Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Kern
Bakersfield Department 17
Hearing Date: 01/08/2021 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM
BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL
BCV-19-100684
Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall
Court Reporter: . None Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff
Interpreter: Language Of:
PARTIES:
Present:
BROWN, ALISON Plaintiff, Not Present ABIGAIL WHITE Attorney, Present
ROSEN, HEATHER Plaintiff, Not Present ABIGAIL WHITE Attorney, Present
ROSEMA, LILA MARIE Defendant, Not Present LAHIRI, INDRA Attorney, Present
ROSEMA, LILA MARIE Defendant, Not Present
Not Present:
MONGE, CARLOS Defendant
MONGE, SAMANTHA Defendant Pro Per
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL & MOTION FOR LEAVE
Hearing Start Time:9:03 AM
The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as
reflected above.
Matter argued by counsel and submitted.
The Court makes the following findings and orders:
Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer - Granted.
Answer deemed filed and served this date. (01/08/2021)
Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's motion for leave to file an amended answer is granted and the proposed answer
provided with the moving papers is hereby deemed filed and served as of today's hearing date. The clerk of the
court is ordered to create a separate entry in the case register for the amended answer.
California favors liberality in giving parties leave to amend their pleadings. (See CCP section 473; Hulsey v. Koehler
(1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.
MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684
In order to alleviate any potential prejudice to Plaintiffs as a result of allowing this amendment, the court hereby
vacates the current trial date of 03/01/21 to allow Plaintiffs to conduct discovery as they deem necessary and
appropriate regarding the amended answer and its defenses.
Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court.
****************************************************************
Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories against Plaintiff
Alison Brown - Granted.
Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion to Compel a response from Plaintiff Alison Brown to Special
Interrogatories, Set One, is granted.
Plaintiff failed to serve a timely response, and although an untimely response was provided after this motion was
filed, this court has the authority to hear the propounding Defendant's motion to compel. (Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 408) The failure to serve a timely
response means all objections are waived by operation of law. (Id.) No motion for relief from waiver of objections
has been filed, wherefore propounding Defendant is entitled to a code-compliant, complete response without
objections.
The response provided to each of the four interrogatory questions at issue here, included a preliminary statement
that states various objections. The preliminary statement is incorporated into each individual response. Since all
objections were waived by the failure to timely respond, and no relief from such waiver has been sought or
obtained, stating and incorporating objections via a preliminary statement is improper and not code-compliant.
Furthermore, each individual response states that the responding Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge
sufficient to respond to each interrogatory, but that a reasonable and good faith effort has been made to obtain
responsive information that is not equally available to the propounding party. As to information not equally
available, "[i]f a person cannot furnish details, he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He
cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." (Deyo v. Kilbourne
(1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Furthermore, while it is true that such duty to make reasonable
efforts does not apply to information equally available to the propounding party, the reply states that responding
Plaintiff should in fact have personal knowledge of the information sought and suggests that the information is not
in fact equally available to moving Defendant. Responding Plaintiff is directed to provide information regarding
which information is equally available, and what efforts were made to secure information not equally available.
Since responding Plaintiff in good faith overlooked the Special Interrogatories and provided a response once
alerted to the outstanding discovery via this motion, although the response is not strictly code compliant, the court
declines to award sanctions as it finds the imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances. A
verified code-compliant, complete response without objections shall be provided by 02/17/2021.
Counsel Mr. Lahiri to prepare order for signature pursuant to CRC 3.1312. In the meantime, the clerk's minutes
will be the order of the court.
Motion to Compel Deposition set for 01/22/2021, vacated.
Motion to Continue Trial set for 01/28/2021, vacated.
MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684
Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 01/28/2021, vacated.
Court Trial set for 03/01/2021, vacated.
***************************************************************************
Jury waived pursuant to stipulation of counsel. (No jury fees posted pursuant to CCP 631.)
Parties are to meet and confer regarding jury instructions, submit a joint list of instructions at trial and separate list
of instructions to which there are objections by Wednesday prior to trial.
***Counsel to file pre-trial documents pursuant to LOCAL RULE 3.9***
****Counsel to follow Code of Civil Procedure 2025.550 regarding deposition transcripts****
Final case management conference/Court Trial set for 10/25/2021, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 17.
Mandatory Settlement Conference to be set by court and notice to be sent by court.
Time estimate: 3 days.
Notice to issue from court.
FUTURE HEARINGS:
January 28, 2021 8:30 AM Motion to Compel
January 28, 2021 8:30 AM Motion to Compel
January 28, 2021 8:30 AM Motion to Compel
Hall, Linda K.
October 25, 2021 9:00 AM Court Trial
Clark, Thomas S.
Bakersfield Department 17
Sheriff, Deputy
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: 1/8/2021
MINUTES
Page 3 of 3
BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 17 Hearing Date: 01/08/2021 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684 Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall Court Reporter: . None Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff Interpreter: Language Of: PARTIES: Present: BROWN, ALISON Plaintiff, Not Present ABIGAIL WHITE Attorney, Present ROSEN, HEATHER Plaintiff, Not Present ABIGAIL WHITE Attorney, Present ROSEMA, LILA MARIE Defendant, Not Present LAHIRI, INDRA Attorney, Present ROSEMA, LILA MARIE Defendant, Not Present Not Present: MONGE, CARLOS Defendant MONGE, SAMANTHA Defendant Pro Per NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL & MOTION FOR LEAVE Hearing Start Time:9:03 AM The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as reflected above. Matter argued by counsel and submitted. The Court makes the following findings and orders: Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer - Granted. Answer deemed filed and served this date. (01/08/2021) Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's motion for leave to file an amended answer is granted and the proposed answer provided with the moving papers is hereby deemed filed and served as of today's hearing date. The clerk of the court is ordered to create a separate entry in the case register for the amended answer. California favors liberality in giving parties leave to amend their pleadings. (See CCP section 473; Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159. MINUTES Page 1 of 3 BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684 In order to alleviate any potential prejudice to Plaintiffs as a result of allowing this amendment, the court hereby vacates the current trial date of 03/01/21 to allow Plaintiffs to conduct discovery as they deem necessary and appropriate regarding the amended answer and its defenses. Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court. **************************************************************** Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories against Plaintiff Alison Brown - Granted. Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion to Compel a response from Plaintiff Alison Brown to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is granted. Plaintiff failed to serve a timely response, and although an untimely response was provided after this motion was filed, this court has the authority to hear the propounding Defendant's motion to compel. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 408) The failure to serve a timely response means all objections are waived by operation of law. (Id.) No motion for relief from waiver of objections has been filed, wherefore propounding Defendant is entitled to a code-compliant, complete response without objections. The response provided to each of the four interrogatory questions at issue here, included a preliminary statement that states various objections. The preliminary statement is incorporated into each individual response. Since all objections were waived by the failure to timely respond, and no relief from such waiver has been sought or obtained, stating and incorporating objections via a preliminary statement is improper and not code-compliant. Furthermore, each individual response states that the responding Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond to each interrogatory, but that a reasonable and good faith effort has been made to obtain responsive information that is not equally available to the propounding party. As to information not equally available, "[i]f a person cannot furnish details, he should set forth the efforts made to secure the information. He cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control." (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Furthermore, while it is true that such duty to make reasonable efforts does not apply to information equally available to the propounding party, the reply states that responding Plaintiff should in fact have personal knowledge of the information sought and suggests that the information is not in fact equally available to moving Defendant. Responding Plaintiff is directed to provide information regarding which information is equally available, and what efforts were made to secure information not equally available. Since responding Plaintiff in good faith overlooked the Special Interrogatories and provided a response once alerted to the outstanding discovery via this motion, although the response is not strictly code compliant, the court declines to award sanctions as it finds the imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances. A verified code-compliant, complete response without objections shall be provided by 02/17/2021. Counsel Mr. Lahiri to prepare order for signature pursuant to CRC 3.1312. In the meantime, the clerk's minutes will be the order of the court. Motion to Compel Deposition set for 01/22/2021, vacated. Motion to Continue Trial set for 01/28/2021, vacated. MINUTES Page 2 of 3 BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684 Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 01/28/2021, vacated. Court Trial set for 03/01/2021, vacated. *************************************************************************** Jury waived pursuant to stipulation of counsel. (No jury fees posted pursuant to CCP 631.) Parties are to meet and confer regarding jury instructions, submit a joint list of instructions at trial and separate list of instructions to which there are objections by Wednesday prior to trial. ***Counsel to file pre-trial documents pursuant to LOCAL RULE 3.9*** ****Counsel to follow Code of Civil Procedure 2025.550 regarding deposition transcripts**** Final case management conference/Court Trial set for 10/25/2021, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 17. Mandatory Settlement Conference to be set by court and notice to be sent by court. Time estimate: 3 days. Notice to issue from court. FUTURE HEARINGS: January 28, 2021 8:30 AM Motion to Compel January 28, 2021 8:30 AM Motion to Compel January 28, 2021 8:30 AM Motion to Compel Hall, Linda K. October 25, 2021 9:00 AM Court Trial Clark, Thomas S. Bakersfield Department 17 Sheriff, Deputy MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: 1/8/2021 MINUTES Page 3 of 3 BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684