Preview
ANTHONY F. PINELLI (CA Bar No. 111968)
GINA D. HUETTEL (CA Bar No. 157165)
2)" WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP
152 North Third Street, Suite 501
iM San Jose, California 95112
FILED
Telephone (408 288-3868 SAN MATEO COUNTY
Facsimile (408 288-3860
JAN 4-6 2019
Attorneys for Defendant,
Patrick Mullins Clerkof sa Si fior Gourt
mesmo
ry BLE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED
10 Chun Ho Lee, Lili Lee, CASE NO. 17CIV05966
il Plaintiffs DECLARATION OF GINA D.
HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF
12 Vv. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL NEUROLOGICAL IME OF
13 Patrick Fortunate Mullins; et al, PLAINTIFF
14 Defendants. Date: February19, 2019
Time: 9:00 a.m.
15
17-GIV-05966
----- Dept: Law and Motion BY FAY
16 bis Complaint Filed: December 29, 2017
Decaration in Support
| il rn
17 Trial: April2, 2019
18
19 J, Gina D. Huettel, having personal knowledge of the within stated facts could and would
20 testify competently to the following if called upon to do so:
21 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Williams, Pinelli & Cullen, LLP, attorneys of
22 record for defendant Patrick Fortunate Mullins in this action.
23 2. Plaintiff is 69 year old man who was involved in a motor vehicle accident while
24 walking in a residential neighborhood of Millbrae on October 19, 2016. Plaintiff testified at
25 deposition that he does not recall the incident. Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to San Francisco
26 General Hospital. He was treated and released 6 days later.
-1-
DECLARATION OF GINA D. HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
NEUROLOGICAL IME OF PLAINTIFF
3. Plaintiff's counsel is making a claim for a traumatic brain injury focusing on memory
issues, along with a claim for injury to his shoulder/arm and leg. Attached hereto as Exhibit A
is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's responses to form interrogatories. Pages 9-10 contain
Plaintiff's complaints with respect to the accident. He claims ongoing memory issues, limited
range of motion in the left shoulder and weakness in his left arm and leg.
4. Obviously, the neurological condition of plaintiff is in controversy in this action and
good cause exists for a neurological examination be done in that plaintiff alleges that as a result
of the accident he suffered and continues to suffer problems. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a
true and correct copy of the Notice of IME with Dr. Peter Cassini, a neurologist. Attached hereto
10 as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Response to the Notice of IME with Dr.
11 Cassini.
12 5. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is entitled to have a neurological IME and in
13 fact, plaintiff appeared for the IME. However, the IME was discontinued before it really began
14 because Plaintiff counsel’s paralegal would basically not allow any questions, claiming that they
15 would amount to a “mental exam” being performed which she had not agreed to. In addition, it
16 became clear that there would also be limits placed on Dr. Cassini’s ability to perform a physical
17 exam.
18 6. Just after the IME started, I was contacted by Dr. Cassini regarding his concerns about
19 the limitations being put on his examination and how the limitations were making the
20 examination untenable.
21 7. While Plaintiff and Plaintiff counsel’s assistant were still there, I spoke with Plaintiff's
22 counsel but it was clear that an agreement could not be reached. It was decided that the IME
23 could not go forward. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the letter sent
24 by Plaintiff's counsel on October 22, 2018 once she returned to the office after being out of the
25 office. Plaintiff counsel’s representation that it was solely defendant’s decision to stop the IME
26 is incorrect.
-2-
DECLARATION OF GINA D. HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
NEUROLOGICAL IME OF PLAINTIFF
9. Since that time, the parties have entered into a stipulation for a neuropsychological
examination which was performed on November 30, 2018. The report just arrived and was sent
to Plaintiffs counsel.
10. On December 18, 2018, I sent an email asking if an agreement on a neurological
examination could be entered into to avoid a motion to compel since the neuropsychological
IME had been conducted. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of said email.
11. Later that day, Plaintiff s counsel advised that she would not revisit potential terms for
an IME since the neuropsychological IME had been conducted and a motion to compel the
neurological IME would be needed. Attached here to as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of
10 said email.
ll 12. Plaintiff’s counsel was advised that a motion to compel would be filed.
12 13. There was a cost associated with the IME as follows: $600 for the interpreter; $525.00
13 for the aborted exam. There are also attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the preparation and
14 appearance on this motion. As the declaration of Gina D. Huettel sets forth, the time spent
15 preparing and researching for this motion amounted to 6 hours, another 5 hours is expected on
16 the research and preparation associated with preparation of a reply brief and attendance at a
17 hearing on the motion. My firm earns $175 per hour. Defendant requests $3,050 for attorneys’
18 fees and costs associated with the aborted IME and motion.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct as executed on
20 January | (, 2019 in San Jose, California.
21
By: Libertof
22 “GINA D. HUETTEL
23
24
25
26
-3-
DECLARATION OF GINA D. HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
NEUROLOGICAL IME OF PLAINTIFF
EXHIBIT “A”
Monica Bumeikis, Esq. - SBN: 239860
MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS
350 Sansome Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104-1311
Telephone: (415) 788-2035 & Gel WE
Facsimile: (415).398-1337 WAR 1 5 2018
E-mail: monica@meisel-law.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs By
CHUN HO LEE and LILI LEE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN MATEO —UNLIMITED
10
1
12 CHUN HO LEE, LILLI LEE CASE NO. 17CIV05966
13 Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S
Vv. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM.
14 INTERROGATORIES
15 PATRICK FORTUNATE MULLINS and SET ONE
DOES | to 25,
16
Defendants.
17 Complaint Filed: December 29, 2017
Trial: not yet set
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PATRICK FORTUNATE MULLINS
20 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHUN HO LEE
21 SET NUMBER: ONE
22, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, seotion 2030.210, et seq., Plaintiff CHUN HO LEE
23 (hereinafter "plaintiff") responds to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Consistent with|
24 Plaintiffs discovery efforts, all of his responses to interrogatories will contain the following,
25 comments and/or objections:
26 1 Plaintiff's discovery and investigation. has proceeded with diligence but it is,
27 nevertheless, incomplete and continuing. Accordingly, the following responses represent
28 Plaintiff's current knowledge based on information reasonably available to him, and is as complete}
as he is now required by law and is able to give. The responses do not, however, contain other|
‘MEISEL, KRENTSA As403- -l-
‘& BURNEIKIS
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
facts which may be obtained through ongoing factual investigation, review, analysis, discovery!
and trial preparation. Additional facts which may become known to Plaintiff may be provided as|
supplemental and/or further responses,
2. To the extent these interrogatories may be construed as requesting more detail, or|
to the extent you contend Plaintiff's responses are inadequate or incomplete, Plaintiff objects on
the grounds that any further responses at this time will be unduly burdensome, oppressive, and]
will require a degree of completeness not required by law.
3 To the extent these interrogatories request Plaintiff to provide information
9 concerning the legal basis regarding his claim, Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the
10 interrogatories call for mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and/or legal theories of his
i attorneys.
12 4 Plaintiff also objects to the extent these interrogatories call for information|
13 protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. In that regard, Plaintif
14 will endeavor to provide that information which is not otherwise so privileged.
15 Plaintiff responds to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, as follows:
16 1.0 Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories
17. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1
18 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who
19 prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories, (Do not identify
20 anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.)
21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1
22 MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS, 350 Sansome Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94104-
23 1311. (415) 788-2035. Plaintiff's attorney.
24 2.0 General Background Information-individual
25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.1
26 State:
27 (a) your name;
28 (b) every name you have used in the past; and
MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -2-
& BURNENKIS.
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
(c) the dates you used each name.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.1
(@) Chun Ho Lee.
) Chun Ho Lee.
© Since birth.
FORM OGATORY NO. 2.:
State the date and place of your birth.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2
9 Taipei, Taiwan, August 1, 1949.
10 FO) 01 RY NO.
11 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver's license? If so state:
12 (a) the state or other issuing entity;
13 (b) the license number and type;
14 (c) the date of issuance; and’
15 (d) all restrictions,
16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY
: NO. 2.3
17 Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither likely nor reasonably calculated
18 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, and subject
19 thereto, plaintiff responds as follows: Yes.
20 @) California DMV.
21 ) N9847917, Class C.
22 © July 26, 2014,
23 @ None.
24 FORM. AS (0. 4
25 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have any other permit or license for the operation of a]
26 motor vehicle? If so, state: \
27 (a) the state or other issuing entity; .
28 (b) the license number and type;
MEISEL, KRENTSA,
& BURNEIKIS, A4403- 3.
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
(c) the date of issuance; and
(@ all restrictions.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.4
Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither likely nor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, and subject|
thereto, plaintiff responds as follows: No.
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5,
State:
9 (a) your present residence ADDRESS;
10 (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and
i (c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS.
12 SPONSE (0. 2.5
13 Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither likely nor reasonably calculated]
4 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff can be contacted through counsel.
15 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6
16 State:
17 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self
18 employment; and
19 (6) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer
20 or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today.
21 PONSE TO RY NO. 2.6
22 @ Retired.
23 ) Retired for more than five years.
24 FORM INT! IGATO 0. 2.7
%
26
State:
(a) the name and ADDRESS of each school or other academic or vocational institution you have
27 attended, beginning with high school;
28 (b) the dates you attended;
MEISEL, KRENTSA
& BURNEIKIS, A4403 4.
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
(©) the highest grade level you have completed; and
(d) the degrees received.
RESPON: ‘0 FORM. SATORY NO. 2.7
@ High School in Taiwan.
() Approximately 1964 through 1969.
© High School courses.
@ High School diploma.
@ College in Taiwan.
9 () Approximately 1969 for three to four years.
10 © Undergraduate courses,
i @ Degree for undergraduate.
12 IN T NO. 2.8
13 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state:
14 @ the city and state where you were convicted;
15 (b) the date of conviction;
16 (c) the offense; and
17 (d) the court and case number.
18 RESPONSE TO Fi G. LY NO. 2.8
19 No.
20 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.9
21 Can you speak English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use?
22 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.9
:
23 No. Mandarin, Chinese,
24 RM OGATORY NO. 2.10
25 Can you read and write English with ease? Ifnot, what language and dialect do you nonnally use?
26 SPONSE TO FORM. GAT NO. 2.
27 No. Mandarin, Chinese. '
28 MW
MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -5-
& BURNENKIS.
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
FO) IT GATO! O. 2.11
At the time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for any PERSON? If so,
state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON: and
(b) a description of your duties.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11
No.
9 At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental
10 disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If so, for!
11 each person state:
12 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;
13 () the nature of the disability or condition; and
14 (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the
15 INCIDENT.
16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.12
17 No as to plaintiff. Unknown as to defendant,
18 FO) IATORY NO. 2.13
19 Within 24 hours before the INCIDENT did you orany person involved in the INCIDENT use or]
20 take any of the following substances: alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or medication!
21 of any kind (prescription or not)? If'so, for each person state:
22 {a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;
23 (b) the nature or description of each substance;
24 (c) the quantity of each substance used or taken;
25 (d) the date and time of day when each substance was used or taken;
26 (e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken;
27 (® the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each person who was present when each|
28 substance was used or taken; and
Messe, RRENTSA
& BURNEIKIS A4403 6
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
(g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who].
prescribed or furnished the substance and the condition for which it was prescribed or furnished.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.13
No as to plaintiff. Unknown as to defendant.
4.0 Insurance
FORM. GATORY NO. 4.1
At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you
were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability,
9 coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions thathave arisen out of|
10 the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state:
1 (a) the kind of coverage;
12 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company,
13 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;
14 (d) the policy number;
15 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy;
16 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and
7 the insurance company; and
18 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. -
19 RESPONSE TO FORM. OGATORY NO. 4.
20 Objection. This interrogatory seeks information that is not likely or reasonably calculated to lead
21 to the discovery of admissible evidence and, as such, seeks to violate Plaintiff's Constitutional
22 tight to privacy. This interrogatory also seeks to invade the collateral source rule, Furthermore,
23 since this responding party is neither a defendant nor a cross-defendant, this responding party will
24 not be liable to satisfy a judgment
or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment. Code|
25 of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 was enacted to permit a plaintité to obtain discovery]
26 regarding a defendant's liability insurance; this section was specifically intended to authorize
27 limited discovery of a defendant's liability insurance coverage, not any other type of insurance.
28 (See Catholic Mut. Relief Soc. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 358.) Accordingly, the|
MEISEL, KRENTSA
& BURNERS 4403 7.
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
requested information, as it relates to insurance other than automobile liability insurance, is not}
subject to disclosure, pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section
2017.210. Without waiving said objections, and limiting plaintiff's response to the requirements
of Civil Code, section 3333.4, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff was covered by automobile
liability coverage on the date of the incident,
(@) Automobile liability coverage.
) CSAA, P.O. Box 24523, Oakland, CA 94607.
© Plaintiff Chun Ho Lee,
9 @® CAAS100194226.
10 © Liability coverage. $1 million/$1 million.
i @ Unknown.
12 ) Unknown.
13 Ft (0. 4.2
14 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of|
1S the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute.
16 SPONSE ‘ORM IN’ TORY NO. 4.2
7 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the|
18 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of|
19 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and
20 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, no.
21 Physical ental, or Emo’
22 FORM. OGATORY
NO. 6.1
23 Do you attribute any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the INCIDENT? (If your answer|
24 is "no," do not answer interrogatories 6.2 through 6.7).
25 RESPONSE TO FOR! iATORY NO. 6.
26 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the|
27 protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of
28 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and
MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 8.
& BURNEIKIS|
LAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, yes.
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.2
Identify each injury you attribute to the INCIDENT and the area of your body affected.
NSE TO Fi INT) OGATORY NO. 6.2
Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the|
protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of|
experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034,270, and
calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, injuries
9 include, but no limited to traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness for more}
10 than 30 minutes; rip left grip fracture; left scapula fracture, left hand laceration, hyponatremia,
il facial laceration, left neck ecchymosis, headache, memory loss, broken tooth, limited range of left}
12 shoulder motion, weakness in the left foot, pain in the left leg.
13 F OGATO! (0.
14 Do you still have any complaints that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each complaint|
15 state:
16 (a) a description;
17 (b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and
18 (c) the frequency and duration.
19 ON: FORM IN’ TORY NO. 6.3
20 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the’
21 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of]
22 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034,270, and|
23 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto:
24 Yes.
25 @ Memory problems
26 ) Remaining the same
27 © Everyday
28 @ Limited range of left shoulder motion
MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -9-
& BURNEIKIS.
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
) Subsiding
© Everyday
@ Weakness in the left arm and left leg
&) Subsiding
© Everyday
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.4
Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code
of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTH CARE]
9 PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE
10 PROVIDER state:
lt (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;
12 (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
13 (©) the dates you received consultation, examination, or treatment; and
14 (d) the charges to date. «
15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.4
16 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attomey-client privilege, seeks to violate the
17 protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of|
18 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and)
19 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto: Yes.
20 @) San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110.
21 ) Emergency treatment, consultation, radiological examination, and neurological
22 consultation, and follow-ups.
23 © Approximately October 19, 2016, through January 9,2017.
24 @) Exceeding $151,044.20
25 @ Simon Lee, M.D., 1828 El Camino Real, Suite 406, Burlingame, CA 94010,|
26 (650) 692-1388.
27 ) Medical consultation.
28 © October 27, 2016 and November 15, 2016
MEISEL, KRENTSA
& BURNEIKIS A4403 -10-
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
@ Exceeding $490.00,
@ Alan Cheung, DDS, 2226 Westborough Blvd., Daly City, CA 94015, (650)'583-8888.
©) Dental consultation and repairs.
© December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017.
@ $1,136.00
@) Dominic Tse, M.D., 728 Pacific Avenue, Suite 605, San Francisco, CA 94133
(415) 955-8321.
@) Orthopedic consultation.
© Approximately October 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017.
10 @ Exceeding $300.00
11 FORM OGATORY NO. 6.5
12 Have you taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the
13 INCIDENT? If so, for each medication state:
14 (a) the name;
15 (b) the PERSON who prescribed or furnished it;
16 (c) the date it was prescribed orfurnished;
17 (d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and
18 (e) the cost to date.
19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.5
20 Objection. This interrogatory necessitates the preparation of a compilation or summary from|
21 Plaintiff's medical records, which are equally available to Propounding Party via subpoena.
22 Propounding party is respectfully referred to Plaintiff's medical records pursuant to Code of Civil
23 Procedure section 2030.230. Without waiting this objection, and subject thereto, Plaintiff}
24 responds as follows: Yes. °
25 @) Pain medications
26 0) Plaintiff does not recall
27 © Plaintiff does not recall
28
MEISEL, KRENTSA
°
4403
Plaintiff does not recall when he began, for several weeks since the accident
-ll-
@ BURNENIS
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
© Unknown
FORM INTERROGATORY NO, 6.6
Are there any other medical services necessitated by the injuries that you attribute to the
INCIDENT that were not previously listed (forexample, ambulance, nursing, prosthetics)? If so,
for each service state:
(a) the nature;
(b) the date;
(©) the cost; and
@ the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each provider.
10 SE FO) OGATORY Ni
11 Yes.
12 (a) Ambulance.
13 (b) October 19, 2016.
14 (c) Unknown.
15 (d) Unknown.
16 F IN sATORY NO. 6.7
17 Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may require future or additional,
18 treatment for any injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury state:
19 (a) the name and ADDRESS of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER;
20 () the complaints for which the treatment was advised; and
21 (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment.
22 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.7
23 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attomey-client privilege, seeks to violate the}
24 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of|
25 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and|
26 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto: Yes.
27 (a) Herbalist and massage therapist
28 (b) Pain at the left shoulder and left foot,
MEISEL, KRENTSA aso -12-
& BURNEIIS
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
(c) ‘Acupuncture treatment, massage treatment and unknown as to the estimated cost of|
treatment.
7.0 Property Damage
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1
Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for|
each item of property:
(a) describe the property;
(b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
(c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount,
10 was calculated; and
iL (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the
12 date of sale, and the sale price.
13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1
14 Yes.
15 (a) I-Phone 6 Plus, 128 GB.
16 (b) The phone was damaged.
17 (0) $749.99.
18 (a) N/A.
19 (a) Seiko watch.
20 (b) Damaged.
21 (©) $150.00
22 @ NIA.
23 (a) Tor outfit,
24 (b) Cut by paramedics.
25 (c) Approximately $250.00
26 (d) Not applicable.
27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.
28 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred toin your answer,
MEISEL, KRENTSA
@ BURNEIKIS A4403 -13-
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
to the preceding interrogatory? Ifo, for each estimate or evaluation state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared it and the date,
prepared;
(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has a copy of it; and
(c) theamount of damage stated.
RESPONSE TO FORM. INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2
No,
F OGATOR' 3
9 Has any item of property referred to in your answer to interrogatory 7.1 been repaired? If so, for}
10 each item state:
11 @) the date repaired;
12 (b) a description of the repair;
13 (c) the repair cost;
4 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who repaired it;
15 (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who paid for the repair.
16 RESPON ISE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.3
17 No.
18 8.0 Loss of Income or Earning Capacity
19 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.1
20 Do you attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is
21 "no," do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through 8.8).
22 TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.
23 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to. invade the attomey-client privilege, seeks to violate the
24 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of
25 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and
26 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, no.
27 9.0 Other Damage:
28 FO) IN OGATORY NO. 9.1
MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403- -14-
S/BURNEIKIS
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEB’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
Age there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage|
state:
(a) the nature;
(b) the date it occurred;
(c) the amount; and
(d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation was}
incurred.
TOF OG, RY NO. 9.1
No,
10 FORM INTERROGAT ory NO. 9.2
.
i Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in|
12 interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone|
13 number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.
14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2
15 Not applicable.
16 10.0 Medical History
17 Ol 01 ‘ORY NO. 10.1
18 At any time before the INCIDENT did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same,
19 part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each state:
20 (a) a description of the complaint or injury;
21 (b) the dates it began and ended; and
22 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone umber of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom
23 you consulted or who examined or treated you.
24 SP ‘ORM IN’ TORY NO. 10.
25 No.
26 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 10.
27 List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediately before the INCIDENT.
28 (You may omit mental or emotional disabilities unless you attribute any mental or emotional
MEISEL, KRENTSA
& BURNEIKIS A4403 -15- .
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
injury to the INCIDENT.)
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 10.2
None,
FQ) ERROGATORY NO. 10.3
At any time after the INCIDENT, did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now]
claiming damages? If'so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state:
(a) the date and the place it occurred;
(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any other PERSON involved;
(c) the nature of any injuries you sustained;
10 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you!
11 consulted or who examined or treated you; and
12 (e) the nature of the treatment and its duration.
13 RESPONSE TO FO! INT. TORY NO.1
14 No.
15 11.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims
16 FO! INT GATORY NO. 11.
17 Except for this action, in the past 10 years have you filed an action or made a written claim or!
18 demand for compensation for your personal injuries? If so, for each action, claim, or demand
19 state:
20 (@ the date, time, and place and location (closest street ADDRESS or intersection) of the|
21 INCIDENT giving rise to the action, claim, or demand;
22 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON against whom the claim or]
23 demand was made or the action filed;
24 (c) the court, names of the parties, and case number of any action filed;
25 (@) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any attomey representing you;
26 (e) whether the claim or action has been resolved or is pending; and
27 f) a description of the injury.
28 Ml
MEISEL, KRENTSA A403 -16-
& BURNEIIS
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 11.1
No.
FORM INTERROGATORY NO, 11.2
In the past 10 years have you made a written claim or demand for workers’ compensation benefits?
If so, for each claim or demand state:
(a) the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT giving rise to the claim;
(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your employer at the time of the injury;
(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the workers' compensation insurer and the
claim number;
10 (d) the period of time during which you received workers‘ compensation benefits;
il (e) a description of the injury;
12 (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who)
13 provided services; and
14 (g) the case number at the Workers’Compensation Appeals Board.
15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 11.2
16 No.
17 12.0 Investigation—General
18 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1
19 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
20 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the
21 INCIDENT;
22 (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; ,
23 (©) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and
24 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the|
25 INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).
26 RESPONSE FORM, NO. 12.
27 (a) Plaintiff; Defendant; Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Half Moon Bay, cA 94019,
28 (650) 533-4413,
MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -17-
& BURNEMIS
PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)
(b) Plaintiff; Defendant; Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019,
(650) 533-4413.
(c) Plaintiff; Defendant; the emergency responders; Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Fuld}
Moon Bay, CA 94019, (650) 533-4413.
(d) Plaintiff; Defendant; the emergency responders; Plaintiff's medical professionals; and
Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, (650) 533-4413.
FO) NO. 12.
Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning}
the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:
10 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed;
il (b) the date of the interview; and
12 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview.
13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2
14 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attomey-client privilege, and seeks to violate|
15 the protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine. Without waiving these objections,
16 and subject thereto, Yes,
7 (a) Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Bivd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, (650) 533-4413.
18 (b) January 11, 2017.
19 (©) John Borovac, P.O. Box 856, San Anselmo, CA 94979,
20 FO! IN TORY NO. 12.3
21 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded
22 statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state:
23 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was|
24 obtained;
25 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement;
26 (c) the date the statement was obtained; and
27 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement
28 or a copy.
MEISEL, KRENTSA
& BURNEIKIS A440
Preview
ANTHONY F. PINELLI (CA Bar No. 111968) GINA D. HUETTEL (CA Bar No. 157165) 2)" WILLIAMS, PINELLI & CULLEN, LLP 152 North Third Street, Suite 501 iM San Jose, California 95112 FILED Telephone (408 288-3868 SAN MATEO COUNTY Facsimile (408 288-3860 JAN 4-6 2019 Attorneys for Defendant, Patrick Mullins Clerkof sa Si fior Gourt mesmo ry BLE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED 10 Chun Ho Lee, Lili Lee, CASE NO. 17CIV05966 il Plaintiffs DECLARATION OF GINA D. HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF 12 Vv. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL NEUROLOGICAL IME OF 13 Patrick Fortunate Mullins; et al, PLAINTIFF 14 Defendants. Date: February19, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. 15 17-GIV-05966 ----- Dept: Law and Motion BY FAY 16 bis Complaint Filed: December 29, 2017 Decaration in Support | il rn 17 Trial: April2, 2019 18 19 J, Gina D. Huettel, having personal knowledge of the within stated facts could and would 20 testify competently to the following if called upon to do so: 21 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Williams, Pinelli & Cullen, LLP, attorneys of 22 record for defendant Patrick Fortunate Mullins in this action. 23 2. Plaintiff is 69 year old man who was involved in a motor vehicle accident while 24 walking in a residential neighborhood of Millbrae on October 19, 2016. Plaintiff testified at 25 deposition that he does not recall the incident. Plaintiff was taken by ambulance to San Francisco 26 General Hospital. He was treated and released 6 days later. -1- DECLARATION OF GINA D. HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL NEUROLOGICAL IME OF PLAINTIFF 3. Plaintiff's counsel is making a claim for a traumatic brain injury focusing on memory issues, along with a claim for injury to his shoulder/arm and leg. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's responses to form interrogatories. Pages 9-10 contain Plaintiff's complaints with respect to the accident. He claims ongoing memory issues, limited range of motion in the left shoulder and weakness in his left arm and leg. 4. Obviously, the neurological condition of plaintiff is in controversy in this action and good cause exists for a neurological examination be done in that plaintiff alleges that as a result of the accident he suffered and continues to suffer problems. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Notice of IME with Dr. Peter Cassini, a neurologist. Attached hereto 10 as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Response to the Notice of IME with Dr. 11 Cassini. 12 5. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is entitled to have a neurological IME and in 13 fact, plaintiff appeared for the IME. However, the IME was discontinued before it really began 14 because Plaintiff counsel’s paralegal would basically not allow any questions, claiming that they 15 would amount to a “mental exam” being performed which she had not agreed to. In addition, it 16 became clear that there would also be limits placed on Dr. Cassini’s ability to perform a physical 17 exam. 18 6. Just after the IME started, I was contacted by Dr. Cassini regarding his concerns about 19 the limitations being put on his examination and how the limitations were making the 20 examination untenable. 21 7. While Plaintiff and Plaintiff counsel’s assistant were still there, I spoke with Plaintiff's 22 counsel but it was clear that an agreement could not be reached. It was decided that the IME 23 could not go forward. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the letter sent 24 by Plaintiff's counsel on October 22, 2018 once she returned to the office after being out of the 25 office. Plaintiff counsel’s representation that it was solely defendant’s decision to stop the IME 26 is incorrect. -2- DECLARATION OF GINA D. HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL NEUROLOGICAL IME OF PLAINTIFF 9. Since that time, the parties have entered into a stipulation for a neuropsychological examination which was performed on November 30, 2018. The report just arrived and was sent to Plaintiffs counsel. 10. On December 18, 2018, I sent an email asking if an agreement on a neurological examination could be entered into to avoid a motion to compel since the neuropsychological IME had been conducted. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of said email. 11. Later that day, Plaintiff s counsel advised that she would not revisit potential terms for an IME since the neuropsychological IME had been conducted and a motion to compel the neurological IME would be needed. Attached here to as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of 10 said email. ll 12. Plaintiff’s counsel was advised that a motion to compel would be filed. 12 13. There was a cost associated with the IME as follows: $600 for the interpreter; $525.00 13 for the aborted exam. There are also attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the preparation and 14 appearance on this motion. As the declaration of Gina D. Huettel sets forth, the time spent 15 preparing and researching for this motion amounted to 6 hours, another 5 hours is expected on 16 the research and preparation associated with preparation of a reply brief and attendance at a 17 hearing on the motion. My firm earns $175 per hour. Defendant requests $3,050 for attorneys’ 18 fees and costs associated with the aborted IME and motion. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct as executed on 20 January | (, 2019 in San Jose, California. 21 By: Libertof 22 “GINA D. HUETTEL 23 24 25 26 -3- DECLARATION OF GINA D. HUETTEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL NEUROLOGICAL IME OF PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT “A” Monica Bumeikis, Esq. - SBN: 239860 MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS 350 Sansome Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104-1311 Telephone: (415) 788-2035 & Gel WE Facsimile: (415).398-1337 WAR 1 5 2018 E-mail: monica@meisel-law.com Attorney for Plaintiffs By CHUN HO LEE and LILI LEE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA CITY & COUNTY OF SAN MATEO —UNLIMITED 10 1 12 CHUN HO LEE, LILLI LEE CASE NO. 17CIV05966 13 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S Vv. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM. 14 INTERROGATORIES 15 PATRICK FORTUNATE MULLINS and SET ONE DOES | to 25, 16 Defendants. 17 Complaint Filed: December 29, 2017 Trial: not yet set 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PATRICK FORTUNATE MULLINS 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff CHUN HO LEE 21 SET NUMBER: ONE 22, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, seotion 2030.210, et seq., Plaintiff CHUN HO LEE 23 (hereinafter "plaintiff") responds to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Consistent with| 24 Plaintiffs discovery efforts, all of his responses to interrogatories will contain the following, 25 comments and/or objections: 26 1 Plaintiff's discovery and investigation. has proceeded with diligence but it is, 27 nevertheless, incomplete and continuing. Accordingly, the following responses represent 28 Plaintiff's current knowledge based on information reasonably available to him, and is as complete} as he is now required by law and is able to give. The responses do not, however, contain other| ‘MEISEL, KRENTSA As403- -l- ‘& BURNEIKIS PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) facts which may be obtained through ongoing factual investigation, review, analysis, discovery! and trial preparation. Additional facts which may become known to Plaintiff may be provided as| supplemental and/or further responses, 2. To the extent these interrogatories may be construed as requesting more detail, or| to the extent you contend Plaintiff's responses are inadequate or incomplete, Plaintiff objects on the grounds that any further responses at this time will be unduly burdensome, oppressive, and] will require a degree of completeness not required by law. 3 To the extent these interrogatories request Plaintiff to provide information 9 concerning the legal basis regarding his claim, Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the 10 interrogatories call for mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and/or legal theories of his i attorneys. 12 4 Plaintiff also objects to the extent these interrogatories call for information| 13 protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. In that regard, Plaintif 14 will endeavor to provide that information which is not otherwise so privileged. 15 Plaintiff responds to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, as follows: 16 1.0 Identity of Persons Answering These Interrogatories 17. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1 18 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who 19 prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories, (Do not identify 20 anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) 21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1 22 MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS, 350 Sansome Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94104- 23 1311. (415) 788-2035. Plaintiff's attorney. 24 2.0 General Background Information-individual 25 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.1 26 State: 27 (a) your name; 28 (b) every name you have used in the past; and MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -2- & BURNENKIS. PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) (c) the dates you used each name. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.1 (@) Chun Ho Lee. ) Chun Ho Lee. © Since birth. FORM OGATORY NO. 2.: State the date and place of your birth. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2 9 Taipei, Taiwan, August 1, 1949. 10 FO) 01 RY NO. 11 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver's license? If so state: 12 (a) the state or other issuing entity; 13 (b) the license number and type; 14 (c) the date of issuance; and’ 15 (d) all restrictions, 16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY : NO. 2.3 17 Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither likely nor reasonably calculated 18 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, and subject 19 thereto, plaintiff responds as follows: Yes. 20 @) California DMV. 21 ) N9847917, Class C. 22 © July 26, 2014, 23 @ None. 24 FORM. AS (0. 4 25 At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have any other permit or license for the operation of a] 26 motor vehicle? If so, state: \ 27 (a) the state or other issuing entity; . 28 (b) the license number and type; MEISEL, KRENTSA, & BURNEIKIS, A4403- 3. PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) (c) the date of issuance; and (@ all restrictions. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.4 Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither likely nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, and subject| thereto, plaintiff responds as follows: No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5, State: 9 (a) your present residence ADDRESS; 10 (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and i (c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS. 12 SPONSE (0. 2.5 13 Objection. This interrogatory seeks information which is neither likely nor reasonably calculated] 4 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff can be contacted through counsel. 15 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6 16 State: 17 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self 18 employment; and 19 (6) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer 20 or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today. 21 PONSE TO RY NO. 2.6 22 @ Retired. 23 ) Retired for more than five years. 24 FORM INT! IGATO 0. 2.7 % 26 State: (a) the name and ADDRESS of each school or other academic or vocational institution you have 27 attended, beginning with high school; 28 (b) the dates you attended; MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS, A4403 4. PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) (©) the highest grade level you have completed; and (d) the degrees received. RESPON: ‘0 FORM. SATORY NO. 2.7 @ High School in Taiwan. () Approximately 1964 through 1969. © High School courses. @ High School diploma. @ College in Taiwan. 9 () Approximately 1969 for three to four years. 10 © Undergraduate courses, i @ Degree for undergraduate. 12 IN T NO. 2.8 13 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: 14 @ the city and state where you were convicted; 15 (b) the date of conviction; 16 (c) the offense; and 17 (d) the court and case number. 18 RESPONSE TO Fi G. LY NO. 2.8 19 No. 20 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.9 21 Can you speak English with ease? If not, what language and dialect do you normally use? 22 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.9 : 23 No. Mandarin, Chinese, 24 RM OGATORY NO. 2.10 25 Can you read and write English with ease? Ifnot, what language and dialect do you nonnally use? 26 SPONSE TO FORM. GAT NO. 2. 27 No. Mandarin, Chinese. ' 28 MW MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -5- & BURNENKIS. PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) FO) IT GATO! O. 2.11 At the time of the INCIDENT were you acting as an agent or employee for any PERSON? If so, state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of that PERSON: and (b) a description of your duties. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.11 No. 9 At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental 10 disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If so, for! 11 each person state: 12 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; 13 () the nature of the disability or condition; and 14 (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the 15 INCIDENT. 16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.12 17 No as to plaintiff. Unknown as to defendant, 18 FO) IATORY NO. 2.13 19 Within 24 hours before the INCIDENT did you orany person involved in the INCIDENT use or] 20 take any of the following substances: alcoholic beverage, marijuana, or other drug or medication! 21 of any kind (prescription or not)? If'so, for each person state: 22 {a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; 23 (b) the nature or description of each substance; 24 (c) the quantity of each substance used or taken; 25 (d) the date and time of day when each substance was used or taken; 26 (e) the ADDRESS where each substance was used or taken; 27 (® the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each person who was present when each| 28 substance was used or taken; and Messe, RRENTSA & BURNEIKIS A4403 6 PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who]. prescribed or furnished the substance and the condition for which it was prescribed or furnished. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.13 No as to plaintiff. Unknown as to defendant. 4.0 Insurance FORM. GATORY NO. 4.1 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability, 9 coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions thathave arisen out of| 10 the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: 1 (a) the kind of coverage; 12 (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company, 13 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; 14 (d) the policy number; 15 (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; 16 (f) whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and 7 the insurance company; and 18 (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. - 19 RESPONSE TO FORM. OGATORY NO. 4. 20 Objection. This interrogatory seeks information that is not likely or reasonably calculated to lead 21 to the discovery of admissible evidence and, as such, seeks to violate Plaintiff's Constitutional 22 tight to privacy. This interrogatory also seeks to invade the collateral source rule, Furthermore, 23 since this responding party is neither a defendant nor a cross-defendant, this responding party will 24 not be liable to satisfy a judgment or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment. Code| 25 of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 was enacted to permit a plaintité to obtain discovery] 26 regarding a defendant's liability insurance; this section was specifically intended to authorize 27 limited discovery of a defendant's liability insurance coverage, not any other type of insurance. 28 (See Catholic Mut. Relief Soc. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 358.) Accordingly, the| MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNERS 4403 7. PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) requested information, as it relates to insurance other than automobile liability insurance, is not} subject to disclosure, pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210. Without waiving said objections, and limiting plaintiff's response to the requirements of Civil Code, section 3333.4, plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff was covered by automobile liability coverage on the date of the incident, (@) Automobile liability coverage. ) CSAA, P.O. Box 24523, Oakland, CA 94607. © Plaintiff Chun Ho Lee, 9 @® CAAS100194226. 10 © Liability coverage. $1 million/$1 million. i @ Unknown. 12 ) Unknown. 13 Ft (0. 4.2 14 Are you self-insured under any statute for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of| 1S the INCIDENT? If so, specify the statute. 16 SPONSE ‘ORM IN’ TORY NO. 4.2 7 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the| 18 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of| 19 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and 20 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, no. 21 Physical ental, or Emo’ 22 FORM. OGATORY NO. 6.1 23 Do you attribute any physical, mental, or emotional injuries to the INCIDENT? (If your answer| 24 is "no," do not answer interrogatories 6.2 through 6.7). 25 RESPONSE TO FOR! iATORY NO. 6. 26 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the| 27 protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of 28 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 8. & BURNEIKIS| LAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, yes. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.2 Identify each injury you attribute to the INCIDENT and the area of your body affected. NSE TO Fi INT) OGATORY NO. 6.2 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the| protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of| experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034,270, and calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, injuries 9 include, but no limited to traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with loss of consciousness for more} 10 than 30 minutes; rip left grip fracture; left scapula fracture, left hand laceration, hyponatremia, il facial laceration, left neck ecchymosis, headache, memory loss, broken tooth, limited range of left} 12 shoulder motion, weakness in the left foot, pain in the left leg. 13 F OGATO! (0. 14 Do you still have any complaints that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each complaint| 15 state: 16 (a) a description; 17 (b) whether the complaint is subsiding, remaining the same, or becoming worse; and 18 (c) the frequency and duration. 19 ON: FORM IN’ TORY NO. 6.3 20 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege, seeks to violate the’ 21 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of] 22 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034,270, and| 23 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto: 24 Yes. 25 @ Memory problems 26 ) Remaining the same 27 © Everyday 28 @ Limited range of left shoulder motion MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -9- & BURNEIKIS. PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) ) Subsiding © Everyday @ Weakness in the left arm and left leg &) Subsiding © Everyday FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.4 Did you receive any consultation or examination (except from expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210-2034.310) or treatment from a HEALTH CARE] 9 PROVIDER for any injury you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each HEALTH CARE 10 PROVIDER state: lt (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; 12 (b) the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; 13 (©) the dates you received consultation, examination, or treatment; and 14 (d) the charges to date. « 15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.4 16 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attomey-client privilege, seeks to violate the 17 protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of| 18 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and) 19 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto: Yes. 20 @) San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94110. 21 ) Emergency treatment, consultation, radiological examination, and neurological 22 consultation, and follow-ups. 23 © Approximately October 19, 2016, through January 9,2017. 24 @) Exceeding $151,044.20 25 @ Simon Lee, M.D., 1828 El Camino Real, Suite 406, Burlingame, CA 94010,| 26 (650) 692-1388. 27 ) Medical consultation. 28 © October 27, 2016 and November 15, 2016 MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS A4403 -10- PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) @ Exceeding $490.00, @ Alan Cheung, DDS, 2226 Westborough Blvd., Daly City, CA 94015, (650)'583-8888. ©) Dental consultation and repairs. © December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. @ $1,136.00 @) Dominic Tse, M.D., 728 Pacific Avenue, Suite 605, San Francisco, CA 94133 (415) 955-8321. @) Orthopedic consultation. © Approximately October 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017. 10 @ Exceeding $300.00 11 FORM OGATORY NO. 6.5 12 Have you taken any medication, prescribed or not, as a result of injuries that you attribute to the 13 INCIDENT? If so, for each medication state: 14 (a) the name; 15 (b) the PERSON who prescribed or furnished it; 16 (c) the date it was prescribed orfurnished; 17 (d) the dates you began and stopped taking it; and 18 (e) the cost to date. 19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.5 20 Objection. This interrogatory necessitates the preparation of a compilation or summary from| 21 Plaintiff's medical records, which are equally available to Propounding Party via subpoena. 22 Propounding party is respectfully referred to Plaintiff's medical records pursuant to Code of Civil 23 Procedure section 2030.230. Without waiting this objection, and subject thereto, Plaintiff} 24 responds as follows: Yes. ° 25 @) Pain medications 26 0) Plaintiff does not recall 27 © Plaintiff does not recall 28 MEISEL, KRENTSA ° 4403 Plaintiff does not recall when he began, for several weeks since the accident -ll- @ BURNENIS PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) © Unknown FORM INTERROGATORY NO, 6.6 Are there any other medical services necessitated by the injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT that were not previously listed (forexample, ambulance, nursing, prosthetics)? If so, for each service state: (a) the nature; (b) the date; (©) the cost; and @ the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each provider. 10 SE FO) OGATORY Ni 11 Yes. 12 (a) Ambulance. 13 (b) October 19, 2016. 14 (c) Unknown. 15 (d) Unknown. 16 F IN sATORY NO. 6.7 17 Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may require future or additional, 18 treatment for any injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury state: 19 (a) the name and ADDRESS of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER; 20 () the complaints for which the treatment was advised; and 21 (c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment. 22 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 6.7 23 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attomey-client privilege, seeks to violate the} 24 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of| 25 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and| 26 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto: Yes. 27 (a) Herbalist and massage therapist 28 (b) Pain at the left shoulder and left foot, MEISEL, KRENTSA aso -12- & BURNEIIS PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) (c) ‘Acupuncture treatment, massage treatment and unknown as to the estimated cost of| treatment. 7.0 Property Damage FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? If so, for| each item of property: (a) describe the property; (b) describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; (c) state the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and how the amount, 10 was calculated; and iL (d) if the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the 12 date of sale, and the sale price. 13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1 14 Yes. 15 (a) I-Phone 6 Plus, 128 GB. 16 (b) The phone was damaged. 17 (0) $749.99. 18 (a) N/A. 19 (a) Seiko watch. 20 (b) Damaged. 21 (©) $150.00 22 @ NIA. 23 (a) Tor outfit, 24 (b) Cut by paramedics. 25 (c) Approximately $250.00 26 (d) Not applicable. 27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7. 28 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred toin your answer, MEISEL, KRENTSA @ BURNEIKIS A4403 -13- PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) to the preceding interrogatory? Ifo, for each estimate or evaluation state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared it and the date, prepared; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has a copy of it; and (c) theamount of damage stated. RESPONSE TO FORM. INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2 No, F OGATOR' 3 9 Has any item of property referred to in your answer to interrogatory 7.1 been repaired? If so, for} 10 each item state: 11 @) the date repaired; 12 (b) a description of the repair; 13 (c) the repair cost; 4 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who repaired it; 15 (e) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who paid for the repair. 16 RESPON ISE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 7.3 17 No. 18 8.0 Loss of Income or Earning Capacity 19 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8.1 20 Do you attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the INCIDENT? (If your answer is 21 "no," do not answer interrogatories 8.2 through 8.8). 22 TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 8. 23 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to. invade the attomey-client privilege, seeks to violate the 24 protections afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine, seeks the premature disclosure of 25 experts in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 2034.210, 2034.220 and 2034.270, and 26 calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, no. 27 9.0 Other Damage: 28 FO) IN OGATORY NO. 9.1 MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403- -14- S/BURNEIKIS PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEB’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) Age there any other damages that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each item of damage| state: (a) the nature; (b) the date it occurred; (c) the amount; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON to whom an obligation was} incurred. TOF OG, RY NO. 9.1 No, 10 FORM INTERROGAT ory NO. 9.2 . i Do any DOCUMENTS support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in| 12 interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone| 13 number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT. 14 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 9.2 15 Not applicable. 16 10.0 Medical History 17 Ol 01 ‘ORY NO. 10.1 18 At any time before the INCIDENT did you have complaints or injuries that involved the same, 19 part of your body claimed to have been injured in the INCIDENT? If so, for each state: 20 (a) a description of the complaint or injury; 21 (b) the dates it began and ended; and 22 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone umber of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER whom 23 you consulted or who examined or treated you. 24 SP ‘ORM IN’ TORY NO. 10. 25 No. 26 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 10. 27 List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediately before the INCIDENT. 28 (You may omit mental or emotional disabilities unless you attribute any mental or emotional MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS A4403 -15- . PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) injury to the INCIDENT.) RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 10.2 None, FQ) ERROGATORY NO. 10.3 At any time after the INCIDENT, did you sustain injuries of the kind for which you are now] claiming damages? If'so, for each incident giving rise to an injury state: (a) the date and the place it occurred; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any other PERSON involved; (c) the nature of any injuries you sustained; 10 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who you! 11 consulted or who examined or treated you; and 12 (e) the nature of the treatment and its duration. 13 RESPONSE TO FO! INT. TORY NO.1 14 No. 15 11.0 Other Claims and Previous Claims 16 FO! INT GATORY NO. 11. 17 Except for this action, in the past 10 years have you filed an action or made a written claim or! 18 demand for compensation for your personal injuries? If so, for each action, claim, or demand 19 state: 20 (@ the date, time, and place and location (closest street ADDRESS or intersection) of the| 21 INCIDENT giving rise to the action, claim, or demand; 22 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON against whom the claim or] 23 demand was made or the action filed; 24 (c) the court, names of the parties, and case number of any action filed; 25 (@) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any attomey representing you; 26 (e) whether the claim or action has been resolved or is pending; and 27 f) a description of the injury. 28 Ml MEISEL, KRENTSA A403 -16- & BURNEIIS PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 11.1 No. FORM INTERROGATORY NO, 11.2 In the past 10 years have you made a written claim or demand for workers’ compensation benefits? If so, for each claim or demand state: (a) the date, time, and place of the INCIDENT giving rise to the claim; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your employer at the time of the injury; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the workers' compensation insurer and the claim number; 10 (d) the period of time during which you received workers‘ compensation benefits; il (e) a description of the injury; 12 (f) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER who) 13 provided services; and 14 (g) the case number at the Workers’Compensation Appeals Board. 15 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 11.2 16 No. 17 12.0 Investigation—General 18 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1 19 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: 20 (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the 21 INCIDENT; 22 (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; , 23 (©) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and 24 (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the| 25 INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). 26 RESPONSE FORM, NO. 12. 27 (a) Plaintiff; Defendant; Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Half Moon Bay, cA 94019, 28 (650) 533-4413, MEISEL, KRENTSA A4403 -17- & BURNEMIS PLAINTIFF CHUN HO LEE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) (b) Plaintiff; Defendant; Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, (650) 533-4413. (c) Plaintiff; Defendant; the emergency responders; Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Fuld} Moon Bay, CA 94019, (650) 533-4413. (d) Plaintiff; Defendant; the emergency responders; Plaintiff's medical professionals; and Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Blvd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, (650) 533-4413. FO) NO. 12. Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning} the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: 10 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; il (b) the date of the interview; and 12 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview. 13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.2 14 Objection. This interrogatory seeks to invade the attomey-client privilege, and seeks to violate| 15 the protections afforded by the attomey work-product doctrine. Without waiving these objections, 16 and subject thereto, Yes, 7 (a) Mark Evans, 398 San Carlos Bivd., Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, (650) 533-4413. 18 (b) January 11, 2017. 19 (©) John Borovac, P.O. Box 856, San Anselmo, CA 94979, 20 FO! IN TORY NO. 12.3 21 Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded 22 statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: 23 (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was| 24 obtained; 25 (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; 26 (c) the date the statement was obtained; and 27 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement 28 or a copy. MEISEL, KRENTSA & BURNEIKIS A440