Motion,Ex Parte: LAURA ESMERALDA CONTRERAS VS. CAROL BUTERWORTH et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CHARLES M. SCHAIBLE (173107)
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 683-1980
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
Email: schaiblelaw@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff
LAURA ESMERALDA CONTRERAS

ELECTRONICALLY

FILED

‘Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

04/05/2017
Clerk of the Court
BY:SANDRA SCHIRO

Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

LAURA ESMERALDA CONTRERAS,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
CAROL BUTTERWORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CGC-09-488551
DISCOVERY

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF
LAURA CONTRERAS IN SUPPORT OF HER
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS CURTIS DOWLING AND
DOWLING & MARQUEZ LLP

Date: May 2, 2017

Time 9:00 a.m.

Dept: 302

Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn

Action Filed: May 19, 2009
Trial Date: Not Set

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL — CGC-09-488551Plaintiff Laura Contreras submits this separate statement, pursuant to Rules of Court, rule
3.1345, setting out the sole interrogatory and request for production at issue, defendants’
responses, the reasons why further responses were compelled by this Court, and the reason why
exclusionary sanctions should now be imposed.

PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:

At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which
you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability
coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of
the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state:

(a) the kind of coverage;

(b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company;

(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;

(d) the policy number;

(e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy;

(f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy of coverage dispute exists
between you and the insurance company; and

(g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1:

Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is vague and ambiguous
as to the term, “INCIDENT” and to the extent that it requests information which is irrelevant,
immaterial and not reasonably calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE WAS COMPELLED:

The term “incident,” which is specially defined by plaintiff as “The Butterworths’ entry of
Ms. Contreras’s apartment on April 24 and 29, 2009,” is neither vague nor ambiguous.
Information regarding defendants’ insurance coverage is sought by plaintiff to facilitate

settlement, and is relevant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.210; Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS — CGC-09-488551Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Even if this were not the case, defendants’ objection is waived because
their responses were late. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a); Mannino v. Superior Court (1983)
142 Cal.App.3d 776; Schaible Decl. { 2.)

REASON FOR EVIDENTIARY SANCTION

On July 8, 2014, this Court entered an Order compelling the Dowling Defendants to
respond to this interrogatory. (See Schaible Decl. Exh. A.) The Dowling Defendants have
willfully refused to do so. The information sought by Ms. Contreras is essential to enable her to
oppose the Dowling Defendants’ pending motion for attorneys’ fees, and discovery of that
information is expressly authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010. Even were this
not the case, the Court’s July 8, 2014 Order provides that the Dowling Defendants have waived
all objections to this discovery.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

All documents identified in your responses to Ms. Contreras’s Form Interrogatories.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Objection. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive and to the extent it invades the attorney client and attorney work
product privileges.

REASON FURTHER RESPONSE WAS COMPELLED

Good cause exists for the production of the documents that would have been identified in
defendants’ responses to Ms. Contreras’s form interrogatories, if defendants had responded to
those form interrogatories, because (i) defendants’ insurance policy is essential both to trial
preparation and potential settlement and (ii) reports of surveillance and witness statements are, by
their nature, likely to contain information tending to prove or disprove plaintiff's allegations. In
addition, these documents are, by their nature, likely to be available only from defendants. (See
Schaible Decl. § 3.) Furthermore, defendants’ objections, including those made on attorney-client

privilege and attorney work product grounds, are waived because defendants’ responses were not

2.

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS — CGC-09-488551timely. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a); Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d
776; Schaible Decl. § 2.)
REASON FOR EVIDENTIARY SANCTION

On July 8, 2014, this Court entered an Order compelling the Dowling Defendants to
respond to this request for production. (See Schaible Decl. Exh. A.) The Dowling Defendants
have willfully refused to do so. The information sought by Ms. Contreras is essential to enable
her to oppose the Dowling Defendants’ pending motion for attorneys’ fees, and discovery of that
information is expressly authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010. Even were this
not the case, the Court’s July 8, 2014 Order provides that the Dowling Defendants have waived

all objections to this discovery.

Dated: April 2, 2017

By: _/s/ Charles M. Schaible
Charles M. Schaible

Attorney for Plaintiff
LAURA CONTRERAS

3.

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS — CGC-09-488551