Preview
A\\(\’I
BRIAN W: NEWCOMB, C.S.B. #55156 _.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
770 MENLO AVENUE, SUITE 101
MENLO PARK, CA 94025 E E LE D
TEL: 650 322-7780 SAN tamer) COUNTY
FAX: 650 322-7740
EMAIL: brianwnewcomb@gmail.com JUN 27 2018
Attorney for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., dba Wehmeyer
Custom Homes, Robert C. Wehmeyer, Cross-
Complainants Jeffrey Bordin, Gregorio Martinez
and Defendant American Contractors Indemnity
Comoanv
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE Case No. 18 CIV 00846
SQUIRES, [Unlimited Jurisdiction]
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-
COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO
VS. SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, “MOTION TO COMPEL”
INC., dba WEHMEYER
CONSTRUCTION HOMES; ROBERT C.
WEHMEYER, an individual; AMERICAN
CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY (Date:
COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 20, July 12, 2018
Time: 9:00 AM
inclusive, Dept: Law & Motion I
Defendants. I
\_-. .
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION,
INC., dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM
18 — CIV— 00845
HOMES; ROBERT C. WEHMEYER; MPAR
JEFFREY BORDIN; and GREGORIO Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Repl
MARTINEZ,
Cross-Complainants, Will
Ill llllllllllllllllll
vs.
MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE
SQUIRES; and ROES 1 - 10,
Cross—Defendants.
//l
//l
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES' SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES' THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL"
SQUIRES’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (TO RCWC) — SET ONE
Request No. 1: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR
CONCERNING YOUR license, by the State of California Contractors State License
Board, authorizing YOU to “perform the work” YOU allege in paragraph 1 of the
CDNOEU‘ILOON—x
CROSS—COMPLAINT.
Response to Request No. 1: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on
the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this
responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings
within this category are a matter of public record.
This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings
11 within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the
12 attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney—client privilege
13 are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its
14 present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the
15 counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this
16 responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. .
17 The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege to Code
18 of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that reflect an attorney's
19 impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. This responding party
20 refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, consultant reports, the
21 identity of non-expert witnesses intended to be called as witnesses, and the nature
22 and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum and notes of paralegals, the
23 law firm's inter—office memos, and writingsreflecting the thought process of the
24 attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's investigators concerning
25 investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is privileged. Subject to the
26 above objections, this responding party states no such documents exist in this
27 category and no such documents have ever existed.
28 Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 1:
2
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS~COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES' SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL"
Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague,
ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.
2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient
grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct.
CONGO-blink)
(1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents
evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on
this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond
question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested
are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross—claims
10 asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered.
11 In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on
12 the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the
13 response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc.,
14 § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the
15 response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate
16 the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)
17 Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 1: The Response to
18 Request No. 1 does not make sense. It states that the Responding Party states no
19 documents exist, yet it is asking for the license from the Contractors State License-
20 Board to RCWC which has existed for a number of years and is being produced.
21 Request No. 2: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR
22 CONCERNING YOUR insurance, covering or purporting to cover YOUR work at the
23 PROPERTY.
24 Response to Request No. 2: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on
25 the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this
26 responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings
27 within this category are a matter of public record.
28 This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings
3
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS—COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES' THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL”
A
_/
within this category which come within the attorney work-product privilege and the
attorney-client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney—client privilege
are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its
present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the
counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this
(OOONODU'IAOONA
responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962.
The documents which come within the attorney work-product privilege,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010-2018.040, are such writings that
reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories.
This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to,
consultant reports, the identity of non-expert witnesses intended to be called as
witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum
and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the
thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's
investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is
privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party will produce such
documents in this category in its possession, custody or control as kept in the usual
course of business.
NMNNNNNNN—XAAAAA—X—XAA
mVOUCn-bOONAOCOCDNCDm-kOON-AO
Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 2:
Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague,
ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.
2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient
grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct.
(1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents
evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on
this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond
question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested
are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross-claims
4
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL"
\_/
\VI
asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered.
In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on
the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the
response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the
(OCDNODU‘l-tA
response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate
the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)
Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 2: There is no further
response in that there are no documents withheld based on privilege because the
privileged communications were verbal regarding the insurance. Moreover, the
insurance policy has been produced and is in the possession and custody of
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Request No. 3: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR
CONCERNING YOUR claim that “[i]n or around July 10, 2016, Cross-Complainant
R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. and Cross—Defendants Matthew Squires and
Nicole Squires entered into a written agreement, by which Cross-Complainant agreed
to furnish certain labor, services, equipment, and materials for work of improvement
on the building parcel, for an agreed contract price of $642,845.00, plus 12% profit”,
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAA—LA
CDVCDU'ILOJNAOCDCONCDUI-hCDN—‘O
as alleged in paragraph 9 of the CROSS—COMPLAINT.
Response to Request No. 3: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on
the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this
responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings
within this category are a matter of public record.
This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings
within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the
attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege
are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its
present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the
5
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS—COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL"
L, ,
\V)
counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this
responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962.
The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010-2018.040, are such writings that
reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories.
OCDOO\ICD(.J'l-l>-(.AJI\>—x
This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to,
consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as
witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum
and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter—office memos, and writings reflecting the
thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's
investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is
privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such
documents and Such documents have never existed. The records of the illegal
recordings are in the possession, custody or control of Matt and Nicole Squires.
Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 3:
Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague,
ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.
2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient
WNOWLOONAOCOGJNCDU'I-hOJNA
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct.
(1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents
evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on
this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond
question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested
are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross—claims
asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered.
In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on
the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the
response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc.,
6
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL"
Q :
a)
§ 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the
response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate
the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ.. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)
Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 3: The Motion to Compel
(OCDNCDCfi-hobN—k
is totally unnecessary in that there are no documents withheld. The communications
concerning the subject matter of all documents relating to, describing or concerning
the claim that there is a written contract are being produced.
The Defendants response was that set forth is incorrect because the answer
says no documents exist and refers to records of illegal recordings which is not
response to the request which entered into a written agreement. The documents
concerning the written agreement are being produced and the records legal
recordings are in the possession and custody of Matthew Squires and Nicole
Squires.
Request No. 4: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR
CONCERNING the “additional sums as the parties would determine as the price for
extra work, all of which Cross—Defendant agreed to pay”, as alleged in paragraph 9 of
the CROSS-COMPLAINT.
Response to Request No. 4: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on
NMNNNNNNNA—X—kA—LA—AAAA
the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this
(DNODU'l-hODN—IIOCOOONGUI-hWN—‘O
responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings
within this category are a matter of public record.
This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings
within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the
attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege
are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its
present counsel. These communications are those received by or forwarded by the
counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this
responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962.
7
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES' SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL”
'
\‘xl
,
r a
‘\_/A V I
The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that
reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories.
This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to,
mNOCfi-tA
consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as
witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum
and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the
thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's
investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is
privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such
11 documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are
12 in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of
13 business.
14 Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 4:
15 Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague,
16 ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.
17 2d 423, 428 (holding Lthat “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient
18 grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct.
. 19 (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents
2O evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on
21 this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond
22 question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested
23 are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross-claims
24 asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered.
25 In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on
26 the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the
27 response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc.,
28 § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the
8
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL”
(\jU V.
response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate
the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)
Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 4: Request No. 4 asks for
documents describing the additional sums of money being paid for extra work.
OQmNOU'I-kooN—X
Those documents are being produced. The response set forth in the Declaration
that: “Such documents never existed” is totally nonsensical in that it does not comport
with the question.
Request No. 5: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR
CONCERNING YOUR claim that “[t]he whole of the building parcel and entire estate
of Cross—Defendants are required for the convenient use and occupation of the work
of improvement”, as alleged in paragraph 9 of the CROSS-COMPLAINT.
Response to Request No. 5: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on
the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this
responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings
within this category are a matter of public record.
This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings
within this category which come within the attorney work-product privilege and the
NMNNNNNNN—X—X—LA—X—LAAA—L
attorney-client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege
OONCDUI-POON—‘OCDCDNCDU'l-hUJN—‘e
are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its
present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the
counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this
responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962.
The documents which come within the attorney work-product privilege,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that
reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories.
This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to,
consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as
witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum
9
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL"
Q .
\g’
./
—-X
and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the
N thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's
00 investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is
h privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such
01
documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are
CD in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of
\1
business.
(X)
Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 5:
Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague,
0-0
ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.
—\
2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient
N grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct.
00
(1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents
h evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on
01
this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond
0')
question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested
\I are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross-claims
NMNNNNNNNA—XA—L—XA—XAA—X
(I) asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered.
CO In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on
O the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the
—\
response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc.,
N § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the
O.)
response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate
L the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)
U!
Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 5: Request No. 5 asks for
0) documents describing the basis for: “[tjhe whole of the building parcel and entire
\I estate of Cross—Defendants are required for the convenient use and occupation of
CD the work of improVement.” Paragraph 9 of the Cross—Complaint. The Answer also
10
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT lN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES' THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL"
l, ‘l
F
\t/ C,
does not make sense in it says the responding party has no such documents and
never existed. Such is clearly not the case and those documents are being
1
produced.
Request No. 6: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR
CONODU'IAOON—A
CONCERNING YOUR claim that ‘[d]uring the period of July 2016 and December
2017 . . . [YOU] furnished labor, services, equipment, and materials used and
intended to be used in the work of improvement on the building parcel”, as alleged in
paragraph 10 of the CROSS-COMPLAINT.
Response to Request No. 6: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on
the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this
11 responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings
12 within this category are a matter of public record.
13 This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings
14 within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the
15 attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege
16 are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its
17 present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the
18 counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this
19 responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962.
20 The documents which come within the attorney work-product privilege,
21 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that
22 reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories.
23 This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to,
24 consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as
25 witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum
26 and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the
27 thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's
28 investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is
11
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL"
r— .
f .
,
I
,
\ \—/ 1
|\_,/
privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such
documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are
in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of
business.
Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 6: The Squires’ do not
state a reason for compelling further responses to Request No. 6. Request No. 6
asks for all documents relating to, describing, or concerning the labor and services
you furnished. Those documents are being produced as kept in the ordinary course
of business and the Answer states such to be the case.
Request No. 7: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR
CONCERNING YOUR claim that SQUIRES specially requested “extra work having
an agreed price and reasonable value of $985,264.78”, as alleged in paragraph 10 of
the CROSS—COMPLAINT.
Response to Request No. 7: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on
the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this
responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings
within this category are a matter of public record.
This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings this
category which come within the attorney work-product privilege and the attorney-
client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege are such
documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its present
counsel. These communications are those received by or forwarded by the counsel in
this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this
responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962.
The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010-2018.040, are such writings that
reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories.
This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to,
12
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS—COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL"
(,1 L)
consultant reports, the identity of non-expert witnesses intended to be called as
witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum
and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the
thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's
CDCOCXD\IO)U1-h(1~>l\>—x
investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is
privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such
documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are
in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of
business.
Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 7:
Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague,
ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.
2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient
grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct.
(1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents
evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on
this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond
question that this would have been subject to sanction.”). The documents requested
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross—claims
I
oououcnkwM—xocoooximcn-w—x
asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered.
In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on
the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the
response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the
response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate
the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).)
Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 7: Request No. 7 asks for
the documents related to the “extra work having an agreed price and reasonable
13
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THlRD “MOTION TO COMPEL”
F“;
\/
I
V’3
value of $985,264.78”. The answer also does not make sense in that it states: “this
responding party has no such documents and
Preview
A\\(\’I BRIAN W: NEWCOMB, C.S.B. #55156 _. ATTORNEY AT LAW 770 MENLO AVENUE, SUITE 101 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 E E LE D TEL: 650 322-7780 SAN tamer) COUNTY FAX: 650 322-7740 EMAIL: brianwnewcomb@gmail.com JUN 27 2018 Attorney for Defendants and Cross-Complainants R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., dba Wehmeyer Custom Homes, Robert C. Wehmeyer, Cross- Complainants Jeffrey Bordin, Gregorio Martinez and Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Comoanv SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE Case No. 18 CIV 00846 SQUIRES, [Unlimited Jurisdiction] Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS AND CROSS- COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO VS. SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, “MOTION TO COMPEL” INC., dba WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION HOMES; ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, an individual; AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY (Date: COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 20, July 12, 2018 Time: 9:00 AM inclusive, Dept: Law & Motion I Defendants. I \_-. . R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM 18 — CIV— 00845 HOMES; ROBERT C. WEHMEYER; MPAR JEFFREY BORDIN; and GREGORIO Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Repl MARTINEZ, Cross-Complainants, Will Ill llllllllllllllllll vs. MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES; and ROES 1 - 10, Cross—Defendants. //l //l DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES' THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL" SQUIRES’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (TO RCWC) — SET ONE Request No. 1: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR CONCERNING YOUR license, by the State of California Contractors State License Board, authorizing YOU to “perform the work” YOU allege in paragraph 1 of the CDNOEU‘ILOON—x CROSS—COMPLAINT. Response to Request No. 1: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings within this category are a matter of public record. This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings 11 within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the 12 attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney—client privilege 13 are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its 14 present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the 15 counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this 16 responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. . 17 The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege to Code 18 of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that reflect an attorney's 19 impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. This responding party 20 refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, consultant reports, the 21 identity of non-expert witnesses intended to be called as witnesses, and the nature 22 and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum and notes of paralegals, the 23 law firm's inter—office memos, and writingsreflecting the thought process of the 24 attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's investigators concerning 25 investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is privileged. Subject to the 26 above objections, this responding party states no such documents exist in this 27 category and no such documents have ever existed. 28 Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 1: 2 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS~COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL" Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague, ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. CONGO-blink) (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross—claims 10 asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered. 11 In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on 12 the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the 13 response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc., 14 § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the 15 response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate 16 the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) 17 Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 1: The Response to 18 Request No. 1 does not make sense. It states that the Responding Party states no 19 documents exist, yet it is asking for the license from the Contractors State License- 20 Board to RCWC which has existed for a number of years and is being produced. 21 Request No. 2: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR 22 CONCERNING YOUR insurance, covering or purporting to cover YOUR work at the 23 PROPERTY. 24 Response to Request No. 2: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on 25 the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this 26 responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings 27 within this category are a matter of public record. 28 This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings 3 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS—COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES' THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL” A _/ within this category which come within the attorney work-product privilege and the attorney-client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney—client privilege are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this (OOONODU'IAOONA responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. The documents which come within the attorney work-product privilege, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010-2018.040, are such writings that reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, consultant reports, the identity of non-expert witnesses intended to be called as witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party will produce such documents in this category in its possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of business. NMNNNNNNN—XAAAAA—X—XAA mVOUCn-bOONAOCOCDNCDm-kOON-AO Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 2: Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague, ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross-claims 4 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL" \_/ \VI asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered. In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the (OCDNODU‘l-tA response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 2: There is no further response in that there are no documents withheld based on privilege because the privileged communications were verbal regarding the insurance. Moreover, the insurance policy has been produced and is in the possession and custody of Plaintiffs’ counsel. Request No. 3: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR CONCERNING YOUR claim that “[i]n or around July 10, 2016, Cross-Complainant R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. and Cross—Defendants Matthew Squires and Nicole Squires entered into a written agreement, by which Cross-Complainant agreed to furnish certain labor, services, equipment, and materials for work of improvement on the building parcel, for an agreed contract price of $642,845.00, plus 12% profit”, NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAA—LA CDVCDU'ILOJNAOCDCONCDUI-hCDN—‘O as alleged in paragraph 9 of the CROSS—COMPLAINT. Response to Request No. 3: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings within this category are a matter of public record. This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the 5 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS—COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL" L, , \V) counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010-2018.040, are such writings that reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. OCDOO\ICD(.J'l-l>-(.AJI\>—x This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter—office memos, and writings reflecting the thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such documents and Such documents have never existed. The records of the illegal recordings are in the possession, custody or control of Matt and Nicole Squires. Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 3: Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague, ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient WNOWLOONAOCOGJNCDU'I-hOJNA NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross—claims asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered. In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc., 6 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL" Q : a) § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ.. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 3: The Motion to Compel (OCDNCDCfi-hobN—k is totally unnecessary in that there are no documents withheld. The communications concerning the subject matter of all documents relating to, describing or concerning the claim that there is a written contract are being produced. The Defendants response was that set forth is incorrect because the answer says no documents exist and refers to records of illegal recordings which is not response to the request which entered into a written agreement. The documents concerning the written agreement are being produced and the records legal recordings are in the possession and custody of Matthew Squires and Nicole Squires. Request No. 4: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR CONCERNING the “additional sums as the parties would determine as the price for extra work, all of which Cross—Defendant agreed to pay”, as alleged in paragraph 9 of the CROSS-COMPLAINT. Response to Request No. 4: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on NMNNNNNNNA—X—kA—LA—AAAA the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this (DNODU'l-hODN—IIOCOOONGUI-hWN—‘O responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings within this category are a matter of public record. This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its present counsel. These communications are those received by or forwarded by the counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. 7 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL” ' \‘xl , r a ‘\_/A V I The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, mNOCfi-tA consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such 11 documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are 12 in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of 13 business. 14 Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 4: 15 Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague, 16 ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 17 2d 423, 428 (holding Lthat “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient 18 grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. . 19 (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents 2O evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on 21 this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond 22 question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested 23 are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross-claims 24 asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered. 25 In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on 26 the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the 27 response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc., 28 § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the 8 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL” (\jU V. response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 4: Request No. 4 asks for documents describing the additional sums of money being paid for extra work. OQmNOU'I-kooN—X Those documents are being produced. The response set forth in the Declaration that: “Such documents never existed” is totally nonsensical in that it does not comport with the question. Request No. 5: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR CONCERNING YOUR claim that “[t]he whole of the building parcel and entire estate of Cross—Defendants are required for the convenient use and occupation of the work of improvement”, as alleged in paragraph 9 of the CROSS-COMPLAINT. Response to Request No. 5: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings within this category are a matter of public record. This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings within this category which come within the attorney work-product privilege and the NMNNNNNNN—X—X—LA—X—LAAA—L attorney-client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege OONCDUI-POON—‘OCDCDNCDU'l-hUJN—‘e are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. The documents which come within the attorney work-product privilege, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum 9 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL" Q . \g’ ./ —-X and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the N thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's 00 investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is h privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such 01 documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are CD in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of \1 business. (X) Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 5: Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague, 0-0 ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. —\ 2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient N grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. 00 (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents h evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on 01 this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond 0') question that this would have been subject to sanction”). The documents requested \I are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross-claims NMNNNNNNNA—XA—L—XA—XAA—X (I) asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered. CO In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on O the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the —\ response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc., N § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the O.) response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate L the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) U! Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 5: Request No. 5 asks for 0) documents describing the basis for: “[tjhe whole of the building parcel and entire \I estate of Cross—Defendants are required for the convenient use and occupation of CD the work of improVement.” Paragraph 9 of the Cross—Complaint. The Answer also 10 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT lN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES' THIRD "MOTION TO COMPEL" l, ‘l F \t/ C, does not make sense in it says the responding party has no such documents and never existed. Such is clearly not the case and those documents are being 1 produced. Request No. 6: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR CONODU'IAOON—A CONCERNING YOUR claim that ‘[d]uring the period of July 2016 and December 2017 . . . [YOU] furnished labor, services, equipment, and materials used and intended to be used in the work of improvement on the building parcel”, as alleged in paragraph 10 of the CROSS-COMPLAINT. Response to Request No. 6: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this 11 responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings 12 within this category are a matter of public record. 13 This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings 14 within this category which come within the attorney work—product privilege and the 15 attorney—client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege 16 are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its 17 present counsel. These communications are those received by or fonNarded by the 18 counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this 19 responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. 20 The documents which come within the attorney work-product privilege, 21 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010—2018.040, are such writings that 22 reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. 23 This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, 24 consultant reports, the identity of non—expert witnesses intended to be called as 25 witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum 26 and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the 27 thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's 28 investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is 11 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL" r— . f . , I , \ \—/ 1 |\_,/ privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of business. Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 6: The Squires’ do not state a reason for compelling further responses to Request No. 6. Request No. 6 asks for all documents relating to, describing, or concerning the labor and services you furnished. Those documents are being produced as kept in the ordinary course of business and the Answer states such to be the case. Request No. 7: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO, DESCRIBING, OR CONCERNING YOUR claim that SQUIRES specially requested “extra work having an agreed price and reasonable value of $985,264.78”, as alleged in paragraph 10 of the CROSS—COMPLAINT. Response to Request No. 7: RCWC objects to this Request in its entirety on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome and harassing. Furthermore, this responding party objects to production of this category to the extent the writings within this category are a matter of public record. This responding party also objects to and refuses to produce such writings this category which come within the attorney work-product privilege and the attorney- client privilege. The documents which are within the attorney-client privilege are such documents including confidential communications between RCWC and its present counsel. These communications are those received by or forwarded by the counsel in this case when such counsel was acting in his capacity as attorney for this responding party. See Evidence Code §§950 to 962. The documents which come within the attorney work—product privilege, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2018.010-2018.040, are such writings that reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research or theories. This responding party refuses to produce such items, including but not limited to, 12 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS—COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THIRD “MOTION TO COMPEL" (,1 L) consultant reports, the identity of non-expert witnesses intended to be called as witnesses, and the nature and extent of their anticipated testimony, memorandum and notes of paralegals, the law firm's inter-office memos, and writings reflecting the thought process of the attorneys. Additionally, the notes of the attorney's CDCOCXD\IO)U1-h(1~>l\>—x investigators concerning investigators' comments on the witnesses' statements is privileged. Subject to the above objections, this responding party has no such documents and such documents have never existed. Documents in this category are in the Squires' possession, custody or control as kept in the usual course of business. Squires’ Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 7: Refusal to produce documents because the request is either allegedly vague, ambiguous or overly burdensome is improper. Cembrook v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 428 (holding that “neither ambiguity nor burden are of themselves sufficient grounds for denying the right to discovery in toto”). See, e.g., Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901 (construing objection to request for documents evidencing damages “as a ‘nuisance’ objection,” and noting that had litigant “relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce” documents, it was “beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction.”). The documents requested NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA are relevant to claims made by Squires, as well as the defenses and cross—claims I oououcnkwM—xocoooximcn-w—x asserts. Therefore, production should be ordered. In addition, a privilege log is demanded for any and all documents withheld on the basis of privilege. When a party withholds documents based on an objection, the response must “[i]dentify with particularity” each withheld document (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1)), and, when the objection is privilege or work product, the response must also “provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) Defendant’s Basis for Objection to Request No. 7: Request No. 7 asks for the documents related to the “extra work having an agreed price and reasonable 13 DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSES TO SQUIRES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SQUIRES’ THlRD “MOTION TO COMPEL” F“; \/ I V’3 value of $985,264.78”. The answer also does not make sense in that it states: “this responding party has no such documents and