Preview
1 Nicole Lahmani, Esq. SBN 278182 Electronically Filed
LAHMANI LAW, APC 12/22/2020 1:42 PM
2 1539 E. Fourth Street Superior Court of California
Santa Ana, CA 92701 County of Stanislaus
3 Telephone: (949) 202-1111 Clerk of the Court
Fax: (855) 700-0529
4 By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy
Attorney for Plaintiff,
5 Benjamin Cornejo
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
BENJAMIN CORNEJO, ) Case No.: CV-19-003585
11 )
) PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT
12 Plaintiff, ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
)
13 ) FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL
vs.
) INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON
14 ) DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
JAMES L. ADAMS, SOUTH VALLEY )
15
MATERIALS INC., GARY NEIL ) Date: January 14, 2021
)
16 ZAIGER, ZAIGER’S INC. GENETICS, ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, ) Location: Dept. 24
17 )
)
18 Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
19 )
JOHNSON SYHARATH, LINDA )
20 SYHARATH )
Plaintiffs, )
21
Vs. )
)
22 JAMES ADAMS, SOUTH VALLEY )
)
MATERIALS INC., CALAVERAS )
23 MATERIALS INC. and DOES 1 through )
24
100 inclusive )
)
25 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
)
26
27
//
28
//
-1-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Plaintiff CORNEJO hereby submit this Separate Statement pursuant to California
3 Rules of Court Rule 3.1345, in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to
4 Special Interrogatory Nos.: 9, 18, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 propounded on Defendant
5 CALAVERAS.
6 Special Interrogatory No. 9:
7 Do YOU contend that the PLAINTIFF is responsible for the damages alleged in his complaint?
8 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 9:
9 Objection. Vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “responsible” and
10 “damages.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome.
11 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is
12 argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as
13 premature. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it
14 seeks a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the
15 extent it seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and/or
16 attorney work product doctrine, and/or the disclosure of expert opinions in contravention of the
17 time limits imposed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034. Subject to and without
18 waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
19 Defendant presently lacks sufficient information to adequately respond to this
20 Interrogatory, as discovery has been delayed due a number of factors (i.e., COVID, Defendant’s
21 Motion for Consolidation, etc.) and Defendant has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct
22 complete discovery and investigation. Furthermore, this Interrogatory prematurely seeks a legal
23 conclusion and/or expert opinion.
24 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or
25 supplement this response at any time.
26 Reasons Further Response is Required:
27 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
28 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
-2-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
2 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
3 Defendant’s response is improper. The complaint in this matter was filed on June 24,
4 2019, over a year ago to this date. Defendant has propounded multiple sets of discovery on
5 Plaintiff, which Plaintiff responded to and has supplemented responses as well. Defendant’s
6 response is without merit because Defendant would have already possessed the relevant
7 information through discovery and investigation, thereby allowing Defendant to provide
8 complete responses to this interrogatory. Additionally, Defendant has also made an unqualified
9 admission as to liability in its discovery responses which would render Defendant to properly
10 and completely respond to this interrogatory. Defendant’s response is also unverified which
11 waives its meritless objections.
12
13 Special Interrogatory No. 18:
14 List all current directors and officers of Defendant CALAVERAS MATERIALS INC.
15 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18:
16 Objection. Relevance. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent
17 that it is irrelevant and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
18 evidence for purposes of trial. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
19 Defendant responds as follows:
20 In light of Defendants’ admission of liability for the incident (i.e., the initial collision
21 between plaintiff’s vehicle and vehicle driven by Defendant Adams) Defendant requests that
22 Plaintiff’s counsel meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel regarding the relevance of the
23 information sought by this Interrogatory. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he
24 somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence
25 that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s
26 counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for
27 causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that
28 proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being
-3-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to
2 needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective
3 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly.
4 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement
5 this response at any time.
6 Reasons Further Response is Required:
7 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
8 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
9 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
10 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
11 Defendant’s response is improper. Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified
12 admission regarding liability does not insulate Defendant from being required to answer this
13 interrogatory. The then current directors and officers of Defendant may have information
14 relating to the policies and procedures in effect at the time of the incident for its drivers, as well
15 as specific information relating to James Adams and whether Defendant negligently entrusted the
16 vehicle to Mr. Adams, a cause of action stated in Plaintiff’s original Complaint. Promptly amend
17 this response to provide the information of Defendant’s directors and officers.
18 Further, The Court has since denied Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, making
19 their response to this interrogatory largely meritless.
20
21 Special Interrogatory No. 28:
22 Was any testing for intoxication or other alcohol or drug screening conducted on Defendant
23 JAMES ADAMS by YOU or your agents within the 24 hours following the INCIDENT?
24
25 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 28:
26 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the term “INCIDENT.”
27 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant
28 also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant and not
-4-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of trial.
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
3 Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff
4 (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory
5 irrelevant. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to the
6 accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a
7 claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a
8 proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the
9 accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has
10 been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper
11 purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the
12 expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these
13 circumstances will be filed shortly.
14 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement
15 this response at any time.
16
17 Reasons Further Response is Required:
18 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
19 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
20 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
21 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
22 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not
23 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks
24 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims
25 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that
26 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this
27 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s
28 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. Responses to this
-5-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 interrogatory are also relevant in that it would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to
2 punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s responses were unverified, which waives its objections.
3
4 Special Interrogatory No. 29:
5 If your answer to Special Interrogatory No. 28 is in the affirmative, state the findings of any
6 alcohol or drug screening conducted on Defendant JAMES ADAMS within the 24 hours
7 following the INCIDENT.
8 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 29:
9 Defendant refers Plaintiff to its response to Special Interrogatory No. 28.
10 Reasons Further Response is Required:
11 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
12 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
13 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
14 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
15 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not
16 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks
17 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims
18 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that
19 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this
20 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s
21 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. Responses to this
22 interrogatory are also relevant in that it would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to
23 punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s responses were unverified, which waives its objections
24 Special Interrogatory No. 30:
25 Was any periodic testing for alcohol or drug screening conducted on Defendant JAMES
26 ADAMS by YOU or your agents within the three (3) years prior to this INCIDENT?
27
28
-6-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 30:
2 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the term “INCIDENT.”
3 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant
4 also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant and not
5 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of trial.
6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
7 Upon information and belief, “period” testing as sought in this Interrogatory was not done.
8 Furthermore, Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams
9 and Plaintiff (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this
10 Interrogatory irrelevant and harassing. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he
11 somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence
12 that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s
13 counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for
14 causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that
15 proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being
16 pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to
17 needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective
18 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly.
19 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement
20 this response at any time.
21 Reasons Further Response is Required:
22 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
23 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
24 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
25 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
26 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not
27 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks
28 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims
-7-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that
2 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this
3 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s
4 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. Responses to this
5 interrogatory are also relevant in that it would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to
6 punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s responses were unverified, which waives its objections
7
8
Special Interrogatory No. 32:
9
IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to rest and
10
meal breaks for YOUR drivers.
11
Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 32:
12
Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”,
13
“procedures”, “rest and meal”, “brakes”, “drivers” and “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to
14
this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this
15
Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is argumentative and assumes facts not in
16
evidence. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is
17
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for
18
purposes of trial. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to
19
the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a
20
claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a
21
proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the
22
accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has
23
been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper
24
purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the
25
expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these
26
circumstances will be filed shortly. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
27
Defendant responds as follows:
28
Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff
(see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory
-8-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 irrelevant. Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or
2 supplement this response at any time.
3 Reasons Further Response is Required:
4 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
5 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
6 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
7 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
8 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not
9 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks
10 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims
11 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that
12 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this
13 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s
14 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted.
15 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion
16 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to
17 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it
18 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s
19 responses were unverified, which waives its objections
20 Special Interrogatory No. 33:
21 IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to the length
22 of shifts for YOUR drivers.
23 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 33:
24 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”,
25 “procedures”, “length”, “shifts”, “drivers” and “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to this
26 Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory
27 on the grounds and to the extent that itis argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence.
28 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant
-9-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of
2 trial. Furthermore, Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant
3 Adams and Plaintiff (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore
4 making this Interrogatory irrelevant and harassing. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger
5 claiming that he somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any
6 facts or evidence that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo
7 and Cornejo’s counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified
8 admission for causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons,
9 that proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is
10 being pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to
11 needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective
12 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly. Subject to and without waiving the
13 foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
14 Upon information and belief, Defendant does not have any such “policies” or “procedures.”
15 Length of shifts for drivers is dictated by the requirements set forth by the Department of
16 Transportation, which are equally available and can be obtained by Plaintiff through the
17 Department of Transportation. Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the
18 right to amend and/or supplement this response at any time.
19 Reasons Further Response is Required:
20 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
21 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
22 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
23 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
24 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not
25 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks
26 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims
27 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that
28 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this
-10-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s
2 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted.
3 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion
4 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to
5 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it
6 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s
7 responses were unverified, which waives its objections
8
9
Special Interrogatory No. 34:
10
IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to minimum
11
time requirements between shifts.
12
Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 34:
13
Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”,
14
“procedures”, “minimum”, “between”, “shifts” and “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to this
15
Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory
16
on the grounds and to the extent that itis argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence.
17
Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant
18
and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of
19
trial. Furthermore, Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant
20
Adams and Plaintiff (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore
21
making this Interrogatory irrelevant and harassing. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger
22
claiming that he somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any
23
facts or evidence that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo
24
and Cornejo’s counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified
25
admission for causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons,
26
that proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is
27
being pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to
28
needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective
-11-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly. Subject to and without waiving the
2 foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows:
3 Upon information and belief, Defendant does not have any such “policies” or “procedures.”
4 Minimum time requirements between shifts for drivers is dictated by the requirements set forth
5 by the Department of Transportation, which are equally available and can be obtained by
6 Plaintiff through the Department of Transportation. Discovery is continuing and Defendant
7 expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response at any time.
8 Reasons Further Response is Required:
9 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
10 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
11 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
12 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
13 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not
14 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks
15 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims
16 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that
17 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this
18 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s
19 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted.
20 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion
21 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to
22 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it
23 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s
24 responses were unverified, which waives its objections
25 Special Interrogatory No. 35:
26 IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to motor
27 vehicle collisions involving YOUR drivers.
28
-12-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 35:
2 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”,
3 “procedures”, “collisions” and “drivers.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as
4 overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds
5 and to the extent that itis argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant also
6 objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant and not
7 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of trial.
8 Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff
9 (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory
10 irrelevant. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to the
11 accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a
12 claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a
13 proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the
14 accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has
15 been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper
16 purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the
17 expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these
18 circumstances will be filed shortly.
19 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement
20 this response at any time.
21 Reasons Further Response is Required:
22 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
23 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
24 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
25 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
26 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not
27 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks
28 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims
-13-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that
2 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this
3 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s
4 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted.
5 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion
6 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to
7 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it
8 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s
9 responses were unverified, which waives its objections
10 Special Interrogatory No. 36:
11 State with specificity any statements made to YOU by Defendant JAMES ADAMS relating to
12 the INCIDENT.
13 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 36:
14 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “statements” and
15 “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that
16 it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the
17 grounds and to the extent that it is argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant
18 further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information
19 protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine,
20 and/or the disclosure of expert opinions in contravention of the time limits imposed by California
21 Code of Civil Procedure section 2034. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
22 Defendant responds as follows:
23 Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff
24 (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory
25 irrelevant. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to the
26 accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a
27 claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a
28 proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the
-14-
PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS
1 accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has
2 been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper
3 purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the
4 expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these
5 circumstances will be filed shortly.
6 Reasons Further Response is Required:
7 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory,
8 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the
9 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot
10 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.
11 This interrogatory asked Defendant for statements made to it by Defendant James Adams
12 relating to the incident. Defendant again does not provide substantive responses outside of
13 meritless objections and redundant language relating to the proposed stipulation regarding
14 liability and its Motion for Protective Order. Responsive information is relevant as it relates to
15 Plaintiff’s claim for negligent entru
Preview
1 Nicole Lahmani, Esq. SBN 278182 Electronically Filed LAHMANI LAW, APC 12/22/2020 1:42 PM 2 1539 E. Fourth Street Superior Court of California Santa Ana, CA 92701 County of Stanislaus 3 Telephone: (949) 202-1111 Clerk of the Court Fax: (855) 700-0529 4 By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy Attorney for Plaintiff, 5 Benjamin Cornejo 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 BENJAMIN CORNEJO, ) Case No.: CV-19-003585 11 ) ) PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT 12 Plaintiff, ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ) 13 ) FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL vs. ) INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON 14 ) DEFENDANT CALAVERAS JAMES L. ADAMS, SOUTH VALLEY ) 15 MATERIALS INC., GARY NEIL ) Date: January 14, 2021 ) 16 ZAIGER, ZAIGER’S INC. GENETICS, ) Time: 8:30 a.m. and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, ) Location: Dept. 24 17 ) ) 18 Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) 19 ) JOHNSON SYHARATH, LINDA ) 20 SYHARATH ) Plaintiffs, ) 21 Vs. ) ) 22 JAMES ADAMS, SOUTH VALLEY ) ) MATERIALS INC., CALAVERAS ) 23 MATERIALS INC. and DOES 1 through ) 24 100 inclusive ) ) 25 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS ) 26 27 // 28 // -1- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Plaintiff CORNEJO hereby submit this Separate Statement pursuant to California 3 Rules of Court Rule 3.1345, in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to 4 Special Interrogatory Nos.: 9, 18, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 propounded on Defendant 5 CALAVERAS. 6 Special Interrogatory No. 9: 7 Do YOU contend that the PLAINTIFF is responsible for the damages alleged in his complaint? 8 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 9: 9 Objection. Vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “responsible” and 10 “damages.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. 11 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is 12 argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as 13 premature. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it 14 seeks a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the 15 extent it seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and/or 16 attorney work product doctrine, and/or the disclosure of expert opinions in contravention of the 17 time limits imposed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034. Subject to and without 18 waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 19 Defendant presently lacks sufficient information to adequately respond to this 20 Interrogatory, as discovery has been delayed due a number of factors (i.e., COVID, Defendant’s 21 Motion for Consolidation, etc.) and Defendant has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct 22 complete discovery and investigation. Furthermore, this Interrogatory prematurely seeks a legal 23 conclusion and/or expert opinion. 24 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or 25 supplement this response at any time. 26 Reasons Further Response is Required: 27 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 28 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the -2- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 2 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 3 Defendant’s response is improper. The complaint in this matter was filed on June 24, 4 2019, over a year ago to this date. Defendant has propounded multiple sets of discovery on 5 Plaintiff, which Plaintiff responded to and has supplemented responses as well. Defendant’s 6 response is without merit because Defendant would have already possessed the relevant 7 information through discovery and investigation, thereby allowing Defendant to provide 8 complete responses to this interrogatory. Additionally, Defendant has also made an unqualified 9 admission as to liability in its discovery responses which would render Defendant to properly 10 and completely respond to this interrogatory. Defendant’s response is also unverified which 11 waives its meritless objections. 12 13 Special Interrogatory No. 18: 14 List all current directors and officers of Defendant CALAVERAS MATERIALS INC. 15 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18: 16 Objection. Relevance. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent 17 that it is irrelevant and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 18 evidence for purposes of trial. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, 19 Defendant responds as follows: 20 In light of Defendants’ admission of liability for the incident (i.e., the initial collision 21 between plaintiff’s vehicle and vehicle driven by Defendant Adams) Defendant requests that 22 Plaintiff’s counsel meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel regarding the relevance of the 23 information sought by this Interrogatory. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he 24 somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence 25 that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s 26 counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for 27 causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that 28 proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being -3- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to 2 needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective 3 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly. 4 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement 5 this response at any time. 6 Reasons Further Response is Required: 7 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 8 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 9 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 10 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 11 Defendant’s response is improper. Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified 12 admission regarding liability does not insulate Defendant from being required to answer this 13 interrogatory. The then current directors and officers of Defendant may have information 14 relating to the policies and procedures in effect at the time of the incident for its drivers, as well 15 as specific information relating to James Adams and whether Defendant negligently entrusted the 16 vehicle to Mr. Adams, a cause of action stated in Plaintiff’s original Complaint. Promptly amend 17 this response to provide the information of Defendant’s directors and officers. 18 Further, The Court has since denied Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, making 19 their response to this interrogatory largely meritless. 20 21 Special Interrogatory No. 28: 22 Was any testing for intoxication or other alcohol or drug screening conducted on Defendant 23 JAMES ADAMS by YOU or your agents within the 24 hours following the INCIDENT? 24 25 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 28: 26 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the term “INCIDENT.” 27 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant 28 also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant and not -4- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of trial. 2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 3 Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff 4 (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory 5 irrelevant. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to the 6 accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a 7 claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a 8 proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the 9 accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has 10 been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper 11 purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the 12 expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these 13 circumstances will be filed shortly. 14 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement 15 this response at any time. 16 17 Reasons Further Response is Required: 18 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 19 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 20 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 21 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 22 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not 23 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks 24 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims 25 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that 26 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this 27 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s 28 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. Responses to this -5- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 interrogatory are also relevant in that it would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to 2 punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s responses were unverified, which waives its objections. 3 4 Special Interrogatory No. 29: 5 If your answer to Special Interrogatory No. 28 is in the affirmative, state the findings of any 6 alcohol or drug screening conducted on Defendant JAMES ADAMS within the 24 hours 7 following the INCIDENT. 8 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 29: 9 Defendant refers Plaintiff to its response to Special Interrogatory No. 28. 10 Reasons Further Response is Required: 11 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 12 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 13 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 14 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 15 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not 16 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks 17 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims 18 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that 19 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this 20 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s 21 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. Responses to this 22 interrogatory are also relevant in that it would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to 23 punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s responses were unverified, which waives its objections 24 Special Interrogatory No. 30: 25 Was any periodic testing for alcohol or drug screening conducted on Defendant JAMES 26 ADAMS by YOU or your agents within the three (3) years prior to this INCIDENT? 27 28 -6- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 30: 2 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the term “INCIDENT.” 3 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant 4 also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant and not 5 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of trial. 6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 7 Upon information and belief, “period” testing as sought in this Interrogatory was not done. 8 Furthermore, Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams 9 and Plaintiff (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this 10 Interrogatory irrelevant and harassing. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he 11 somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence 12 that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s 13 counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for 14 causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that 15 proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being 16 pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to 17 needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective 18 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly. 19 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement 20 this response at any time. 21 Reasons Further Response is Required: 22 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 23 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 24 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 25 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 26 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not 27 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks 28 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims -7- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that 2 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this 3 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s 4 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. Responses to this 5 interrogatory are also relevant in that it would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to 6 punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s responses were unverified, which waives its objections 7 8 Special Interrogatory No. 32: 9 IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to rest and 10 meal breaks for YOUR drivers. 11 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 32: 12 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”, 13 “procedures”, “rest and meal”, “brakes”, “drivers” and “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to 14 this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this 15 Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is argumentative and assumes facts not in 16 evidence. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is 17 irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for 18 purposes of trial. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to 19 the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a 20 claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a 21 proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the 22 accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has 23 been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper 24 purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the 25 expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these 26 circumstances will be filed shortly. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, 27 Defendant responds as follows: 28 Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory -8- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 irrelevant. Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or 2 supplement this response at any time. 3 Reasons Further Response is Required: 4 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 5 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 6 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 7 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 8 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not 9 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks 10 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims 11 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that 12 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this 13 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s 14 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. 15 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion 16 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to 17 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it 18 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s 19 responses were unverified, which waives its objections 20 Special Interrogatory No. 33: 21 IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to the length 22 of shifts for YOUR drivers. 23 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 33: 24 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”, 25 “procedures”, “length”, “shifts”, “drivers” and “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to this 26 Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory 27 on the grounds and to the extent that itis argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. 28 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant -9- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of 2 trial. Furthermore, Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant 3 Adams and Plaintiff (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore 4 making this Interrogatory irrelevant and harassing. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger 5 claiming that he somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any 6 facts or evidence that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo 7 and Cornejo’s counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified 8 admission for causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, 9 that proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is 10 being pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to 11 needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective 12 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly. Subject to and without waiving the 13 foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 14 Upon information and belief, Defendant does not have any such “policies” or “procedures.” 15 Length of shifts for drivers is dictated by the requirements set forth by the Department of 16 Transportation, which are equally available and can be obtained by Plaintiff through the 17 Department of Transportation. Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the 18 right to amend and/or supplement this response at any time. 19 Reasons Further Response is Required: 20 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 21 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 22 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 23 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 24 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not 25 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks 26 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims 27 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that 28 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this -10- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s 2 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. 3 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion 4 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to 5 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it 6 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s 7 responses were unverified, which waives its objections 8 9 Special Interrogatory No. 34: 10 IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to minimum 11 time requirements between shifts. 12 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 34: 13 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”, 14 “procedures”, “minimum”, “between”, “shifts” and “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to this 15 Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory 16 on the grounds and to the extent that itis argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. 17 Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant 18 and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of 19 trial. Furthermore, Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant 20 Adams and Plaintiff (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore 21 making this Interrogatory irrelevant and harassing. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger 22 claiming that he somehow contributed to the accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any 23 facts or evidence that would support such a claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo 24 and Cornejo’s counsel a proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified 25 admission for causing the accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, 26 that proposal/stipulation has been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is 27 being pursued for improper purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to 28 needlessly increase the expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective -11- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 Order related to these circumstances will be filed shortly. Subject to and without waiving the 2 foregoing objections, Defendant responds as follows: 3 Upon information and belief, Defendant does not have any such “policies” or “procedures.” 4 Minimum time requirements between shifts for drivers is dictated by the requirements set forth 5 by the Department of Transportation, which are equally available and can be obtained by 6 Plaintiff through the Department of Transportation. Discovery is continuing and Defendant 7 expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response at any time. 8 Reasons Further Response is Required: 9 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 10 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 11 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 12 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 13 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not 14 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks 15 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims 16 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that 17 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this 18 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s 19 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. 20 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion 21 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to 22 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it 23 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s 24 responses were unverified, which waives its objections 25 Special Interrogatory No. 35: 26 IDENTIFY YOUR policies and procedures on the date of the INCIDENT relating to motor 27 vehicle collisions involving YOUR drivers. 28 -12- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 35: 2 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “policies”, 3 “procedures”, “collisions” and “drivers.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory as 4 overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds 5 and to the extent that itis argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant also 6 objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that it is irrelevant and not 7 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence for purposes of trial. 8 Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff 9 (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory 10 irrelevant. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to the 11 accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a 12 claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a 13 proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the 14 accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has 15 been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper 16 purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the 17 expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these 18 circumstances will be filed shortly. 19 Discovery is continuing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to amend and/or supplement 20 this response at any time. 21 Reasons Further Response is Required: 22 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 23 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 24 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 25 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 26 Response relating to Defendant’s unqualified admission regarding liability does not 27 insulate Defendant from being required to answer this interrogatory. Plaintiff’s request seeks 28 information relating to the driver’s alcohol or drug testing in order to assess Plaintiff’s claims -13- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 relating to negligence and negligent entrustment of Defendant Adam’s employer. The fact that 2 Defendant has admitted liability in part does not preclude Plaintiff from obtaining this 3 information for purposes of assessing the driver or his employer’s credibility or his employer’s 4 negligent entrustment of the vehicle, which has not been admitted. 5 Defendant continued to insulate itself from having to answer on the pretext of its Motion 6 for Protective Order being granted. However, Defendant’s Motion was denied and responses to 7 these interrogatories remain relevant. Responses to this interrogatory are also relevant in that it 8 would tend to show or not show any facts giving rise to punitive damages. Further, Defendant’s 9 responses were unverified, which waives its objections 10 Special Interrogatory No. 36: 11 State with specificity any statements made to YOU by Defendant JAMES ADAMS relating to 12 the INCIDENT. 13 Defendant’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 36: 14 Objection. Vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the meaning of the terms “statements” and 15 “INCIDENT.” Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent that 16 it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the 17 grounds and to the extent that it is argumentative and assumes facts not in evidence. Defendant 18 further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information 19 protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine, 20 and/or the disclosure of expert opinions in contravention of the time limits imposed by California 21 Code of Civil Procedure section 2034. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, 22 Defendant responds as follows: 23 Defendant has admitted liability for the initial collision between Defendant Adams and Plaintiff 24 (see Defendant’s response to Request for Admission No. 3), therefore making this Interrogatory 25 irrelevant. Plaintiff Cornejo has also sued Zaiger claiming that he somehow contributed to the 26 accident. Defendant is presently unaware of any facts or evidence that would support such a 27 claim against Zaiger. Defendant has offered Cornejo and Cornejo’s counsel a 28 proposal/stipulation whereby Defendant would make an unqualified admission for causing the -14- PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT CALAVERAS 1 accident if they would dismiss Zaiger. But, for unexplained reasons, that proposal/stipulation has 2 been rejected. As such, liability-related discovery such as this is being pursued for improper 3 purposes, such as to unduly harass, vex or annoy Defendant; and to needlessly increase the 4 expenses related to this litigation. Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order related to these 5 circumstances will be filed shortly. 6 Reasons Further Response is Required: 7 Under California Code of Civil Procedure §2030.220, in responding to an interrogatory, 8 the respondent must ensure that “each answer . . . shall be as complete and straightforward as the 9 information reasonably available to the responding party permits” and “if an interrogatory cannot 10 be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. 11 This interrogatory asked Defendant for statements made to it by Defendant James Adams 12 relating to the incident. Defendant again does not provide substantive responses outside of 13 meritless objections and redundant language relating to the proposed stipulation regarding 14 liability and its Motion for Protective Order. Responsive information is relevant as it relates to 15 Plaintiff’s claim for negligent entru