Preview
1 Karl P. Schlecht, Esq. (SBN 182294)
Email: kschlecht@tresslerllp.com
2 Jihoon Kim, Esq. (SBN 289780)
Email: jkim@tresslerllp.com
3 TRESSLER LLP
2 Park Plaza, Suite 1050
4 Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: (949) 336-1232
5 Fax: (949) 752-0645
6 Attorneys for Defendants,
JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL and
7 WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN
9
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 v. 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 INDIVIDUAL;
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
18 DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS VOLUME #4
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
Production of Documents, Set One; Welcome
22 Home’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Amended Special
23 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 #4 OF 4
28
1
DECLARATION OF KARL P. SCHLECHT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL VOLUME #4
1 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
2 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
3 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the
4 Responding Party.
5 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
6 Responding Party.
7 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
8 Responding Party.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49:
10 State all facts regarding YOUR efforts to remedy the mold contamination in the UNIT.
11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49:
12 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
13 oppressive. See West v. 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
23 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,
51
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
2 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
3 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
4 The Responding Party contends that she has an inability to access the ceiling of the unit,
5 citing physical limitations that prevent her from doing so.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50:
7 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “elevated counts of
8 Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Basidiospores were identified” in YOUR UNIT as YOU allege in
9 Paragraph 60 of the COMPLAINT.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50:
11 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
12 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
13 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
14 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
15 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
16 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
17 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
18 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
19 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
20 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
21 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
22 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
23 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
24 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
25 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
26 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
27 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
28 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
52
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
2 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
3 The Responding Party contends that a mold infestation has been observed, primarily
4 affecting the bathroom ceiling of the unit. Given the dysfunctional plumbing systems within the
5 unit, the Responding Party contends, upon information and belief, that there may be mold
6 contamination concealed behind the walls and floors of the unit.
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51:
8 State each and every date YOU contend that “elevated counts of Aspergillus, Penicillium,
9 and Basidiospores were identified” in YOUR UNIT as YOU allege in Paragraph 60 of the
10 COMPLAINT.
11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51:
12 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
13 oppressive. See West v. 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
23 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,
53
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
2 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
3 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
4 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the
5 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of
6 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete
7 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm
8 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52:
10 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that conducted the mold testing that tested
11 “elevated counts of Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Basidiospores” in YOUR UNIT as YOU allege
12 in Paragraph 60 of the COMPLAINT.
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52:
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
54
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
2 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
3 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
4 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
5 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
6 Upon information and belief, the Responding Party does not have the documents or
7 information requested. Discovery is ongoing; therefore, the Responding Party is not waiving its
8 right to amend its answer at a future time.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53:
10 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there were
11 DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS inside the UNIT as YOU allege in the
12 COMPLAINT. (“DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS” shall mean and refer to “[t]he
13 plumbing in the kitchen suffers from frequent clogging and flooding, which causes overflows and
14 moisture damage” as alleged in Paragraph 61 of COMPLAINT.)
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53:
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
23 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
55
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
2 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
3 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
4 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
5 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
6 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
7 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
8 The plumbing in both the kitchen and bathroom consistently experiences issues of
9 clogging and flooding, resulting in overflows and subsequent moisture damage.
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54:
11 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the
12 DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS in the UNIT as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT.
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54:
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
56
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
2 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
3 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
4 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
5 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
6 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the
7 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of
8 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete
9 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm
10 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55:
12 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT whom
13 YOU informed of the DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS in the UNIT as YOU allege
14 in the COMPLAINT.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55:
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
23 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
57
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
2 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
3 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
4 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
5 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
6 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
7 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
8 1. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
9 Responding Party.
10 2. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
11 Responding Party.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 56:
13 State all YOUR efforts to remediate the “DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS.”
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 56:
15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
16 oppressive. See West v. 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
23 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
58
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
2 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
3 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
4 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
5 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
6 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
7 In an effort to address the dysfunctional plumbing systems within the unit, the
8 Responding Party utilized a Clog Remover Gel as part of their remediation attempts.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
10 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “Defendants provided a
11 cheap, band-aid repair which “fixed” the problem, however Plaintiff alleges that the repair looks
12 incorrect, and that some clogging has begun to return” as alleged in Paragraph 61 of the
13 COMPLAINT.
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
16 oppressive. See West v. 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
23 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
59
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
2 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
3 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
4 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
5 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
6 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
7 The Responding Party contends that a maintenance professional attempted to address the
8 plumbing issues by inserting a wire into the sink and applying an unknown solution. However,
9 these measures proved ineffective, and the Responding Party continues to experience the same
10 plumbing issues to the present day.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58:
12 Identify the “multiple appliances” that were used by YOU when the “electrical shuts off
13 entirely” as alleged in paragraph 62 of the COMPLAINT.
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58:
15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
16 oppressive. See West v. 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
23 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
60
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
2 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
3 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
4 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
5 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
6 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
7 The Responding Party contends that whenever two appliances are concurrently plugged
8 in within the kitchen area of the property, the power shuts off, irrespective of the specific items
9 being used.
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
11 State each and every date YOU would “repeatedly flip the breaker to reinstall electrical
12 supply” as alleged in Paragraph 62 of the COMPLAINT.
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59:
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
61
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
2 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
3 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
4 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
5 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
6 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the
7 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of
8 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete
9 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm
10 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60:
12 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there were
13 DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
14 (“DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS” shall mean and refer to “using multiple
15 appliances, Plaintiffs allege the electrical shuts off entirely, suffering frequent outages which force
16 the Plaintiff to repeatedly flip the breaker to reinstall electrical supply” as alleged in Paragraph 62
17 of the COMPLAINT.)
18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60:
19 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
20 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
21 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
22 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
23 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
24 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
25 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
26 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
27 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
28 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
62
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
2 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
3 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
4 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
5 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
6 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
7 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
8 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
9 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
10 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
11 The kitchen area of the property is equipped with multiple outlets offering two
12 connections each to the Responding Party. However, when both plugs in a single outlet are
13 utilized simultaneously, it results in one of the appliances turning off, consequently affecting the
14 functionality of the kitchen area outlets.
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61:
16 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of
17 a DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61:
19 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
20 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
21 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
22 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
23 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
24 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
25 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
26 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
27 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
28 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
63
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
2 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
3 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
4 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
5 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
6 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
7 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
8 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
9 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
10 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
11 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the
12 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of
13 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete
14 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm
15 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62:
17 State all YOUR efforts to remediate the DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
18 in the UNIT.
19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62:
20 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
21 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
22 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
23 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
24 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
25 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
26 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
27 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
28 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
64
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
3 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
4 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
5 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
6 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
7 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
8 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
9 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
10 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
11 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
12 The Responding Party emphasizes that she is not a certified or professional electrical
13 technician, and as such, refrains from attempting to remedy the dysfunctional electrical systems
14 within the property.
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63:
16 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT whom
17 YOU informed of the conditions of the DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS as you
18 alleged in Paragraph 62 of the COMPLAINT.
19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63:
20 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
21 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
22 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
23 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
24 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
25 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
26 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
27 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
28 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
65
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
3 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
4 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
5 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
6 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
7 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
8 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
9 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
10 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
11 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
12 1. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
13 Responding Party.
14 2. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
15 Responding Party.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64:
17 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there was DETERIORATED
18 CARPETING in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT. (“DETERIORATED CARPETING
19 “shall mean and refer to “[t]he carpeting in the Subject Property is extremely deteriorated and in
20 dire need of replacement. The carpeting is lumpy and pulling apart all throughout the home” as
21 alleged in Paragraph 63 of the COMPLAINT.)
22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64:
23 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
24 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
25 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
26 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
27 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
28 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
66
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
2 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
3 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
4 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
5 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
6 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
7 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
8 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
9 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
10 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
11 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
12 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
13 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
14 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
15 The carpeting throughout the entire home exhibits noticeable lumpiness and separation,
16 creating a substantial safety hazard for the Responding Party and elevating the risk of potential
17 falls and personal injuries.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65:
19 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of
20 DETERIORATED CARPETING in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65:
22 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
23 oppressive. See West v. 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
67
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a
1 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
2 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
3 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
4 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
5 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
6 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
7 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
8 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
9 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
13 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as
Preview
1 Karl P. Schlecht, Esq. (SBN 182294) Email: kschlecht@tresslerllp.com 2 Jihoon Kim, Esq. (SBN 289780) Email: jkim@tresslerllp.com 3 TRESSLER LLP 2 Park Plaza, Suite 1050 4 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: (949) 336-1232 5 Fax: (949) 752-0645 6 Attorneys for Defendants, JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL and 7 WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN ENTITY 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 9 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 v. 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 INDIVIDUAL; 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 18 DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS VOLUME #4 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 Production of Documents, Set One; Welcome 22 Home’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Special 23 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 #4 OF 4 28 1 DECLARATION OF KARL P. SCHLECHT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL VOLUME #4 1 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 2 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 3 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the 4 Responding Party. 5 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 6 Responding Party. 7 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 8 Responding Party. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 10 State all facts regarding YOUR efforts to remedy the mold contamination in the UNIT. 11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49: 12 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 13 oppressive. See West v. 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 23 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, 51 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 2 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 3 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 4 The Responding Party contends that she has an inability to access the ceiling of the unit, 5 citing physical limitations that prevent her from doing so. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 7 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “elevated counts of 8 Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Basidiospores were identified” in YOUR UNIT as YOU allege in 9 Paragraph 60 of the COMPLAINT. 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50: 11 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 12 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 13 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 14 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 15 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 16 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 17 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 18 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 19 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 20 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 21 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 22 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 23 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 24 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 25 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 26 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 27 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 28 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 52 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 2 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 3 The Responding Party contends that a mold infestation has been observed, primarily 4 affecting the bathroom ceiling of the unit. Given the dysfunctional plumbing systems within the 5 unit, the Responding Party contends, upon information and belief, that there may be mold 6 contamination concealed behind the walls and floors of the unit. 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 8 State each and every date YOU contend that “elevated counts of Aspergillus, Penicillium, 9 and Basidiospores were identified” in YOUR UNIT as YOU allege in Paragraph 60 of the 10 COMPLAINT. 11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51: 12 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 13 oppressive. See West v. 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 23 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, 53 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 2 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 3 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 4 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the 5 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of 6 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete 7 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm 8 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 10 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that conducted the mold testing that tested 11 “elevated counts of Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Basidiospores” in YOUR UNIT as YOU allege 12 in Paragraph 60 of the COMPLAINT. 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: 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 54 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 2 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 3 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 4 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 5 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 6 Upon information and belief, the Responding Party does not have the documents or 7 information requested. Discovery is ongoing; therefore, the Responding Party is not waiving its 8 right to amend its answer at a future time. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 10 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there were 11 DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS inside the UNIT as YOU allege in the 12 COMPLAINT. (“DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS” shall mean and refer to “[t]he 13 plumbing in the kitchen suffers from frequent clogging and flooding, which causes overflows and 14 moisture damage” as alleged in Paragraph 61 of COMPLAINT.) 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53: 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 23 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 55 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 2 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 3 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 4 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 5 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 6 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 7 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 8 The plumbing in both the kitchen and bathroom consistently experiences issues of 9 clogging and flooding, resulting in overflows and subsequent moisture damage. 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54: 11 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the 12 DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS in the UNIT as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT. 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54: 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 56 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 2 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 3 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 4 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 5 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 6 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the 7 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of 8 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete 9 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm 10 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 12 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT whom 13 YOU informed of the DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS in the UNIT as YOU allege 14 in the COMPLAINT. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55: 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 23 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 57 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 2 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 3 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 4 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 5 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 6 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 7 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 8 1. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 9 Responding Party. 10 2. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 11 Responding Party. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 56: 13 State all YOUR efforts to remediate the “DYSFUNCTIONAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS.” 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 56: 15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 16 oppressive. See West v. 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 23 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 58 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 2 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 3 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 4 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 5 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 6 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 7 In an effort to address the dysfunctional plumbing systems within the unit, the 8 Responding Party utilized a Clog Remover Gel as part of their remediation attempts. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 10 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “Defendants provided a 11 cheap, band-aid repair which “fixed” the problem, however Plaintiff alleges that the repair looks 12 incorrect, and that some clogging has begun to return” as alleged in Paragraph 61 of the 13 COMPLAINT. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57: 15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 16 oppressive. See West v. 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 23 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 59 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 2 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 3 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 4 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 5 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 6 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 7 The Responding Party contends that a maintenance professional attempted to address the 8 plumbing issues by inserting a wire into the sink and applying an unknown solution. However, 9 these measures proved ineffective, and the Responding Party continues to experience the same 10 plumbing issues to the present day. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 12 Identify the “multiple appliances” that were used by YOU when the “electrical shuts off 13 entirely” as alleged in paragraph 62 of the COMPLAINT. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58: 15 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 16 oppressive. See West v. 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 23 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 60 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 2 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 3 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 4 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 5 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 6 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 7 The Responding Party contends that whenever two appliances are concurrently plugged 8 in within the kitchen area of the property, the power shuts off, irrespective of the specific items 9 being used. 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 11 State each and every date YOU would “repeatedly flip the breaker to reinstall electrical 12 supply” as alleged in Paragraph 62 of the COMPLAINT. 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: 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 61 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 2 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 3 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 4 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 5 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 6 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the 7 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of 8 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete 9 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm 10 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 12 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there were 13 DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT. 14 (“DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS” shall mean and refer to “using multiple 15 appliances, Plaintiffs allege the electrical shuts off entirely, suffering frequent outages which force 16 the Plaintiff to repeatedly flip the breaker to reinstall electrical supply” as alleged in Paragraph 62 17 of the COMPLAINT.) 18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60: 19 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 20 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 21 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 22 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 23 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 24 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 25 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 26 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 27 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 28 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 62 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 2 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 3 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 4 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 5 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 6 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 7 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 8 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 9 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 10 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 11 The kitchen area of the property is equipped with multiple outlets offering two 12 connections each to the Responding Party. However, when both plugs in a single outlet are 13 utilized simultaneously, it results in one of the appliances turning off, consequently affecting the 14 functionality of the kitchen area outlets. 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 16 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of 17 a DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT. 18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61: 19 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 20 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 21 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 22 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 23 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 24 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 25 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 26 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 27 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 28 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 63 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 2 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 3 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 4 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 5 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 6 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 7 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 8 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 9 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 10 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 11 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the 12 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of 13 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete 14 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm 15 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time. 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 17 State all YOUR efforts to remediate the DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 18 in the UNIT. 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62: 20 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 21 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 22 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 23 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 24 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 25 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 26 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 27 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 28 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 64 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 3 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 4 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 5 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 6 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 7 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 8 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 9 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 10 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 11 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 12 The Responding Party emphasizes that she is not a certified or professional electrical 13 technician, and as such, refrains from attempting to remedy the dysfunctional electrical systems 14 within the property. 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 16 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT whom 17 YOU informed of the conditions of the DYSFUNCTIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS as you 18 alleged in Paragraph 62 of the COMPLAINT. 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63: 20 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 21 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 22 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 23 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 24 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 25 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 26 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 27 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 28 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 65 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 3 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 4 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 5 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 6 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 7 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 8 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 9 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 10 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 11 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 12 1. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 13 Responding Party. 14 2. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 15 Responding Party. 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64: 17 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there was DETERIORATED 18 CARPETING in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT. (“DETERIORATED CARPETING 19 “shall mean and refer to “[t]he carpeting in the Subject Property is extremely deteriorated and in 20 dire need of replacement. The carpeting is lumpy and pulling apart all throughout the home” as 21 alleged in Paragraph 63 of the COMPLAINT.) 22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64: 23 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 24 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 25 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 26 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 27 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 28 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 66 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 2 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 3 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 4 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 5 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 6 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 7 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 8 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 9 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 10 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 11 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 12 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 13 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 14 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 15 The carpeting throughout the entire home exhibits noticeable lumpiness and separation, 16 creating a substantial safety hazard for the Responding Party and elevating the risk of potential 17 falls and personal injuries. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65: 19 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of 20 DETERIORATED CARPETING in the UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT. 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65: 22 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 23 oppressive. See West v. 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 67 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: 97e29dc27d9f13620c3c6aa6a97509a743965e0a 1 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 2 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 3 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 4 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 5 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 6 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 7 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 8 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 9 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 13 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as