Motion for Spousal Support in MATTHEW SQUIRES, et al vs. R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al| Trellis.Law

On February 20, 2018 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Bordin, Jeffrey, Martinez, Gregorio, R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., Wehmeyer, Robert C., Squires, Matthew, Squires, Nicole, and Amercian Contractors Indemnity Company, Does 1 Through 20, Inclusive, R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., Robert C. Wehmeyer Design, Inc., Wehmeyer, Robert C., for (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
034351

ALBERT M. ’r. FINCH, llI, ESQ. State Bar # 196478
JOHN c. HEDGER, State Bari! 230814 E E Ed E B
ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT SAN MATEO COUNTY
100 Bush Street, Suite 900 SEP 1 4 2013
San Francisco, CA 94104
aﬁnch@ericksenarbuthnoth.com
ihedgel-((1)ericksenarbuthnoth.com
Telephone: (415) 362-7126
Facsimile: (415) 362—6401
Attorney for Defendant R,’C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC .,
dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES

MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE

Plaintiffs,
DECLARATION OF ALBERT FINCH IN
VS-
SUPPORT OF RC. WEH‘MEYER
.

RC. WEI-IMEYER CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION ’ INC. dba
1
mo, dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMI‘JS’
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF 8’ FIRST,
,

HOMES; ROBERT C. WEI-‘IMEYER, an
individual; AMERICAN CONTRACTORS SECOND AND THIRD MOTIONS TO,
INDEMNITY COMPANY; and DOES 1 COMPEL DISCOVERY’S REQUEST
through 20, inclusive, FOR S ANCTIONS
Dfd
en an t.
e 3
Date: September 27, 2018
1 .~'-'|'\/7
EV [COTE/Te
Time: 9:00 am.
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION,
Dept Law and M°-“°“
INC, dba WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES;
ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, JEFFREY /' 5841630645"
20 BORDIN AND GREGORIO MARTINEZ, i gimme" in Supp“,
1380834
1

21
'

1111111 11I1111|1|1||1|1
22
vs. |\_7__e._...._r—r ————*--*‘
23
MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES, Action Filed: 2/20/18
24 and ROES I through 10, RC Wehmeyer Cross-Complaint ﬁled: 3/14/18
'
Trial date: 4/8/19
25
Cross-Defendants
26

-1-
DECLARATION OF ALBERT FINCH IN SUPPORT OF ITS‘ OPPOSTION TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
DECLARATION OF ALBERT F INCH

1, ALBERT FTNCH, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law and a partner with Ericksen Arbuthnot, attorneys of record herein

for defendant R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. along with counsel Brian Newcomb.

The other defendants and cross—complainants are not being represented by this ofﬁce.

2. We were recently retained to defend RC Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. and have not been

involved in most aspects of this discovery that is the subject of this motion. My firm was

not served with the original discovery, was not copied on any of the original: meet and

confer correspondence, was not of record when the initial responses were prepared and

served, and was not originally served with the motions to c‘ompel that "are" the subject of
this motion.

3. Our officeappeared in the. case in June of 2018. Our involvement in the case began

generally with the ﬁling «of the motion to compel and our appearance ata dis’covery‘

conference that was set relating to the ongoing motion to compel on July 19;, 2-018.

4. At the’ dis‘coVery cOnference on July 19,2018, Defendants raised the issue: with judge

with all parties present that. the documentation was vast and that providing»res‘p‘oiisesgthat
compiled and summarized all the information contained within would be ahug‘e‘b‘u‘rden

en theféparti'es. The Co'ur‘tstated that CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
20302-310 could be used to alleviate some of that burden and the parties would not be

required to summarize and compile all the information contained within the documents.

5. At the discovery conference on July 19, 2018, it was discussed and ordered that RC
22 Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. would produce Form Interrogatory responses within 30
2'3
days and would provide responses to Special lnterrogatories and Request to Produce

24 within a 30 day period.
25 6. In furtherance of the stipulation and the decisions made at the discovery conference,

26 Brian Newcomb and myself directed our client Rob Wchmeyer to perform a thorough
27 search of his entire job file for the project for all available information and all available
28

-2-
DECLARATION OF ALBERT FINCH IN SUPPORT OF ITS OP'POS'I‘ION TO REQUESTFOR SANCTIONS
documentation to provide the information and documentation requested in the time

period allotted by the Court.

Our ofﬁce has spent approximately 25 hours to 30 hours in furtherance of preparing the

discovery responses just for RC Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. and our client and co-
U-
counsel spent hundreds of hours more time compiling the information to be set forth in

6 the re5ponses. Please see the declaration of Rob Wehmeyer and Brian Newcomb

attached to their oppositions.

While preparing the responses to the discovery requests, RC Wehmeyer Construction,

Inc. discovered that there was electronic discovery potentially available that was

currently inaccessible on the phones and computers of RC Wéhmeyer Construction, Inc.

In particular, there .were important texts and email that our client represented went‘back

and forth between the Squires and Rob Wehmeyer and his employees. There were also

digitized documents that had been scanned on a previously used :server that were also
inaccessible. We understand that these communications contain important information,

including much of the change order and contract pricing information for the project at

issue in the complaint, as the Squires communicated with Rob. Wehmeyer during the
project and made changes to the scope through email and text. I also understand that the

communications contain change 'order approvals from plaintiffs. There is also some

contractual information with subcontractors that might also be. contained in that

20 electronic discovery.

21 We retained a data solutions vendOr to obtain the data from the phones and computers of
22 RC Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. This was done without making a request to the Court

23 to have Plaintiffs pay for any portion of the cost of recovery. The initial estimate given
24 was 333500.000 for recovery of the communications; however, we understand from the

vendor that the cost could increase substantially and be around $5000.00 depending on

26 how much follow up will be needed. We understand that the estimated time‘needed to

27 recover the information will be around 9/20/2018 or a few days thereafter; however, that
28 once we receive the data and examine it that further follow up might be needed to

-3-
DECLARATION OF ALBERT FINCH lN SUPPORT OF l'l‘S OPPOSTION TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
determine if the search terms provided need to be modiﬁed to uncover other electronic

i»)
discovery that was not discovered.

10. RC Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. did not pose objections in the discbvery responses and
has taken the initiative on incurring this cost to recover the eleCtronic discovery in good
faith despite the fact that the most economical approach to recovering the Squire
communications would be for the Squires to produce the communications that are

presumably in their possession. The documents contained in the electronic discovery are

important to providing information for many of the discovery requests that Plaintiffs

have made.

ll. Discovery had been propounded on Plaintiffs that requested Plaintiffs to produce all
documents relating to communications between the Squires ‘and Rob Wehmeyer that

would contain much of‘this information. HOWQVBI‘, Plaintiff’s objected to providing these
documents-on the basis that the communiéation were “equally accessible?” to Wehmeyer;

12. Ptrrsttant to the stipulation and order of the Court, our oﬁi‘cerespfonded to the Form

Interrogatories to RC Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. in good faith and provided the
attached Form Interrogatories Responses on August~ :8, 2018 with the information it

currently had available. A copy of those responses are attachedas Exhibit A.
l3. Pursuant to the stipulation and order of the Court, our ofﬁce in good faith respOnded to

1.9 the Special Interrogato‘ries and Request to Produce on August 20, 20718. Attached hereto

20 as Exhibits B and .C. The veriﬁcations that were executed by the client inadVerte‘ntly

2| contained a typographical error, so the verification admittedly did not :go out with the
2:2, responses. This issue was communicated to opposing counsel on August ‘20, 2018 when
)

23 the‘vrespon‘ses went out and corrected within a two day period.
24 l4. Mereover, our ofﬁce gave notice to opposing counsel at the time of the production of

25 documents that we were working with a vendor to get the additional electronic discovery

26 that would be produced as soon as it was available. Otherwise, many of, the responses

27 would have contained statements that the electronic discovery containing the information

-4-
DECLARATION OF ALBERT FlNCH IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSTI‘ON 'l‘O REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
was currently inaccessible and that RC WehmeyerConstruction, inc. did not have
' 7

sufﬁcient knowledge to respond.

15. Our office also inadvertently believed that there was only one set of Special

Interrogatories and one set of Request to Produce that was currently outstanding and only

later discovered that there was another set of Special Interrogatories and Requests to

Produce propounded on RC Wehmeyer Construction, Inc. that was also still outstanding.

See Declaration of John Hedger.

16; After discovering this issue, we contacted April Gl'att’s office and informed her that the
issue Would bercorrected and additional responses would be produced as soon as poSsible

to correct the‘inadvertent error. See Exhibit D.
17-. After producing the discovery responses, we received a meet and confer letter from April
Glatt on August 22, 2018 on the Form l'nterrogatory responSes' we produced. I attempted

to contact April Glatt by phone upon receiving- the letter and, was told she was

unavailable.

1,8, 1 then sent her emails (attached hereto as Exhibit E) in an attempt to meet and confer,
requesting aphone call or meeting, reminding her of our correspondence'that there. was

outstandingelectronic discovery that we were awaiting from the vendor to complete the
responses and that we needed to supplement answerszto diSQOVery upon-receipt of same.
I also stated in that correspondence that I believed that. the parties were to discuss the
20 status of the responses at a discovery conference. on Augusn27; 2018. Ms. Glatt did not
-

21 respondito my communications.

22 19. There was; a follow up conference with the Court on August 27,2018. [personally was

23 not able to attend the conference due to a conﬂict? but followed up with April Glatt

24 afterwards requesting to meet in person or by phone to resolve whatever discovery issues

remained and address her stated concerns in her letter; I sent her several emails

26 requesting a conference in person or by phone. She responded that she was taking her

27 son to college and could not discuss the issues until she returned from her trip. I ﬁrst

-5-
DECLARATION OF ALBERT FINCH IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSTION TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
was able to speak with her relating to the issues stated
in her August 22, 2018 letter on
September 7, 2018. See the emails attached as Exhibit F.
20. In that discussion on September 7, 2018, the ﬁrst time] was given to have a discussion
with her on the, content of our responses, I informed Ms. Glatt that I, would
address all
her concerns and respond to all her requests and
supplement. all previous responses
providing the more speciﬁc information she was
seeking as to RC Wehmeyer ‘

Construction, Inc.
21,- On~September .14, 2018, I followed up and provided additional information that
she had
requested statingthat more would be provided upon receipt.
See Exhibit G.

I declare underpenalty of perj ury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September
14,2018, at San Franciscoa California.

ALBERT FINCH, ESQ

‘25

28‘

~6~ r

DECLARATION OF ALBERT FINCH IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSTION
TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
ALBERT M. T. FINCII, III, ESQ. State Bar 11 196478
JOHN C. I-IEDGER, State Bar # 230814
ERICKSEN ARBUTI-INOT
100 Bush Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
al'inchébericksenarbuthnotlmcom
ilieclnerailerickscnarlmlhnolh.com
Telephone: (415) 362-7126
Facsimile: (415) 362-6401
Attorney for Defendant R.C, WEI-IMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC,
dba WEI-IMEYER CUSTOM HOMES

BRIAN W. NEWCOMB,'C,S.B. #55156
ATTORNEY AT LAW
770 MENLO AVENUEOSIJITE 101
MENLO PARK, CA 194025
TEL: (650 322-7780
FAX: (650 322-7740 ,
EMAIL: bi'ianwnewcomb@gmai1.00m

Attorney for Defendants and Cl‘O‘SS-jCOITlgiaillanIS R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc.,
dba Wehm‘eyer Custom Homes, Robert . Wehmeyer, Cross~Complainants Jeffrey Boi'clin,
’

Gregorio Martinez and Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

MA mIFW «Neon;
I s QURI’S 1
CASENO.18CIV00846
20 SQUIRES,
[Unlimited Jurisdiction]
21 Plaintiffs,
..
R.C. WEI-IMEYER CONSTRUCTION,
22. VS" INC. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S.
23
. A .
, ‘
FORM INTERROGATORIES-
CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET
INC. 11:11}; wggkﬁgggggggggﬁm
24
HOMES; ROBERT c. WEHMEYER, an ONE
individual; AMERICAN CONTRACTORS
25
INDEMNITY COMPANY; and DOES 1
through 20», inclusive,
26
Defendants.
27

-1-
RC. WEI-IMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAIN'I‘IFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES
-
'
CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
RC. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION,
INC,dba WEI-IMEYER CUSTOM HOMES;
ROBERT C. WEI-IMEYER, JEFFREY
BORDIN AND GREGORIO MARTINEZ,

Cross-Cemplainants

vs.

MATTHEW SQUIRES; NICOLE SQUIRES, .

and ROES I through 10, Action Filed: 2/20/18
RC Wehmeyer Cross-Complaint ﬁled: 3/14/18
CrosséDefendams. Trial date: 4/8/19

I’ROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff‘MAT’I‘I-IEW SQUIRES
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant R.C. WEI—IMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC. dba

WEB MEYER CUSTOM HOMES

SET- NO: .
ONE

COMES NOW Defendant R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, ‘IN C. dba WEI-IMEYER

CUSTOM HOMES (herein .218 “RC. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.”.) pursuant to

§2030L210 et seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, responds to Plaintiff Matthew
Squires’ Form Interrogatories-— Construction Litigation, Set One, propoundedto them as follows:

Responding Party and their attorneys have not completed their discovery or preparation for
20. trial, nor have «they completed their analysis or review of the investigation and other trial
21 preparation matters conducted to, date. These Responses, therefore, state the present information

22 and analysis of Responding Party and their attorneys as acquired and reviewed to date, without

23 prejudice to Responding Party’s’ right to present additional facts, contentions or theories at the
24 trial based upon the information, evidence or analysis hereinaﬁ‘er obtained or evaluated. The ‘.

25 following responses state the information, facts, evidence and contentions presently known to and
‘

26 evaluated by Responding Party and his attorneys.

27 GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Responding Party respecting the
-2-
RC. WEHMBYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF‘S FORM INTERROG'ATORIBS
—-

CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
admissibility or relevance of any fact or document, or the truth or accuracy of any characterization
or statement of any kind contained in Plaintiffs” Form interrogatories - Construction Litigation,
‘

Set One.

2. Responding Party objects to each interrogatory to the extent that they solicit

information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-work
product doctrine.

3. Each and every lnterrogatory is responded to subject to the general limitations and

objections set forth herein. These limitations and objections form a part of the response to each

and every Intei'rOgat‘OI‘y and are set forth herein to avoid the duplication and repetition of restating,
them for each response. These general limitations and objections may speciﬁcallybe referred to in

response to certain Interrogatories her the purpose of clarity; however, the failure to speciﬁcally

incorporate a general limitation or objection should not be construed as a waiver or limitation of

the objection.

4. Responding Party reserves the right to amend its responses to this Form lnteitrogatories
— Construction Litigation, Set One, and to introduce additional evidenceia‘t’the time of trial based

upon further investigation and discovery to, be conducted.

5. Responding Party objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory is-so’

vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as to make a respbnse impossible withOut‘Speculation,

Responding Party thither objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that thetlnterrogatory is overly
broad,'oppressive and unduly burdensome.
20
GENERAL STATEMENT
2l
This. Responding Party has not completed their investigation of the facts relating to this
22
case, they have not ~completed 'disceVery in this action and they have not completed preparation
23.

for trial; All of the answers or responses contained herein are based only upon such information
.24

and documents which are presently available to and speciﬁcally known to this Responding Party
:25

and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to such Responding Party, It is
26
anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will
27
supply additional facts, add new meaning to the known facts, as well as-establish entirely new
.28
\

-3- .

KC. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, lNC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM lNTERROGA'i‘ORlES -—

CONSTRUCTION Ll'I’lGATlON, SET ONE
factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to,

changes in and variations from the contentions herein set forth. The following Interrogatory

Responses are given without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to produce information of any
subsequently discovered fact or facts which this Responding Party may later recall. The Answers

contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as

much speciﬁcation of legal contentions as is presently known, but should in no way prejudice this

Responding Party in relation to further discovery, research or analysis.
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

FORM INTERROGATORY 301.1:
State the name, address, telephone number and relationship to you of each person who
prepared, or assisted in the preparation of, the Responses to these lnterrogatories. (Do not
identiﬁ) anyone who‘simply'typed or reproduced the Responses.)
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 301.1:
Brian W. Newcomb, Esq, 700 Menlo Ave, Ste. 10‘], Menlo- Parlg, CA 94025, TEL: 650-
32247780; Albert? MI T. Finch, III, Esq, and John C. Hedger, Esq., Ericksen Arbutlniot, 100 Bush
15

81.58%» Franci'ScoyCA 94104, (415) 362—7126.
16

FORMLI-NTERROGATORY 303.1 :
l7
Are you *alc’orporation? If so, state:

(a) The name in your currentarticles‘ of incorporation;

(b) All “other-names used by the corporation during the. past 15 years audithe dates
20
each name was used;
21
"(c)“ The date and place of incorporation;
22

(cl) The addreSS‘ of the principal place of incorporation);
23
((2‘) Whether you are qualiﬁed to do business in California; and.
24
(f) Any‘other state-inwhich you are qualiﬁed to do business.
25
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 303.1(al-(f):
26
(a) Yes, R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc.
27
(b) ,
R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc, dba Wehmeyer Custom Homes;
28

-4-
WEI-IMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INCRSVRESPONSE 'I’O PLAINTIFF’S FORM IN’I‘ERROGATORIES
—
11.0.
CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
(c) Incorporated in State of Delaware July I 5, 20] 1;

(1d) 1204 Burlingame Ave., Ste. 7, Burlingame, CA 94010;

(e) Certiﬁcate of Qualiﬁcation to Conduct Business in California as of August 8,

2011;

(i) None.

FORM INTERROGATORY 303.2:
Are you a partnership? If so, state:

(a) . The current name of the partnership;
(b) All other names used by the partnership during the past 15 years and the dates

each name was used;

(0) Whether you are a limited partnership and, if so, under the laws of what

jurisdiction;
(“‘d) The name and address of each general partner; and
(e) The address of the principal place of business.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 303.2(a)—(e):
i

No.
FORM INTERROGATORY‘303t3:
Are youea limited liability cempany? If so, state:
(a) The company name stated inyOur current articles of Organization;

20 (b) All other names used by the company during the. past 15~years and the date each

2] was used;

22 (c) The date and place of ﬁling of the articles of organization;
23‘ (d) The address of the principal place of business;
‘24 (e) Whether you are qualiﬁed to do business in California; and

25 (1') Any other state in which you are qualiﬁed to do business,
'26: RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 303.1% a)-( f):

27 No.

28 FORM INTERROGATORY 303.4:
. -5-
RC, WEI-{MEYER CONSTRUCTION, lNC.’S RESPONSE To PLAINTIFF'S FORM IN'I‘ERROGATORIES —

CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
Are you ajoint venture? If so, state:
(a) The current name of yourjoint venture;
(b) All other names used by the joint venture during the past 15 years and the dates

each name was used; p

(d) The address of the principal place of business
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 303.4(a)—(d):
4

No.

FORM INTERROGATORY 303.6:
Have you done business under a ﬁctitious name during the past 10 years? lFso, for

each ﬁctitious name state:

(a) The ﬁctitious business name;

(b) The dates each name was used;

(cl) The address ofthe principal place of business.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 303;6(ai-(‘d):

(a) Wehmey'e‘r Custom Homes;

(b) Since around 2012

.20,
((1) 1204 Burlingame Ave, Ste. 7, Burlingame, CA 84010.

FORM INTERROGATORY 303.7:
21

During the time that you performed any work at 'or relating to the subject property, did
22
you possess a valid California contractor's license or other professional license for the work
23
being performed? If so, state
24

(a) The type of license;
25
(b) The name, address, and telephone number of the holder of the license;
26 i

-6-
RC. WBHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S, FORM INTBRROGATORIES —

CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
(e) Any lapse of the license while you performed any work at or relating to the
subject property and the dates of those lapses;

(I) Any suspension of the license while you performed any work at or relating to the
subject property and the dates of those suspensions; and

(g) Any inactive status of the license while you performed any work at or relating to
the subject property and the dates ofthelinactivity.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 303.7(a)~(2l:

(a) A “B” license, General Contractor;
(b) R.C. Wehmeyer Construction Inc., 1204 Burlingame Ave., Ste. 7, Burlingame,

CA; 650—350-2577

(d) License No. 969354;

(6) N0;
('0 N0;

(g) No.

FORM INTERROGATORY 304.1:
At or since the time of the material .facts‘ on which the construction claim :‘or the
‘
construction defect claim is based, was there in effect any Insurance policy

through which you are or may be entitled to coverage for losses or expenses that have been

or may be incurred related to the construction claims or construction defect claims
asserted against you, including but not limited to defense Costs, indemnity for settlements or

damages awarded against you, or loss and adjustment expenses? If so, for each policy state:
(a) The policy number or other unique number used by the issuer to identify the

Insurance policy, and the effective dates of Coverage;

(b) The kind of insurance or coverage (including without limitation commercial
25
general liability, professional liability, directors and ofﬁcers, homeowners, property, course
26
of construction, builder's risk, automobile, or publicentity liability protection);
27
(c) The policy level and description of any underlying insurance or self-
28

-7-
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO l’LAlNTlFF‘S FORM INTERROGATORIES
——

CONS'I'RUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
insurance that must be exhausted prior to its application (for example, for umbrella or

excess insurance, please state the amount of underlying Insurance or self~insurance that

must be exceeded before the policy applies);

(d) The name of any person who is or may become a party to this action who may

qualify as an insured, an additional insured, or a protected or covered person;

(e) Whether the Insurance policy contains a blanket additional insured provision
‘or other provision whereby the person insured (or person protected by the Insurance policy)

includes any person or entity for whom one Insured or protected person is obligated to
-

provideadditional insured coverage in Some kind of contract or agreement;

(f) The aggregate and per-occurrence tor- pcr~claim limit of liability for each

potentially applicable coverage contained in the Insurance policy, including the limit the
insurer claims is potentially applicable (if less than the limit stated in the policy

declarations);

(g) The limit of any retained amount payable. by any insured relative to a claim

otherwise covered by the policy, whether by means of a deductible, self~insured retention,

deductible indemnity agreement, ,or retrospective premium provision, and whether the payment
‘

of loss and adjustment or defense expense reduces such retention obligation;

(11) Whether the Insurance polio)! contains an exclusion barring coverage for
damage known to any insured prior to the policy period or barring coverage. for damage that

ﬁrst occurred, prior to the coverage period;
20

(i) Whether the indemnity limit of the Insurance policy is diminished by the cost
2’1

‘22
of defense;
(j) Whether any controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurer;
23
’(k) Whether the insurer issuing the Insurance policy has issued awritten reservation
24 I

of rights; and
25
,(I) The name, address, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy.
26
Instead of responding to items (a)-(i) above, you may attach a complete and accurate copy of each
2.7
Insurance policy responsive to (his inferrogalozy. Even ifyou attach such copies, you must still give-
28

-8-
R.C.. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ’8 FORM INTERROGATORIES -
CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
written answers (0 items (D—(l) for each policy.)

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 304.1(al-(f):
The policies and information contained therein were previously produced and in the

possession of the Plaintiff and the Cross—Defendants for months. Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure (3‘ 2030.230, the information regarding policy MGL0183154 (9/28T2015-2016) as well

as policy it MGL0185590 (9/2812016-2017 is produced in the document production including the
workers compensation policy of insurance information from Nor Guard, the insurer. See CCP §

2030.230 for additional documents because it calls for a summary and compilation of information
from Defendants records. Plaintiff's will reproduce a copy of the Kinsale Insurance Policy at the

request of the "Plaintiffs to provide that information again under C'CP CCP § 2030.230.

(1) Kinsale Insurance Company is defending RC Wehmeyer Construction Inc. only under a

reservation of rights.
(k) KC. Wehmeyer Construction Inc. is defending R.C. Wehmeyer Construction Inc. only under a
reservation of‘rights.

(I) Kinsale InSuranCe Company, 2221 Edward Holland Drive. Suite 600 Richmond, VA 23230. T:

(804) 289-1300
FORM INTERROGA’I‘ORY 304.3:
304.1 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have
arisen out of the Construction claim on the construction defect claim? If so, specify the
20 statute.
21
‘
RESPONSE TO FORM .INTERROGA’I‘ORY 304.2:
22 No.
23 FORM INTERROGATORY 304.3:
24 Has any subcontractor who is or might be a party 'to this action named you as an

25 additional insured on an insurance certificate or endorsement? If so, for each
26 such subcontractor, state:

27 (21') Its name. address, and telephone number;

28 (b) Whether you or the insured have made any tender under that subcontractor's
, _9_ .

~
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S' RESPONSE T O PLAIN’I‘IFF’S FORM INTERR‘OGATORIES
'

CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
Insurance policy;

(d) Whether the contract between the subcontractor and you required the
subcontractor to carry anhisuiance policy naming you as an additional insured.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 304.3(al-(d):

(a) This responding party has no present intention to name any subcontractor as a

party to this base and currently has no information that any of the Work done by the

subcontractor(s) was deﬁcient. Responding party also has not yet been given a complete defect

list, nor been given an Opportunity to inspect the property. No subcontractor is a party to this case.

However, a subcontractor theoretically “might be.” The name and address of the subcontractors

are provided in the attached exhibit which contains names and addresses of vendors, suppliers,

subcontractors, and employees.

(b)- No tender with «a Subcoritractori’s insurance policy;

(0) There has been no=tender;

((1) Yes, the contract between this responding party and the subcontractor requires, the

subcontractor list me as an additional insured.

FORM INTER‘ROGATORY 311.] :
Do you or anybne acting on your behalf know of any photographs, ﬁlms, videotapes,
recordings, or electronically stored information depicting any place, object, event, or
individual concerned in the cori‘strbction claim or the construction defect claim? If so, for
20
each type of media, state:
2]
(a) The number of photographs, length of film or videotape, or megabytes of an
22.

electronic recording; .

(b) The places, objects, or persons photographed, ﬁlmed, videotaped, or otherwise
2-1

recorded;
25

(c) The date each photograph, ﬁlm, videotape, or electronic recordings was
26
taken or recorded;
27
((1) The name, address, and telephone number of each individual who took these
23

-10_
RC. WEI-{MEYER CONSTRUCTION, INGRS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES
-
CONSTRUCTION. LITIGA'l‘l ON, SET ONE
photographs or recorded these ﬁlms, videotapes, or electronic recordings; and

(e) The name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the original

media or copies of these photographs, ﬁlms, videotapes, or electronic recordings.

RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 31].] tel-(e):

Yes, there are some photographs depicting parts of the subject house.
(a) There are a number of photographs and a short videotape a few minutes long.

These are being produced with the documents from Defendant’s records. See CCP § 2030.230.

(b) Parts of the subject home are taken and some of the house at Various stages during the

remodel and when it was completed. The entire interior of the house was remodeled. There are

also photographs taken of the house by a woman who was. retained by the Squires who displayed

some of the photographs of my work on her website without my permission.
(0) I do not have a record of the date each photograph or the video was taken.
(d) The phOtographs Were taken when the house was being built. The photographs were
taken by Rob Wehmeye‘r. The video was taken by Gregorio Martinez. .

(e) The video and photographs by Rob Weymeyer are with R.C. ‘Wehmeyer Construction,

Inc. The designer has custody of the video
: FORM INTERROGA’I‘ORY 314.]:
For each agreement alleged inthe pleadings:

(a) Identify each document that is part of the agreement and state the name,
address, and telephone number of the person who has each document;
20

(1)) Describe each part of the agreement not in writing, along with the name,
21

address, and telephone number of each person agreeing to that provision, and the date that
22,

part of the agreement was made;
'23

(0) Identify all documents that evidence any part of the agreement not in writing,
24

and for each, state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the
25
document;
26
(d) Identify all documents that are part of any modification to the agreement and
27
for each, state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the
28

-11-
RC. WEI-IMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES
-
CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, SET ONE
document;

(e) Describe each modiﬁcation to the agreement not in writing, along with the date

the modiﬁcation was made and the name, addre88, and telephone number of each person

agreeing to the modiﬁcation;

(f) Identity all documents that evidence any modiﬁcation of the agreement not in
writing and for each state the name, addre88, and telephone number of the person who has

each document;

.
and

(g) State the name, address, and telephone number of the person most

loiowledgeable regarding the negotiations and contracting for any services you performed

at any subject property.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 314.1(3Hﬂ):

(a) The contract consists of the contract, the change orders, the plans,_ etc.,.all of these
‘docLIm‘ents are being produced on behalf of RC. Wehmeyer Construction’s counsel for Mr.

Wehmeyer and the interior designer pursuant‘to CCP § 2030.230.

(b) The implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. The implied covenant applies to

all parties.
(0') Th’ere‘are no writings that evidence any part of the agreement for the implied covenant

of good faith.
19

(d) There are documents regarding the numerous changes by the homeowner and the scope
20
of the project was increased by about 40% by the Squires. See the documents being produced
‘21

which .is a response pursuant to GOP § 2021, 2030.230 in the questionnaire calls fora summary or
.22.

,a compilation so the documents regarding the entire construction proj ect. are beingproduced.
23

(e) Same as (d).
24

(f) There are no documents evidencing modification of the agreement not in writing.
25.

Case Info

Judge

Chou, Danny Y. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 14, 2018

Case Filing Date

February 20, 2018

County

Parties

AMERCIAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY Defendant
BORDIN, JEFFREY Cross Complainant
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE Defendant
LINN, PETER J. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARTINEZ, GREGORIO Cross Complainant
MENGARELLI, MICHAEL Attorney
MENGARELLI, MICHAEL Attorney for the Plaintiff
MONARCA ROOFERS, INC Cross Defendant
NEWCOMB, BRIAN W. Attorney
NEWCOMB, BRIAN W. Attorney for the Defendant
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC. Cross Complainant
R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC. Defendant
ROBERT C. WEHMEYER DESIGN, INC. Defendant
ROES 1 THROUGH 10 Cross Defendant
SQUIRES, MATTHEW Cross Defendant
SQUIRES, MATTHEW Plaintiff
SQUIRES, NICOLE Cross Defendant
SQUIRES, NICOLE Plaintiff
WEHMEYER, ROBERT C. Cross Complainant
WEHMEYER, ROBERT C. Defendant
ZOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE Cross Defendant
April Glatt Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard Kelly Attorney
John Hedger Attorney
Albert Finch Attorney
Ian Wilson Attorneys for Defendants
Thomas Walsh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Cecil Hedger Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Mengoli Attorneys for Plaintiffs
April Gilbert Attorney
Thomas Jones Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard Wehmeyer Attorney
Michael Megan Attorney
Robert Kelly Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Walsh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tracy Walsh Attorney
Lance Wilson Attorney
Albert Moorman Attorney
Eric Hove Attorney
Reginaldo Villarreal Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: MATTHEW SQUIRES, et al vs. R.C. WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties