Preview
1
SKINNER LAW GROUP
WILL S. SKINNER | SBN 206031
2 skinner@skinnerlawgroup.com
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 1760
3 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 12/29/2020
818.710.7700 telephone
4 818.710.7701 fax
5
ARMBRECHT JACKSON LLP
6 SHERRI RICH GINGER | SBN 185321
srg@ajlaw.com
7 MARK B. ROBERTS | (Admitted pro hac vice)
mbr@ajlaw.com
8
RSA Tower, 27th Floor
9 11 North Water Street
Mobile, AL 36602
10 251.405.1300 telephone
251.432.6843 fax
11 Attorneys for Defendant
12 CONTINENTAL AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a CONTINENTAL MOTORS,
INC.
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
15 VALERIA ANSELMI, No.: 18-CIV-03641
16 Related/Consolidated Case No.: 19-CIV-03871
Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to Department 2
17 vs.
CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
18 ESTATE OF WILLIAM GOLDMAN, MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA
Deceased, DDLV, a California limited liability FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY
19 company, and DOES I through XX, Inclusive, RESPONSES
20 Defendants.
21 DDLV, LLC Hearing Date: January 6, 2021
Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.
22 Cross-Complainant, Department: 2
23 vs.
24 MATTITUCK SERVICES, INC.; CIRRUS
DESIGN CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL
25 MOTORS, INC.; WOODLAND AVIATION,
INC.; and MOES 1-20, Inclusive,
26
Cross-Defendants.
27
CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
28
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
SERRA FALK GOLDMAN, individually, as
1
personal representative of the Estate of
2 William Goldman, deceased, as personal
representative of the Estate of Marie G.,
3 deceased, and as guardian ad litem of minor,
George G.; and GEORGE G., a
4 minor, by and through his guardian ad litem,
5
Plaintiff,
6
vs.
7
MATTITUCK SERVICES, INC.; DDLV,
8 LLC; CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION;
CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.;
9
WOODLAND AVIATION, INC.; and DOES
10 1 through 50,
11 Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
1 CONTINENTAL AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S REPLY IN
2 SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN
3
4 I. Continental has reasonably attempted to informally resolve the subject discovery
5 dispute.
6 Continental served the written discovery at issue in this motion1 to Plaintiff Serra Falk
7 Goldman (in her multiple capacities) on July 15, 2020. This discovery asks Plaintiffs to provide
8 the factual basis for their claims in this matter. Because Plaintiffs’ responses to this discovery
9 failed to provide this basic information, and contained a number of other deficiencies,
10 Continental was forced to initiate “meet and confer” communications with Plaintiffs’ counsel in
11 an effort to resolve the dispute. As a result, Plaintiffs served amended discovery responses on
12 September 28, 2020.
13 These amended responses were likewise evasive and incomplete, however, and
14 Continental was required to engage in additional “meet and confer” communications with
15 Plaintiffs, requesting further supplementation of the subject responses to cure the outstanding
16 deficiencies. These additional efforts all proved unsuccessful as well, and Continental was
17 therefore forced to file this motion to compel on November 16, 2020, consistent with the 45-day
18 deadlines imposed by the Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c) and 2031.310(c), respectively. 2
19 Continental’s motion seeks to compel Plaintiffs to further respond to Special Interrogatory Nos.
20 1-11, and 13, Form Interrogatory No. 9.1, and Request for Production Nos. 1-10, 13-14, 18-27,
21
1
22 (1) Continental’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Serra Falk Goldman; (2)
Continental’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Serra Falk Goldman; and (3)
23 Continental’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff Serra Falk Goldman.
2
In accordance with Emergency Local Rule 3-103, Continental also requested an Informal
24 Discovery Conference with respect to this dispute. On December 19, 2020, Continental received
25 an email from the Law and Motion Department indicating that (a) there were no Informal
Discovery Conference dates available in December, (b) no hearings were being scheduled (at
26 that time) for 2021, and (c) the moving party was to re-schedule the hearing after assignment of
the Trial Judge. (See Ex. D). After this email was transmitted, and without any additional input
27 from Continental, the Court set Continental’s motion to compel for hearing on January 6, 2021.
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-1-
1 31, 33, 35, and 38, in order to address Plaintiffs’ continued failure to provide the basic
2 information allegedly supporting their liability and damages claims against Continental.
3 After Continental filed its motion to compel, on December 11, 2020, Plaintiff Serra Falk
4 Goldman served “Second Amended Responses”. (See Exhibits A-C). As described in more
5 detail below, however, these responses suffer from the same deficiencies as Plaintiffs’ prior
6 responses, and constitute a further example of Plaintiffs’ efforts to evade their duties and
7 responsibilities under the Discovery Code.
8 II. Plaintiffs’ discovery responses remain evasive and incomplete, and
9 their objections are without merit and/or too general.
10 As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Responses do not supplement, amend,
11 or otherwise address Special Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 or 13, or Request for Production Nos. 10,
12 13, 21, 24, 25, 31, or 38. Continental’s motion to compel should therefore be granted as to these
13 discovery requests for the reasons set forth in its motion, memorandum of points and authorities,
14 separate statement, and other supporting papers already on file with the Court.
15 Further, the discovery requests that are addressed in the Second Amended Responses are
16 still insufficient and fail to cure the deficiencies raised in Continental’s motion to compel. For
17 example, the Second Amended interrogatory answers still do not (a) state the amount of
18 Plaintiffs’ damages claims, (b) supply the factual basis on which these respective damages
19 claims are based, (c) confirm whether the referenced documents are all of the responsive
20 documents in Plaintiffs’ possession or control, or (d) disclose the nature or amount of any
21 income or earnings sufficient to purchase, fund, or maintain the family lifestyle, multi-million
22 dollar homes, and “lavish vacations” that Plaintiffs describe in response to Special Interrogatory
23 No. 1 (and reference in other answers). (See, e.g., Ex. A, pp. 3-7).
24 Similarly, the Second Amended Responses to Continental’s requests for production fail
25 to (a) confirm that Plaintiffs’ have fully complied with the requests, or (b) confirm that the
26 documents identified in each response are all of the responsive non-privileged documents in
27 Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. (See Ex. C). While Plaintiffs’ argue that they have
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-2-
1 satisfied the requirements of Code Civ. P. § 2031.210(a)(1) because their written responses state
2 they “will comply” to each request for production (see Response, p. 6), there is no legitimate
3 dispute that Plaintiffs are obligated to produce the documents and information that are currently
4 in their possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs cannot use the “will comply” language to
5 justify withholding the production of information available to them now, and/or assert that such
6 production will occur at some unspecified date in the future.
7 Similarly, Plaintiffs’ repeated statements that “discovery is ongoing,” and/or that they
8 “will continue producing documents as they become available” (see, e.g., Response, p. 6; Ex. A,
9 p. 6), have no application to Plaintiffs’ own records, or the information already in Plaintiffs’
10 own possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs are therefore not excused from producing this
11 information now, and their discovery responses (like their opposition to Continental’s motion to
12 compel) are deficient, because they fail to establish that Plaintiffs have in fact done so.
13 Moreover, the documents referenced in the Second Amended Responses (Bates labeled
14 Goldman-000416-000896) consist of credit card statements that are almost completely redacted.
15 No explanation whatsoever is provided as to what information has been omitted, why most of
16 the transactions on these statements appear to have been redacted, and/or why any such
17 redactions are allegedly permissible in the first place. As a result, the documents are effectively
18 incomprehensible and make it more difficult, not less, to understand the basis of Plaintiffs’
19 damages claims.
20 Finally, neither the documents that Plaintiffs have produced nor the written responses
21 themselves provide any information whatsoever concerning the source of the income used to
22 fund the “lavish” vacations and lifestyle that Plaintiffs have put at issue in this litigation and
23 identified as a basis for their claims of lost financial benefits. (See Exs. A-C). This information
24 is discoverable in wrongful death actions in California and elsewhere. See, e.g., Boeken v. Philip
25 Morris USA Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 992; Stathos v. Lemich (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 52;
26 Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (1983) 148 C.A.3d 512; Luther v. Dornack, 184 Minn.
27
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-3-
1 528, 229 N.W. 784 (1930); Phelps v. Winona & St. P. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 485, 35 N.W. 273
2 (1887); Shaber v. St. Paul, M & M Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 103, 9 N.W. 575 (1881).
3 While Plaintiffs assert that a “decedent’s income and assets are not relevant” in a
4 wrongful death action, the case they rely upon, Stathos v. Lemich (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 52,
5 deals with the question of whether such evidence is admissible into evidence at trial – not
6 whether it is discoverable in the first place. (See Response, pp. 6-7). Furthermore, the Third
7 District Court of Appeal answered the question of admissibility in the affirmative, holding in
8 Stathos that “evidence of the decedent’s assets at the time of his death was admissible as against
9 the [decedent’s] offspring” – who, like the Plaintiffs here, were making claims for lost future
10 financial benefits.3 213 Cal.App.2d at 56. Stathos, like the other authority cited by Continental,
11 therefore supports Continental’s position that it is entitled to discovery regarding the source of
12 any income or assets used to fund the lifestyle Plaintiffs have described and proffered as a basis
13 for their claims of lost financial benefits.
14 III. Conclusion.
15 In sum, Continental’s discovery simply seeks to discover the factual basis for Plaintiffs’
16 claims against it. Plaintiffs have failed to provide this information – including any evidence of
17 the source of income used to fund Plaintiffs’ “lavish” lifestyle prior to the accident – and
18 Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to avoid their responsibility to provide this information and/or
19 continue to provide responses that are evasive, incomplete, and noncommittal. Continental
20 accordingly requests that the Court grant its motion to compel.
21
22
23
3
Even Plaintiffs admit that there may be “[a]n exception” to their assertion that the decedent’s
24 income and assets are not relevant in a wrongful death action, “when heirs seek unsupportable
25 future benefits.” (Response, p. 7). Only Plaintiffs, however, have access to the documents and
information relevant to their damages claims. Accordingly, it is simply impossible for
26 Continental (or the Court) to determine what claims are “supportable” unless Plaintiffs produce
this information and provide complete responses to Continental’s damages discovery. Plaintiffs’
27 objections therefore fail according to their own reasoning.
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-4-
Dated: December 29, 2020
1
2
3
4
5
6 Will S. Skinner
7 and
ARMBRECHT JACKSON LLP
8 Sherri R. Ginger – SBN 185321
9 srg@ajlaw.com
Mark B. Roberts
10 mbr@ajlaw.com
RSA Tower, 27th Floor
11 11 North Water Street
Mobile, AL 36602
12 Telephone: 251-405-1300
13 Facsimile: 251-432-6843
14 Attorneys for Defendant
CONTINENTAL AEROSPACE
15 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-5-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business
2
address is 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 1760, Woodland Hills, California 91367. On December
3 29, 2020, I served the following documents: CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY
4 RESPONSES
5 I served the documents on the person(s) listed on the attached service list by the following means:
BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I personally delivered the documents to the person(s) at the
6 address(es) listed on the attached service list. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was
made to the attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package
7 clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the
office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was
8 made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not younger
than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening.
9
BY UNITED STATES MAIL. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed
10
to the persons at the addresses listed on the attached service list and (1) deposited the sealed envelope
11 with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepared, or (2) placed the envelope for
collection and mailing, following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s
12 practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence
is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
13 States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the documents in an enveloped or package provided by
an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed on the attached
15 service list. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a
regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
16
BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
17 transmission, I faxed the documents to the person(s) at the fax numbers listed on the attached service list.
No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record(s) of the fax transmission,
18 which I printed out is attached.
19 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic service addresses
20
listed on the attached service list.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
22 correct.
23
24
25 Daniel Martinez
26
27
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-1-
SERVICE LIST
1
2 Valeria Anselmi v. Estate of William Goldman, et al. (Case No. 18-CIV-03641)
Serra Falk Goldman, et al., v. Mattituck Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 19-CIV-03871)
3 Michael S. Danko, Esq. Attorneys For Plaintiffs
mdanko@dankolaw.com
4
Kristine Meredith, Esq.
5 kmeredith@dankolaw.com
DANKO MEREDITH
6 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145
Redwood City, CA 94065
7 650.453.3600 main
8 John R. Hanson Esq. Attorney For Defendant DDLV, LLC and
Mackenzie C. Foellmer Esq. Estate of William Goldman
9 WORTHE HANSON & WORTHE
1851 East First Street, 9th Floor
10 Santa Ana, CA 92705
Email: jhanson@whwlawcorp.com
11
Email: mfoellmer@whwlawcorp.com
12 Patrick E. Bradley, Esq.* Attorneys For Defendant Cirrus Design
pbradley@reedsmith.com Corporation
13 Greg Speier, Esq.*
gspeier@reedsmith.com
14 Catherine E. Kiernan, Esq.*
15 ckiernan@reedsmith.com
REED SMITH LLP
16 506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
Princeton, NJ 08540
17 609.987.0050 main
609.951.0824 fax
18
*PHV admission pending
19 And
Marilyn A. Moberg, Esq.
20 mmoberg@reedSmith.com
Brian P. Cadigan, Esq.
21 bcadigan@reedsmith.com
22 Monika L. Holser, Esq.
mholser@reedsmith.com
23 REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue,
24 Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
25
213.457.8000 main
26 213.457.8080 fax
And
27
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-2-
Jamie Knauer, Esq.
1
jknauer@reedsmith.com
2 REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street
3 Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
4 415.543.8700 main
5 415.391.8269 fax
6
Timothy J. Ryan, Esq. Attorneys For Defendant Woodland Aviation,
7 tryan@ryanlg.com Inc.
Rebekka R. Martorano, Esq.
8 rmartorano@ryanlg.com
9 THE RYAN LAW GROUP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2540
10 Sacramento, CA 95814
916.924.1912 main
11 Don Dowling, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Valeria Anselmi
12 ddowling@rosshackett.com
Jessica Perl, Esq.
13 jperl@rosshackett.com
ROSS, HACKETT, DOWLING,
14
VALENCIA & WALTI
15 600 El Camino Real, 2nd Floor
San Bruno, CA 94066
16 650.588.0367 main
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK
GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
-3-
Preview
1 SKINNER LAW GROUP WILL S. SKINNER | SBN 206031 2 skinner@skinnerlawgroup.com 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 1760 3 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 12/29/2020 818.710.7700 telephone 4 818.710.7701 fax 5 ARMBRECHT JACKSON LLP 6 SHERRI RICH GINGER | SBN 185321 srg@ajlaw.com 7 MARK B. ROBERTS | (Admitted pro hac vice) mbr@ajlaw.com 8 RSA Tower, 27th Floor 9 11 North Water Street Mobile, AL 36602 10 251.405.1300 telephone 251.432.6843 fax 11 Attorneys for Defendant 12 CONTINENTAL AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC. 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 14 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 15 VALERIA ANSELMI, No.: 18-CIV-03641 16 Related/Consolidated Case No.: 19-CIV-03871 Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to Department 2 17 vs. CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 18 ESTATE OF WILLIAM GOLDMAN, MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA Deceased, DDLV, a California limited liability FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY 19 company, and DOES I through XX, Inclusive, RESPONSES 20 Defendants. 21 DDLV, LLC Hearing Date: January 6, 2021 Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m. 22 Cross-Complainant, Department: 2 23 vs. 24 MATTITUCK SERVICES, INC.; CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL 25 MOTORS, INC.; WOODLAND AVIATION, INC.; and MOES 1-20, Inclusive, 26 Cross-Defendants. 27 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK 28 GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES SERRA FALK GOLDMAN, individually, as 1 personal representative of the Estate of 2 William Goldman, deceased, as personal representative of the Estate of Marie G., 3 deceased, and as guardian ad litem of minor, George G.; and GEORGE G., a 4 minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. 7 MATTITUCK SERVICES, INC.; DDLV, 8 LLC; CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.; 9 WOODLAND AVIATION, INC.; and DOES 10 1 through 50, 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES 1 CONTINENTAL AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S REPLY IN 2 SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN 3 4 I. Continental has reasonably attempted to informally resolve the subject discovery 5 dispute. 6 Continental served the written discovery at issue in this motion1 to Plaintiff Serra Falk 7 Goldman (in her multiple capacities) on July 15, 2020. This discovery asks Plaintiffs to provide 8 the factual basis for their claims in this matter. Because Plaintiffs’ responses to this discovery 9 failed to provide this basic information, and contained a number of other deficiencies, 10 Continental was forced to initiate “meet and confer” communications with Plaintiffs’ counsel in 11 an effort to resolve the dispute. As a result, Plaintiffs served amended discovery responses on 12 September 28, 2020. 13 These amended responses were likewise evasive and incomplete, however, and 14 Continental was required to engage in additional “meet and confer” communications with 15 Plaintiffs, requesting further supplementation of the subject responses to cure the outstanding 16 deficiencies. These additional efforts all proved unsuccessful as well, and Continental was 17 therefore forced to file this motion to compel on November 16, 2020, consistent with the 45-day 18 deadlines imposed by the Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c) and 2031.310(c), respectively. 2 19 Continental’s motion seeks to compel Plaintiffs to further respond to Special Interrogatory Nos. 20 1-11, and 13, Form Interrogatory No. 9.1, and Request for Production Nos. 1-10, 13-14, 18-27, 21 1 22 (1) Continental’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Serra Falk Goldman; (2) Continental’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Serra Falk Goldman; and (3) 23 Continental’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff Serra Falk Goldman. 2 In accordance with Emergency Local Rule 3-103, Continental also requested an Informal 24 Discovery Conference with respect to this dispute. On December 19, 2020, Continental received 25 an email from the Law and Motion Department indicating that (a) there were no Informal Discovery Conference dates available in December, (b) no hearings were being scheduled (at 26 that time) for 2021, and (c) the moving party was to re-schedule the hearing after assignment of the Trial Judge. (See Ex. D). After this email was transmitted, and without any additional input 27 from Continental, the Court set Continental’s motion to compel for hearing on January 6, 2021. 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -1- 1 31, 33, 35, and 38, in order to address Plaintiffs’ continued failure to provide the basic 2 information allegedly supporting their liability and damages claims against Continental. 3 After Continental filed its motion to compel, on December 11, 2020, Plaintiff Serra Falk 4 Goldman served “Second Amended Responses”. (See Exhibits A-C). As described in more 5 detail below, however, these responses suffer from the same deficiencies as Plaintiffs’ prior 6 responses, and constitute a further example of Plaintiffs’ efforts to evade their duties and 7 responsibilities under the Discovery Code. 8 II. Plaintiffs’ discovery responses remain evasive and incomplete, and 9 their objections are without merit and/or too general. 10 As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Responses do not supplement, amend, 11 or otherwise address Special Interrogatory Nos. 9-11 or 13, or Request for Production Nos. 10, 12 13, 21, 24, 25, 31, or 38. Continental’s motion to compel should therefore be granted as to these 13 discovery requests for the reasons set forth in its motion, memorandum of points and authorities, 14 separate statement, and other supporting papers already on file with the Court. 15 Further, the discovery requests that are addressed in the Second Amended Responses are 16 still insufficient and fail to cure the deficiencies raised in Continental’s motion to compel. For 17 example, the Second Amended interrogatory answers still do not (a) state the amount of 18 Plaintiffs’ damages claims, (b) supply the factual basis on which these respective damages 19 claims are based, (c) confirm whether the referenced documents are all of the responsive 20 documents in Plaintiffs’ possession or control, or (d) disclose the nature or amount of any 21 income or earnings sufficient to purchase, fund, or maintain the family lifestyle, multi-million 22 dollar homes, and “lavish vacations” that Plaintiffs describe in response to Special Interrogatory 23 No. 1 (and reference in other answers). (See, e.g., Ex. A, pp. 3-7). 24 Similarly, the Second Amended Responses to Continental’s requests for production fail 25 to (a) confirm that Plaintiffs’ have fully complied with the requests, or (b) confirm that the 26 documents identified in each response are all of the responsive non-privileged documents in 27 Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control. (See Ex. C). While Plaintiffs’ argue that they have 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -2- 1 satisfied the requirements of Code Civ. P. § 2031.210(a)(1) because their written responses state 2 they “will comply” to each request for production (see Response, p. 6), there is no legitimate 3 dispute that Plaintiffs are obligated to produce the documents and information that are currently 4 in their possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs cannot use the “will comply” language to 5 justify withholding the production of information available to them now, and/or assert that such 6 production will occur at some unspecified date in the future. 7 Similarly, Plaintiffs’ repeated statements that “discovery is ongoing,” and/or that they 8 “will continue producing documents as they become available” (see, e.g., Response, p. 6; Ex. A, 9 p. 6), have no application to Plaintiffs’ own records, or the information already in Plaintiffs’ 10 own possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs are therefore not excused from producing this 11 information now, and their discovery responses (like their opposition to Continental’s motion to 12 compel) are deficient, because they fail to establish that Plaintiffs have in fact done so. 13 Moreover, the documents referenced in the Second Amended Responses (Bates labeled 14 Goldman-000416-000896) consist of credit card statements that are almost completely redacted. 15 No explanation whatsoever is provided as to what information has been omitted, why most of 16 the transactions on these statements appear to have been redacted, and/or why any such 17 redactions are allegedly permissible in the first place. As a result, the documents are effectively 18 incomprehensible and make it more difficult, not less, to understand the basis of Plaintiffs’ 19 damages claims. 20 Finally, neither the documents that Plaintiffs have produced nor the written responses 21 themselves provide any information whatsoever concerning the source of the income used to 22 fund the “lavish” vacations and lifestyle that Plaintiffs have put at issue in this litigation and 23 identified as a basis for their claims of lost financial benefits. (See Exs. A-C). This information 24 is discoverable in wrongful death actions in California and elsewhere. See, e.g., Boeken v. Philip 25 Morris USA Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 992; Stathos v. Lemich (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 52; 26 Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (1983) 148 C.A.3d 512; Luther v. Dornack, 184 Minn. 27 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -3- 1 528, 229 N.W. 784 (1930); Phelps v. Winona & St. P. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 485, 35 N.W. 273 2 (1887); Shaber v. St. Paul, M & M Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 103, 9 N.W. 575 (1881). 3 While Plaintiffs assert that a “decedent’s income and assets are not relevant” in a 4 wrongful death action, the case they rely upon, Stathos v. Lemich (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 52, 5 deals with the question of whether such evidence is admissible into evidence at trial – not 6 whether it is discoverable in the first place. (See Response, pp. 6-7). Furthermore, the Third 7 District Court of Appeal answered the question of admissibility in the affirmative, holding in 8 Stathos that “evidence of the decedent’s assets at the time of his death was admissible as against 9 the [decedent’s] offspring” – who, like the Plaintiffs here, were making claims for lost future 10 financial benefits.3 213 Cal.App.2d at 56. Stathos, like the other authority cited by Continental, 11 therefore supports Continental’s position that it is entitled to discovery regarding the source of 12 any income or assets used to fund the lifestyle Plaintiffs have described and proffered as a basis 13 for their claims of lost financial benefits. 14 III. Conclusion. 15 In sum, Continental’s discovery simply seeks to discover the factual basis for Plaintiffs’ 16 claims against it. Plaintiffs have failed to provide this information – including any evidence of 17 the source of income used to fund Plaintiffs’ “lavish” lifestyle prior to the accident – and 18 Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to avoid their responsibility to provide this information and/or 19 continue to provide responses that are evasive, incomplete, and noncommittal. Continental 20 accordingly requests that the Court grant its motion to compel. 21 22 23 3 Even Plaintiffs admit that there may be “[a]n exception” to their assertion that the decedent’s 24 income and assets are not relevant in a wrongful death action, “when heirs seek unsupportable 25 future benefits.” (Response, p. 7). Only Plaintiffs, however, have access to the documents and information relevant to their damages claims. Accordingly, it is simply impossible for 26 Continental (or the Court) to determine what claims are “supportable” unless Plaintiffs produce this information and provide complete responses to Continental’s damages discovery. Plaintiffs’ 27 objections therefore fail according to their own reasoning. 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -4- Dated: December 29, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 Will S. Skinner 7 and ARMBRECHT JACKSON LLP 8 Sherri R. Ginger – SBN 185321 9 srg@ajlaw.com Mark B. Roberts 10 mbr@ajlaw.com RSA Tower, 27th Floor 11 11 North Water Street Mobile, AL 36602 12 Telephone: 251-405-1300 13 Facsimile: 251-432-6843 14 Attorneys for Defendant CONTINENTAL AEROSPACE 15 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -5- PROOF OF SERVICE 1 At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business 2 address is 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 1760, Woodland Hills, California 91367. On December 3 29, 2020, I served the following documents: CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY 4 RESPONSES 5 I served the documents on the person(s) listed on the attached service list by the following means: BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I personally delivered the documents to the person(s) at the 6 address(es) listed on the attached service list. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package 7 clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was 8 made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party’s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. 9 BY UNITED STATES MAIL. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed 10 to the persons at the addresses listed on the attached service list and (1) deposited the sealed envelope 11 with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepared, or (2) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s 12 practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United 13 States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. 14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY. I enclosed the documents in an enveloped or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed on the attached 15 service list. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 16 BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax 17 transmission, I faxed the documents to the person(s) at the fax numbers listed on the attached service list. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record(s) of the fax transmission, 18 which I printed out is attached. 19 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the electronic service addresses 20 listed on the attached service list. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and 22 correct. 23 24 25 Daniel Martinez 26 27 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -1- SERVICE LIST 1 2 Valeria Anselmi v. Estate of William Goldman, et al. (Case No. 18-CIV-03641) Serra Falk Goldman, et al., v. Mattituck Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 19-CIV-03871) 3 Michael S. Danko, Esq. Attorneys For Plaintiffs mdanko@dankolaw.com 4 Kristine Meredith, Esq. 5 kmeredith@dankolaw.com DANKO MEREDITH 6 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145 Redwood City, CA 94065 7 650.453.3600 main 8 John R. Hanson Esq. Attorney For Defendant DDLV, LLC and Mackenzie C. Foellmer Esq. Estate of William Goldman 9 WORTHE HANSON & WORTHE 1851 East First Street, 9th Floor 10 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Email: jhanson@whwlawcorp.com 11 Email: mfoellmer@whwlawcorp.com 12 Patrick E. Bradley, Esq.* Attorneys For Defendant Cirrus Design pbradley@reedsmith.com Corporation 13 Greg Speier, Esq.* gspeier@reedsmith.com 14 Catherine E. Kiernan, Esq.* 15 ckiernan@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP 16 506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 17 609.987.0050 main 609.951.0824 fax 18 *PHV admission pending 19 And Marilyn A. Moberg, Esq. 20 mmoberg@reedSmith.com Brian P. Cadigan, Esq. 21 bcadigan@reedsmith.com 22 Monika L. Holser, Esq. mholser@reedsmith.com 23 REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 24 Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 25 213.457.8000 main 26 213.457.8080 fax And 27 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -2- Jamie Knauer, Esq. 1 jknauer@reedsmith.com 2 REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street 3 Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 4 415.543.8700 main 5 415.391.8269 fax 6 Timothy J. Ryan, Esq. Attorneys For Defendant Woodland Aviation, 7 tryan@ryanlg.com Inc. Rebekka R. Martorano, Esq. 8 rmartorano@ryanlg.com 9 THE RYAN LAW GROUP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2540 10 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.924.1912 main 11 Don Dowling, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Valeria Anselmi 12 ddowling@rosshackett.com Jessica Perl, Esq. 13 jperl@rosshackett.com ROSS, HACKETT, DOWLING, 14 VALENCIA & WALTI 15 600 El Camino Real, 2nd Floor San Bruno, CA 94066 16 650.588.0367 main 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTINENTAL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SERRA FALK GOLDMAN TO FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES -3-