On February 09, 2017 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Carlos Perezdeleon,
Elizabeth Perezdeleon,
and
for Product Liability Unlimited (24)
in the District Court of Santa Clara County.
Preview
THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
Facsimile: (415) 771-5845
EL.Team@VeenFirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CARLOS
PEREZDELEON AND ELIZABETH
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CARLOS PEREZDELEON and ELIZABETH CASE NO. 17CV306256
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY]
RPORATION’S
FURTHER PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO
RUSH TRUCK LEASING, INC.; MAXON SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS
Date: August 30, 2018
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Dept.: 19
Action Filed: Februar
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, plaintiff CARLOS PEREZDELEON submits
this separate statement in support of his Motion to Compel Dunn-Edwards’ Further production of
Documents Pursuant to Subpoena.
REQUESTED DISCOVERY No. 1
“1. Produce a copy of every insurance policy (including but not limited to primary, excess, and
umbrella policies) that covers or potentially covers any liability for the incident.”
d no complete insurance polici
Dunn-Edwards has no insurance policy that covers or potentially covers its
liability, if any, for the INCIDENT, other than a workers’ compensation
policy. Labor Code section 3600, et seq. The only potential liability would be
607910.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S
FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS
1
under Dunn-Edwards’ workers compensation policy. A copy of the workers’
compensation policy is produced herewith. is not calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant admissible evidence.
SPONSE (CRC 3.1345(c)(3).
Documents evidencing defendant R
scoverable, and so must be produce
nt Rush Truck Leasing’s liability in
umber CAS4047448 disclosed on
September 5, 207, and (2) an “exce 20, 2018. (Smoot Decl. at Ex. 5,
¶8.) The subpoena request above calls for complete copies of th
Dunn-Edwards’ has no basis to refuse to produce a complete copy
Dunn-Edwards’ discussion about its own liability is irrelevant.
covers any liability”)
The Code contains sweeping language making any and all applicab
discoverable: “A party may obtai
may be liable to satisfy in w hole or in part a judgment that
may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
judgment.” (C.C.P. §2017.210 (emphas
plies only to parties. A fundamental princ
public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence.” (
Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, referenced by
Discovery Act prohibit discover
607910.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S
FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS
2
nadmissible at trial, the
insurance policy was still subject to discovery. (Id.
From a practical perspective, pl
hat coverage limits, potential
periods, the named insureds, the
“diminishing.” These factors affect negotiation, settlement, me
REQUESTED DISCOVERY No. 2
“2. Produce a complete, certified copy of every insurance policy referred to in the attached
d no complete insurance polici
Dunn-Edwards objects to this request on the grounds that it is
oppressive, burdensome and harassing because the only applicable policy is
the workers’ compensation policy and no other policy is relevant or admissible
and therefore this request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant
admissible evidence. Further, under Labor Code section 3600, et seq., Dunn
Edwards cannot be made a party to this action due to the fact that the asking
party’s exclusive remedy against Dunn-Edwards was workers’ compensation.
See response to request one.
SPONSE (CRC 3.1345(c)(3).
This subpoena request is for a specific insuran usly identified by defendant
that this policy covers Rush Truck Leasing pursuant to a contractual agreement with Dunn-
roduce a complete copy of this
Puzzlingly, Dunn-Edwards’ claims
matter is not a workers’ compensation case. The liability of de
s not seek to discover Dunn-
The Code contains sweeping language making any and all applicab
607910.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S
FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS
3
discoverable: “A party may obtai
may be liable to satisfy in w hole or in part a judgment that
may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
judgment.” (C.C.P. §2017.210 (emphas
plies only to parties. A fundamental princ
public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence.” (
Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, referenced by
Discovery Act prohibit discover
nadmissible at trial, the
insurance policy was still subject to discovery. (Id.
Documents evidencing defendant R
scoverable, and so must be produce
nt Rush Truck Leasing’s liability in
umber CAS4047448 disclosed on
September 5, 207, and (2) an “exce 20, 2018. (Smoot Decl. at Ex. 5,
From a practical perspective, pl
hat coverage limits, potential
periods, the named insureds, the
“diminishing.” These factors affect negotiation, settlement, me
607910.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S
FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS
4
Elinor Leary
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS CARLOS
PEREZDELEON AND ELIZABETH
607910.1
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S
FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS
5
Document Filed Date
August 03, 2018
Case Filing Date
February 09, 2017
Category
Product Liability Unlimited (24)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
THE VEEN FIRM, P.C. Facsimile: (415) 771-5845 EL.Team@VeenFirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CARLOS PEREZDELEON AND ELIZABETH SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CARLOS PEREZDELEON and ELIZABETH CASE NO. 17CV306256 UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] RPORATION’S FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO RUSH TRUCK LEASING, INC.; MAXON SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS Date: August 30, 2018 Time: 9:00 A.M. Dept.: 19 Action Filed: Februar Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, plaintiff CARLOS PEREZDELEON submits this separate statement in support of his Motion to Compel Dunn-Edwards’ Further production of Documents Pursuant to Subpoena. REQUESTED DISCOVERY No. 1 “1. Produce a copy of every insurance policy (including but not limited to primary, excess, and umbrella policies) that covers or potentially covers any liability for the incident.” d no complete insurance polici Dunn-Edwards has no insurance policy that covers or potentially covers its liability, if any, for the INCIDENT, other than a workers’ compensation policy. Labor Code section 3600, et seq. The only potential liability would be 607910.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 under Dunn-Edwards’ workers compensation policy. A copy of the workers’ compensation policy is produced herewith. is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. SPONSE (CRC 3.1345(c)(3). Documents evidencing defendant R scoverable, and so must be produce nt Rush Truck Leasing’s liability in umber CAS4047448 disclosed on September 5, 207, and (2) an “exce 20, 2018. (Smoot Decl. at Ex. 5, ¶8.) The subpoena request above calls for complete copies of th Dunn-Edwards’ has no basis to refuse to produce a complete copy Dunn-Edwards’ discussion about its own liability is irrelevant. covers any liability”) The Code contains sweeping language making any and all applicab discoverable: “A party may obtai may be liable to satisfy in w hole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” (C.C.P. §2017.210 (emphas plies only to parties. A fundamental princ public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence.” ( Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, referenced by Discovery Act prohibit discover 607910.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS 2 nadmissible at trial, the insurance policy was still subject to discovery. (Id. From a practical perspective, pl hat coverage limits, potential periods, the named insureds, the “diminishing.” These factors affect negotiation, settlement, me REQUESTED DISCOVERY No. 2 “2. Produce a complete, certified copy of every insurance policy referred to in the attached d no complete insurance polici Dunn-Edwards objects to this request on the grounds that it is oppressive, burdensome and harassing because the only applicable policy is the workers’ compensation policy and no other policy is relevant or admissible and therefore this request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Further, under Labor Code section 3600, et seq., Dunn Edwards cannot be made a party to this action due to the fact that the asking party’s exclusive remedy against Dunn-Edwards was workers’ compensation. See response to request one. SPONSE (CRC 3.1345(c)(3). This subpoena request is for a specific insuran usly identified by defendant that this policy covers Rush Truck Leasing pursuant to a contractual agreement with Dunn- roduce a complete copy of this Puzzlingly, Dunn-Edwards’ claims matter is not a workers’ compensation case. The liability of de s not seek to discover Dunn- The Code contains sweeping language making any and all applicab 607910.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS 3 discoverable: “A party may obtai may be liable to satisfy in w hole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” (C.C.P. §2017.210 (emphas plies only to parties. A fundamental princ public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence.” ( Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, referenced by Discovery Act prohibit discover nadmissible at trial, the insurance policy was still subject to discovery. (Id. Documents evidencing defendant R scoverable, and so must be produce nt Rush Truck Leasing’s liability in umber CAS4047448 disclosed on September 5, 207, and (2) an “exce 20, 2018. (Smoot Decl. at Ex. 5, From a practical perspective, pl hat coverage limits, potential periods, the named insureds, the “diminishing.” These factors affect negotiation, settlement, me 607910.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS 4 Elinor Leary Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS CARLOS PEREZDELEON AND ELIZABETH 607910.1 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL [NONPARTY] DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION’S FURTHER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR SANCTIONS 5