Preview
Karl P. Schlecht, Esq. (SBN 182294)
Email: kschlecht@tresslerllp.com
Jihoon Kim, Esq. (SBN 289780)
Email: jkim@tresslerllp.com
TRESSLER LLP
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1050
Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: (949) 336-1232
Fax: (949) 752-0645
Attorneys for Defendants,
JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL and
WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN
Case No. BCV-23-100822
10 NILKA COOKS; AN INDIVIDUAL,
[Related to: Lead Case No. BCV-23-100672.
11 Plaintiff, BCV-23-100778, BCV-23-100849,
BCV-23-100850, BCV-23-100851,
12 Vv BCV-23-100853, BCV-23-100922,
BCV-23-100996, BCV-23-101460,
13 KRYSTAL WALLER, AN INDIVIDUAL BCV-23-101462, BCV-23-101463]
JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUA
14 PARS-15 LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED Assigned to the Hon. T. Mark Smith
LIABILITY COMPANY; WELCOME Dept. T-2 (3131 Arrow St., Bakersfield, CA)
15 HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN
ENTITY; AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, DECLARATION OF KARL SCHLECHT
16 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
Defendants. MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER
17 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY
FROM PLAINTIFF NILKA COOKS AND
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
18
MONETARY SANCTIONS VOLUME #3
19
[Filed concurrently with Jennifer Runyon’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to
20
Amended Special Interrogatories, Set One;
Jennifer Runyon’s Motion to Compel Further
21
Responses to Amended Request for
22
Production of Documents, Set One; Welcome
Home's Motion to Compel Further
23
Responses to Amended Special
Interrogatories, Set One; Welcome Home's
Motion to Compel Further Responses to
24
Amended Request for Production of
Documents, Set One; Separate Statements in
25
Support of Motions to Compel (x4); and
[Proposed] Orders (x4)]
26
Verified Complaint filed: March 17, 2023
27
VOLUME #3 OF 4
28
1
DECLARATION OF KARL P. SCHLECHT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL VOLUME #3
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the Responding Party’s
understanding as to the meaning of this request, the Responding Party states that after a careful
search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party cannot produce the requested documents
because the documents in question have never been, or are no longer in the possession, custody,
or control of the Responding Party.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
11 Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that the UNIT
12 violated building codes as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
14 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
15 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
16 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
17 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
18 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
19 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
20 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
21 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
22 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
23 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
25 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
26 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
27 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
28 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
33
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
10 Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that the UNIT
11 violated health codes as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
13 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
14 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
15 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
16 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
17 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
18 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
19 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
20 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
21 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
22 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
24 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
25 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
26 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
27 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
28 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
34
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that the UNIT
10 violated safety codes as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
12 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
14 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
15 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
16 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
17 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
18 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
19 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
20 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
21 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
24 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
25 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
26 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
27 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
28 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
35
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that there were
DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
10 “DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS” shall refer to and mean “[w]hen using multiple
11 appliances, Plaintiffs allege the electrical shuts off entirely, suffering frequent outages which force
12 the Plaintiffto repeatedly flip the breaker to reinstall electrical supply.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
14 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
15 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
16 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
17 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
18 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
19 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
20 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
21 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
22 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
25 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
26 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
27 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
28 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
36
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
10 If YOU contend that YOU informed DEFENDANT about DYSFUNCTIONAL
11 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT, provide each and every
12 DOCUMENT that evidences YOUR notice.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
14 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
15 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
16 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
17 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
18 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
19 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
20 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
21 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
22 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
25 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
26 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
27 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
28 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
37
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the Responding Party’s
understanding as to the meaning of this request, the Responding Party states that after a careful
search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party cannot produce the requested documents
because the documents in question have never been, or are no longer in the possession, custody,
10 or control of the Responding Party.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
12 Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that there was
mold inside the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
16 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
17 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
18 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
19 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
20 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
21 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
22 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
24 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
26 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
27 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
28 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
38
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
11 If YOU contend that YOU notified DEFENDANT of the existence of mold in the UNIT.
12 provide each and every DOCUMENT that evidences YOUR notice.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
14 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
15 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
16 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
17 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
18 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
19 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
20 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
21 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
22 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
24 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
25 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
26 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
27 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
28 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
39
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the Responding Party’s
understanding as to the meaning of this request, the Responding Party states that after a careful
search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party cannot produce the requested documents
because the documents in question have never been, or are no longer in the possession, custody,
10 or control of the Responding Party.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
12 Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that there was
“improper hot and cold water supply” in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
16 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
17 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
18 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
19 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
20 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
21 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
22 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
24 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
25 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
26 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
27 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
28 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
40
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the Responding Party’s
understanding as to the meaning of this request, the Responding Party states that after a careful
search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party cannot produce the requested documents
10 because the documents in question have never been, or are no longer in the possession, custody,
11 or control of the Responding Party.
12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that “carpeting
14 in the Subject Property is extremely deteriorated and in dire need of replacement” in the UNIT as
15 alleged in the COMPLAINT.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
17 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
18 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
19 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
20 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
21 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
22 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
24 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
25 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
26 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
28 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
41
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero y. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
10 documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
11 submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention there were
14 cockroaches in the PROPERTY as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
16 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
17 oppressive. See West y. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
18 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
19 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
20 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
21 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
22 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
24 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
25 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
26 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
27 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
28 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
42
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
10 submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
12 If YOU contend that YOU informed DEFENDANT that there were cockroaches in the
PROPERTY as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT, provide each and every DOCUMENT that
14 evidences YOUR notice.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
16 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
17 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
18 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
19 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
20 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
21 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
22 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
24 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
25 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
26 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
27 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
28 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
43
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the Responding Party’s
understanding as to the meaning of this request, the Responding Party states that after a careful
10 search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party cannot produce the requested documents
11 because the documents in question have never been, or are no longer in the possession, custody,
12 or control of the Responding Party.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
14 Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention there were
15 cockroaches in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
17 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
18 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
19 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
20 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
21 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
22 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
24 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
25 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
26 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
28 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
44
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero y. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
10 documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
11 submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
If YOU contend that YOU informed DEFENDANT that there were cockroaches inside
14 the UNIT as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT, provide each and every DOCUMENT that
15 evidences YOUR notice.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
17 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
18 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
19 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
20 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
21 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
22 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
24 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
25 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
26 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
28 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
45
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero y. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the Responding Party’s
10 understanding as to the meaning of this request, the Responding Party states that after a careful
11 search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party cannot produce the requested documents
12 because the documents in question have never been, or are no longer in the possession, custody,
or control of the Responding Party.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
15 Please produce each and every DOCUMENT that supports YOUR contention there were
16 DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS inside the UNIT as YOU allege in the
17 COMPLAINT. (“DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS” shall mean and refer to the
18 frequently leaking and clogging sinks in the bathroom and kitchen, and bathtubs, without proper
19 hot and cold-water access, that only release scalding hot water.)
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
21 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
22 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
24 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
25 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
26 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
27 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
28 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
46
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
10 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
11 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
12 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Without waiving objections, the Responding Party states that the inspection of the
14 documents which are admissible, responsive to this request, and inspectable have been
15 submitted by bates stamp numbers: #0000001-#0000079.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
17 If YOU contend that YOU notified DEFENDANT of the existence of
18 DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS inside the UNIT, provide each and every
19 DOCUMENT that evidences YOUR notice.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
21 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
22 oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
24 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
25 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
26 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
27 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
28 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
41
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
10 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
11 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
12 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the Responding Party’s
14 understanding as to the meaning of this request, the Responding Party states that after a careful
15 search and reasonable inquiry Responding Party cannot produce the requested documents
16 because the documents in question have never been, or are no longer in the possession, custody,
17 or control of the Responding Party.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
19 Please produce each and every DOCUMENT that the DEFENDANT did not hire
20 “professional or licensed contractors” as YOU allege in Paragraph 45 the COMPLAINT.
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
22 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
oppressive. See West vy. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
24 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
25 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
26 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
27 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
28 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
48
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Doc ID; e8bf1 8de62ef2946397 169b0af1282dc8c7b6d9!
within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
10 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
11 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
12 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
14 Witho