Motion to Compel in Frame, Roland Martin et al vs Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc et al| Trellis.Law

On March 12, 2020 a Hearing was filed involving a dispute between Frame, Donna, Frame, Roland Martin, and Old Republic Surety Company, Perfection Pools And Spas, Inc, for (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty in the District Court of Butte County.

Preview
LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN R. WATTENBERG Superior Court of California

STEPHAN R. WATTENBERG, SB #183914 County of Butte
CLAIRE E. GREENE, SB#286091 12/22/2020
1074 EAST AVENUE, SUITE C
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926
Telephone: (530) 342-8930
Facsimile: (530) 342-5625 By “eh J0
VV
er, Gerk

Electronically FILED
Deputy

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROLAND MARTIN FRAME and DONNA FRAME

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE

10
11 ROLAND MARTIN FRAME and DONNA CASE NO: 20CV00754
FRAME
)
12
Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF CLAIRE E.
13 GREENE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
14
COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
15
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.,
16 OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY Hearing Date: January 20, 2021
17 and DOES ONE through TWO HUNDRED Time: 9:00 am
Defendants. Dept.: TBA
18
Complaint Filed: March 12, 2020
19
20 I, Claire E. Greene, declare:

21 1 Tam one of the attorneys for Plaintiffs in this action, and I have personal knowledge of each fact stated
22 in this declaration.
23
2. Attached as Exhibit | are true and correct copies of Defendant Perfection Pools & Spas, Inc.’s
24
(hereinafter referred to as “Perfection”) amended responses to Special Interrogatories and Demand for
25
Production of Documents on August 27, 2020. These responses are unverified.
26
3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter on September 3,
27
2020.
28
4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is an email from Defendant’s counsel on November 18, 2020, containing

DECLARATION OF CLAIRE E. GREENE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
1
proposed amended responses.

5. Attached as Exhibit 4 are true and correct copies of proposed amended responses provided by

Defendant Perfection on November 18, 2020. These proposed amended responses are unverified.

6. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the letter Plaintiffs’ counsel sent requesting that

Defendant’s proposed amended responses be verified.

7. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an email from Defendant’s counsel suggesting that

Defendant would send further amended responses and that Plaintiffs’ counsel should approve them in whole

before Defendant provided verifications.

8. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an email from Plaintiffs’ counsel declining
10
Defendant’s suggestion and requested that Defendant’s counsel provide verifications with Defendant.
11
9. We have incurred attorneys’ fees in the amount of:
12
a. Letter to Defendant’s counsel: $337.50
13
b Review amended discovery responses: $75.00
14
Draft response to meet and confer letter: $187.50
15
Draft and revise motion to compel: $337.50
16
17 Filing Fee: $65.25

18 Total: $1,002.75

19
20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
21
22
23
24
Dated: December 18, 2020
25 CLAIRE E. GREENE
LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN R. WATTENBERG
26 Attorney for Plaintiffs
27
28

DECLARATION OF CLAIRE E. GREENE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES
2
PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP 1013, 2015.5

Case Name: Roland Martin Frame, Donna Frame vs. Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc.

Case No.: 20CV00754

I declare that I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California. I am over the

age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1074 East

Avenue, Suite C, Chico, California 95926.

On December 22, 2020, I served a true copy of the within
DECLARATION OF CLAIRE E. GREENE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES on the parties below named in said
cause in the following manner:

VIA REGULAR MAIL by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
10
with postage thereon fully prepaid which is delivered to the U.S. Post Office in Chico,
California, on the same day, addressed et forth below.
11
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope, prepaid, deposited with the Federal Express carrier/box at Chico, California,
12
addressed as set forth below.
VIA PERSONAL SERVICE, delivering by hand and leaving a true copy with the
13
person and/or office staff at the address shown below.
__X__ VIA EMAIL at the date and place herein by sending a true copy to greg @sims-law.net
14
bob @sims-law.net csosa@hausmansosa in the service list.
Carlos A. Sosa Boby Dale Sims, Jr.
15
Law Offices of Hausman & Sosa LLP Gregory Estabrook
20750 Ventura Blvd., Suite 105 2261 Lava Ridge Court
16
Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6646 Roseville, CA 95661
17

18
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
declaration was executed on December 22, 2020 at Chico, California 95926.
19
20

21
/S/ Margo Diaz.
22
Margo Diaz, Legal Assistant to
Stephan R. Wattenberg, Esq.
23

28
EXHIBIT 1
BOBBY DALE SIMS, JR. (SBN 202622)
GREGORY ESTABROOK (SBN 179228)
SIMS, LAWRENCE & ARRUTI
2261 Lava Ridge Court
Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (916) 797-8881
Facsimile: (916) 253-1544

Attorneys for Defendants,
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF BUTTE

11 RONALD MARTIN FRAME and DONNA Case No. 20CV00754
FRAME,
12 PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S
Plaintiffs, AMENDED RESPONSES TO RONALD
13 MARTIN FRAME & DONNA FRAME’S
vs. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
14
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC., OLD
15 REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY, DOES 1-10,
et al.
16
Defendants.
17

18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: RONALD MARTIN FRAME & DONNA FRAME

19 RESPONDING PARTY: PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.

20 SET NO.: ONE

21 Defendant PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC. hereby provides amended responses to

22 Request for Production of Documents, Set One, as follows:

23 This responding party and its counsel have not fully completed its investigation of facts

24 relating to this case, have not completed its discovery in this action, and have not completed its

25 preparation for trial. All of the answers contained herein are based only upon such information and

documents which are presently available to and specifically known to responding party. It is
26

27 anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, research and analysis will supply

28 additional facts, add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions

-l-
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations
]
from the answers herein set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to

responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts which
responding party may later developer.

The answers herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual information

as is presently known and in the responding party’s possession or control, but should in no way be

to the prejudice of responding parry in relation to further discovery, research or analysis. Without

in any way obligating itself to do so, responding party reserves the right to modify or supplemental

its responses pursuant to such further discovery. These responses are given without prejudice to

10 using or relying at trial on subsequently discovered information, even if that information is

11 omitted from these responses.

12 Responding party hereby objects to these requests for production on the grounds that such

13 requests, seeks information which is protected by the attorney work product pretention and./or

14 attorney-client privilege and which is otherwise protected; seek information which is protected by

15 the right to privacy limitations contained in the United States and California Constitutions; seeks

16 information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and/or are

17 otherwise not relevant to the subject matter of this action; and seek confidential, proprietary, trade

18 secret and other related information.

19 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

21 Any maintenance requests made to YOU by Plaintiffs since 2011.

22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1:

23 This request seeks “any maintenance requests” made to you by Plaintiffs since 2011.

24 Objection. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to scope as to be an unwarranted

25 annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue

26 burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated to annoy and harass plaintiff. (See

27 Code of Civ. Proc., § 2.030.090 subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior

28 Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

-2-
PERFECTION POOLS &SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
evidence. (Code of Ciy. Proc, § 2017.010.)

Objection. The information sought in this discovery request is equally available to the

propounding party. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 subd. (c); and Alpine Mutual Water Co.

y. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45.)” A party has an obligation to make a reasonable

and good faith effort to obtain requested information, “except where the information is equally

available to the propounding party.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 subd. (c).)

Without waiving the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding

Party performed a diligent search and reasonable inquiry into finding the requested item.

Requested items may/may not have existed in the form of a telephone statement/bill for services.

10 Responding Party is unable to comply because the requested items no longer exist, or are no

11 longer in its possession. (CCP § 2031.230).

12 REQUEST FOR PR ODUCTION NO. 3:

13 Any emails between YOU and Plaintiffs from 2011 to the date of filing the lawsuit.

14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

15 Objection. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to scope as to be an

16 unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be

17 undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated to annoy and harass

18 plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.090 subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

19 y. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

20 Objection. Irrelevant. Plaintiff ’s request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter,

21 and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

22 evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, § 2017.010.)

23 Objection. The information sought in this discovery request is equally available to the

24 propounding party. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 subd. (c); and Alpine Mutual Water Co.

25 vy. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45.)” A party has an obligation to make a reasonable

26 and good faith effort to obtain requested information, “except where the information is equally

27 available to the propounding party.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 subd. (c).

28 //1
4.
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
system.
All contracts between YOU and Plaintiffs pertaining to Plaintiffs’ solar power

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Responding Party will produce the requested documents.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
-
All documents concerning Plaintiffs’ solar power system that are not subject to attorney

client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
as to be
Objection. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope
would
10 an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request
and harass
1 be an undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated to annoy
Inc.
12 plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.090 subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System,

13 v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)

14 Objection. Irrelevant. Plaintiff ’s request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter,
admissible
15 and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

16 evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, § 2017.010.)

17 Objection. The information sought in this discovery request is equally available to the
Co.
18 propounding party. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 subd. (c); and Alpine Mutual Water
and
19 y. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45.)” A party has an obligation to make a reasonable

good faith effort to obtain requested information, “except where the information is equally
20

21 available to the propounding party.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.220 subd. (c).)

22 Objection. The term “all documents concerning Plaintiffs’ solar power system” as used in

23 this request is uncertain, ambiguous, or confusing. Deyo v Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA3d 771, 783.

24 The request does not provide enough information for Responding Party to distinguish responsive

25 documents from non-responsive documents.

26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

27 Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 304.1.

28 M1
5.
SET ONE
PERFECTION POOTS & SPAS. INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Objection. This discovery request seeks attorney work product in violation of Code of

Civil Procedure sections 2018.020 and 2018.030.

Without waiving the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding

Party is unable to comply with the request because the requested document or thing has never

existed.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 314.1.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

10 Objection. This request is uncertain, ambiguous, or confusing. Deyo v Kilbourne (1978) 84

11 CA3d 771, 783. Form Interrogatory No. 314.1 requests information regarding “agreements alleged

12 in pleadings” by Propounding Party. Responding Party did not allege the existence of agreement

13 in pleadings.

14 Without waiving the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding

15 Party is unable to comply with the request because the requested document or thing has never

16 existed.

17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

18 Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 321.9.

19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

20 Objection. Irrelevant. Plaintiff ’s request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter,

21 and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

22 evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, § 2017.010.) Form Interrogatory No. 321.9 asks whether

23 Responding Party was provided with “copies” of plans, reports, and specifications “for the

24 project.” These construction terms refer to “plans, reports, and specifications” as such documents

25 relate to a construction “project” beyond the simple application of a fixture at an existing structure.

26 Without waiving the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding

27 Party is unable to comply with the request because the requested document or thing has never

28 existed.

-7-
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE.
UEST FOR P! DUCTION NO. 13.

Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 321.11.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Responding Party has performed a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for the requested

items. Responding Party is unable to comply because the requested items no longer exist, or are no

longer in the possession of Responding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 325.1.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

10 Objection. Form Interrogatory 325.1 seeks information regarding the existence and

11 assertion that “construction defect claims” exist. Responding Party has not alleged construction

12 defect claims exist.

13 Objection. This discovery request as phrased is argumentative. It requires the adoption of
|
14 an assumption — contending that a construction defect claim exists — which is improper.

15 Responding Party disputes that a “construction defect claim” exists.

16 Without waiving the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding
|
17 Party is unable to comply with the request because the requested document or thing has never

18 existed.

19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

20 Produce all di .cuments identified in your response to FINT No. 325.2.

21 RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

22 Objection. Form Interrogatory 325.2 seeks information regarding the existence and

23 assertion that “construction defect claims” exist. Responding Party has not alleged construction

24 defect claims exist. |
|
25 Objection. This discovery request as phrased is argumentative. It requires the adoption of

26 an assumption — contending that a construction defect claim exists — which is improper.

27 Responding Party disputes that a “construction defect claim” exists.

28 Without waiving the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding

-8-
|
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
Party is unable to comply with the request because the requested document or thing has never

existed.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 325.3.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Objection. Form Interrogatory 325.3 seeks information regarding the existence and

assertion that “construction defect claims” exist. Responding Party has not alleged construction

defect claims exist.

Objection. This discovery request as phrased is argumentative. It requires the adoption of

10 an assumption — contending that a construction defect claim exists — which is improper.

11 Responding Party disputes that a “construction defect claim” exists.

12 Without waiving the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding

13 Party is unable to comply with the request because the requested document or thing has never

14 existed. |

15 REQUEST FOR PRC DUCTION NO. 17:

16 Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 325.4.

17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

18 Objection. Form Interrogatory 325.4 seeks information regarding the existence and

19 assertion that “construction defect claims” exist. Responding Party has not alleged construction

20 defect claims exist. |

21 Objection. This discovery request as phrased is argumentative. It requires the adoption of

22 an assumption — contending that a construction defect claim exists — which is improper.

23 Responding Party disputes that a “construction defect claim” exists.

24 Without waivi g the above objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding

25 Party is unable to comply with the request because the requested document or thing has never

26 existed.

27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

28 Produce all documents identified in your response to FINT No. 326.1.

-9-
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party is unable to comply with the

request because the requested document or thing has never existed.

Dated: August 27, 2020 SIMS, LAWRENCE & ARRUTI

By
BOB E SIMS, JR
GREG@RY ESTABROOK
eys for Defendant,
10 PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.

112,

18
19

28
-10-
|
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
PROOF OF SERVICE

I, SHELBY JONES, certify and declare as follows:

Tam over the age of 18 years, and not a party to this action. My business address is 2261 Lava
Ridge Court — Roseville, CA. Iam employed in the County of Placer where this service occurs.

On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the
foregoing document(s) described as:

PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’°S AMENDED RESPONSES TO RONALD MARTIN
FRAME & DONNA FRAME’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE

(BY FAX) I transmitted via facsimile transmission from a facsimile transmission machine/ service
called FAXWAVE whose business facsimile number is (916) 253-1544 to the following fax
number(s), as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m.

10 The above-described transmission was reported as complete without error by a transmission report
issued by the facsimile upon which the said transmission was made immediately following the
11
transmission. A true and correct copy of the said transmission report is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
12
Vv
13 (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with my employer's normal business practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service. Correspondence so
14
collected and processed is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary
course of business. I placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope,
15
with postage fully prepaid, to the addressee(s) below.
16
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I personally delivered the above document(s) by hand between 9:00
17 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to the office of the addressee(s) below.
18 |

:
(BY OVERNI HT DELIVERY) I deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by
19 Federal Expre: s§ an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by said
express service carrier to receive such envelope(s) to be delivered by overnight delivery, with
20 delivery fees p: id or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served below.

21 |
(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I transmitted via electronic service through LexisNexis to the
22 offices of the addressee(s) below as stated on the attached service list on this date before 5:00 p.m.

23 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

24 ¥
(State) I certifyand declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
25 the foregoing is true and correct.

26
Executed on: August 27, 2020
2 SHELBY Jt

28
| “li-
|
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
SERVICE LIST

Stephan R. Wattenberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Claire E. Greene
LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN R.
WATTENBERG
1074 East Ave., Ste C
Chico, CA 95926
T: (530) 342-8930
F: (530) 342-5625
srwattny@pacbell.net

Douglas B. Jacobs Personal Counsel for Perfection Pools & Spas,
Jacobs, Anderson, Potter & Chaplin, LLP Inc.
10 20 Independence Circle
Chico, CA 95973
11 (530) 342-6144
djacobs@japc-law.com
12 Carlos E. Sosa Attorneys for Old Republic Surety Company
Law Offices of Hausman & Sosa
13
20750 Ventura Blvd., Suite 105
14 Woodland Hills, CA 91364
T: (818) 654-9000
15 F: (818) 654-9050
csosa@hausmansosa.com
16

28
-12-
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE.
BOB SIMS (SBN 202622)
GREGORY ESTABROOK (SBN 179228)
SIMS, LAWRENCE & ARRUTI
2261 Lava Ridge Court
Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (916) 797-8881
Facsimile: (916) 253-1544
Attorneys for Defendant,
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF BUTTE

11 RONALD MARTIN FRAME and DONNA Case No. 20CV00754
FRAME,
12 PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS, INC.’S
Plaintiffs, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO
13 RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
vs.
14
PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC., OLD
15 REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY, DOES 1-10,
et al.
16
Defendants.
17
PROPOUNDING PARTY: PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS INC.
18
RESPONDING PARTY: RONALD MARTIN FRAME
19
SET NUMBER: ONE
20
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
21
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.030, Defendant RONALD MARTIN
22
FRAME (“RESPONDING PARTY”) is hereby requested to respond to PERFECTION POOLS
23
AND SPAS INC. (“PROPOUNDING PARTY”) Special Interrogatories, Set One. In answering
24
these interrogatories, RESPONDING PARTY is required to review all information that is available
25
to him or subject to a reasonable inquiry, including information in the possession of his attorneys
26
and any consultants, experts, investigators, agents or other persons acting on her behalf or any
27
other person or persons directly or indirectly employed by or connected with his and/or her
28

l=
PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS, INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
attorneys and anyone else subject to his control.

In answering these interrogatories, RESPONDING PARTY must make a diligent search of

his records and of other papers and materials in his possession or available to his or her

representatives. RESPONDING PARTY must serve his responses no later than the time permitted

by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.260. These Special Interrogatories require a written

response to be served within thirty days (30 days) after service of this demand.

Said responses must be under oath and must address each requested item separately.

Failure to serve a timely response acts as a waiver of ANY AND ALL objections to this demand,

including those based on privilege and work product.

10 In responding
to said request, RESPONDING PARTY is required to use all information

11 available to him, and all information in the possession of or available to any person or persons

12 acting on RESPONDING PARTY’ behalf or under his control or under the control of his
a attorneys, agents, servants or representatives.
13

14 PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS

15 If any materials requested are claimed to be privileged, please list the following for each

16 item claimed to be privileged:
17 (a) a brief description of the nature and content of the matter claimed to be privileged;

18 (b) the name, occupation and capacity of the individual from whom the privileged matter

19 emanated;

20 (c) the name, occupation and capacity of the individual to whom the allegedly privileged

21 matter was directed;

22 (d) the date the item bears; and

23 (e) the privileged claimed.

24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

26 Please state all facts that support your contention in page 3 (BC-2) of your Complaint that

27 “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner.”

28 //1

-2-
PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS, INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please identify all documents that support your contention in page 3 (BC-2) of your

Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Please identify all witnesses that support your contention in page 3 (BC-2) of your

Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Please state all facts that support your contention in page 3 (BC-2) of your Complaint that

“The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it was not connected to the

10 Enphase/Enlighten.”

ll SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

12, Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 3 (BC-2) of your

13 Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it was not

14 connected to the Enphase/Enlighten.”

15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

16 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 3 (BC-2) of your

17 Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it was not

18 connected to the Enphase/Enlighten

19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

20 Please state all facts that support your contention on page 3 (BC-1) that defendant

21 Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. owed plaintiff Roland Frame a contractual obligation to connect a

22 solar system to Enphase/Enlighten.

23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

24 Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 3 (BC-1) that defendant

25 Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. owed plaintiff Roland Frame a contractual obligation to connect a

26 solar system to Enphase/Enlighten.

27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

28 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 3 (BC-1) that defendant

-3-
PERFECTION POOLS a SPAS, INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
|

Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. owed plaintiff Roland Frame a contractual obligation to connect a

solar system to Enphase/Enlighten.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
|
Please state all 1 facts that support your contention in page 3 (BC-2) of your Complaint that
|
“The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it did and does not produce

the agreed amount ofelectricity.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Please identify all documents that support your contention in page 3 (BC-2) of your

Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it did and

10 does not produce the agreed amount of electricity.”

11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

12 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention in page 3 (BC-2) of your

13 Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it did and

14 does not produce the agreed amount of electricity.”
“Z
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

16 Please state all facts that support your contention on page 3 (BC-2) of your Complaint that

17 “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it did not and does not

18 deliver electricity to PG&E in a consistent manner.”

19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

20 Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 3 (BC-2) of your

21 Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it did not

22 and does not deliver electricity to PG&E in a consistent manner.”

23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

24 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 3 (BC-2) of your

25 Complaint that “The solar system was not installed in a workmanlike manner because it did not

26 and does not deliver electricity to PG&E in a consistent manner.”

27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

28 Please state all facts that support your contention on page 3 of your Complaint (BC-2) that

PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS,
| INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
-4-
defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. was asked to bring the system into compliance.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 3 of your Complaint

(BC-2) that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. was asked to bring the system into

compliance.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 3 of your Complaint

(BC-2) that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. was asked to bring the system into

compliance.”

10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

ll Please state all facts that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint, paragraph

12 2, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. entered an agreement with Plaintiffs to install a

13 solar system “that was connected to . . Enphase/Enlighten.”

14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

15 Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

16 paragraph 2, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. entered an agreement with Plaintiffs to

17 install a solar system “that was connected to . . Enphase/Enlighten.”

18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

19 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

20 paragraph 2, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. entered an agreement with Plaintiffs to

21 install a solar system “that was connected to . . Enphase/Enlighten.”

22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

23 Please state all facts that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint, paragraph

24 5, that “the solar system installed by Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. proved defective upon

25 delivery.”

26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

27 Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

28 paragraph 5, that “the solar system installed by Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. proved defective

5.
PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS, INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
upon delivery.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

paragraph 5, that “the solar system installed by Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. proved defective

upon delivery.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Please state all facts that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint, paragraph

5, that “the solar system installed by Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. was never substantially

completed.”

10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

ll Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

12 paragraph 5, that “the solar system installed by Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. was never

13 substantially completed.”

14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

15 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

16 paragraph 5, that “the solar system installed by Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. was never

17 substantially completed.”

18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

19 Please state all facts that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint, paragraph

20 6, that in 2011 Plaintiff “complained that to Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. that the system was

21 not performing as promised.”

22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
4
23 Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

24 paragraph 6, that in 2011 Plaintiff “complained that to Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. that the

25 system was not performing as promised.”

26 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

27 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

28 paragraph 6, that in 2011 Plaintiff “complained that to Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. that the

-6-
PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS, INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
system was not performing as promised.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

Please state all facts that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint, paragraph

6, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. “refused to make needed repairs.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

paragraph 6, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. “refused to make needed repairs.”

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

10 paragraph 6, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. “refused to make needed repairs.”

11 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

12 Please state all facts that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint, paragraph

13 6, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. “refused to make a reasonable inspection.”

14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

15 Please identify all documents that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

16 paragraph 6, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. “refused to make a reasonable

17 inspection.”

18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

19 Please identify all witnesses that support your contention on page 4 of your Complaint,

20 paragraph 6, that defendant Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. “refused to make a reasonable

21 inspection.”

22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

23 Please describe all efforts made by plaintiff Roland Frame to maintain solar panels

24 installed at the Subject Property (4329 Olive Highway, Oroville, CA 96966).

25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

26 Please describe all efforts made by plaintiff Roland Frame to maintain solar panel

27 installed at the Subject Property (4329 Olive Highway, Oroville, CA 96966).

28 //1

-7-
PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS, INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

Please identify all documents that describe efforts made by plaintiff Roland Frame to

maintain solar panels installed at the Subject Property (4329 Olive Highway, Oroville, CA 96966).

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40:

Please identify all witnesses that are aware of efforts made by plaintiff Roland Frame to

maintain solar panels installed at the Subject Property (4329 Olive Highway, Oroville, CA 96966).

Dated: August 27, 2020 SIMS, LAWRENCE & ARRUTI

10 By
11 GORY ESTABROOK
Attorneys for Defendant,
12. PERFECTION POOLS & SPAS, INC.

-8-
PERFECTION POOLS AND SPAS, INC.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RONALD MARTIN FRAME, SET ONE
PROOF OF SERVICE

I, SHELBY JONES, certify and declare as follows:

Tam over the age of 18 years, and not a party to this action. My business address is 2261 Lava
Ridge Court — Roseville, CA. Iam employed in the

Case Info

Judge

Stephen E. Benson Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 20, 2021

Case Filing Date

March 12, 2020

County

Parties

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

Hearing: Frame, Roland Martin et al vs Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties