Preview
Electronically Filed
1 KROGH & DECKER, LLP 12/29/2020 2:30 PM
ELI UNDERWOOD, SBN 267665 Superior Court of California
2 JASMINE PEREZ, SBN 327147 County of Stanislaus
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 700 Clerk of the Court
3 Sacramento, California 95814 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy
Telephone: 916.498.9000
4 Facsimile: 916.498.9005
5 Attorneys for Defendant
Connected Living
6
7
8 THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 STANISLAUS COUNTY—UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10 ANTHONY WILSON, by and through his ) CASE NO: CV-19-003247
Conservator, MONICA WILSON )
11 ) ASSIGNED TO:
Plaintiff, ) THE HON. JOHN D. FREELAND
12 )
vs. ) CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE
13 ) STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
CONNECTED LIVING, DOCTORS MEDICAL) TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER
14 CENTER, KINDRED HOSPITAL, SAN) RESPONSES, AND FOR
FRANCISCO BAY AREA and DOES 1) REIMBURSEMENT/ SANCTIONS
15 through 50, inclusive, )
) FILED: JUNE 10, 2019
16 Respondent. )
) HEARING: JAN. 27, 2021
17 ) TIME: 8:30 A.M.
) DEPT: 23
18 )
) TRIAL: AUG. 3, 2021
19
20
In accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(5),
21
Defendant Connected Living (“Connected Living”) respectfully submits this Separate
22
Statement of Items in Dispute in support of its Motion to Compel Plaintiff Anthony Wilon’s
23
(“Wilson”) compliance with Form Interrogatory Numbers 2.8, 50.1-50.6, Special
24
Interrogatory numbers 2-18, 23, 31-39, 42-100, 102, 107, 114-187, 202-210, 213-269,
25
Requests for Admission numbers 2, 4-6, 47-55 and 57-88, and Requests for Production
26
numbers 1-17, 22, 30-48, and 51-88.
27
///
28
1
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 SEPARATE STATEMENT
2 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
3 FORM INTERROGATORY NO 2.8:
4 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state:
5 a. The city and state where you were convicted;
6 b. The date of conviction;
7 c. The offense; and
8 d. The court and case number.
9 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8:
10 Objection; vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, and overbroad as to time, and beyond the
11 scope of permissible discovery (not relevant to the subject matter or likely to lead to the
12 discovery of admissible evidence). Plaintiff responds that Plaintiff has a criminal history in
13 San Joaquin County related to the possession and sale of illegal drugs.
14 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8 SHOULD ISSUE:
16 I. WILSON’S OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS.
17 Where the moving party demonstrates good cause for the production, then the
18 responding party bears the burden of justifying any objections. (San Diego Professional
19 Ass’n v. Superior Court (Paderewski, Mitchell, Dean & Assoc.) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 194, 199
20 (San Diego); Kirkland v. Superior Court (Guess?) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 (Guess);
21 Rutter § 8:1496.) Similarly, the burden is on the party opposing discovery to demonstrate
22 that disclosure is inappropriate. (Babcock v. Superior Court (DiGiovanni) (1994) 29
23 Cal.App.4th 721, 727-728 (Babcock).) Here, Wilson cannot satisfy his burden as detailed
24 below.
25 A. THE “LEGAL CONCLUSION/ OPINION” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS.
26 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory number 17.1,
27 Requests for Admission numbers 47 – 55 and 57 – 81, and Request for Production
28
2
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 numbers 1 – 38, 41 – 48, and 51 – 88, based on the argument that the request calls for
2 a “legal opinion or conclusion” or “legal causation.” This is not well-taken.
3 An objection that alleges that a request for admission “calls for opinion or
4 conclusion” is improper. (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 885; Bloxham v.
5 Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 752; Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198
6 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488; Rutter § 8:1079.) This, this objection fails, and a further response
7 is required.
8 B. THE “VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS.
9 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1,
10 11.2, 50.1-50.6, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187, 202-210,
11 and 213-269, Requests for Admission numbers 47-55, 57-81, and Request for
12 Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, and 51 – 88 as vague and ambiguous. This is
13 inappropriate.
14 Initially, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (e), does not require
15 the definition of every word in a discovery request. Instead, the inclusion of commonplace
16 words or phrases should be interpreted according to their everyday uses. This is because
17 the answering party owes a duty to respond in good-faith as best as she can. (CCP §
18 2030.220(a); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo); Rutter § 8:1047.) If
19 only a part of a request is objectionable, then the responding party must answer the
20 remainder of the interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.240(a).)
21 Generally, it is improper to object to an interrogatory based on ambiguity,
22 confusion, or vagueness unless the question is totally unintelligible and the responding
23 party cannot in good-faith frame an intelligent reply. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
24 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo); Cembrook v. Superior Court (Sterling Drug, Inc.) (1961) 56
25 Cal.2d 423, 428; Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [Court found
26 “vague and ambiguous” objection to the term “economic damages” to be
27 “preposterous” and “nitpicking,” and subject to sanctions]; Rutter §§ 8:1084, 8:1358.)
28
3
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 Here, Wilson never alleges that any of the terms are “totally unintelligible,” never
2 identifies how the requests are unintelligible, or how he interpreted the requests in order
3 to respond “to the extent possible.” (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783; Rutter § 8:1084.) Wilson
4 failed to properly object. Instead, these commonplace words or phrases should be
5 interpreted according to their common use. Thus, this objection fails, and a further
6 response is required.
7 C. WILSON’S “RELEVANCE” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS.
8 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1,
9 11.2, 17.1, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187, 202-210, and
10 213-269, and Requests for Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, and 51-88. This is
11 improper.
12 Generally, “relevancy” is liberally construed with all doubts resolved in favor of
13 permitting discovery. (Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (Duke) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161,
14 173 (PT&T).) The party seeking discovery has a right to substantial leeway. (Norton v.
15 Superior Court (Ein) (1994) 24 Cal.App.4t 1750, 1761.)
16 Under the Civil Discovery Act, a party may seek information on any matter
17 “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action” and “reasonably calculated
18 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP §§ 2017.010, 2030.010(a); West
19 Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance Loans) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 416
20 (West Pico); Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 1416, 1417 (Kalaba); Rutter § 8:982.)
21 The phrase “subject matter,” however, is broader than relevancy of the issues.
22 (Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rios) (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392;
23 Rutter § 8:66.) Discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other
24 evidence that would be admissible at trial. (Lipton v. Superior Court (Lawyers’ Mut. Ins.
25 Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Rutter § 8:67.)
26 Moreover, “[d]iscovery necessarily serves the function of ‘testing the pleadings,’
27 i.e., enabling a party to determine what his opponent’s contentions are and what facts he
28 relies upon to support his contentions.” (Burke v. Superior Court (Fidelity & Deposit Co.)
4
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 282 (Burke) citing Singer v. Superior Court (Parr-Richmond Terminal
2 Co.) (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 323-325 (Singer); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Superior
3 Court (Pacific Indemn. Group) (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 722, 728.) Thus, the “[l]iberal use of
4 interrogatories for the purpose of clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the
5 pleadings should be permitted and encouraged by the courts.” (Burke, 71 Cal.2d at 281
6 (emphasis added).) This is because discovery is liberally permitted. (Greyhound, 56 Cal.2d
7 at 383-384.)
8 Here, the requests at issue relate to the allegations of the operative Complaint.
9 That is, these requests may fairly be described as “reasonably related to a legitimate
10 discovery need.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424,
11 431 (Obregon).) These requests are proper. The objection is improper, and requires a
12 further response.
13 D. WILSON’S “OVERBREADTH/ BURDEN” OBJECTIONS ARE
14 MERITLESS.
15 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1,
16 11.2, 17.1, 50.1-50.6, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187,
17 202-210, 213-269, Requests for Admission numbers 1-15, 47-55, 57-81, and Request
18 for Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, and 51-88, as overbroad and unduly burdensome.
19 This is improper.
20 Generally, courts do not sustain an objection based on overbreadth unless the
21 question is totally unintelligible. (Rutter § 8:1084.) This is because a responding party
22 owes a duty to respond in good-faith as best he or she can. (Deyo, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 783.)
23 Wilson failed to identify how the requests are unintelligible, or how it interpreted the
24 request to respond, “to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.330(a); Rutter § 8:1047.) As
25 such, the requests are not totally unintelligible, this objection is defective, and fails on this
26 ground (Rutter § 8:1084 citing Deyo, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 783.)
27 If a request is so broad that it is “oppressive,” however, then an objection can be
28 stated on that ground. (Rutter § 8:1084.) To properly object based on “oppression,”
5
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 however, Wilson must detail the quantum of work required to provide the response.
2 (West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417 (“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by
3 evidence showing the quantum of work required.”); Rutter §8:1476 (“If you are going to
4 object in such a case [oppression], state the reasons for your objection and offer to permit
5 whatever inspection can be allowed under the circumstances.”).)
6 Further, “burden, alone, is not a ground for objection.” (West Pico, 56 Cal.2d at
7 417.) “Each of the sections grants the power to make such orders as justice requires, but
8 none of them so much as refers to ‘burden.’ This indicates a legislative acknowledgement
9 that some burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid
10 only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice. Hence, the trial court is not
11 empowered to sustain an objection in toto, when the same is predicated upon burden,
12 unless such is the only method of rendering substantial justice.” (West Pico, 56 Cal.2d at
13 417-418.) In considering whether the discovery is unduly burdensome, the court takes
14 into account “the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of
15 the issues at stake in the litigation.” (CCP § 2019.030(a)(2); People ex rel. Harris v. Sarpass
16 (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1552 (Sarpass).)
17 Here, however, Wilson failed to quantify the hours required to respond to
18 Connected Living’s requests, and has not shown that the effort needed to respond would
19 be “incommensurate with the result sought or “offered to permit whatever inspection
20 can be allowed under the circumstances.” (CCP § 2019.030(a)(2); West Pico, 56 Cal.2d at
21 417; Sarpass, 225 Cal.App.4th at 1552.) Wilson failed to demonstrate that responding to
22 Connected Living’s requests would result in burden oppression. (Id.) Thus, the objection
23 is defective, and requires a further response.
24 E. WILSON’S “PRIVILEGE/ WORK PRODUCT” OBJECTIONS ARE
25 MERITLESS.
26 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1,
27 11.2, 17.1, 50.1 – 50.6, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187,
28 202-210, 213-269, Requests for Admission numbers 1-15, 47-55, 57-81, and Request
6
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 for Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, 51-88, based on the attorney-client privilege and
2 the attorney work-product privilege. This is insufficient.
3 Generally, information is not privileged simply because it is known by the attorney.
4 (Zurich-American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Watts Industries, Inc.) (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th
5 1485, 1504.) Although the privilege applies to the disclosure of communications, it does
6 not apply to the underlying facts. (Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (Winterthur Swiss Ins.
7 Co.) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 109 (Huffy); Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indem.
8 Ins. Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004 (Aerojet); Rutter § 8:221.) “Knowledge that is
9 not otherwise privileged does not become so by being communicated to an attorney.
10 Obviously, a client may be examined on deposition or at trial as to the facts of the case,
11 whether or not he has communicated them to his attorney.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v.
12 Superior Court (Randall) (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 735 quoting Greyhound, 56 Cal.2d at 397;
13 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (Mireskandari) (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th
14 1214, 1226.)
15 Similarly, the protection for work product covers only “derivative” materials—i.e.,
16 materials created by or derived from an attorney’s work on behalf of a client that reflect
17 the attorney’s evaluation or interpretation of the law or the facts. (Mack v. Superior Court
18 (California) (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10; Rutter § 8:219.) “Non-derivative” materials,
19 however, are those that are only evidentiary in character, and are not protected even if
20 attorney “work” went into obtaining the materials. (Id.)
21 Similarly, the existence of a document containing privileged information is not
22 privileged. (Mitchell v. Superior Court (Shell Oil Company) (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 601-602.)
23 Likewise, the identity of fact witnesses is not subject to the attorney-client or work-
24 product privilege. (Huffy, 112 Cal.App.4th 97; Aerojet, 18 Cal.App.4th at 1004.)
25 Finally, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240 requires a claim of privilege to be
26 supported by (1) clearly identifying the privilege claimed, (2) clearly setting for the extent
27 of the objection, (3) the date that that the document was filed, published, received, and
28
7
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 sent, (4) all recipients of the document, and (5) providing other sufficient factual
2 information to evaluate that claim, including a privilege log.
3 Here, Wilson appears to be improperly asserting these privileges to withhold
4 substantive information and documents. This position is unsupported by law. Further,
5 Wilson failed to provide a privilege log, which deprived Connected Living of the ability to
6 adequately review these responses. Thus, the objection is defective, and requires a
7 further response.
8 F. THE “EQUALLY AVAILABLE” OBJECTIONS ARE MERTILESS.
9 Wilson objected to Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16 based on the “equal
10 availability” of the information.” This is misguided.
11 Ordinarily it is not a ground for objection to an interrogatory that the answer is
12 known to the party who seeks the information. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court
13 (Susana Knolls Mutual Water Co.) (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54, fn. 6 (Alpine) citing Singer,
14 54 Cal.2d at 324.) It is frequently important for an interrogating party to compel his
15 adversary to admit a known fact for the purpose of preventing him from later shifting his
16 ground. (Alpine, 259 Cal.App.2d at 54, fn. 6 citing Durst v. Superior Court (Lumbermans
17 Mutual Casualty Co.) (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460, 466.)
18 Instead, each answer in response to an interrogatory must be “as complete and
19 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”
20 (CCP § 2030.220(a) (emphasis added); Liberty Mutual, 163 Cal.App.4th at 1103; Deyo, 84
21 Cal.App.3d at 783; Scheiding, 69 Cal.App.4th at 76; Chodos, 215 Cal.App.2d at 322; Rutter
22 § 8:1047.) Wilson, however, failed to do so. Thus, the objection is defective, and requires
23 a further response.
24 G. THE “PRIVACY” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS.
25 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s discovery based on the right to privacy. The
26 right to privacy is qualified, however, and not absolute like a claim of privilege. (Britt v.
27 Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856 (Britt); Rutter,
28
8
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 § 8:294.) In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the
2 need for discovery. (Id.)
3 A party opposing discovery based on purported invasion of privacy must establish
4 (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
5 circumstances, and (3) conduct by the requesting party constituting a serious invasion of
6 privacy. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. Superior Court (Zieminski) (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 443,
7 449 (TBG).) Disclosure may be ordered if a “compelling public interest” would be served.
8 (Britt, 20 Cal.3d at 855-856.) Significantly, when ruling on a privacy objection in a discovery
9 motion, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Court should “impose
10 partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery.” (Valley Bank of Nev. Superior
11 Court (Barkett) (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 658.)
12 Here, the purported privacy interest relates to felony criminal convictions for
13 Wilson. Evidence Code section 210 specifically provides that “relevant evidence”
14 includes “evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness…” As such, this information is
15 relevant to the present action. Moreover, there does not appear to be any basis to allege
16 that there is any privacy interest in an individual’s criminal history, because the issue is a
17 matter of public record.
18 H. SUMMARY.
19 As detailed above, Wilson cannot satisfy his burden of supporting his objections to
20 the requested discovery. (San Diego, 58 Cal.2d at 199; Guess, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98; Rutter
21 § 8:814.) As Wilson cannot satisfy his burden of supporting his objections, he must
22 provide further responses in order to comply with his obligations under the Civil Discovery
23 Act.
24 II. WILSON’S RESPONSES ARE INCOMPLETE.
25 As shown by the response provided, Wilson intentionally refused to provide all
26 responsive information. This is improper.
27 Each answer in the responses must be “as complete and straightforward as the
28 information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a);
9
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 Rutter § 8:1047 (emphasis added).) It is a misuse of the discovery process to make an
2 evasive response to discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(f); see Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL
3 Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1103 (Liberty Mutual).) Where the
4 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information
5 sought is improper. (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783; Rutter § 8:1048.1.) “If an interrogatory
6 cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Id.
7 (emphasis added).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
8 truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69
9 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 (Scheiding) (emphasis added).) This is because a responding party
10 owes a duty to respond in good faith as best he or she can. (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783.)
11 Further, the Civil Discovery Act requires the responding party to undertake a “good-faith”
12 investigation of sources reasonably available to them in formulating answers to Special
13 Interrogatories. (CCP § 2033.220(c); Chodos v. Superior Court (Lowe) (1963) 215
14 Cal.App.2d 318, 322 (Chodos).) It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
15 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Id.)
16 Here, however, Wilson responded by noting that he would not provide a complete
17 response. This is insufficient. Wilson’s responses are inadequate, and require a further
18 response.
19
20 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1:
21 For each agreement alleged in the pleadings:
22 a. Identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state
23 the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the
24 DOCUMENT;
25 b. State each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, ADDRESS, and
26 telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date
27 that part of the agreement was made;
28 c. Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in
10
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of
2 each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT;
3 d. Identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement,
4 and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each
5 PERSON who has the DOCUMENT;
6 e. State each modification not in writing, the date, and the name, ADDRESS,
7 and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and
8 the date the modification was made;
9 f. Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement
10 not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone
11 number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT.
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1:
13 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Boiler
14 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge
15 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of
16 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to
17 Plaintiff.
18 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM
19 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1 SHOULD ISSUE:
20 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely
21 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form
22 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue.
23 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and
24 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here.
25
26 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2:
27 Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each
28 breach describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of
11
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 the agreement.
2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2:
3 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler
4 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge
5 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of
6 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to
7 Plaintiff.
8
9 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2 SHOULD ISSUE:
11 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely
12 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form
13 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue.
14 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and
15 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here.
16
17 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.3:
18 Was performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings excused? If so,
19 identify each agreement excused and state why performance was excused.
20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 50.3:
21 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler
22 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge
23 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of
24 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to
25 Plaintiff.
26
27
28
12
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.3 SHOULD ISSUE:
3 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely
4 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form
5 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue.
6 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and
7 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here.
8
9 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4:
10 Was any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement,
11 release, accord and satisfaction, or novation? If so, identify each agreement terminated,
12 the date of termination, and the basis of termination.
13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4:
14 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler
15 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge
16 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of
17 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to
18 Plaintiff.
19 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM
20 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4 SHOULD ISSUE:
21 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely
22 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form
23 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue.
24 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and
25 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here.
26
27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5:
28 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforceable? If so, identify each
13
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 unenforceable agreement and state why it is unenforceable.
2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5:
3 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler
4 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge
5 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of
6 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to
7 Plaintiff.
8 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM
9 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5 SHOULD ISSUE:
10 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely
11 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form
12 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue.
13 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and
14 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here.
15
16 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6:
17 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each
18 ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous.
19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6:
20 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler
21 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge
22 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of
23 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to
24 Plaintiff.
25
26
27
28
14
CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT
1 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6 SHOULD ISSUE:
3 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely
4 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form
5 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue.
6 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and
7 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here.
8
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
10 State the facts that show Connected Living [herein “NCCL”] had a duty to
11 implement a plan of care for Anthony Wilson’s pre-existing MEDICAL CONDITION [as
12 used herein the term “MEDICAL CONDITION” shall mean Anthony Wilson was
13 unresponsive, nonverbal and non-ambulatory due to a 2015 heart attack that deprived
14 him of oxygen for over thirty (+30) minutes].
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
16 Plaintiff objects to these interrogatories as unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to
17 these interrogatories as vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad and beyond the scope
18 of permissible discovery (not relevant to the subject matter or likely to lead to the
19 discovery of admissible evidence). Plaintiff also objects insofar as these interrogatories
20 seek information generated from expert review of medical records regarding Plaintiff; the
21 substance of this review is privileged attorney work product. Plaintiff also objects insofar
22 as these interrogatories seek information regarding Plaintiff's care which is contained in
23 records on file with asking defendant, in asking defendant's possession, or otherwise
24 equally available to asking defendant. In addition, plaintiff objects insofar as these
25 interrogatories seek information contained in confidential communications between
26 plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney, information protected by the attorney-client privilege, and
27 information generated by plaintiff's attorney in the course of investigating this case other
28 than independently generated written or recorded witness statements (which plaintiff
Preview
Electronically Filed 1 KROGH & DECKER, LLP 12/29/2020 2:30 PM ELI UNDERWOOD, SBN 267665 Superior Court of California 2 JASMINE PEREZ, SBN 327147 County of Stanislaus 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 700 Clerk of the Court 3 Sacramento, California 95814 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy Telephone: 916.498.9000 4 Facsimile: 916.498.9005 5 Attorneys for Defendant Connected Living 6 7 8 THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 STANISLAUS COUNTY—UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 ANTHONY WILSON, by and through his ) CASE NO: CV-19-003247 Conservator, MONICA WILSON ) 11 ) ASSIGNED TO: Plaintiff, ) THE HON. JOHN D. FREELAND 12 ) vs. ) CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE 13 ) STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION CONNECTED LIVING, DOCTORS MEDICAL) TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER 14 CENTER, KINDRED HOSPITAL, SAN) RESPONSES, AND FOR FRANCISCO BAY AREA and DOES 1) REIMBURSEMENT/ SANCTIONS 15 through 50, inclusive, ) ) FILED: JUNE 10, 2019 16 Respondent. ) ) HEARING: JAN. 27, 2021 17 ) TIME: 8:30 A.M. ) DEPT: 23 18 ) ) TRIAL: AUG. 3, 2021 19 20 In accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(5), 21 Defendant Connected Living (“Connected Living”) respectfully submits this Separate 22 Statement of Items in Dispute in support of its Motion to Compel Plaintiff Anthony Wilon’s 23 (“Wilson”) compliance with Form Interrogatory Numbers 2.8, 50.1-50.6, Special 24 Interrogatory numbers 2-18, 23, 31-39, 42-100, 102, 107, 114-187, 202-210, 213-269, 25 Requests for Admission numbers 2, 4-6, 47-55 and 57-88, and Requests for Production 26 numbers 1-17, 22, 30-48, and 51-88. 27 /// 28 1 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 SEPARATE STATEMENT 2 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 3 FORM INTERROGATORY NO 2.8: 4 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: 5 a. The city and state where you were convicted; 6 b. The date of conviction; 7 c. The offense; and 8 d. The court and case number. 9 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8: 10 Objection; vague, ambiguous, irrelevant, and overbroad as to time, and beyond the 11 scope of permissible discovery (not relevant to the subject matter or likely to lead to the 12 discovery of admissible evidence). Plaintiff responds that Plaintiff has a criminal history in 13 San Joaquin County related to the possession and sale of illegal drugs. 14 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8 SHOULD ISSUE: 16 I. WILSON’S OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS. 17 Where the moving party demonstrates good cause for the production, then the 18 responding party bears the burden of justifying any objections. (San Diego Professional 19 Ass’n v. Superior Court (Paderewski, Mitchell, Dean & Assoc.) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 194, 199 20 (San Diego); Kirkland v. Superior Court (Guess?) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 (Guess); 21 Rutter § 8:1496.) Similarly, the burden is on the party opposing discovery to demonstrate 22 that disclosure is inappropriate. (Babcock v. Superior Court (DiGiovanni) (1994) 29 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 727-728 (Babcock).) Here, Wilson cannot satisfy his burden as detailed 24 below. 25 A. THE “LEGAL CONCLUSION/ OPINION” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS. 26 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory number 17.1, 27 Requests for Admission numbers 47 – 55 and 57 – 81, and Request for Production 28 2 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 numbers 1 – 38, 41 – 48, and 51 – 88, based on the argument that the request calls for 2 a “legal opinion or conclusion” or “legal causation.” This is not well-taken. 3 An objection that alleges that a request for admission “calls for opinion or 4 conclusion” is improper. (Hillman v. Stults (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 848, 885; Bloxham v. 5 Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 752; Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 6 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488; Rutter § 8:1079.) This, this objection fails, and a further response 7 is required. 8 B. THE “VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS. 9 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1, 10 11.2, 50.1-50.6, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187, 202-210, 11 and 213-269, Requests for Admission numbers 47-55, 57-81, and Request for 12 Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, and 51 – 88 as vague and ambiguous. This is 13 inappropriate. 14 Initially, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (e), does not require 15 the definition of every word in a discovery request. Instead, the inclusion of commonplace 16 words or phrases should be interpreted according to their everyday uses. This is because 17 the answering party owes a duty to respond in good-faith as best as she can. (CCP § 18 2030.220(a); Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo); Rutter § 8:1047.) If 19 only a part of a request is objectionable, then the responding party must answer the 20 remainder of the interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.240(a).) 21 Generally, it is improper to object to an interrogatory based on ambiguity, 22 confusion, or vagueness unless the question is totally unintelligible and the responding 23 party cannot in good-faith frame an intelligent reply. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 24 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 (Deyo); Cembrook v. Superior Court (Sterling Drug, Inc.) (1961) 56 25 Cal.2d 423, 428; Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281 [Court found 26 “vague and ambiguous” objection to the term “economic damages” to be 27 “preposterous” and “nitpicking,” and subject to sanctions]; Rutter §§ 8:1084, 8:1358.) 28 3 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 Here, Wilson never alleges that any of the terms are “totally unintelligible,” never 2 identifies how the requests are unintelligible, or how he interpreted the requests in order 3 to respond “to the extent possible.” (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783; Rutter § 8:1084.) Wilson 4 failed to properly object. Instead, these commonplace words or phrases should be 5 interpreted according to their common use. Thus, this objection fails, and a further 6 response is required. 7 C. WILSON’S “RELEVANCE” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS. 8 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1, 9 11.2, 17.1, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187, 202-210, and 10 213-269, and Requests for Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, and 51-88. This is 11 improper. 12 Generally, “relevancy” is liberally construed with all doubts resolved in favor of 13 permitting discovery. (Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (Duke) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 14 173 (PT&T).) The party seeking discovery has a right to substantial leeway. (Norton v. 15 Superior Court (Ein) (1994) 24 Cal.App.4t 1750, 1761.) 16 Under the Civil Discovery Act, a party may seek information on any matter 17 “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action” and “reasonably calculated 18 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP §§ 2017.010, 2030.010(a); West 19 Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance Loans) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 416 20 (West Pico); Kalaba v. Gray (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 1416, 1417 (Kalaba); Rutter § 8:982.) 21 The phrase “subject matter,” however, is broader than relevancy of the issues. 22 (Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rios) (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392; 23 Rutter § 8:66.) Discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other 24 evidence that would be admissible at trial. (Lipton v. Superior Court (Lawyers’ Mut. Ins. 25 Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Rutter § 8:67.) 26 Moreover, “[d]iscovery necessarily serves the function of ‘testing the pleadings,’ 27 i.e., enabling a party to determine what his opponent’s contentions are and what facts he 28 relies upon to support his contentions.” (Burke v. Superior Court (Fidelity & Deposit Co.) 4 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 282 (Burke) citing Singer v. Superior Court (Parr-Richmond Terminal 2 Co.) (1960) 54 Cal.2d 318, 323-325 (Singer); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Superior 3 Court (Pacific Indemn. Group) (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 722, 728.) Thus, the “[l]iberal use of 4 interrogatories for the purpose of clarifying and narrowing the issues made by the 5 pleadings should be permitted and encouraged by the courts.” (Burke, 71 Cal.2d at 281 6 (emphasis added).) This is because discovery is liberally permitted. (Greyhound, 56 Cal.2d 7 at 383-384.) 8 Here, the requests at issue relate to the allegations of the operative Complaint. 9 That is, these requests may fairly be described as “reasonably related to a legitimate 10 discovery need.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm’s, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 11 431 (Obregon).) These requests are proper. The objection is improper, and requires a 12 further response. 13 D. WILSON’S “OVERBREADTH/ BURDEN” OBJECTIONS ARE 14 MERITLESS. 15 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1, 16 11.2, 17.1, 50.1-50.6, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187, 17 202-210, 213-269, Requests for Admission numbers 1-15, 47-55, 57-81, and Request 18 for Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, and 51-88, as overbroad and unduly burdensome. 19 This is improper. 20 Generally, courts do not sustain an objection based on overbreadth unless the 21 question is totally unintelligible. (Rutter § 8:1084.) This is because a responding party 22 owes a duty to respond in good-faith as best he or she can. (Deyo, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 783.) 23 Wilson failed to identify how the requests are unintelligible, or how it interpreted the 24 request to respond, “to the extent possible.” (CCP § 2030.330(a); Rutter § 8:1047.) As 25 such, the requests are not totally unintelligible, this objection is defective, and fails on this 26 ground (Rutter § 8:1084 citing Deyo, 84 Cal. App. 3d at 783.) 27 If a request is so broad that it is “oppressive,” however, then an objection can be 28 stated on that ground. (Rutter § 8:1084.) To properly object based on “oppression,” 5 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 however, Wilson must detail the quantum of work required to provide the response. 2 (West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417 (“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by 3 evidence showing the quantum of work required.”); Rutter §8:1476 (“If you are going to 4 object in such a case [oppression], state the reasons for your objection and offer to permit 5 whatever inspection can be allowed under the circumstances.”).) 6 Further, “burden, alone, is not a ground for objection.” (West Pico, 56 Cal.2d at 7 417.) “Each of the sections grants the power to make such orders as justice requires, but 8 none of them so much as refers to ‘burden.’ This indicates a legislative acknowledgement 9 that some burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid 10 only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice. Hence, the trial court is not 11 empowered to sustain an objection in toto, when the same is predicated upon burden, 12 unless such is the only method of rendering substantial justice.” (West Pico, 56 Cal.2d at 13 417-418.) In considering whether the discovery is unduly burdensome, the court takes 14 into account “the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of 15 the issues at stake in the litigation.” (CCP § 2019.030(a)(2); People ex rel. Harris v. Sarpass 16 (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1552 (Sarpass).) 17 Here, however, Wilson failed to quantify the hours required to respond to 18 Connected Living’s requests, and has not shown that the effort needed to respond would 19 be “incommensurate with the result sought or “offered to permit whatever inspection 20 can be allowed under the circumstances.” (CCP § 2019.030(a)(2); West Pico, 56 Cal.2d at 21 417; Sarpass, 225 Cal.App.4th at 1552.) Wilson failed to demonstrate that responding to 22 Connected Living’s requests would result in burden oppression. (Id.) Thus, the objection 23 is defective, and requires a further response. 24 E. WILSON’S “PRIVILEGE/ WORK PRODUCT” OBJECTIONS ARE 25 MERITLESS. 26 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s Form Interrogatory numbers 2.8, 11.1, 27 11.2, 17.1, 50.1 – 50.6, Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16, 31-39, 42-122, 132-187, 28 202-210, 213-269, Requests for Admission numbers 1-15, 47-55, 57-81, and Request 6 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 for Production numbers 1-38, 41-48, 51-88, based on the attorney-client privilege and 2 the attorney work-product privilege. This is insufficient. 3 Generally, information is not privileged simply because it is known by the attorney. 4 (Zurich-American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Watts Industries, Inc.) (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 5 1485, 1504.) Although the privilege applies to the disclosure of communications, it does 6 not apply to the underlying facts. (Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (Winterthur Swiss Ins. 7 Co.) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 109 (Huffy); Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indem. 8 Ins. Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004 (Aerojet); Rutter § 8:221.) “Knowledge that is 9 not otherwise privileged does not become so by being communicated to an attorney. 10 Obviously, a client may be examined on deposition or at trial as to the facts of the case, 11 whether or not he has communicated them to his attorney.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. 12 Superior Court (Randall) (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 735 quoting Greyhound, 56 Cal.2d at 397; 13 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (Mireskandari) (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 14 1214, 1226.) 15 Similarly, the protection for work product covers only “derivative” materials—i.e., 16 materials created by or derived from an attorney’s work on behalf of a client that reflect 17 the attorney’s evaluation or interpretation of the law or the facts. (Mack v. Superior Court 18 (California) (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10; Rutter § 8:219.) “Non-derivative” materials, 19 however, are those that are only evidentiary in character, and are not protected even if 20 attorney “work” went into obtaining the materials. (Id.) 21 Similarly, the existence of a document containing privileged information is not 22 privileged. (Mitchell v. Superior Court (Shell Oil Company) (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 601-602.) 23 Likewise, the identity of fact witnesses is not subject to the attorney-client or work- 24 product privilege. (Huffy, 112 Cal.App.4th 97; Aerojet, 18 Cal.App.4th at 1004.) 25 Finally, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240 requires a claim of privilege to be 26 supported by (1) clearly identifying the privilege claimed, (2) clearly setting for the extent 27 of the objection, (3) the date that that the document was filed, published, received, and 28 7 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 sent, (4) all recipients of the document, and (5) providing other sufficient factual 2 information to evaluate that claim, including a privilege log. 3 Here, Wilson appears to be improperly asserting these privileges to withhold 4 substantive information and documents. This position is unsupported by law. Further, 5 Wilson failed to provide a privilege log, which deprived Connected Living of the ability to 6 adequately review these responses. Thus, the objection is defective, and requires a 7 further response. 8 F. THE “EQUALLY AVAILABLE” OBJECTIONS ARE MERTILESS. 9 Wilson objected to Special Interrogatory numbers 2-16 based on the “equal 10 availability” of the information.” This is misguided. 11 Ordinarily it is not a ground for objection to an interrogatory that the answer is 12 known to the party who seeks the information. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court 13 (Susana Knolls Mutual Water Co.) (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54, fn. 6 (Alpine) citing Singer, 14 54 Cal.2d at 324.) It is frequently important for an interrogating party to compel his 15 adversary to admit a known fact for the purpose of preventing him from later shifting his 16 ground. (Alpine, 259 Cal.App.2d at 54, fn. 6 citing Durst v. Superior Court (Lumbermans 17 Mutual Casualty Co.) (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460, 466.) 18 Instead, each answer in response to an interrogatory must be “as complete and 19 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” 20 (CCP § 2030.220(a) (emphasis added); Liberty Mutual, 163 Cal.App.4th at 1103; Deyo, 84 21 Cal.App.3d at 783; Scheiding, 69 Cal.App.4th at 76; Chodos, 215 Cal.App.2d at 322; Rutter 22 § 8:1047.) Wilson, however, failed to do so. Thus, the objection is defective, and requires 23 a further response. 24 G. THE “PRIVACY” OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS. 25 Wilson objected to Connected Living’s discovery based on the right to privacy. The 26 right to privacy is qualified, however, and not absolute like a claim of privilege. (Britt v. 27 Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856 (Britt); Rutter, 28 8 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 § 8:294.) In each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the 2 need for discovery. (Id.) 3 A party opposing discovery based on purported invasion of privacy must establish 4 (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the 5 circumstances, and (3) conduct by the requesting party constituting a serious invasion of 6 privacy. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. Superior Court (Zieminski) (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 443, 7 449 (TBG).) Disclosure may be ordered if a “compelling public interest” would be served. 8 (Britt, 20 Cal.3d at 855-856.) Significantly, when ruling on a privacy objection in a discovery 9 motion, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Court should “impose 10 partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery.” (Valley Bank of Nev. Superior 11 Court (Barkett) (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 658.) 12 Here, the purported privacy interest relates to felony criminal convictions for 13 Wilson. Evidence Code section 210 specifically provides that “relevant evidence” 14 includes “evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness…” As such, this information is 15 relevant to the present action. Moreover, there does not appear to be any basis to allege 16 that there is any privacy interest in an individual’s criminal history, because the issue is a 17 matter of public record. 18 H. SUMMARY. 19 As detailed above, Wilson cannot satisfy his burden of supporting his objections to 20 the requested discovery. (San Diego, 58 Cal.2d at 199; Guess, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98; Rutter 21 § 8:814.) As Wilson cannot satisfy his burden of supporting his objections, he must 22 provide further responses in order to comply with his obligations under the Civil Discovery 23 Act. 24 II. WILSON’S RESPONSES ARE INCOMPLETE. 25 As shown by the response provided, Wilson intentionally refused to provide all 26 responsive information. This is improper. 27 Each answer in the responses must be “as complete and straightforward as the 28 information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a); 9 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 Rutter § 8:1047 (emphasis added).) It is a misuse of the discovery process to make an 2 evasive response to discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(f); see Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL 3 Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1103 (Liberty Mutual).) Where the 4 question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information 5 sought is improper. (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783; Rutter § 8:1048.1.) “If an interrogatory 6 cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Id. 7 (emphasis added).) “Parties must state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 8 truth in answering written interrogatories.” (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 9 Cal.App.4th 64, 76 (Scheiding) (emphasis added).) This is because a responding party 10 owes a duty to respond in good faith as best he or she can. (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 783.) 11 Further, the Civil Discovery Act requires the responding party to undertake a “good-faith” 12 investigation of sources reasonably available to them in formulating answers to Special 13 Interrogatories. (CCP § 2033.220(c); Chodos v. Superior Court (Lowe) (1963) 215 14 Cal.App.2d 318, 322 (Chodos).) It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary 15 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Id.) 16 Here, however, Wilson responded by noting that he would not provide a complete 17 response. This is insufficient. Wilson’s responses are inadequate, and require a further 18 response. 19 20 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1: 21 For each agreement alleged in the pleadings: 22 a. Identify each DOCUMENT that is part of the agreement and for each state 23 the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the 24 DOCUMENT; 25 b. State each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, ADDRESS, and 26 telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to that provision, and the date 27 that part of the agreement was made; 28 c. Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any part of the agreement not in 10 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of 2 each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; 3 d. Identify all DOCUMENTS that are part of any modification to the agreement, 4 and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each 5 PERSON who has the DOCUMENT; 6 e. State each modification not in writing, the date, and the name, ADDRESS, 7 and telephone number of each PERSON agreeing to the modification, and 8 the date the modification was made; 9 f. Identify all DOCUMENTS that evidence any modification of the agreement 10 not in writing and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone 11 number of each PERSON who has the DOCUMENT. 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1: 13 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Boiler 14 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge 15 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of 16 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to 17 Plaintiff. 18 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.1 SHOULD ISSUE: 20 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely 21 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form 22 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue. 23 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and 24 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here. 25 26 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2: 27 Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each 28 breach describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of 11 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 the agreement. 2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2: 3 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler 4 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge 5 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of 6 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to 7 Plaintiff. 8 9 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.2 SHOULD ISSUE: 11 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely 12 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form 13 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue. 14 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and 15 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here. 16 17 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.3: 18 Was performance of any agreement alleged in the pleadings excused? If so, 19 identify each agreement excused and state why performance was excused. 20 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO 50.3: 21 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler 22 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge 23 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of 24 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to 25 Plaintiff. 26 27 28 12 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.3 SHOULD ISSUE: 3 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely 4 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form 5 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue. 6 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and 7 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here. 8 9 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4: 10 Was any agreement alleged in the pleadings terminated by mutual agreement, 11 release, accord and satisfaction, or novation? If so, identify each agreement terminated, 12 the date of termination, and the basis of termination. 13 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4: 14 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler 15 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge 16 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of 17 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to 18 Plaintiff. 19 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.4 SHOULD ISSUE: 21 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely 22 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form 23 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue. 24 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and 25 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here. 26 27 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5: 28 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings unenforceable? If so, identify each 13 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 unenforceable agreement and state why it is unenforceable. 2 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5: 3 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler 4 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge 5 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of 6 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to 7 Plaintiff. 8 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.5 SHOULD ISSUE: 10 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely 11 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form 12 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue. 13 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and 14 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here. 15 16 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6: 17 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each 18 ambiguous agreement and state why it is ambiguous. 19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6: 20 This interrogatory is objected to as being overbraod, vague, ambiguous, Bioler 21 plate, calling for a legal opinion or conclusion, and violative of the attorny client/priviledge 22 work product doctrine. Plaintiff respons to that while Plaintiff is not alleging a breach of 23 contract cause of action, Defendants did fail to provide medical care as promised to 24 Plaintiff. 25 26 27 28 14 CONNECTED LIVING’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL WILSON’S FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR SANCTIONS/ REIMBURSEMENT 1 REASON WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6 SHOULD ISSUE: 3 The Propounding Party wholly incorporates by reference, as though completely 4 stated here, the Reason Why an Order Compelling a Further Response to Form 5 Interrogatory 2.8 should issue. 6 Like Interrogatory Number 2.8, the Responding Party failed to provide a full and 7 complete response. Thus, a further response is required here. 8 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 10 State the facts that show Connected Living [herein “NCCL”] had a duty to 11 implement a plan of care for Anthony Wilson’s pre-existing MEDICAL CONDITION [as 12 used herein the term “MEDICAL CONDITION” shall mean Anthony Wilson was 13 unresponsive, nonverbal and non-ambulatory due to a 2015 heart attack that deprived 14 him of oxygen for over thirty (+30) minutes]. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 16 Plaintiff objects to these interrogatories as unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to 17 these interrogatories as vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad and beyond the scope 18 of permissible discovery (not relevant to the subject matter or likely to lead to the 19 discovery of admissible evidence). Plaintiff also objects insofar as these interrogatories 20 seek information generated from expert review of medical records regarding Plaintiff; the 21 substance of this review is privileged attorney work product. Plaintiff also objects insofar 22 as these interrogatories seek information regarding Plaintiff's care which is contained in 23 records on file with asking defendant, in asking defendant's possession, or otherwise 24 equally available to asking defendant. In addition, plaintiff objects insofar as these 25 interrogatories seek information contained in confidential communications between 26 plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney, information protected by the attorney-client privilege, and 27 information generated by plaintiff's attorney in the course of investigating this case other 28 than independently generated written or recorded witness statements (which plaintiff