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
Lead Case No. BCV-23-100672
10 CRAIG WIGGS; AN INDIVIDUAL,
Consolidated with: BCV-23-100822,
11 Plaintiff, BCV-23-100849, BCV-23-100850,
BCV-23-100851, BCV-23-100853,
12 v. BCV-23-100922, BCV-23-100996,
BCV-23-101460, BCV-23-101462,
13 KRYSTAL WALLER, AN INDIVIDUAL; BCV-23-101463, BCV-23-101748,
JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL; BCV-23-103163, BCV-23-103821
14 PARS-15 LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED Assigned to the Hon. T. Mark Smith
LIABILITY COMPANY; WELCOME
HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN Dept. T-2 (3131 Arrow St., Bakersfield, CA)
15
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 #2
19
[Filed concurrently with Jennifer Runyon’s
20 Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Amended Special Interrogatories, Set One;
21 Jennifer Runyon’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Amended Request for
22 Production of Documents, Set One; Welcome
Home’s Motion to Compel Further
23 Responses to Amended Special
Interrogatories, Set One; Welcome Home’s
24 Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Amended Request for Production of
25 Documents, Set One; Separate Statements in
Support of Motions to Compel (x4); and
26 [Proposed] Orders (x4)]
27 Verified Complaint filed: March 6, 2023
28 VOLUME #2 OF 4
1
DECLARATION OF KARL P. SCHLECHT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL VOLUME #2
1 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm
2 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.
3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
4 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there were cockroaches in the
5 UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT.
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
7 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
8 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
9 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
10 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
11 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
12 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
13 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
14 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
15 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
16 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
17 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
18 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
19 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
20 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
21 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
22 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
23 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
24 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
25 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
26 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
27 The Responding Party contends that the property is afflicted by a persistent and
28 widespread cockroach infestation spanning several years. Cockroaches have been spotted in
26
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 various areas, including the dishwasher, cabinets, bathroom, hallways, kitchen, living room, and
2 both bedrooms. Despite the Responding Party's repeated complaints to the Defendants, the
3 complaints have been disregarded, and the Defendants have failed to implement any pest control
4 measures. The Responding Party has invested substantial personal funds in attempts to alleviate
5 the infestation, but the severity of the issue necessitates professional pest control intervention.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
7 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of
8 cockroaches in the UNIT as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT.
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
10 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
11 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
12 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
13 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
14 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
15 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
16 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
17 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
18 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
19 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
20 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
21 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
22 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
23 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
24 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
25 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
26 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
27 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
28 ///
27
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 Upon information and belief, the Responding Party submitted complaints on a bi-
4 monthly frequency since in or around April 2018, to the Present.
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
6 IDENTIFY the name of all persons that worked for DEFENDANT to whom YOU
7 informed that there were cockroaches in the UNIT as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT.
8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
9 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
10 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
11 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
12 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
13 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
14 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
15 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
16 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
17 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
18 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
19 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
20 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
21 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
22 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
23 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
24 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
25 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
26 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
27 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
28 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
28
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the
2 Responding Party.
3 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
4 Responding Party.
5 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
6 Responding Party.
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
8 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there was a cockroach
9 infestation on the PROPERTY as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
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
29
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 the property is afflicted by a persistent and
4 widespread cockroach infestation spanning several years. Cockroaches have been spotted in
5 various areas, including the dishwasher, cabinets, bathroom, hallways, kitchen, living room, and
6 both bedrooms. Despite the Responding Party's repeated complaints to the Defendants, the
7 complaints have been disregarded, and the Defendants have failed to implement any pest control
8 measures. The Responding Party has invested substantial personal funds in attempts to alleviate
9 the infestation, but the severity of the issue necessitates professional pest control intervention.
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
11 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of
12 a cockroach infestation in the entire Complex, as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT.
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
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
30
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 submitted complaints on a bi-
7 monthly frequency since in or around April 2018, to the Present.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
9 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT to whom
10 YOU informed that there was a cockroach infestation in the entire Complex, as YOU allege in
11 the COMPLAINT.
12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
13 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
14 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
15 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
16 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
17 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
18 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
19 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
20 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
21 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
22 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
24 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
25 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
26 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
27 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
28 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
31
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
2 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
3 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
4 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
5 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the
6 Responding Party.
7 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
8 Responding Party.
9 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
10 Responding Party.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
12 State all facts upon which you base YOUR contention that “unsanitary and dilapidated
13 condition of the Property creates a perfect environment for cockroaches to proliferate and the poor
14 construction of the buildings provides ample holes, cracks, and crevices for them to spread
15 throughout the Property” as alleged in Paragraph 25 of the COMPLAINT.
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
17 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
18 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
19 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
20 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
21 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
22 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
23 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
24 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
25 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
26 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
28 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
32
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
2 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
3 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
4 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
5 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
6 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
7 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
8 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
9 The Responding Party highlights a deficiency in the form of a missing door seal on their
10 door, creating an entry point that attracts and facilitates the proliferation of cockroaches within
11 the residence. Furthermore, the Responding Party contends that the overall dilapidated condition
12 of the building, characterized by its age and deterioration, provides an environment favorable to
13 the widespread infestation and inhabitation of cockroaches throughout the entire complex.
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
15 State each and every date YOU “find cockroaches in her dishwasher, cabinets, and all
16 throughout the home” as alleged in Paragraph 25 of the COMPLAINT.
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
18 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
19 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
20 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
21 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
22 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
23 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
24 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
25 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
26 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
27 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
28 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
33
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
2 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
3 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
4 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
5 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
6 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
7 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
8 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
9 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
10 The Responding Party contends that she encounters cockroaches daily in the specified
11 areas.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
13 State each and every date YOU contend that “Defendants have dismissed the Plaintiff’s
14 concerns,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
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
34
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 Upon information and belief, the Responding Party contends that she has been
9 submitting complaints on a bi-monthly basis since in or around April 2018, to the present. These
10 complaints, however, have been met with complete negligence and disregard by the Defendants.
11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
12 State each and every date YOU contend that DEFENDANTS “failed to provide any pest
13 control remediation,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT.
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
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
35
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the
8 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of
9 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete
10 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm
11 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
13 State each and every date YOU contend that YOU “expends large amounts of her own
14 money to attempt to abate the infestation,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
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
36
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 In or around March 2020, to the Present.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
10 State the amount of money YOU alleged to have expended in an attempt to abate the
11 infestation,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT.
12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
13 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
14 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
15 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
16 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
17 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
18 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
19 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
20 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
21 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
22 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
24 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
25 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
26 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
27 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
28 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
37
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
2 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
3 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
4 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
5 The spending amounts to approximately $450.00 (USD), and it is notable that this is a
6 recurring purchase, demonstrating that economic expenses are anticipated to substantially
7 increase over time.
8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
9 State and detail the efforts YOU attempted in order “to abate the infestation,” as YOU
10 allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT.
11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
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,
38
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 Since the beginning of the tenancy in or around April 2018, the Responding Party has
5 been submitting complaints with the owners and overseers of the property approximately every
6 two weeks. Additionally, from around March 2020 to the present, the Responding Party has
7 consistently purchased cockroach repellant products on a monthly basis, deploying them within
8 the home in an attempt to alleviate the cockroach issue.
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
10 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT who YOU
11 allege “have dismissed the Plaintiff’s concerns,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the
12 COMPLAINT.
13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
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
39
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the
7 Responding Party.
8 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
9 Responding Party.
10 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the
11 Responding Party.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
13 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “the [cockroach] infestation
14 is acute and requires professional pest control,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the
15 COMPLAINT.
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
17 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
18 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
19 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
20 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
21 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
22 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
23 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
24 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
25 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
26 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
28 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
40
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
2 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
3 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
4 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
5 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
6 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
7 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
8 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
9 The Responding Party contends that the property is infested by a prolonged and
10 substantial cockroach infestation spanning numerous years. Cockroaches are consistently
11 discovered in various areas, including the dishwasher, cabinets, bathroom, hallways, kitchen,
12 living room, and both bedrooms. Despite the Responding Party's repeated complaints to the
13 Defendants, the complaints have been disregarded, and the Defendants have failed to implement
14 any pest control measures. In an attempt to mitigate the infestation, the Responding Party has
15 expended significant personal funds; however, the severity of the issue necessitates professional
16 pest control intervention.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
18 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “[cockroach] infestation is
19 ongoing,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT.
20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
21 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and
22 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d
23 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection;
24 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial
25 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and §
26 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591,
27 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied
28 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior
41
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
1 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th
2 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not
3 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may
4 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
5 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil
6 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See
7 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request
8 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787,
9 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain,
10 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and
11 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to
12 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows:
13 Despite the Responding Party's ongoing monthly purchase of cockroach repellant
14 devices, there is no indication of a comprehensive and successful extermination of the
15 infestation.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
17 IDENTIFY Jose Luis Barrera.
18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
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
42
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99
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 Jose Luis Barrera. 2312 6th Street. #3, Santa Monica, California. 90405. (310) 775-2324.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41:
13 State each and every date in which Jose Luis Barrer inspected the UNIT.
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INT
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 Lead Case No. BCV-23-100672 10 CRAIG WIGGS; AN INDIVIDUAL, Consolidated with: BCV-23-100822, 11 Plaintiff, BCV-23-100849, BCV-23-100850, BCV-23-100851, BCV-23-100853, 12 v. BCV-23-100922, BCV-23-100996, BCV-23-101460, BCV-23-101462, 13 KRYSTAL WALLER, AN INDIVIDUAL; BCV-23-101463, BCV-23-101748, JENNIFER RUNYON, AN INDIVIDUAL; BCV-23-103163, BCV-23-103821 14 PARS-15 LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED Assigned to the Hon. T. Mark Smith LIABILITY COMPANY; WELCOME HOME PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AN Dept. T-2 (3131 Arrow St., Bakersfield, CA) 15 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 #2 19 [Filed concurrently with Jennifer Runyon’s 20 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Special Interrogatories, Set One; 21 Jennifer Runyon’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Request for 22 Production of Documents, Set One; Welcome Home’s Motion to Compel Further 23 Responses to Amended Special Interrogatories, Set One; Welcome Home’s 24 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Amended Request for Production of 25 Documents, Set One; Separate Statements in Support of Motions to Compel (x4); and 26 [Proposed] Orders (x4)] 27 Verified Complaint filed: March 6, 2023 28 VOLUME #2 OF 4 1 DECLARATION OF KARL P. SCHLECHT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL VOLUME #2 1 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm 2 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time. 3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 4 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there were cockroaches in the 5 UNIT as alleged in the COMPLAINT. 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 7 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 8 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 9 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 10 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 11 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 12 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 13 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 14 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 15 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 16 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 17 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 18 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 19 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 20 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 21 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 22 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 23 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 24 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 25 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 26 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 27 The Responding Party contends that the property is afflicted by a persistent and 28 widespread cockroach infestation spanning several years. Cockroaches have been spotted in 26 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 various areas, including the dishwasher, cabinets, bathroom, hallways, kitchen, living room, and 2 both bedrooms. Despite the Responding Party's repeated complaints to the Defendants, the 3 complaints have been disregarded, and the Defendants have failed to implement any pest control 4 measures. The Responding Party has invested substantial personal funds in attempts to alleviate 5 the infestation, but the severity of the issue necessitates professional pest control intervention. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 7 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of 8 cockroaches in the UNIT as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT. 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: 10 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 11 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 12 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 13 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 14 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 15 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 16 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 17 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 18 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 19 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 20 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 21 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 22 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 23 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 24 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 25 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 26 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 27 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 28 /// 27 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 Upon information and belief, the Responding Party submitted complaints on a bi- 4 monthly frequency since in or around April 2018, to the Present. 5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 6 IDENTIFY the name of all persons that worked for DEFENDANT to whom YOU 7 informed that there were cockroaches in the UNIT as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT. 8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 9 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 10 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 11 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 12 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 13 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 14 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 15 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 16 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 17 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 18 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 19 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 20 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 21 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 22 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 23 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 24 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 25 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 26 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 27 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 28 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 28 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the 2 Responding Party. 3 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 4 Responding Party. 5 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 6 Responding Party. 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 8 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that there was a cockroach 9 infestation on the PROPERTY as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT. 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 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 29 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 the property is afflicted by a persistent and 4 widespread cockroach infestation spanning several years. Cockroaches have been spotted in 5 various areas, including the dishwasher, cabinets, bathroom, hallways, kitchen, living room, and 6 both bedrooms. Despite the Responding Party's repeated complaints to the Defendants, the 7 complaints have been disregarded, and the Defendants have failed to implement any pest control 8 measures. The Responding Party has invested substantial personal funds in attempts to alleviate 9 the infestation, but the severity of the issue necessitates professional pest control intervention. 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 11 State each and every date YOU contend YOU informed DEFENDANT of the presence of 12 a cockroach infestation in the entire Complex, as YOU allege in the COMPLAINT. 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 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 30 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 submitted complaints on a bi- 7 monthly frequency since in or around April 2018, to the Present. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 9 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT to whom 10 YOU informed that there was a cockroach infestation in the entire Complex, as YOU allege in 11 the COMPLAINT. 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 13 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 14 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 15 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 16 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 17 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 18 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 19 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 20 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 21 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 22 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 24 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 25 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 26 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 27 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 28 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 31 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 2 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 3 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 4 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 5 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the 6 Responding Party. 7 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 8 Responding Party. 9 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 10 Responding Party. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 12 State all facts upon which you base YOUR contention that “unsanitary and dilapidated 13 condition of the Property creates a perfect environment for cockroaches to proliferate and the poor 14 construction of the buildings provides ample holes, cracks, and crevices for them to spread 15 throughout the Property” as alleged in Paragraph 25 of the COMPLAINT. 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 17 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 18 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 19 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 20 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 21 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 22 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 23 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 24 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 25 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 26 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 28 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 32 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 2 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 3 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 4 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 5 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 6 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 7 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 8 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 9 The Responding Party highlights a deficiency in the form of a missing door seal on their 10 door, creating an entry point that attracts and facilitates the proliferation of cockroaches within 11 the residence. Furthermore, the Responding Party contends that the overall dilapidated condition 12 of the building, characterized by its age and deterioration, provides an environment favorable to 13 the widespread infestation and inhabitation of cockroaches throughout the entire complex. 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 15 State each and every date YOU “find cockroaches in her dishwasher, cabinets, and all 16 throughout the home” as alleged in Paragraph 25 of the COMPLAINT. 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 18 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 19 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 20 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 21 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 22 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 23 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 24 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 25 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 26 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 27 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 28 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 33 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 2 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 3 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 4 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 5 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 6 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 7 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 8 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 9 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 10 The Responding Party contends that she encounters cockroaches daily in the specified 11 areas. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 13 State each and every date YOU contend that “Defendants have dismissed the Plaintiff’s 14 concerns,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 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 34 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 Upon information and belief, the Responding Party contends that she has been 9 submitting complaints on a bi-monthly basis since in or around April 2018, to the present. These 10 complaints, however, have been met with complete negligence and disregard by the Defendants. 11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 12 State each and every date YOU contend that DEFENDANTS “failed to provide any pest 13 control remediation,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 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 35 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 After a good faith effort to ascertain the dates, the Responding Party contends that the 8 dates are not readily available, nor ascertainable at the present time, and given the penalty of 9 perjury penalty, the Responding Party will not guess dates for which they have no concrete 10 backing or support thereof. Discovery is on-going, and future litigation and facts will confirm 11 these dates. The Responding Party is not waiving its rights to amend at a future time. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 13 State each and every date YOU contend that YOU “expends large amounts of her own 14 money to attempt to abate the infestation,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: 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 36 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 In or around March 2020, to the Present. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 10 State the amount of money YOU alleged to have expended in an attempt to abate the 11 infestation,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT. 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: 13 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 14 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 15 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 16 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 17 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 18 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 19 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 20 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 21 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 22 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 24 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 25 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 26 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 27 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 28 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 37 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 2 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 3 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 4 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 5 The spending amounts to approximately $450.00 (USD), and it is notable that this is a 6 recurring purchase, demonstrating that economic expenses are anticipated to substantially 7 increase over time. 8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 9 State and detail the efforts YOU attempted in order “to abate the infestation,” as YOU 10 allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT. 11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: 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, 38 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 Since the beginning of the tenancy in or around April 2018, the Responding Party has 5 been submitting complaints with the owners and overseers of the property approximately every 6 two weeks. Additionally, from around March 2020 to the present, the Responding Party has 7 consistently purchased cockroach repellant products on a monthly basis, deploying them within 8 the home in an attempt to alleviate the cockroach issue. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 10 IDENTIFY the name of each and every person that worked for DEFENDANT who YOU 11 allege “have dismissed the Plaintiff’s concerns,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the 12 COMPLAINT. 13 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: 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 39 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 1. Eric. This individual’s last name, address, and telephone number are unknown to the 7 Responding Party. 8 2. Jennifer Runyon. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 9 Responding Party. 10 3. Krystal Waller. This individual’s address and telephone number are unknown to the 11 Responding Party. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 13 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “the [cockroach] infestation 14 is acute and requires professional pest control,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the 15 COMPLAINT. 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38: 17 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 18 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 19 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 20 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 21 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 22 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 23 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 24 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 25 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 26 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 27 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 28 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 40 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 2 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 3 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 4 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 5 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 6 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 7 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 8 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 9 The Responding Party contends that the property is infested by a prolonged and 10 substantial cockroach infestation spanning numerous years. Cockroaches are consistently 11 discovered in various areas, including the dishwasher, cabinets, bathroom, hallways, kitchen, 12 living room, and both bedrooms. Despite the Responding Party's repeated complaints to the 13 Defendants, the complaints have been disregarded, and the Defendants have failed to implement 14 any pest control measures. In an attempt to mitigate the infestation, the Responding Party has 15 expended significant personal funds; however, the severity of the issue necessitates professional 16 pest control intervention. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 18 State all facts upon which YOU base YOUR contention that “[cockroach] infestation is 19 ongoing,” as YOU allege in Paragraph 59 of the COMPLAINT. 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39: 21 Objection; this request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, and 22 oppressive. See West v. Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 23 407. Objection; the requested inspection request is not described with specificity. Objection; 24 this request violates the attorney-client and or attorney work product privileges and judicial 25 doctrines; all in direct violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and § 26 2018.030, and Evidence Code section 950. See Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 27 601; Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 7,10. Such protections are also embodied 28 within Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. See also, Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior 41 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 1 Court (1989) 208 Cal.App. 3d 424; Garstang v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 2 526; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App. 3d 770, 798. Objection; this request is not 3 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and no good cause may 4 be shown to compel such evasive inspection. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. 5 Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App. 2d 12, 19; California Code of Civil 6 Procedure § 2017.010. Objection; this request is equally available to propounding party. See 7 Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App. 2d 45. Objection; this request 8 is so overbroad as to constitute oppression. See Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal. 2d 787, 9 794; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 860. Objection; this request is uncertain, 10 ambiguous, and confusing. See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 3d 771, 783. Subject to and 11 without waiving the foregoing, and pursuant to the understanding of the Responding Party as to 12 the meaning of this interrogatory, Responding Party responds as follows: 13 Despite the Responding Party's ongoing monthly purchase of cockroach repellant 14 devices, there is no indication of a comprehensive and successful extermination of the 15 infestation. 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 17 IDENTIFY Jose Luis Barrera. 18 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40: 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 42 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Doc ID: e8bf18de62ef2946397169b0af1282dc8c7b6d99 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 Jose Luis Barrera. 2312 6th Street. #3, Santa Monica, California. 90405. (310) 775-2324. 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41: 13 State each and every date in which Jose Luis Barrer inspected the UNIT. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INT