Preview
Kelli George, State Bar No. 225689
JEANETTE N. LITTLE & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450
Pleasanton, California 94588
Telephone: (925) 225-6838 / Fax: (855) 732-9437
Service Email: kelli.george@statefarm.com
Attorneys for defendant(s) Susan Thomas
CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11 ALFREDO ORTIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL,, Case No.: 20-CIV-02032
12 Plaintiff(s), DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
13 vs. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE
SUBJECT COLLISION AND
14 SUSAN THOMAS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, DAMAGE; DECLARATION OF KELLI
15 GEORGE
Defendant(s).
16 Complaint Filed: May 11, 2020
Judge: Hon. Susan L. Greenberg
17 Dept.: 3T
Trial Date: May 20, 2024
18
19
Defendant SUSAN THOMAS submits the following opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
20
in Limine No. 11 to Exclude Video of the Subject Collision and Photographs of the
21
Property Damage:
22
I INTRODUCTION
23
This Motion should be denied because the video footage from the camera inside
24
Plaintiff's employer's van, and photographs of the property damage are directly probative
25
of the disputed issue of the nature and extent of the injuries from the accident and will
26
assist in the jury's assessment of the forces involved in the subject accident which
27
significantly outweighs the little, if any, undue effect it has.
28
-l-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
I. PERTINENT FACTS
This personal injury action arises out of a June 8, 2018 rear end accident when
Plaintiff was on the job for Primo Water; Plaintiff was operating a 2018 “Frht Commercial
Truck” — Alhambra Delivery Truck. At the time of the subject incident, there was, attached
to the rear-view mirror, a video camera facing rear-ward, such that it captured Plaintiff
while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments before, during, and after the subject
collision. The primary disputed issue at trial will pertain to Plaintiffs claimed injuries and
the legal and proximate cause.
Plaintiff identified in his verified Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.4 that he
10 possesses “several” photographs of the damage to the vehicle he was operating ... as
11 well as “a video of the collision, copies of which are produced concurrently herewith’.
12 [See true and correct copies of Plaintiffs verified responses, dated July 22, 2020, to Form
13 Interrogatories, Set One attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kelli George.]
14 Pursuant to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Plaintiff
15 provided verified responses and produced five photographs of the two involved vehicles,
16 as well as the video camera footage, as documents responsive to Defendant's request
17 for, inter alia, photographs depicting the accident scene, the objects or other
18 instrumentalities involved in the accident. [See true and correct copies of Defendant's
19 Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiffs verified responses, dated July 22, 2022,
20 and the 5 total photographs of the two involved vehicles, attached as Exhibit B to the
21 Declaration of Kelli George; the video camera footage will be provided to the Court upon
22 request].
23 On May 5, 2022, Defendant deposed John Lock, the designated person most
24 knowledgeable with DS Services, now known as Primo Water, Plaintiff's employer. Mr.
25 Lock was represented by his own counsel, who, pursuant to the Deposition Subpoena
26 Duces Tecum, produced DS records pertaining to the vehicle Plaintiff was operating at
27 the time of the June 8, 2018 accident. In addition to the subject video cam footage, 45
28
-2-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
PDF pages of records in total - were marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Lock’s deposition and
include the five total vehicle photographs (copies of which Plaintiff also produced). [See
true and correct copies of the pertinent portions of the transcript from the Deposition of
John Lock, taken May 5, 2022, attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Kelli George,
20:20 — 21:10, and true and correct copies of Exhibit A to the Deposition of John Lock,
attached of Exhibit C-1 to the Declaration of Kelli George]
As can be seen on PDF page 10 of Exhibit B to Mr. Lock’s deposition, Plaintiff
reviewed a DS “Accident Preventability Determination” for Date of Accident: “6/8/2018”
done in according with DS Service’s Motor Vehicle Policy that all vehicle accidents must
10 be reported by the associate and investigated by management, with a determination of
11 preventability made by the Risk and Safety Department, based on policy guidelines.
12 Thereon, PDF page 10 states “A review of the following items has been performed ...”
13 and the boxes are checked for “DriveCam or Video Footage” and “Photographs”. On
14 June 28, 20218, Plaintiff checked the box “I agree with this notice” and signed it. [See
15 Exhibit C-1, PDF page 10] On PDF page 11, Plaintiff circled “Yes” to the question
16 whether the vehicle he was in had a “DriveCam?” and noted the accident triggered the
17 drivecam. [See Exhibit C-1, PDF page 11] Mr. Lock confirmed the boxes marked off for
18 drivecam or video footage and photographs. Mr. Lock further confirmed that Plaintiff
19 completed a Vehicle Accident Investigation Report, that it was Plaintiff who took
20 photographs at the scene and submitted them with the report. [See true and correct
21 copies of the pertinent portions of the transcript from the Deposition of John Lock, taken
22 May 5, 2022, attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Kelli George, 22:25 — 23:3;
23 24:15-18; 25:23 — 26:6]
24 According to Mr. Lock, when the employee is in an accident, the normal protocol
25 is to immediately report an accident. Mr. Lock reviewed the video camera footage that
26 was in the employer vehicle. Mr. Lock testified that with respect to Alhambra delivery truck
27 that Plaintiff was operating, there is a camera in the cab of the truck, and then one in the
28
3+
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
rear, that are all connected to provide a front view and a rear view. Mr. Lock testified that
the record is triggered by G-force, and that the purpose of the video recording of the action
of their drivers inside the cab when the G-force has triggered is to see if there’s anything
that could have been prevented or they see if the driver was distracted and to protect not
only its drivers but the public in the event of a collision. [See true and correct copies of
the pertinent portions of the transcript from the Deposition of John Lock, taken May 5,
2022, attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Kelli George; 13:3-4; 17:14-20; 21: 18-
19; 40:4-13; 41:2-7; 44:6-15; 48:5-9]
For trial, Defendant has subpoenaed Plaintiff's employer, who produced a copy of
10 the video cam footage, to again provide foundation and authentication, and further will
11 have Plaintiff and Defendant again authenticate the vehicle photographs depicting the
12 property damage.
13 Defendant has retained and designated an accident reconstruction and bio-
14 medical engineer, Brian Doherty, Ph.D., who has reviewed, inter alia, the subject vehicle
15 photographs and video camera footage in formulating his opinions on the accident
16 reconstruction and bio-medical analysis.
17 I. ARGUMENT
A. THE VIDEO CAMERA FOOTAGE OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION IS A
18
REASONABLE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IT CAPTURED AND BOTH
19 IT AND THE VEHICLE PHOTOGRAPHS MUST BE ADMITTED BECAUSE
EACH IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE DISPUTED ISSUE OF CLAIMED
20 INJURIES.
21 Relevant evidence is admissible evidence. (Evidence Code sections 350 and 351.)
22 “Relevant evidence” is evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any
23 disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evidence Code
24 section 210.)
25 Given Mr. Lock’s testimony that the vehicle was equipped with a drivecam to
26 determine if there’s anything that could have been prevented or to determine if the driver
27 was distracted, as well as to protect not only its drivers but the public in the event of a
28 collision and the testimony the Ds Services procedure requires its employees to
-4-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
immediately report an accident, coupled with the Ds Services Risk and Safety Department
paperwork that indicate Plaintiff acknowledged and reviewed the drivecam footage at
issue, there is no merit that the video footage lacks foundation and authentication.
Moreover, given that Ds Services installs the drivecams in its vehicle as part of DS
Service’s Motor Vehicle Policy and Risk and Safety Department efforts to determine
preventability, there is no merit to plaintiff's contention that video footage would not be a
“reasonable representation” of the what the video cam footage depicts — that is, Plaintiff
while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments, before, during, and after the subject
collision.
10 Further, there is no merit to plaintiff's contention that vehicle photographs and
11 video footage cannot be used to correlate to injuries. The case of Christ v. Schwartz
12 (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440, is instructive. Therein, Defendant stipulated to negligence, that
13 Plaintiff was not comparatively negligent, and that Defendant was 100 percent the cause
14 of the collision. Plaintiffs moved in limine to prevent defendant from presenting
15 photographs showing the condition of plaintiffs’ vehicle after the accident on the grounds
16 that without proper expert witness testimony to explain the relationship between damage
17 to the vehicle and plaintiff driver's injuries, the jury could misinterpret the photographs.
18 The trial court determined the photographs were relevant and denied the motion. On
19 appeal, plaintiffs argued that without foundational expert testimony of biomechanical
20 experts, post-accident photographs of vehicles involved in accidents invite the jury to
21 speculate on the relationship between visible damage to the vehicles and actual impact
22 on their occupants. Plaintiffs further argued that the jury cannot be allowed to speculate
23 and correlate physical damage to cars involved in a collision with injury to the cars’
24 occupants. (/d., at pp. 447-448.)
25 The appellate court disagreed with Plaintiffs and held that is within the trial court’s
26 discretion to admit photographs of vehicles involved in a collision even without supporting
27 expert testimony because in general, the “admissibility of photographic evidence rests in
28
5.
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed unless plainly arbitrary.” (2
Cal.App.5th at p. 449.) Further, it is also within the trial court’s discretion “to determine
whether evidence on a subject may be shown to a jury without supporting expert
testimony because the subject is not sufficiently beyond common experience that the
opinion of the expert would assist the trier of fact.” (/d., at p. 449, internal citations omitted.)
Moreover, the court stated that expert testimony is not always required before a jury can
view photographs of vehicles because “a jury is ordinarily quite capable of correlating
outward appearance of damage with likelihood and extent of injury.” (/d., at p. 450.) Thus,
vehicle property damage photographs are relevant to the jury’s understanding of the
10 forces involved in the subject accident and are therefore admissible. The same should
11 hold true for the video camera footage if foundational requirements are met.
12 Note, Defendant has subpoenaed Plaintiff employer to again provide foundation
13 and authentication of the video camera footage. Proper foundation for the video camara
14 footage can be laid through the testimony of plaintiff, who along with defendant can lay
15 the foundation for the vehicle photographs. The video camera footage and vehicle
16 photographs are matters of common knowledge and basic common sense for the trier of
17 fact and their assessment of Plaintiffs claimed injuries. At a minimum, this jury should be
18 able to make up its own mind based on all the facts and evidence.
B. DEFENDANT’S DESIGNATED ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION AND BIO-
19
MEDICAL EXPERT REVIEWED AND RELIED UPON THE SUBJECT VIDEO
20 AND PHOTOGRAPHS IN FORMULATING HIS_ OPINIONS AND
THEREFORE THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED
21
Defendant retained and designated an accident reconstruction and bio-medical
22
engineer, Brian Doherty, Ph.D. Dr. Doherty will testify regarding the dynamics of the
23
accident, movements and dynamics of the persons and instrumentalities involved in the
24
accident which is the subject of this lawsuit, and the anticipated damage to persons
25
caused by various accidents and accident forces including speeds, distance, velocity,
26
delta v., property damage appraisals, points of impact, accident scene measurements,
27
layout validation and verification, as well as the basis for his opinions on those subjects.
28
-6-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
A biomechanical / biomedical expert has special knowledge regarding the
biomechanics of an accident and the effect of vehicular forces upon a human body.
Specifically, a biomechanical expert receives specialized training in engineering, kinetics
and anatomy — training not within the purview of the average layman. It is this training
that renders these experts qualified to testify as to how an accident occurred and what
forces were placed on a party’s body as a result of the accident. Dr. Doherty is therefore
qualified under Evidence Code section 720 to render the opinion that the circumstances
of the accident are not consistent with plaintiffs claims of injury.
Further, Dr. Doherty can rely on vehicle damage photographs (and estimates) in
10 forming his opinions. The reasonableness of an expert's reliance on a given matter is a
11 “question of degree and may well vary with the circumstances.” (People ex rel. Dept. of
12 Transp. v. Clauser/Wells Partnership (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1085.) Moreover,
13 reliance on evidence of even questionable reliability may be reasonable if it is the only
14 evidence available. (Mosesian v. Pennwalt Corp. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 851, 861.) As
15 such, plaintiff's motion should be denied.
C. THE HIGHLY PROBATIVE VALUE OF THIS EVIDENCE FAR
16
OUTWEIGHS ANY UNDUE NATURE AND COMPELS THE COURT TO
17 DENY THIS MOTION
18 There is no merit to Plaintiff's assertion that the vehicle photographs would inflame
19 the jury. Plaintiff himself took the photographs of the vehicles while at the scene. The
20 purpose of the video camera footage is for work safety preventability. There is nothing
21 inflammatory about that.
22 As noted above, the vigorously disputed issue is this trial is the nature and extent
23 of Plaintiff's claimed injuries.
24 It cannot be emphasized enough that in determining the issues in this case, the
25 jury will consider the believability of the witnesses and the weight to be given the
26 testimony of each witness. Defendant should be allowed the opportunity to demonstrate
27 to the jury that plaintiffs claimed injuries and continuing effects are not as extreme as
28 they claim. Part of that defense is presenting the video camera footage showing plaintiff
-7-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments before, during, and after the subject
collision because it has a logical tendency to prove or disprove the dispute pertaining to
nature and extent of Plaintiff's claimed injuries, residual complaints and disability.
Plaintiff may argue that such evidence may be prejudicial because it is not
favorable to their case; however, the court cannot exclude such evidence merely because
the opponent finds it inconvenient or unfavorable to a party. (See, Vorse v. Sarasy (1997)
53 Cal.App.4th 998, 1008; People v. Ortiz (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 377, 394.) As stated by
the court in Vorse:
“Evidence is not prejudicial, as that term is used in a section 352 context, merely
10 because it undermines the opponent's position or shores up that of the proponent.
The ability to do so is what makes evidence relevant. . . . In applying section 352,
11 ‘prejudicial’ is not synonymous with ‘damaging.” (Vorse, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1008, citations omitted.)
12
Evidence that “paint[s] a person faithfully is not, of itself, unfair” under section 352.
13
(People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737.) As the deposition testimony of John
14
Lock made clear, the purpose of video camera footage is safety and preventability. What
15
is captured therefore is more than a reasonable representation of what it depicts, is
16
inherently accurate, and should not be excluded under Code of Civil Procedure § 352.
17
Absent highly unusual circumstances, evidence that relates to a critical issue should be
18
admitted. (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 664.)
19
Accordingly, the video camera footage taken by Plaintiff's employer and photographs of
20
the vehicle that Plaintiff took while at the scene each have a logical tendency to prove /
21
disprove the extent of Plaintiff's claimed injuries and residual complaints. Such evidence
22
will simply permit defendant to put on a complete defense to plaintiffs claims. (See People
23
v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070-1071 - Presentation of evidence at the heart of
24
the defense would not have represented an ‘undue’ consumption of time; the prejudice
25
referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to
26
evoke an emotional bias against ... [one party] ... and which has very little effect on the
27
issues.’ (People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal.3d 576, 585. In this case, the jury will be able to
28
-8-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
discern whether the video camera footage and vehicle photographs contradict Plaintiff's
claims. Any argument that the video cam footage and vehicle photographs is misleading
is misplaced. Moreover, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff for that which he already knows.
This evidence is relevant and should not be excluded under Evidence Code section 352.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny Plaintiffs Motion in Limine
No. 11 and allow into evidence the video camera footage and vehicle photographs.
Dated: April 9, 2024 JEANETTE N. LITTLE & ASSOCIATES
MNBL
yt 0
10
Kelli George
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12
SUSAN THOMAS
Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code §1633.7(d).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
I, Kelli George, declare and state as follows:
1 lam an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and |
am an associate with the Law Offices of Jeanette N. Little & Associates, attorneys of
record herein for Defendant SUSAN THOMAS. | have personal knowledge as to the
matters stated herein, and if called upon to do so, | could and would competently testify
thereto.
10 2 This personal injury action arising out of a June 8, 2018 rear end accident
11 when Plaintiff was on the job for Primo Water; Plaintiff was operating a 2018 “Frht
12 Commercial Truck” — Alhambra Delivery Truck. At the time of the subject incident, there
13 was, attached to the rear-view mirror, a video camera facing rear-ward, such that it
14 captured Plaintiff while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments before, during, and
15 after the subject collision. The primary disputed issue at trial will pertain to Plaintiff's
16 claimed injuries and the legal and proximate cause.
17 3 True and correct copies of Plaintiff's verified responses, dated July 22, 2020,
18 to Form Interrogatories, Set One are attached hereto as Exhibit A
19 4 True and correct copies of Defendant’s Request for Production of
20 Documents, Plaintiffs verified responses, dated July 22, 2022, and the 5 total
21 photographs of the two involved vehicles, are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
22 5 On May 5, 2022, | deposed John Lock, who was designed as the person
23 most knowledge with Ds Services, now known as Primar Water, Plaintiff's employer. Mr.
24 Lock was represented by his own counsel, who, pursuant to the Deposition Subpoena
25 Duces Tecum, produced DS records pertaining to the vehicle Plaintiff was operating at
26 the time of the June 8, 2018 accident. In addition to the subject video cam footage, 45
27 PDF pages of records in total - were marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Lock’s deposition. True
28
-10-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
and correct copies of pertinent pages from the transcript from the Deposition of John Lock,
taken May 5, 2022 are attached hereto as Exhibit C and true and correct copies of the
45 PDF pages of records in total that were marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Lock’s deposition
are attached hereto as Exhibit C1.
6 Defendant has retained and designated an accident reconstruction and bio-
medical engineer, Brian Doherty, Ph.D., who has reviewed, inter alia, the subject vehicle
photographs and video camera footage in formulating his opinions on the accident
reconstruction and bio-mechanical analysis. Dr. Doherty will testify regarding the
dynamics of the persons and instrumentalities involved in the accident which is the
10 subject of this lawsuit, and the anticipated damage to persons caused by various
11 accidents and accident forces including speeds, distance, velocity, delta v., property
12 damage appraisals, points of impact, accident scene measurements, layout validation
13 and verification, as well as the basis for his opinions on those subjects.
14 | declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
15 the foregoing is true and correct.
16 Executed this 9™ day of April 2024 in Pleasanton, California.
17
18 Kenge
19 0
Kelli George
20 Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code
21
§1633.7(d)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-ll-
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE
EXHIBIT A
David W. Scopp, SBN 245363
Ryan Harris, SBN 217154
Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc.
215 W. Franklin St., Ste. 202
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel.: 831.717.4137
Fax: 831.233.3978
Email: david@harrispersonalinjury.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Alfredo Ortiz
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED CIVIL
11
ALFREDO ORTIZ, an individual; CASE NO. 20-CIV-02032
12
13 Plaintiff,
vs.
14
15 SUSAN THOMAS, an individual; and DOES 1
through 20, Inclusive;
16 SET ONE
Defendants.
17
18
19
20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, SUSAN THOMAS
21 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ALFREDO ORTIZ
22 SET NO: ONE
23 Plaintiff ALFREDO ORTIZ hereby responds to Defendant SUSAN THOMAS’ first set
24 of Form Interrogatories propounded June 16, 2020. The following responses are served pursuant
25 to section 2030.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. In answering these interrogatories,
26 Plaintiff has provided all information presently available, which may include hearsay and/or
27 other forms of evidence which may be neither reliable nor admissible. Plaintiff reserves the right
28 to amend or supplement these responses as information becomes available. Discovery is
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 1
ongoing.
FORM INTERROGATORY 1.1:
State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who
prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify
anyone who simply typed or reproduced these responses)
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 1.1:
Alfredo Ortiz; David W. Scopp, Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc., 215 West Franklin
Street, Suite 202, Monterey, CA 93940, 831.717.4137.
FORM INTERROGATORY 2.1:
10 State:
11 (a) your name;
12 (b) every name you have ever used in the past; and
13 (c) the dates you used each name.
14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.1:
15 (a) —(c) Alfredo Zamora Ortiz (whole life)
16 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.2:
17 State the date and place of your birth.
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.2:
19 Date of Birth: 09/23/1978
20 Place of Birth: Oakdale, CA
21 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.3:
22 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so state:
23 (a) the state or other issuing entity;
24 (b) the license number and type;
25 (c) the date of issuance; and
26 (d) all restrictions.
27 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.3:
28 Objection. Not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 2
(b) 2009-2011
(c) BS in Finance
(d) BS in Finance
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to and including the
time of trial. Discovery is ongoing.
FORM INTERROGATORY 2.8:
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state:
(a) the city and state where you were convicted;
(b) the date of conviction;
10 (c) the offense; and
11 (d) the court and case number.
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.8:
13 No.
14 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.9:
15 Can you speak English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use?
16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.9:
17 Yes.
18 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.10:
19 Can you read and write English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally
20 use?
21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.10:
22 Yes.
23
24
25
26
27
28 Ml
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 5
|INTERROGATORY
RESPONSE TO FORM 2.11:
Yes, Primo Water. Plaintiff made a worker's compensation claim.
FORM INTERROGATORY 2.12:
At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person have any physical, emotional, or
mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If,
so, for each person state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;
(b) the nature of the disability or condition; and
(c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the
10 INCIDENT.
11 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.12:
12 Objection. The interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert medical opinion
13 testimony. Vague and ambiguous as to “disabilities.” Without waiving any objection, Plaintiff
14 responds as follows: No as to Plaintiff; unknown as to others. Plaintiff reserves the right to
15 amend or supplement this response up to and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing.
16 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.13:
17 Within 24 hours before the INCIDENT did you or any person involved in the INCIDENT use
18 or take any of the following substances: alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or
19 medication of any kind (prescription or not)? If so, for each person state:
20 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;
21 (b) the nature or description of each substance;
22 (c) the quantity of each substance used or taken;
23 (d) the date and time of day when each substance was used or taken;
24 (e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken;
25 (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number or each person who was present when
26 each substance was used or taken; and
27 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
28 who prescribed or furnished the substance and the condition for which it was
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 6
Incident. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend each response. Discovery is
ongoing.
FORM INTERROGATORIES 12.1:
State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
(a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after
the INCIDENT;
(b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;
(c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene;
and
10 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of
11 the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure
12 section 2034).
13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.1:
14 (a) — (d). Plaintiffis unaware of any witnesses not listed in Traffic Collision Report, No.
15 SR18-04615, namely, Plaintiff and Defendant Susan Alma Thomas.
16 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to and including the
17 time of trial. Discovery is ongoing.
18 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.2:
19 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual
20 concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:
21 (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed;
22 (b) The date of the interview; and
23 (c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the
24 interview.
25 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.2:
26 Objection. Attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Without waiving said
27 objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Not at this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or
28 supplement this response up to and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing.
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 21
1 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.3:
Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded
statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the
statement was obtained;
(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the
statement; the date the statement was obtained; and
(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original
statement or copy.
10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.3:
11 Objection. Attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Without waiving any
12 objection, Plaintiff responds as follows: Officer Brian Patterson (ID No. 537) obtained
13 statements from each of the parties, and generated Traffic Collision Report No. SR18-04615,
14 which is produced concurrently herewith. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this|
15 response up to and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 22
FORM INTERROGATORY 12.5:
Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction,
or model of any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code
of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.31) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item
state:
(a) the type (i.e. diagram, reproduction, or model);
10 (b) the subject matter; and
11 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who made it.
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.5:
13 Not at this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to
14 and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing.
15 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6:
16 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state:
17 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the
18 report;
19 (b) the date and type of report made;
20 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report
21 was made; and
22 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original
23 or a copy of the report
24 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6:
25 Objection. Attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Without waiving any
26 objection, Plaintiff responds as follows: Officer Brian Patterson (ID No. 537) obtained
27 statements from each of the parties, and generated Traffic Collision Report No. SR18-04615,
28 which is produced concurrently herewith. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this}
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 23
1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 20.11:
2 As to the vehicle Plaintiff was driving, unknown to Plaintiff.
3 Defendant’s vehicle described in response to form interrogatory 20.2: Unknown to
4 || Plaintiff, but readily known to Defendant.
5
Dated: July 20, 2020 Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc.
Attorney for Plaintiff
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 29
VERIFICATION
I, ALFREDO ORTIZ, Plaintiff, respectfully declare:
Ihave read my responses to FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; propounded by
Defendant SUSAN THOMAS and know its contents, and the same is true of my own
knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as
to those matters I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
07 / 22/2020
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on
Alfredo Z Ortiz
10
ALFREDO ORTIZ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN
THOMAS - 30
Doc ID: 510120cdbf7 1c5d922d4a6d5d5bcpfi 7e97964af
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
Iam employed in the County of Monterey, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not
party to this within action; my business address is 215 W. Franklin St., Ste. 202, Monterey, CA 93940. [ai
familiar with the operation of the office fax machine, and I am familiar with the mail collection and process|
of the City of Monterey in which the mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same da’
10 that it is deposited for collection and mailing, in the ordinary course of business.
11
12 On July 20, 2020 I served the following documents described as:
13 e PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
14 PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS, SET ONE
15 on the interested parties in this action:
16 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
17 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mai
18 address(es) listed based on notice provided on March 16, 2020 that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19)
19 pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using|
20 only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was|
21 received within a reasonable time after the transmission.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and
23 correct.
24 Executed on July 20, 2020, at Monterey, California.
25 .
26
ElizabetHLafer | Paralegal
27
28
-l-
Proof of Service
SERVICE LIST
Kelli George, Esq.
Philip M. Andersen & Associates
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Kelli.george@statefarm.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Susan Thomas
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Proof of Service
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
Iam employed in the County of Monterey, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not
party to this within action; my business address is 215 W. Franklin St., Ste. 202, Monterey, CA 93940. [ai
familiar with the operation of the office fax machine, and I am familiar with the mail collection and process|
of the City of Monterey in which the mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same da’
10 that it is deposited for collection and mailing, in the ordinary course of business.
11
12 On July 23, 2020 I served the following documents described as:
13 e PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ VERIFICATION FOR RESPONSES TO FORM
14 INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND DEMAN FOR
15 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT
16 SUSAN THOMAS, SET ONE
17 on the interested parties in this action:
18 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
19 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mai
20 address(es) listed based on notice provided
Preview
Kelli George, State Bar No. 225689 JEANETTE N. LITTLE & ASSOCIATES Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450 Pleasanton, California 94588 Telephone: (925) 225-6838 / Fax: (855) 732-9437 Service Email: kelli.george@statefarm.com Attorneys for defendant(s) Susan Thomas CIVIL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 ALFREDO ORTIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL,, Case No.: 20-CIV-02032 12 Plaintiff(s), DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 vs. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND 14 SUSAN THOMAS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, DAMAGE; DECLARATION OF KELLI 15 GEORGE Defendant(s). 16 Complaint Filed: May 11, 2020 Judge: Hon. Susan L. Greenberg 17 Dept.: 3T Trial Date: May 20, 2024 18 19 Defendant SUSAN THOMAS submits the following opposition to Plaintiff's Motion 20 in Limine No. 11 to Exclude Video of the Subject Collision and Photographs of the 21 Property Damage: 22 I INTRODUCTION 23 This Motion should be denied because the video footage from the camera inside 24 Plaintiff's employer's van, and photographs of the property damage are directly probative 25 of the disputed issue of the nature and extent of the injuries from the accident and will 26 assist in the jury's assessment of the forces involved in the subject accident which 27 significantly outweighs the little, if any, undue effect it has. 28 -l- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE I. PERTINENT FACTS This personal injury action arises out of a June 8, 2018 rear end accident when Plaintiff was on the job for Primo Water; Plaintiff was operating a 2018 “Frht Commercial Truck” — Alhambra Delivery Truck. At the time of the subject incident, there was, attached to the rear-view mirror, a video camera facing rear-ward, such that it captured Plaintiff while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments before, during, and after the subject collision. The primary disputed issue at trial will pertain to Plaintiffs claimed injuries and the legal and proximate cause. Plaintiff identified in his verified Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.4 that he 10 possesses “several” photographs of the damage to the vehicle he was operating ... as 11 well as “a video of the collision, copies of which are produced concurrently herewith’. 12 [See true and correct copies of Plaintiffs verified responses, dated July 22, 2020, to Form 13 Interrogatories, Set One attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kelli George.] 14 Pursuant to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Plaintiff 15 provided verified responses and produced five photographs of the two involved vehicles, 16 as well as the video camera footage, as documents responsive to Defendant's request 17 for, inter alia, photographs depicting the accident scene, the objects or other 18 instrumentalities involved in the accident. [See true and correct copies of Defendant's 19 Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiffs verified responses, dated July 22, 2022, 20 and the 5 total photographs of the two involved vehicles, attached as Exhibit B to the 21 Declaration of Kelli George; the video camera footage will be provided to the Court upon 22 request]. 23 On May 5, 2022, Defendant deposed John Lock, the designated person most 24 knowledgeable with DS Services, now known as Primo Water, Plaintiff's employer. Mr. 25 Lock was represented by his own counsel, who, pursuant to the Deposition Subpoena 26 Duces Tecum, produced DS records pertaining to the vehicle Plaintiff was operating at 27 the time of the June 8, 2018 accident. In addition to the subject video cam footage, 45 28 -2- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE PDF pages of records in total - were marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Lock’s deposition and include the five total vehicle photographs (copies of which Plaintiff also produced). [See true and correct copies of the pertinent portions of the transcript from the Deposition of John Lock, taken May 5, 2022, attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Kelli George, 20:20 — 21:10, and true and correct copies of Exhibit A to the Deposition of John Lock, attached of Exhibit C-1 to the Declaration of Kelli George] As can be seen on PDF page 10 of Exhibit B to Mr. Lock’s deposition, Plaintiff reviewed a DS “Accident Preventability Determination” for Date of Accident: “6/8/2018” done in according with DS Service’s Motor Vehicle Policy that all vehicle accidents must 10 be reported by the associate and investigated by management, with a determination of 11 preventability made by the Risk and Safety Department, based on policy guidelines. 12 Thereon, PDF page 10 states “A review of the following items has been performed ...” 13 and the boxes are checked for “DriveCam or Video Footage” and “Photographs”. On 14 June 28, 20218, Plaintiff checked the box “I agree with this notice” and signed it. [See 15 Exhibit C-1, PDF page 10] On PDF page 11, Plaintiff circled “Yes” to the question 16 whether the vehicle he was in had a “DriveCam?” and noted the accident triggered the 17 drivecam. [See Exhibit C-1, PDF page 11] Mr. Lock confirmed the boxes marked off for 18 drivecam or video footage and photographs. Mr. Lock further confirmed that Plaintiff 19 completed a Vehicle Accident Investigation Report, that it was Plaintiff who took 20 photographs at the scene and submitted them with the report. [See true and correct 21 copies of the pertinent portions of the transcript from the Deposition of John Lock, taken 22 May 5, 2022, attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Kelli George, 22:25 — 23:3; 23 24:15-18; 25:23 — 26:6] 24 According to Mr. Lock, when the employee is in an accident, the normal protocol 25 is to immediately report an accident. Mr. Lock reviewed the video camera footage that 26 was in the employer vehicle. Mr. Lock testified that with respect to Alhambra delivery truck 27 that Plaintiff was operating, there is a camera in the cab of the truck, and then one in the 28 3+ DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE rear, that are all connected to provide a front view and a rear view. Mr. Lock testified that the record is triggered by G-force, and that the purpose of the video recording of the action of their drivers inside the cab when the G-force has triggered is to see if there’s anything that could have been prevented or they see if the driver was distracted and to protect not only its drivers but the public in the event of a collision. [See true and correct copies of the pertinent portions of the transcript from the Deposition of John Lock, taken May 5, 2022, attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of Kelli George; 13:3-4; 17:14-20; 21: 18- 19; 40:4-13; 41:2-7; 44:6-15; 48:5-9] For trial, Defendant has subpoenaed Plaintiff's employer, who produced a copy of 10 the video cam footage, to again provide foundation and authentication, and further will 11 have Plaintiff and Defendant again authenticate the vehicle photographs depicting the 12 property damage. 13 Defendant has retained and designated an accident reconstruction and bio- 14 medical engineer, Brian Doherty, Ph.D., who has reviewed, inter alia, the subject vehicle 15 photographs and video camera footage in formulating his opinions on the accident 16 reconstruction and bio-medical analysis. 17 I. ARGUMENT A. THE VIDEO CAMERA FOOTAGE OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION IS A 18 REASONABLE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IT CAPTURED AND BOTH 19 IT AND THE VEHICLE PHOTOGRAPHS MUST BE ADMITTED BECAUSE EACH IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE DISPUTED ISSUE OF CLAIMED 20 INJURIES. 21 Relevant evidence is admissible evidence. (Evidence Code sections 350 and 351.) 22 “Relevant evidence” is evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any 23 disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evidence Code 24 section 210.) 25 Given Mr. Lock’s testimony that the vehicle was equipped with a drivecam to 26 determine if there’s anything that could have been prevented or to determine if the driver 27 was distracted, as well as to protect not only its drivers but the public in the event of a 28 collision and the testimony the Ds Services procedure requires its employees to -4- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE immediately report an accident, coupled with the Ds Services Risk and Safety Department paperwork that indicate Plaintiff acknowledged and reviewed the drivecam footage at issue, there is no merit that the video footage lacks foundation and authentication. Moreover, given that Ds Services installs the drivecams in its vehicle as part of DS Service’s Motor Vehicle Policy and Risk and Safety Department efforts to determine preventability, there is no merit to plaintiff's contention that video footage would not be a “reasonable representation” of the what the video cam footage depicts — that is, Plaintiff while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments, before, during, and after the subject collision. 10 Further, there is no merit to plaintiff's contention that vehicle photographs and 11 video footage cannot be used to correlate to injuries. The case of Christ v. Schwartz 12 (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440, is instructive. Therein, Defendant stipulated to negligence, that 13 Plaintiff was not comparatively negligent, and that Defendant was 100 percent the cause 14 of the collision. Plaintiffs moved in limine to prevent defendant from presenting 15 photographs showing the condition of plaintiffs’ vehicle after the accident on the grounds 16 that without proper expert witness testimony to explain the relationship between damage 17 to the vehicle and plaintiff driver's injuries, the jury could misinterpret the photographs. 18 The trial court determined the photographs were relevant and denied the motion. On 19 appeal, plaintiffs argued that without foundational expert testimony of biomechanical 20 experts, post-accident photographs of vehicles involved in accidents invite the jury to 21 speculate on the relationship between visible damage to the vehicles and actual impact 22 on their occupants. Plaintiffs further argued that the jury cannot be allowed to speculate 23 and correlate physical damage to cars involved in a collision with injury to the cars’ 24 occupants. (/d., at pp. 447-448.) 25 The appellate court disagreed with Plaintiffs and held that is within the trial court’s 26 discretion to admit photographs of vehicles involved in a collision even without supporting 27 expert testimony because in general, the “admissibility of photographic evidence rests in 28 5. DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed unless plainly arbitrary.” (2 Cal.App.5th at p. 449.) Further, it is also within the trial court’s discretion “to determine whether evidence on a subject may be shown to a jury without supporting expert testimony because the subject is not sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of the expert would assist the trier of fact.” (/d., at p. 449, internal citations omitted.) Moreover, the court stated that expert testimony is not always required before a jury can view photographs of vehicles because “a jury is ordinarily quite capable of correlating outward appearance of damage with likelihood and extent of injury.” (/d., at p. 450.) Thus, vehicle property damage photographs are relevant to the jury’s understanding of the 10 forces involved in the subject accident and are therefore admissible. The same should 11 hold true for the video camera footage if foundational requirements are met. 12 Note, Defendant has subpoenaed Plaintiff employer to again provide foundation 13 and authentication of the video camera footage. Proper foundation for the video camara 14 footage can be laid through the testimony of plaintiff, who along with defendant can lay 15 the foundation for the vehicle photographs. The video camera footage and vehicle 16 photographs are matters of common knowledge and basic common sense for the trier of 17 fact and their assessment of Plaintiffs claimed injuries. At a minimum, this jury should be 18 able to make up its own mind based on all the facts and evidence. B. DEFENDANT’S DESIGNATED ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION AND BIO- 19 MEDICAL EXPERT REVIEWED AND RELIED UPON THE SUBJECT VIDEO 20 AND PHOTOGRAPHS IN FORMULATING HIS_ OPINIONS AND THEREFORE THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED 21 Defendant retained and designated an accident reconstruction and bio-medical 22 engineer, Brian Doherty, Ph.D. Dr. Doherty will testify regarding the dynamics of the 23 accident, movements and dynamics of the persons and instrumentalities involved in the 24 accident which is the subject of this lawsuit, and the anticipated damage to persons 25 caused by various accidents and accident forces including speeds, distance, velocity, 26 delta v., property damage appraisals, points of impact, accident scene measurements, 27 layout validation and verification, as well as the basis for his opinions on those subjects. 28 -6- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE A biomechanical / biomedical expert has special knowledge regarding the biomechanics of an accident and the effect of vehicular forces upon a human body. Specifically, a biomechanical expert receives specialized training in engineering, kinetics and anatomy — training not within the purview of the average layman. It is this training that renders these experts qualified to testify as to how an accident occurred and what forces were placed on a party’s body as a result of the accident. Dr. Doherty is therefore qualified under Evidence Code section 720 to render the opinion that the circumstances of the accident are not consistent with plaintiffs claims of injury. Further, Dr. Doherty can rely on vehicle damage photographs (and estimates) in 10 forming his opinions. The reasonableness of an expert's reliance on a given matter is a 11 “question of degree and may well vary with the circumstances.” (People ex rel. Dept. of 12 Transp. v. Clauser/Wells Partnership (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1085.) Moreover, 13 reliance on evidence of even questionable reliability may be reasonable if it is the only 14 evidence available. (Mosesian v. Pennwalt Corp. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 851, 861.) As 15 such, plaintiff's motion should be denied. C. THE HIGHLY PROBATIVE VALUE OF THIS EVIDENCE FAR 16 OUTWEIGHS ANY UNDUE NATURE AND COMPELS THE COURT TO 17 DENY THIS MOTION 18 There is no merit to Plaintiff's assertion that the vehicle photographs would inflame 19 the jury. Plaintiff himself took the photographs of the vehicles while at the scene. The 20 purpose of the video camera footage is for work safety preventability. There is nothing 21 inflammatory about that. 22 As noted above, the vigorously disputed issue is this trial is the nature and extent 23 of Plaintiff's claimed injuries. 24 It cannot be emphasized enough that in determining the issues in this case, the 25 jury will consider the believability of the witnesses and the weight to be given the 26 testimony of each witness. Defendant should be allowed the opportunity to demonstrate 27 to the jury that plaintiffs claimed injuries and continuing effects are not as extreme as 28 they claim. Part of that defense is presenting the video camera footage showing plaintiff -7- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments before, during, and after the subject collision because it has a logical tendency to prove or disprove the dispute pertaining to nature and extent of Plaintiff's claimed injuries, residual complaints and disability. Plaintiff may argue that such evidence may be prejudicial because it is not favorable to their case; however, the court cannot exclude such evidence merely because the opponent finds it inconvenient or unfavorable to a party. (See, Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 998, 1008; People v. Ortiz (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 377, 394.) As stated by the court in Vorse: “Evidence is not prejudicial, as that term is used in a section 352 context, merely 10 because it undermines the opponent's position or shores up that of the proponent. The ability to do so is what makes evidence relevant. . . . In applying section 352, 11 ‘prejudicial’ is not synonymous with ‘damaging.” (Vorse, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 1008, citations omitted.) 12 Evidence that “paint[s] a person faithfully is not, of itself, unfair” under section 352. 13 (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737.) As the deposition testimony of John 14 Lock made clear, the purpose of video camera footage is safety and preventability. What 15 is captured therefore is more than a reasonable representation of what it depicts, is 16 inherently accurate, and should not be excluded under Code of Civil Procedure § 352. 17 Absent highly unusual circumstances, evidence that relates to a critical issue should be 18 admitted. (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 664.) 19 Accordingly, the video camera footage taken by Plaintiff's employer and photographs of 20 the vehicle that Plaintiff took while at the scene each have a logical tendency to prove / 21 disprove the extent of Plaintiff's claimed injuries and residual complaints. Such evidence 22 will simply permit defendant to put on a complete defense to plaintiffs claims. (See People 23 v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070-1071 - Presentation of evidence at the heart of 24 the defense would not have represented an ‘undue’ consumption of time; the prejudice 25 referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to 26 evoke an emotional bias against ... [one party] ... and which has very little effect on the 27 issues.’ (People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal.3d 576, 585. In this case, the jury will be able to 28 -8- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE discern whether the video camera footage and vehicle photographs contradict Plaintiff's claims. Any argument that the video cam footage and vehicle photographs is misleading is misplaced. Moreover, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff for that which he already knows. This evidence is relevant and should not be excluded under Evidence Code section 352. IV. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 11 and allow into evidence the video camera footage and vehicle photographs. Dated: April 9, 2024 JEANETTE N. LITTLE & ASSOCIATES MNBL yt 0 10 Kelli George 11 Attorneys for Defendant 12 SUSAN THOMAS Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code §1633.7(d). 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE I, Kelli George, declare and state as follows: 1 lam an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and | am an associate with the Law Offices of Jeanette N. Little & Associates, attorneys of record herein for Defendant SUSAN THOMAS. | have personal knowledge as to the matters stated herein, and if called upon to do so, | could and would competently testify thereto. 10 2 This personal injury action arising out of a June 8, 2018 rear end accident 11 when Plaintiff was on the job for Primo Water; Plaintiff was operating a 2018 “Frht 12 Commercial Truck” — Alhambra Delivery Truck. At the time of the subject incident, there 13 was, attached to the rear-view mirror, a video camera facing rear-ward, such that it 14 captured Plaintiff while he was sitting in the driver's seat moments before, during, and 15 after the subject collision. The primary disputed issue at trial will pertain to Plaintiff's 16 claimed injuries and the legal and proximate cause. 17 3 True and correct copies of Plaintiff's verified responses, dated July 22, 2020, 18 to Form Interrogatories, Set One are attached hereto as Exhibit A 19 4 True and correct copies of Defendant’s Request for Production of 20 Documents, Plaintiffs verified responses, dated July 22, 2022, and the 5 total 21 photographs of the two involved vehicles, are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 22 5 On May 5, 2022, | deposed John Lock, who was designed as the person 23 most knowledge with Ds Services, now known as Primar Water, Plaintiff's employer. Mr. 24 Lock was represented by his own counsel, who, pursuant to the Deposition Subpoena 25 Duces Tecum, produced DS records pertaining to the vehicle Plaintiff was operating at 26 the time of the June 8, 2018 accident. In addition to the subject video cam footage, 45 27 PDF pages of records in total - were marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Lock’s deposition. True 28 -10- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE and correct copies of pertinent pages from the transcript from the Deposition of John Lock, taken May 5, 2022 are attached hereto as Exhibit C and true and correct copies of the 45 PDF pages of records in total that were marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Lock’s deposition are attached hereto as Exhibit C1. 6 Defendant has retained and designated an accident reconstruction and bio- medical engineer, Brian Doherty, Ph.D., who has reviewed, inter alia, the subject vehicle photographs and video camera footage in formulating his opinions on the accident reconstruction and bio-mechanical analysis. Dr. Doherty will testify regarding the dynamics of the persons and instrumentalities involved in the accident which is the 10 subject of this lawsuit, and the anticipated damage to persons caused by various 11 accidents and accident forces including speeds, distance, velocity, delta v., property 12 damage appraisals, points of impact, accident scene measurements, layout validation 13 and verification, as well as the basis for his opinions on those subjects. 14 | declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 15 the foregoing is true and correct. 16 Executed this 9™ day of April 2024 in Pleasanton, California. 17 18 Kenge 19 0 Kelli George 20 Electronic signature pursuant to Civil Code 21 §1633.7(d) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -ll- DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE VIDEO OF THE SUBJECT COLLISION AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, DECLARATION OF KELLI GEORGE EXHIBIT A David W. Scopp, SBN 245363 Ryan Harris, SBN 217154 Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc. 215 W. Franklin St., Ste. 202 Monterey, CA 93940 Tel.: 831.717.4137 Fax: 831.233.3978 Email: david@harrispersonalinjury.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfredo Ortiz SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED CIVIL 11 ALFREDO ORTIZ, an individual; CASE NO. 20-CIV-02032 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. 14 15 SUSAN THOMAS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive; 16 SET ONE Defendants. 17 18 19 20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, SUSAN THOMAS 21 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ALFREDO ORTIZ 22 SET NO: ONE 23 Plaintiff ALFREDO ORTIZ hereby responds to Defendant SUSAN THOMAS’ first set 24 of Form Interrogatories propounded June 16, 2020. The following responses are served pursuant 25 to section 2030.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. In answering these interrogatories, 26 Plaintiff has provided all information presently available, which may include hearsay and/or 27 other forms of evidence which may be neither reliable nor admissible. Plaintiff reserves the right 28 to amend or supplement these responses as information becomes available. Discovery is PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 1 ongoing. FORM INTERROGATORY 1.1: State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced these responses) RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 1.1: Alfredo Ortiz; David W. Scopp, Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc., 215 West Franklin Street, Suite 202, Monterey, CA 93940, 831.717.4137. FORM INTERROGATORY 2.1: 10 State: 11 (a) your name; 12 (b) every name you have ever used in the past; and 13 (c) the dates you used each name. 14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.1: 15 (a) —(c) Alfredo Zamora Ortiz (whole life) 16 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.2: 17 State the date and place of your birth. 18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.2: 19 Date of Birth: 09/23/1978 20 Place of Birth: Oakdale, CA 21 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.3: 22 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver’s license? If so state: 23 (a) the state or other issuing entity; 24 (b) the license number and type; 25 (c) the date of issuance; and 26 (d) all restrictions. 27 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.3: 28 Objection. Not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 2 (b) 2009-2011 (c) BS in Finance (d) BS in Finance Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing. FORM INTERROGATORY 2.8: Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: (a) the city and state where you were convicted; (b) the date of conviction; 10 (c) the offense; and 11 (d) the court and case number. 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.8: 13 No. 14 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.9: 15 Can you speak English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? 16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.9: 17 Yes. 18 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.10: 19 Can you read and write English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally 20 use? 21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.10: 22 Yes. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ml PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 5 |INTERROGATORY RESPONSE TO FORM 2.11: Yes, Primo Water. Plaintiff made a worker's compensation claim. FORM INTERROGATORY 2.12: At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If, so, for each person state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the nature of the disability or condition; and (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the 10 INCIDENT. 11 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 2.12: 12 Objection. The interrogatory seeks premature disclosure of expert medical opinion 13 testimony. Vague and ambiguous as to “disabilities.” Without waiving any objection, Plaintiff 14 responds as follows: No as to Plaintiff; unknown as to others. Plaintiff reserves the right to 15 amend or supplement this response up to and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing. 16 FORM INTERROGATORY 2.13: 17 Within 24 hours before the INCIDENT did you or any person involved in the INCIDENT use 18 or take any of the following substances: alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or 19 medication of any kind (prescription or not)? If so, for each person state: 20 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; 21 (b) the nature or description of each substance; 22 (c) the quantity of each substance used or taken; 23 (d) the date and time of day when each substance was used or taken; 24 (e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken; 25 (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number or each person who was present when 26 each substance was used or taken; and 27 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER 28 who prescribed or furnished the substance and the condition for which it was PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 6 Incident. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend each response. Discovery is ongoing. FORM INTERROGATORIES 12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and 10 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of 11 the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure 12 section 2034). 13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.1: 14 (a) — (d). Plaintiffis unaware of any witnesses not listed in Traffic Collision Report, No. 15 SR18-04615, namely, Plaintiff and Defendant Susan Alma Thomas. 16 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to and including the 17 time of trial. Discovery is ongoing. 18 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.2: 19 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual 20 concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: 21 (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; 22 (b) The date of the interview; and 23 (c) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the 24 interview. 25 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.2: 26 Objection. Attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Without waiving said 27 objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Not at this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or 28 supplement this response up to and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing. PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 21 1 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.3: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; the date the statement was obtained; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or copy. 10 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.3: 11 Objection. Attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Without waiving any 12 objection, Plaintiff responds as follows: Officer Brian Patterson (ID No. 537) obtained 13 statements from each of the parties, and generated Traffic Collision Report No. SR18-04615, 14 which is produced concurrently herewith. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this| 15 response up to and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 22 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.5: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF know of any diagram, reproduction, or model of any place or thing (except for items developed by expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.31) concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each item state: (a) the type (i.e. diagram, reproduction, or model); 10 (b) the subject matter; and 11 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who made it. 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.5: 13 Not at this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to 14 and including the time of trial. Discovery is ongoing. 15 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6: 16 Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: 17 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the 18 report; 19 (b) the date and type of report made; 20 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report 21 was made; and 22 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original 23 or a copy of the report 24 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6: 25 Objection. Attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. Without waiving any 26 objection, Plaintiff responds as follows: Officer Brian Patterson (ID No. 537) obtained 27 statements from each of the parties, and generated Traffic Collision Report No. SR18-04615, 28 which is produced concurrently herewith. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement this} PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 23 1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 20.11: 2 As to the vehicle Plaintiff was driving, unknown to Plaintiff. 3 Defendant’s vehicle described in response to form interrogatory 20.2: Unknown to 4 || Plaintiff, but readily known to Defendant. 5 Dated: July 20, 2020 Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc. Attorney for Plaintiff 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 29 VERIFICATION I, ALFREDO ORTIZ, Plaintiff, respectfully declare: Ihave read my responses to FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; propounded by Defendant SUSAN THOMAS and know its contents, and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 07 / 22/2020 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on Alfredo Z Ortiz 10 ALFREDO ORTIZ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS - 30 Doc ID: 510120cdbf7 1c5d922d4a6d5d5bcpfi 7e97964af PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ) Iam employed in the County of Monterey, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not party to this within action; my business address is 215 W. Franklin St., Ste. 202, Monterey, CA 93940. [ai familiar with the operation of the office fax machine, and I am familiar with the mail collection and process| of the City of Monterey in which the mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same da’ 10 that it is deposited for collection and mailing, in the ordinary course of business. 11 12 On July 20, 2020 I served the following documents described as: 13 e PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 14 PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT SUSAN THOMAS, SET ONE 15 on the interested parties in this action: 16 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 17 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mai 18 address(es) listed based on notice provided on March 16, 2020 that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) 19 pandemic, this office will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using| 20 only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was| 21 received within a reasonable time after the transmission. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and 23 correct. 24 Executed on July 20, 2020, at Monterey, California. 25 . 26 ElizabetHLafer | Paralegal 27 28 -l- Proof of Service SERVICE LIST Kelli George, Esq. Philip M. Andersen & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Kelli.george@statefarm.com Attorneys for Defendant Susan Thomas 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- Proof of Service PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ) Iam employed in the County of Monterey, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not party to this within action; my business address is 215 W. Franklin St., Ste. 202, Monterey, CA 93940. [ai familiar with the operation of the office fax machine, and I am familiar with the mail collection and process| of the City of Monterey in which the mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same da’ 10 that it is deposited for collection and mailing, in the ordinary course of business. 11 12 On July 23, 2020 I served the following documents described as: 13 e PLAINTIFF ALFREDO ORTIZ’ VERIFICATION FOR RESPONSES TO FORM 14 INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND DEMAN FOR 15 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT 16 SUSAN THOMAS, SET ONE 17 on the interested parties in this action: 18 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 19 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mai 20 address(es) listed based on notice provided