Preview
«If
'11.,
RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067)
MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608)
CHARLES R. HELLSTROM (SBN 294540) 3 AENETEEAOEOUDNW
‘ ‘
ROSSI, HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK JAN 2 6 2018
1960 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126-1493
Tel: (408) 261-4252
Fax: (408) 261-4292
Attorneys for Defendant
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC
\OOONO‘tUl-b
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV53 8897
Partnership, '
11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A8
Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO
12 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
vs. COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL XV:|
13 INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware FOR SANCTIONS
14 Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, an
individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual,
15 DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH LAI, Date: Februarv 2. 2018
and DOES 1 through 10, Time: 9:00 am.
16 Dent: Law & Motion
Defendants.
17
Action Filed: June I. 2016
18 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Trial Date: March 26, 2018
‘
Limited Liability Company,
19
Cross-Complainant, @fim
2O Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Repl’
vs. ,
946223
21
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General
22 Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10, kl w
I“ ll I “HI”
_
ll II
|"MI"
_,_______ W, _ _.
23 Cross—Defendant.
24
25
lllmcnlmgh.
Rum].
Rdml A Child:
19am: Ahmed: 26
Suit: am
Sun lnsc. CA
””6419!
[ADMIN—1252 27
FM (403) 16|~1291
28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
As set forth in the moving papers, Plaintiff DBP’s response to Special Interrogatory # 35
is comprised solely of a single, unmeritorious objection, and contains no substantive information
whatsoever. Movant/Propounding Party/Defendant King Plaza Center (“King”) has met its
LII-w
burden on this motion to compel.
The objecting patty (here DBP) bears the burden of explaining and justifying any
objection. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal 4th 245, 255, citing Coy v. Super.
KOOONON
Ct. (1962) 58 Cal. 2d. 210, 220-22l .) DBP did not do so. Nor has DBP justified its failure to
provide any substantive information whatsoever in response to Special Interrogatory #35, despite
10 the explicit statutory directives of GOP. § 2030.220 and C.C.P. § 2030.240, which together
11 require a responding party to provide a substantive response that is “as complete and
12 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” even if
13 the interrogatory is objectionable. The
14 II. ARGUMENT
15 This is not an instance in which a propounding party is trying to bully a responding party
16 into giving more information than the Discovery Act requires, or some sort of nefarious attempt
17 to get DBP to answer more than 35 special interrogatories.
18 This is an instance in which the propounding party (King) is merely asking the
19 responding party (DBP) to answer an interrogatory based on the language that DBP itself used
20 in its own operative complaint, and in particular to provide the identity of persons whom the
21 responding party (DBP) referenced in its complaint as a group of people with certain
'
22 characteristics.‘
23 Special Interrogatory #35 mirrors the language in DBP’s own allegation: that does not
24 magically transform it into multiple interrogatories, as DBP’s Opposition asserts. The language
25
Ilnmmlmgh. '
RN55.
That is the crux of DBP’s lawsuit: DBP claims that the defendants (including propounding party) are liable to DBP
26
Rtixhl D. Chuck
19mm: Alameda
Suite 200 for trespass and nuisance because DBP claims that defendants have supposedly “hindered and obstructed” these
Sm he. CA
95126-1491 unidentified people who DBP claims have supposed easement rights due to their supposed association with DBP.
(um) 161-4152 27
Pu (win It“ 4192 (RJN Exh. A, DBP’s First Amended Complaint, 1H9; see also moving Separate Statement.)
28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION 1
TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
of Special lnterrogatory #35 parallels DBP’s own language in paragraph 19 of DBP’s First
Amended Complaint, which is itself wordy. DBP’s description of this single group of people in
1]] 9of its operative complaint uses a series of descriptors, connected by the word “and.” (RIN
Exh. A.) The parallel language in Special Interrogatory #35, which uses DBP ’s own language to
describe the same single group
\OOOxIChM-DsUJNH
ofpeople, is not objectionable under C.C.P. § 2030.060(f). The
interrogatory still refers to the same group of people: a group which DBP’s First Amended
Complaint describes, but whose constituents DBP does not identify. The interrogatory' addresses
a single subject: who are these people?
“Questions regarding the same subject should be allowed although they include an ‘and’
or ‘or’.” (Clement v.Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1291 [regarding
compound/conjunctive objections].)
III. CONCLUSION
To accomplish the legislative purpose behind the discovery statutes, they “must be
construed liberally in favor of disclosure.” Emerson Elec. Co. v Superior Court (1997) 16
Cal.4th 1101, 1107, quoting Greyhound Corp. v Superior Court (1961) 56 Ca1.2d 355, 377.
Special Interrogatory #35 is proper, addresses a single, directly relevant topic within the
of discovery, and it would take a serious feat of linguistic gymnastics to construe its
NNNNNNNNNHO—‘b—ii—lh—lh—IHD—lb—fik—l
scope
phrasing as so objectionable that the requested discovery could be denied in toto. (Id.; see also,
Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 773 [“A party may not deliberately misconstrue a
question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer”].)
King respectfully requests that the Court fulfill the purpose of the discovery statutes and
not exalt form over substance; especially where form of the language DBP is objecting to is
DBP’s own language, where King’s counsel made a good faith effort to meet and confer
regarding the substance of the information sought.
///
Rani. Ihmmlmfi.
Reine!“ 4: Chuck
I960“: Ahmad: ///
Suile Inn
hue. CA
San
”lib-I49)
(um) Ebb-£152
7“ (MIX) 114-1292
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION T0 MOTION 2
TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1
[Q
U.)
LII-b
///
Dated:
\OOONON
Ianuarv 26. 2018
BY: W
ROSS'I. HAMERSLOUGH.
RONALDZR‘ ROSSI
MADQLYN D. ORR
Aftomgysfor'Defcndant
KING‘PLAZA: CENTER. LLC
REISCHL & CHUCK
(3);) 34.1353
I'M
(-‘IL‘KI :6I4292
28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 PROOF OF. SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF'SANTA CLARA:
-
3 I am a citizen of the. United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the
age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1960 The
4 Alameda, Suite 200,- San Jose, CA 95126-1493. On the date set forth below '1
served the
documents described below;
MEMORANDUM OF. POINTSANDAUTHORITIES IN REPLY T0 ‘
'6
OPPOSITION :TQ- MOTION TO CQMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
8 on the folloWing’ perSOn.(s): in this action by; placing a :true‘ copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows;
9
Steven B. Piserj, Esql . _ ~ . _' ‘
James M, Barrett, Esq._
10 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER. Law“ Office» of James M. BarretttPLC
A Professional, Corporation 5150 El Camino Real D-22
11 1300 ClayStreetXSuite 1050 Los Altos CA 94022
Oakland,_VCA 94612 P 650-969-3687
12 51098356582 ‘
F 650—969-3699
Fa
51 0—8332—‘1 71 7 j b@;iamesbarrettlaw.com
13 eSperanzaOGnacbell..net
'
‘
Attorney for Bua—Quach, ‘Sovan Lien,
14 John L. Fitzgerald, Esq. Dong Vuong, and Thanh Lai
Law Offices of John-L. Fitzgerald
15 4.4 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080
San-Francism,’ CA 94104
16 415-689~1209
john@ilfltzgeraldlawcom
17
Attorneys for Plaintiff
18 DBP INVESTMENTS, A California
‘
General Partnership
19
20 (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I" eneIOSedsaid document(s) in an envelope or package
provided by FedEx and addresSed to the persons at the addresses listed on, this Proof of Service.
21 l placed the envelope or packagefor collection and overnight delivery at an office or a
regularly utilized drop box of FedEx 'or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver
22 authorized by FedEx to receive'docurnents.
23 (STATE) I declare under penalty of: perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct
Executed on January 26, 2018 at San Jose, California.
Rum llamuxlmp‘l.
[lax-til & Cllux‘i
1
‘MO ‘.\
26
1"“ $514.“):
14:38)
27 ( MALIND‘A MASCARENAS
28 S:\CL\R\R161 13\Pl.DGS\MTC SPECIAL ROG #35 {NRC}. 2-2-18]\OUR REPLY\OUR REPLYDOCX
Preview
«If '11., RONALD R. ROSSI (SBN 43067) MADOLYN D. ORR (SBN 280608) CHARLES R. HELLSTROM (SBN 294540) 3 AENETEEAOEOUDNW ‘ ‘ ROSSI, HAMERSLOUGH, REISCHL & CHUCK JAN 2 6 2018 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95126-1493 Tel: (408) 261-4252 Fax: (408) 261-4292 Attorneys for Defendant KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC \OOONO‘tUl-b SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General Case No.: CIV53 8897 Partnership, ' 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A8 Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO 12 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO vs. COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL XV:| 13 INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware FOR SANCTIONS 14 Limited Liability Company, BUA-QUACH, an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, 15 DONG VUONG, an individual, THANH LAI, Date: Februarv 2. 2018 and DOES 1 through 10, Time: 9:00 am. 16 Dent: Law & Motion Defendants. 17 Action Filed: June I. 2016 18 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Trial Date: March 26, 2018 ‘ Limited Liability Company, 19 Cross-Complainant, @fim 2O Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Repl’ vs. , 946223 21 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General 22 Partnership, and ROES 1 through 10, kl w I“ ll I “HI” _ ll II |"MI" _,_______ W, _ _. 23 Cross—Defendant. 24 25 lllmcnlmgh. Rum]. Rdml A Child: 19am: Ahmed: 26 Suit: am Sun lnsc. CA ””6419! [ADMIN—1252 27 FM (403) 16|~1291 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS I. INTRODUCTION As set forth in the moving papers, Plaintiff DBP’s response to Special Interrogatory # 35 is comprised solely of a single, unmeritorious objection, and contains no substantive information whatsoever. Movant/Propounding Party/Defendant King Plaza Center (“King”) has met its LII-w burden on this motion to compel. The objecting patty (here DBP) bears the burden of explaining and justifying any objection. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal 4th 245, 255, citing Coy v. Super. KOOONON Ct. (1962) 58 Cal. 2d. 210, 220-22l .) DBP did not do so. Nor has DBP justified its failure to provide any substantive information whatsoever in response to Special Interrogatory #35, despite 10 the explicit statutory directives of GOP. § 2030.220 and C.C.P. § 2030.240, which together 11 require a responding party to provide a substantive response that is “as complete and 12 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” even if 13 the interrogatory is objectionable. The 14 II. ARGUMENT 15 This is not an instance in which a propounding party is trying to bully a responding party 16 into giving more information than the Discovery Act requires, or some sort of nefarious attempt 17 to get DBP to answer more than 35 special interrogatories. 18 This is an instance in which the propounding party (King) is merely asking the 19 responding party (DBP) to answer an interrogatory based on the language that DBP itself used 20 in its own operative complaint, and in particular to provide the identity of persons whom the 21 responding party (DBP) referenced in its complaint as a group of people with certain ' 22 characteristics.‘ 23 Special Interrogatory #35 mirrors the language in DBP’s own allegation: that does not 24 magically transform it into multiple interrogatories, as DBP’s Opposition asserts. The language 25 Ilnmmlmgh. ' RN55. That is the crux of DBP’s lawsuit: DBP claims that the defendants (including propounding party) are liable to DBP 26 Rtixhl D. Chuck 19mm: Alameda Suite 200 for trespass and nuisance because DBP claims that defendants have supposedly “hindered and obstructed” these Sm he. CA 95126-1491 unidentified people who DBP claims have supposed easement rights due to their supposed association with DBP. (um) 161-4152 27 Pu (win It“ 4192 (RJN Exh. A, DBP’s First Amended Complaint, 1H9; see also moving Separate Statement.) 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION 1 TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS of Special lnterrogatory #35 parallels DBP’s own language in paragraph 19 of DBP’s First Amended Complaint, which is itself wordy. DBP’s description of this single group of people in 1]] 9of its operative complaint uses a series of descriptors, connected by the word “and.” (RIN Exh. A.) The parallel language in Special Interrogatory #35, which uses DBP ’s own language to describe the same single group \OOOxIChM-DsUJNH ofpeople, is not objectionable under C.C.P. § 2030.060(f). The interrogatory still refers to the same group of people: a group which DBP’s First Amended Complaint describes, but whose constituents DBP does not identify. The interrogatory' addresses a single subject: who are these people? “Questions regarding the same subject should be allowed although they include an ‘and’ or ‘or’.” (Clement v.Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1291 [regarding compound/conjunctive objections].) III. CONCLUSION To accomplish the legislative purpose behind the discovery statutes, they “must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure.” Emerson Elec. Co. v Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107, quoting Greyhound Corp. v Superior Court (1961) 56 Ca1.2d 355, 377. Special Interrogatory #35 is proper, addresses a single, directly relevant topic within the of discovery, and it would take a serious feat of linguistic gymnastics to construe its NNNNNNNNNHO—‘b—ii—lh—lh—IHD—lb—fik—l scope phrasing as so objectionable that the requested discovery could be denied in toto. (Id.; see also, Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 773 [“A party may not deliberately misconstrue a question for the purpose of supplying an evasive answer”].) King respectfully requests that the Court fulfill the purpose of the discovery statutes and not exalt form over substance; especially where form of the language DBP is objecting to is DBP’s own language, where King’s counsel made a good faith effort to meet and confer regarding the substance of the information sought. /// Rani. Ihmmlmfi. Reine!“ 4: Chuck I960“: Ahmad: /// Suile Inn hue. CA San ”lib-I49) (um) Ebb-£152 7“ (MIX) 114-1292 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION T0 MOTION 2 TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 [Q U.) LII-b /// Dated: \OOONON Ianuarv 26. 2018 BY: W ROSS'I. HAMERSLOUGH. RONALDZR‘ ROSSI MADQLYN D. ORR Aftomgysfor'Defcndant KING‘PLAZA: CENTER. LLC REISCHL & CHUCK (3);) 34.1353 I'M (-‘IL‘KI :6I4292 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 1 PROOF OF. SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF'SANTA CLARA: - 3 I am a citizen of the. United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1960 The 4 Alameda, Suite 200,- San Jose, CA 95126-1493. On the date set forth below '1 served the documents described below; MEMORANDUM OF. POINTSANDAUTHORITIES IN REPLY T0 ‘ '6 OPPOSITION :TQ- MOTION TO CQMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 8 on the folloWing’ perSOn.(s): in this action by; placing a :true‘ copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows; 9 Steven B. Piserj, Esql . _ ~ . _' ‘ James M, Barrett, Esq._ 10 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER. Law“ Office» of James M. BarretttPLC A Professional, Corporation 5150 El Camino Real D-22 11 1300 ClayStreetXSuite 1050 Los Altos CA 94022 Oakland,_VCA 94612 P 650-969-3687 12 51098356582 ‘ F 650—969-3699 Fa 51 0—8332—‘1 71 7 j b@;iamesbarrettlaw.com 13 eSperanzaOGnacbell..net ' ‘ Attorney for Bua—Quach, ‘Sovan Lien, 14 John L. Fitzgerald, Esq. Dong Vuong, and Thanh Lai Law Offices of John-L. Fitzgerald 15 4.4 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080 San-Francism,’ CA 94104 16 415-689~1209 john@ilfltzgeraldlawcom 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 DBP INVESTMENTS, A California ‘ General Partnership 19 20 (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS) I" eneIOSedsaid document(s) in an envelope or package provided by FedEx and addresSed to the persons at the addresses listed on, this Proof of Service. 21 l placed the envelope or packagefor collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of FedEx 'or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver 22 authorized by FedEx to receive'docurnents. 23 (STATE) I declare under penalty of: perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on January 26, 2018 at San Jose, California. Rum llamuxlmp‘l. [lax-til & Cllux‘i 1 ‘MO ‘.\ 26 1"“ $514.“): 14:38) 27 ( MALIND‘A MASCARENAS 28 S:\CL\R\R161 13\Pl.DGS\MTC SPECIAL ROG #35 {NRC}. 2-2-18]\OUR REPLY\OUR REPLYDOCX