Preview
O ,
_ ORBINAL
JACOB D. FLESHER — SBN 210565
SIMONE M. LEIGHTY — SBN 333445
FLESHER SCHAFF & SCHROEDER, INC.
izoiflazgggggéssm
oc m,
225
F
SLAPEBIQR (:01ng 05
g
“p"
L E ET,
CALLEQRW
Telephone: (916) 672-6558 1 ,1
Facsimile: (916) 672-6602 AUG 0 f? 21321
\IOUI-PUJN
AttornCYS for Plaintiffs (?ERV"
By k}
SCOTT SOUTER and AMY SOUTER ‘
MCOLE O’DWYER, DEPUTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
* * *
10 SCOTT SOUTER; AMY SOUTER, CASE NO. CIV SB 2123072
Complaintfiled: 08/1 1/2021
11 Plaintiffs, Trial Date: not set
12 VS.
13 CITY OF HESPERIA; SANDRA GONZALEZ- DECLARATION OF JACOB D. FLESHER c
RODRIGUEZ; and, DOES through 20, inclusive, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
1
14 FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST
Defendants. FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
15 SET ONE
16
Date:
“
wZr, 0
J re
, I 97002;;
17 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Deptz-Sfii” 55.
18
19 I, JACOB D. FLESHER, DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
20 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and in the United
21 States District Courts of California, and I am a shareholder of the law firm of Flesher, Schaff &
22 Schroeder, Inc., attorneys for Plaintiffs, Scott Souter and Amy Souter.
23 2. Imake this declaration based upon my personal knowledge, unless stated as being
24 based upon information and belief, and would testify to the information set forth below.
25 3. On August 11, 2021, Plaintiffs, SCOTT SOUTER and AMY SOUTER, filed this action
26 against Defendants, CITY OF HESPERIA and SANDRA GONZALES—RODRIGUEZ, in the Superior
27 Court of California, County of San Bernadino. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached as
28 “Exhibit A.”
l
DECLARATION OF JACOB D. FLESHER
4. The incident giving rise t0 this action occurred 0n October 21, 2020, at the intersection
of Maple Avenue and E1 Centro Road in Hesperia, California,
5. On January 6, 2022, Plaintiffs served the City with one set of Form Interrogatories, one set
of Special Interrogatories, and one set 0f Request for Production of Documents (collectively, “discovery
requests”). On March 3 1, 2022, the City provided verified responses t0 Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.
6. Shortly thereafter, counsel for the defense advised Plaintiffs counsel one of the streets at
the subject intersection was incorrectly identified in the City’s police report. As such, Plaintiffs served
the City with one set of Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Request for Production 0f
Documents (collectively, “amended discovery requests”) on May 10, 2022, noting the correct
10 intersection. A true and correct copy of the Amended Special Interrogatories is attached as “Exhibit
11 B.”
12 7. On June 20, 2022, the City provided ven'fied responses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Discovery
13 Requests that were deficient and nonresponsive.
14 8. On July 11, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated a meet and confer with counsel for the City
15 requesting substantive responses, without objections, to amended Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2.
16 On July 14, 2022, the City’s counsel responded, agreeing to informally resolve the discovery dispute.
17 A true and correct copy of this email exchange is attached as “Exhibit C.”
18 9. On July 19, 2022, counsel for both parties met via phone call regarding the discovery
19 dispute. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to limit their requests in time, such that Amended Special
20 Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 requested traffic collision reports and studies within one mile in either
21 direction of the subject intersection from 2010 to present. The City’s counsel offered to look into whether
22 such reports existed, but asked t0 limit the request t0 a half—mile north and south of the subject
23 intersection.
24 10. On July 21, 2022, counsel for both parties had a follow up conversation, wherein the City
25 stated the half—mile parameter was still overbroad, and that 250 feet north and south of the subject
26 intersection seemed more appropriate and relevant.
27 l 1. On August 2, 2022, Plaintiffs notified the City’s counsel that they would not accept this
28 additional constraint, clarifying that the requests covered all traffic collisions and traffic studies within one
2
DECLARATION OF JACOB D. FLESHER
Preview
O , _ ORBINAL JACOB D. FLESHER — SBN 210565 SIMONE M. LEIGHTY — SBN 333445 FLESHER SCHAFF & SCHROEDER, INC. izoiflazgggggéssm oc m, 225 F SLAPEBIQR (:01ng 05 g “p" L E ET, CALLEQRW Telephone: (916) 672-6558 1 ,1 Facsimile: (916) 672-6602 AUG 0 f? 21321 \IOUI-PUJN AttornCYS for Plaintiffs (?ERV" By k} SCOTT SOUTER and AMY SOUTER ‘ MCOLE O’DWYER, DEPUTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO * * * 10 SCOTT SOUTER; AMY SOUTER, CASE NO. CIV SB 2123072 Complaintfiled: 08/1 1/2021 11 Plaintiffs, Trial Date: not set 12 VS. 13 CITY OF HESPERIA; SANDRA GONZALEZ- DECLARATION OF JACOB D. FLESHER c RODRIGUEZ; and, DOES through 20, inclusive, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 1 14 FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST Defendants. FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 15 SET ONE 16 Date: “ wZr, 0 J re , I 97002;; 17 Time: 8:30 a.m. Deptz-Sfii” 55. 18 19 I, JACOB D. FLESHER, DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: 20 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and in the United 21 States District Courts of California, and I am a shareholder of the law firm of Flesher, Schaff & 22 Schroeder, Inc., attorneys for Plaintiffs, Scott Souter and Amy Souter. 23 2. Imake this declaration based upon my personal knowledge, unless stated as being 24 based upon information and belief, and would testify to the information set forth below. 25 3. On August 11, 2021, Plaintiffs, SCOTT SOUTER and AMY SOUTER, filed this action 26 against Defendants, CITY OF HESPERIA and SANDRA GONZALES—RODRIGUEZ, in the Superior 27 Court of California, County of San Bernadino. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached as 28 “Exhibit A.” l DECLARATION OF JACOB D. FLESHER 4. The incident giving rise t0 this action occurred 0n October 21, 2020, at the intersection of Maple Avenue and E1 Centro Road in Hesperia, California, 5. On January 6, 2022, Plaintiffs served the City with one set of Form Interrogatories, one set of Special Interrogatories, and one set 0f Request for Production of Documents (collectively, “discovery requests”). On March 3 1, 2022, the City provided verified responses t0 Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests. 6. Shortly thereafter, counsel for the defense advised Plaintiffs counsel one of the streets at the subject intersection was incorrectly identified in the City’s police report. As such, Plaintiffs served the City with one set of Amended Special Interrogatories and Amended Request for Production 0f Documents (collectively, “amended discovery requests”) on May 10, 2022, noting the correct 10 intersection. A true and correct copy of the Amended Special Interrogatories is attached as “Exhibit 11 B.” 12 7. On June 20, 2022, the City provided ven'fied responses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Discovery 13 Requests that were deficient and nonresponsive. 14 8. On July 11, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated a meet and confer with counsel for the City 15 requesting substantive responses, without objections, to amended Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2. 16 On July 14, 2022, the City’s counsel responded, agreeing to informally resolve the discovery dispute. 17 A true and correct copy of this email exchange is attached as “Exhibit C.” 18 9. On July 19, 2022, counsel for both parties met via phone call regarding the discovery 19 dispute. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to limit their requests in time, such that Amended Special 20 Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 requested traffic collision reports and studies within one mile in either 21 direction of the subject intersection from 2010 to present. The City’s counsel offered to look into whether 22 such reports existed, but asked t0 limit the request t0 a half—mile north and south of the subject 23 intersection. 24 10. On July 21, 2022, counsel for both parties had a follow up conversation, wherein the City 25 stated the half—mile parameter was still overbroad, and that 250 feet north and south of the subject 26 intersection seemed more appropriate and relevant. 27 l 1. On August 2, 2022, Plaintiffs notified the City’s counsel that they would not accept this 28 additional constraint, clarifying that the requests covered all traffic collisions and traffic studies within one 2 DECLARATION OF JACOB D. FLESHER