the 26 crash, the reason for the stop by the defendant driver on the shoulder, the time of the stop, the time 27 of the impact, etc. What if he was on a call during his stop? What if he was texting during the 28 4885-3080-7729.1 relevant time? In addition, defendant driver’s cell phone use during the trip, prior to the crash and 13 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 during the crash is relevant to his fitness to be a truck driver, and claims against his employer for 2 negligent hiring, retention and training. It is further relevant to determine whether these devices 3 were provided to Mr. Madrigal by his employer. 4 Defendant’s privacy objection is without merit. Given the highly probative value of this 5 information, and its direct relation to the lawsuit, including liability determination, any privacy 6 rights that defendant retains are outweighed by plaintiffs’ right to an independent investigation of 7 this information. 8 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 9 FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 10 Defendant has already provided further verified responses before or by the hearing date of MANNING I KASS 11 this Motion. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.) 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 13 If YOU had a cell phone in YOUR vehicle at the time of the SUBJECT COLLISION, 14 please state the manufacturer and model number of each such device. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 16 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 17 “SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding 18 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by 19 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in 20 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. 21 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. 22 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in 23 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54 24 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is 25 equally, or more, accessible to propounding party and is therefore burdensome and harassing. 26 Disclosure of such information impermissibly violates the Responding Party’s right to privacy and 27 confidentiality, and/or its employees or third parties’ right to privacy and confidentiality, and 28 impermissibly 4885-3080-7729.1 invade the privacy as protected by the Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (a)-(c); as well as U.S. 14 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 Const. Amend. IV; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil 2 Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 798. Responding Party objects to the extent this interrogatory 3 impermissibly requests an expert and/or legal opinion, Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 4 Cal.App.4th 1255. This interrogatory seeks information on items developed by expert witnesses 5 covered by Code of Civ. Proc. section 2034.210-2034.310. Additionally, this interrogatory seeks 6 premature disclosure of evidence offered solely for impeachment. Subject to the forgoing 7 objections, Responding Party states: 8 His vehicle had been parked for three minutes. Responding Part’s phone use or lack 9 thereof is irrelevant and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Decedent hit a parked vehicle. 10 Responding Party no longer has that device, but believes it was a Samsung. Responding Party’s MANNING I KASS 11 investigation and discovery are continuing. 12 BASIS FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 13 Special Interrogatories No. 25, 26, 27, 28 seek identification of defendant’s cell phone 14 number(s), cell phone provider, for the cell phone(s) that he had at the time of the crash, 15 specification of the devices, account holder information. There are disputes as to the facts of the 16 crash, the reason for the stop by the defendant driver on the shoulder, the time of the stop, the time 17 of the impact, etc. What if he was on a call during his stop? What if he was texting during the 18 relevant time? In addition, defendant driver’s cell phone use during the trip, prior to the crash and 19 during the crash is relevant to his fitness to be a truck driver, and claims against his employer for 20 negligent hiring, retention and training. It is further relevant to determine whether these devices 21 were provided to Mr. Madrigal by his employer. 22 Defendant’s privacy objection is without merit. Given the highly probative value of this 23 information, and its direct relation to the lawsuit, including liability determination, any privacy 24 rights that defendant retains are outweighed by plaintiffs’ right to an independent investigation of 25 this information. 26 REASONS WHY THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 27 FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 28 Defendant’s original response, which states Defendant “believes it was a Samsung,” is 4885-3080-7729.1 15 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL TO PROVIDE FURTHER WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 sufficient and responsive to the request. As such, no further responses is required. However, 2 further response was provided to Plaintiff nevertheless. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. B.) 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 4 If YOU had a cell phone with YOU in the vehicle YOU were driving at the time of the 5 SUBJECT COLLISION, please IDENTIFY the name of the providers(s) for your cell phone 6 service for all such phones or other such devices, if applicable. 7 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 8 Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term 9 “SUBJECT COLLISION,” rendering any response by Responding Party speculative. Responding 10 Party objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information or documents that are protected by MANNING I KASS 11 the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product rule, and other documents prepared in 12 anticipation of litigation. See e.g., Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal. 13 App. 4th 214; Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 626, 647-648. 14 Responding Party further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information contained in 15 privileged confidential reports. See e.g., Payless Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 54 16 Cal. App. 3d 988. This interrogatory is overbroad as to the extent that it seeks information that is 17 equally, or more, accessible t