Preview
Bradley A. Post, Esq., SBN 127028
Sarah A. Omelas, Esq., SBN 258890 FELED
Claudia Aceves, Esq., SBN 294350
BORTON PETRINI, LLP Iz'unm A
201 Needham Street
~s so: 5h
Modesto, California 95354 c" 22M r}?mew? Eiii
‘
COURT
Tel: (209) 576-1701 GUHTY Of ST US
Fax: (209) 527-9753
Attorneysfor Defendants
Great Valley Realtors, Inc.,
Troy Wright and Audrey Goesch
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, Case No. 2018041
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT 0F
V.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION To COMPEL
GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, AUDREY PLAINTIFFS, To PROVIDE
GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES To (1)
GINA WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M AND PLAINTIFF, BILL BUNNELL’S
ASSOCIATES, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON
SALINAS, DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC
RESPONSES T0 FORM
INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, (2) PLAINTIFF,
50, inclusive, KYM BUNNELL’s RESPONSES To
FORM INTERROGATORIES (3)
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S BILL BUNNELL’s
RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES AND (4)
PLAINTIFF, KYM BUNNELL’S
RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES
Date: June 6, 2017
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept; 24
Judge: Roger M. Beauchesne
AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS [Filed concurrently with Defendants’ [Proposed]
Order and Defendants’ Motion to Compel]
27
///
28
1
h:\6 l 22 1 \7085
l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c,srogs.and.fro
gsseparate
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statemumdocx
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
The Interrogatories to which further answers and responses are requested are listed as
required by California Rule of Court 3.1345 as follows:
INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFF. BILL BUNNEL-L’S
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE):
As a preliminary matter, the Defendants note that due to the untimely nature of the B.
BUNNELL’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, he waived his right to raise any objections. See, e.g,
CCP
\DWVQ
Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36
Cal. App.4“‘ 393, 394 (1995).
FORM INTERROGATORY 7.1:
10
Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT?
11 I
If so, for each item of property:
12
(a) Describe the property;
13
(b) Describe the nature and location of the damage to the property;
14 how amount
(c) State the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and :he
15 was calculated; and
16 (d) If the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the
17 date of sale, and the sale price.
18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.1:
19 Please refer to the response given to Form Interrogatory #2.3 hereinabove.
20 When the Defendants referred to Form Interrogatory #23 as directed by the Plaintiff, the
21 response was:
Objection as to relevancy in that this is [sic] lawsuit does not involve a vehicle. Without
22
waiving said objection, yes Ihave a California Driver’s License.
23
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.1:
24
On December 15, 2015, Plaintiffs, BILL BUNNELL and KYM BUNNELL (wrongly
25
named in this action as Kim Bunnell), (hereinafter referred to as “B. BUNNELL” and K. BUNNELL,
26
respectively, and collectively as “Plaintiffs”) filed the original Complaint against Defendants, GREAT
27
VALLEY REALTORS INC., AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, GINA
28
2
22|\7085
h:\6l
1\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.5rogs‘andfro
gs.separale
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statementdocx
WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS,
DUNCAN LYONS, and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES. (Declaration of Sarah A. Omelas
submitted in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel, hereinafter “Omelas Decl.,” 11 2).
Subsequently, on April 4, 2016 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “FAC”) against,
alleging Breach of Contract; Breach of Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Concealment; Breach
of Duty to Disclose; Breach of Duty to Inspect and Disclose; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Negligence.
As against Defendants, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, AUDREY GOESCH, and TROY
\OOO\10\
WRIGHT (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), Plaintiffs alleged: Concealment and
Breach of Duty to Inspect and Disclose. (Omelas Decl., 113). Thereafter, on January 1, 2017 Defendants,
10 PREMIER VALLEY, INC. dba CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES and TAMI GOSSELIN
11 filed a Cross-Complaint against TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, DUNCAN
12 LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES for Indemnification. (Omelas Decl., fl 4).
13 This action stems from the Plaintiffs’ purchase of a home located at 2440 Kaslin Drive,
14 Modesto, California (the “Property”). B. BUNNELL claims significant damages t0 the Property based
15 on the discovery of mold in the Property directly after its purchase. This interrogatory specifically seeks
16 information relative to B. BUNNELL’s claim of property damage, and thus should be produced.
17 FORM INTERROGATORY 7.2:
18 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred to in
19 your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate or evaluation, state:
20 (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PRESON who prepared it and the date
prepared;
21
(b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared itand the date
22
prepared;
23
(c) The amount of damage stated.
24
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.2:
25
Please refer to the response given to Form Interrogatory #23 hereinabove.
26
When the Defendants referred to Form Interrogatory #23 as directed by the Plaintiff, the
27
response was:
28
3
h:\6122]\7085
l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.srogs.and.fro
gs.sepamtc
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statementdccx
Objection as to relevancy in that this is [sic] lawsuit does not involve a vehicle. Without
waiving said objection, yes I have a California Driver’s License.
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.2:
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
Interrogatory 7. 1
.”
Form Interrogatory Number 7.2 requests information as any estimate received as to any
\OOOVO‘N
alleged property damage. Once again, B. BUNNELL references the response provided for Interrogatory
Number 2.3, which is not responsive (as it is simply an objection and stating that B. BUNNELL holds a
California Driver’s License). Information relating to any estimates for repair is clearly relevant to the
10
action given that B. BUNNELL is claiming significant property damage. Finally, the Plaintiff waived
11
any right to place objections on this interrogatory due to the untimely nature of their responses. See, e.g,
12
CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36
13
Cal. App.4"‘ 393, 394 (1995). Thus, a funher response is appropriate as to Form Interrogatory Number
14
7.2.
15
FORM INTERROGATORY 7.3:
16 Has item of property in your answer 7.12 been repaired?
any referred to to interrogatory
l7 If so, for each item stated:
18 (a) The date repaired;
I
19 (b) A description of the repair;
20 (c) The repair cost;
21 (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who repaired it;
22 (e) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who pair for the repair.
23
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.3:
Please refer to the response given to Form Interrogatory #2.3 hereinabove.
24
When the Defendants referred to Form Interrogatory #23 as directed by the Plaintiff, the
25
response was:
26
Objection as to relevancy in that this is [sic] lawsuit does not involve a vehicle. Without
27
waiving said objection, yes I have a California Driver’s License.
28
4
h:\61221\7085
l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c‘srogsandfm
gs.sepamte
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statemenmocx
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 7.3:
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
Interrogatory 7.1.”
Form Interrogatory Number 7.3 requests information as any repairs made on any alleged
damaged property. Once again, B. BUNNELL references the response provided for Interrogatory
Number 2.3, which isnot responsive (as it issimply an objection and stating that B. BUNNELL holds a
California Driver’s License). Information relating to any estimates for repair is clearly relevant to the
action given that B. BUNNELL is claiming significant property damage. Finally, the Plaintiff waived
any right to place objections on this interrogatory due to the untimely nature of their responses. See, e.g,
10
CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36
11
Cal. App.4"' 393, 394 (1995). Thus, a further response is appropriate as to Form Interrogatory Number
12
7.2.
13
FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4:
14
State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was
15
calculated.
16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4:
17 We took draws which varied from month to month depending on business. Kym fell
18 behind on my billing because she wasn’t’ able to access my home office or my regular office (which
19 became a holding tank for our clothes and other personal belongs [sic].
20 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4:
21 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
22 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
Interrogatory 7.1.”
23
B. BUNNELL claims lost wages as part of his damages, and therefore must provide
24
25 information as to his average monthly income at the time of the incident. If he took monthly draws from
26 his company, he needs to provide information as to the amounts of the draws before and after the
27 incident to show any changes in the amount 0f income that he was able to take from his company. As
28
5
h:\61221\7085
l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.srogs,and.fro
gs.scparate
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statementdocx
such, Defendants request that B. BUNNELL be ordered to provide additional responses to this
interrogatory.
FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1:
LAAUJN
Are there any other damages that you attribute to the incident? If so, for each item of
damage state:
(a)The nature;
\OOOQQ
(b) The date if occurred;
(c) The amount;
10 (d) the name, address, and telephone of each person to whom an obligation was incurred.
11
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1:
12 Yes — please refer to the Excel Spreadsheet that lists the monetary damages, the overall
13
cost of expenses to us. I can explain anything in funher detail if you need it. We have receipts to
14
support the total expenses.
15
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1:
16
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
17
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
18
Interrogatory 7.1.”
19
For the response to Form Interrogatory Number 9.1, the Defendants were referred t0
20
review an excel spreadsheet. However, no such spreadsheet was annexed to the responses. Further,
21
even ifan excel spreadsheet was provided, the information in the spreadsheet needs to be verified under
22
23
oath by B. BUNNELL. As such, the Plaintiffs need to supplement to provide the responsive
24 information.
25 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2:
26 Do any documents support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in
27 interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, address, and telephone number of
28 the person who has each document.
6
h:\6l22l\7085
l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.5roy,and.fro
gs.sepamte FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
stalcmenmocx
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2:
Yes, receipts.
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2:
UIAWN
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
Interrogatory 7. 1
.”
Form Interrogatory Number 9.2 requested B. BUNNELL to provide information for each
\OOOVON
document that purports to show damages, and the identity of who has such documents in their
possession. B. BUNNELL simply responded “Yes, receipts.” However, the remainder of the
information requested in this interrogatory was not provided. As this information directly goes to B.
10
BUNNELL’s claims of damages, this information should be provided in a further response to this
11
Interrogatory.
12
FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6:
13
Was a report made by any person concerning the incident? If so, state:
14
(a) The name, title, identification number, and employer ofthe person who made the report;
15
(b) the date and type of report made;
16
(c) the name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the repon was made; and
17
(d) the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the original or a copy of the
18
report.
19
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6:
20 Yes, Steve Swenson, Contractor who removed mold and whose contact information
21 included hereinabove [sic]
22 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6:
23 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
24 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
Interrogatory 7.1
.”
25
26 For Form Interrogatory Number 12.6, B. BUNNELL failed to provide all the information
27
requested in that interrogatory. B. BUNNELL was asked to supplement, which he failed to do. B.
28
BUNNELL has identified the contractor who performed work on the property made a report relative to
7
h:\6122l\7085
1\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c,srogs.and.fro
gs.separate
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statemenmocx
the property, but all of the information should be provided so that the answer is full and complete.
Clearly, information relative to any reports prepared by a third-pany are relevant, and should be
appropriately identified by author and location.
FORM INTERROGATORY 14.1:
Do you or anyone acting on your behalf contend that any person involved in this incident
violated any statute, ordinance or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the
incident?
\OOOVO\M¢
If so, identify the name, address, and telephone number of each person and the statute,
ordinance, ore regulation that was violated.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 14.1:
Yes.
10
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 14.1:
11
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
12
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
13
Interrogatory 7.1.”
14
B. BUNNELL has failed to provide any information that would support his affirmative
15
response that there was a violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation, and that the violation was a
16 proximate cause of the incident. Simply stating “yes” fails to answer this specific interrogatory.
17 Therefore, a supplemental response is needed to provide the Defendants the requested information.
18 FORM INTERROGATORIES 50.1-50.6
19 No response was received whatsoever to Form Interrogatories 50.1-50.6. Therefore, the
20 Defendants request that B. BUNNELL be compelled to respond to these Interrogatories.
21 INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFF, KYM BUNNELL’S
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE):
22
As a preliminary matter, the Defendants note that due to the untimely nature of the K.
23
BUNNELL’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, she waived her right to raise any objections. See, e.g,
24
CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36
25
Cal. App.4"‘ 393, 394 (1995).
26
FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4:
27
State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated.
28
8
22 H7085
h:\6
l
l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c,srogs.and.fro
gsscparate
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statementdocx
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4:
We took draws which varied from month to month depending on business. Kym fell
behind on my billing because she wasn’t’ able to access my home office or my regular office (which
became a holding tank for our clothes and other personal belongs [sic].
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4:
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill
Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).”
Form Interrogatory Number 8.4 was answered as if B. BUNNELL was the responding
10
pany. It appears that this response is due to a copying and pasting error, and therefore requires r‘eview
11
to provide a response relative to K. BUNNELL. K. BUNNELL needs to provide a response from her
12
perspective as she has made a very significant claim of lost wages.
13
FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1:
14
Are there any other damages that you attribute to the incident? If so, for each item of
15
damage state:
16
(a) The nature;
17
(b) The date if occurred;
18
19 (c) The amount;
20 (d) the name, address, and telephone of each person to whom an obligation was incurred.
21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1:
22 Yes — please refer to the Excel Spreadsheet that lists the monetary damages, the overall
23
cost of expenses to us.
24
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1:
25
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
26
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
27 7.1”
Interrogatory in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill
28 Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 036).”
h:\6l 22 l\7085
l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c‘srogsandfro
gs‘sepamm
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statementdocx
For the response to Form Interrogatory Number 9.1, the Defendants were referred to
review an excel spreadsheet. However, no such spreadsheet was annexed to the responses. Further,
even if an excel spreadsheet was provided, the information in the spreadsheet needs to be verified under
oath by K. BUNNELL. As such, the Plaintiffs need to supplement to provide the responsive
information.
FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2:
Do any documents support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in
interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, address, and telephone number of
10 the person who has each document.
11 RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2:
12 Yes, receipts and profit & loss statements.
13
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2:
14 Defendants
For a procedural background as to this action, the incorporate herein by
15 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
16 Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill
17 Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).”
18 Form Interrogatory Number 9.2 requested K. BUNNELL to provide information for each
19 document that purports to show damages, and the identity of who has such documents in their
20 possession. K. BUNNELL simply responded “Yes, receipts and profit & loss statements.” However,
21 the remainder of the information requested in this interrogatory was not provided. As this information
directly goes to K. BUNNELL’S claims of damages, this information should be provided in a further
22
response to this Interrogatory.
23
FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6:
24
Was a report made by any person concerning the incident? If so, state:
25
(a) The name, title, identification number, and employer of the person who made the report;
26
(b) the date and type of report made;
27
(c) the name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the report was made; and
28
10
h:\61221\7085
l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.srogs,and,fro
gsseparate
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statementdocx
(d) the name, address, and telephohe number of each person who has the original or a copy of the
report.
RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY
ALAN
12.6:
Yes, Steve Swenson, Contractor who removed mold and whose contact information
included hereinabove; also, the insurance company(ies) probably made reports.
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6:
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
\OOOVO\UI
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill
Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).”
10
For Form Interrogatory Number 12.6, K. BUNNELL failed to provide all the information
11
requested in that interrogatory. K. BUNNELL was asked to supplement, which she failed to d0. K.
12
BUNNELL has identified the contractor who performed work on the property made a report relative to
13
the property, but all of the information should be provided so that the answer is fulland complete. Also,
14
reference was made to insurance company(ies) that may have made reports. However, full information
15
as to such company(ies) was not provided. Clearly, information relative to any reports prepared by a
16 third-party are relevant, and should be appropriately identified by author and location.
17 INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFF, BILL BUNNELL’S
RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET ONEL:
18
19 As a preliminary matter, the Defendants note that due to the untimely nature of the B.
20
BUNNELL’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, he waived his right to raise any objections. See, e.g,
CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36
21
Cal. App.4‘“ 393, 394 (1995).
22
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
23
1. “YOU” and “YOUR” refers to PLAINTIFF, BILL BUNNELL, his agents,
24
attomeys, representatives, partners and anyone else acting on his behalf, and any PERSON(s) for whom
25
he acted as agent or representative.
26
2. “BILL BUNNELL”- refers to Plaintiff, BILL BUNNELL.
27
///
28
11
h:\61221\7085
I\pleadings\mr SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.srog5.and.fro
gs.separale
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statementdocx
3. “PERSON” includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership,
business, trust, corporation, or public entity.
4. “INCIDENT” refers to the circumstances and events surrounding the breach of
contract, which is the subject of YOUR Complaint filed in Case No. 2018041.
5. “ACTION” refers to the civil action filed by Plaintiff in this matter, bearing the
Case No. 201 8041.
6. Whenever used herein, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa.
7. Whenever used herein, “and” may be understood to mean “or” and vice versa
whenever such construction results in a broader request for information.
10 SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 1:
11 Please state all facts that support your contention, as alleged in your Complaint, that
12 Great Valley Realtor’s, Inc., knew that the residence at 2440 Kasslin Drive, Modesto, California, was
13
infested with harmful mold, mildew and/or fungi, at any point in time.
14
RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY l:
Plaintiff cannot response to this request at this time as discovery and investigation is
15
continuing. Plaintiff reserves his right to amend his answers.
16
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY
17
l:
18
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
19
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form
20
Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill
21
Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).”
22
In his response t0 Special Interrogatory Number 1, B. BUNNELL fails to provide a
23
responsive answer and instead states “Plaintiff cannot respond to this request at this time as discovery
24
and investigation iscontinuing. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his answers.” While it istrue that
25
discovery can always yield additional information, the Plaintiffs have made a specific allegation against
26
27 the Defendants, and need to provide the information that they believe supports the allegation. Therefore,
28 the response to Special Interrogatories Number 1 shlozuldbe supplemented.
221\7085
h:\61
1\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.5rogs.and.fro
gs,separate
FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
statememdocx
SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 2:
Please identify the name, address and phone number of all individuals who, to your
knowledge, support your contention, as alleged in your Complaint, that Great Valley Realtor’s Inc.,
knew that the residence at 2440 Kasslin Drive, Modesto, California, was infested with harmful mold,
mildew and/or
OOVQUI-bWN
fungi, at any point in time.
RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 2:
Plaintiff cannot respond to this request at this time as discovery and investigation are
continuing. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his answers.
ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY
g:
10
For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by
11
reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response t0 Form
12
Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill
13
Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).”
14
B. BUNNELL failed to provide information as to the individuals who may have
15
knowledge regarding the specific allegations alleged against the Defendants, and the records that are
16
believed to support same. This is information that the Plaintiffs should provide to the extent available,
17
and simply cannot state that discovery is “ongoing.” In bringing these claims against the Defendants,
18
the Plaintiffs and counsel should have had a good-faith belied in doing so, and need to provide the
19
information during the discovery process that support the Plaintiffs’ believe of wrongdoing by the
20 Defendants. As such, funher response to this interrogatory isrequired.
21 SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 3:
22 Please identify all documents which support your contention, as alleged in your
23 Complaint, as alleged in your Complaint that Great Valley Relator’s, Inc., knew that the residence at
24 2440 Kasslin Drive, Modesto, California, was infested With harmful mold, mildew and/or fungi, at any
25 point in time.
26 RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 3:
27 Plaintiff cannot respond to this request at this time as discovery and investigation are
28 continuing. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his answers.
13
h:\6122 l\7085
|\p|eadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
c.srog5.
Preview
Bradley A. Post, Esq., SBN 127028 Sarah A. Omelas, Esq., SBN 258890 FELED Claudia Aceves, Esq., SBN 294350 BORTON PETRINI, LLP Iz'unm A 201 Needham Street ~s so: 5h Modesto, California 95354 c" 22M r}?mew? Eiii ‘ COURT Tel: (209) 576-1701 GUHTY Of ST US Fax: (209) 527-9753 Attorneysfor Defendants Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Troy Wright and Audrey Goesch SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, Case No. 2018041 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT 0F V. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION To COMPEL GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, AUDREY PLAINTIFFS, To PROVIDE GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES To (1) GINA WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M AND PLAINTIFF, BILL BUNNELL’S ASSOCIATES, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC RESPONSES T0 FORM INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES, (2) PLAINTIFF, 50, inclusive, KYM BUNNELL’s RESPONSES To FORM INTERROGATORIES (3) Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S BILL BUNNELL’s RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND (4) PLAINTIFF, KYM BUNNELL’S RESPONSES T0 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES Date: June 6, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept; 24 Judge: Roger M. Beauchesne AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS [Filed concurrently with Defendants’ [Proposed] Order and Defendants’ Motion to Compel] 27 /// 28 1 h:\6 l 22 1 \7085 l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c,srogs.and.fro gsseparate FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statemumdocx TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: The Interrogatories to which further answers and responses are requested are listed as required by California Rule of Court 3.1345 as follows: INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFF. BILL BUNNEL-L’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE): As a preliminary matter, the Defendants note that due to the untimely nature of the B. BUNNELL’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, he waived his right to raise any objections. See, e.g, CCP \DWVQ Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36 Cal. App.4“‘ 393, 394 (1995). FORM INTERROGATORY 7.1: 10 Do you attribute any loss of or damage to a vehicle or other property to the INCIDENT? 11 I If so, for each item of property: 12 (a) Describe the property; 13 (b) Describe the nature and location of the damage to the property; 14 how amount (c) State the amount of damage you are claiming for each item of property and :he 15 was calculated; and 16 (d) If the property was sold, state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the seller, the 17 date of sale, and the sale price. 18 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.1: 19 Please refer to the response given to Form Interrogatory #2.3 hereinabove. 20 When the Defendants referred to Form Interrogatory #23 as directed by the Plaintiff, the 21 response was: Objection as to relevancy in that this is [sic] lawsuit does not involve a vehicle. Without 22 waiving said objection, yes Ihave a California Driver’s License. 23 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.1: 24 On December 15, 2015, Plaintiffs, BILL BUNNELL and KYM BUNNELL (wrongly 25 named in this action as Kim Bunnell), (hereinafter referred to as “B. BUNNELL” and K. BUNNELL, 26 respectively, and collectively as “Plaintiffs”) filed the original Complaint against Defendants, GREAT 27 VALLEY REALTORS INC., AUDREY GOESCH, TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, GINA 28 2 22|\7085 h:\6l 1\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.5rogs‘andfro gs.separale FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statementdocx WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, DUNCAN LYONS, and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES. (Declaration of Sarah A. Omelas submitted in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel, hereinafter “Omelas Decl.,” 11 2). Subsequently, on April 4, 2016 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “FAC”) against, alleging Breach of Contract; Breach of Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Concealment; Breach of Duty to Disclose; Breach of Duty to Inspect and Disclose; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Negligence. As against Defendants, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, AUDREY GOESCH, and TROY \OOO\10\ WRIGHT (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), Plaintiffs alleged: Concealment and Breach of Duty to Inspect and Disclose. (Omelas Decl., 113). Thereafter, on January 1, 2017 Defendants, 10 PREMIER VALLEY, INC. dba CENTURY 21 M&M AND ASSOCIATES and TAMI GOSSELIN 11 filed a Cross-Complaint against TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, GINA WRIGHT, DUNCAN 12 LYONS and AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES for Indemnification. (Omelas Decl., fl 4). 13 This action stems from the Plaintiffs’ purchase of a home located at 2440 Kaslin Drive, 14 Modesto, California (the “Property”). B. BUNNELL claims significant damages t0 the Property based 15 on the discovery of mold in the Property directly after its purchase. This interrogatory specifically seeks 16 information relative to B. BUNNELL’s claim of property damage, and thus should be produced. 17 FORM INTERROGATORY 7.2: 18 Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property referred to in 19 your answer to the preceding interrogatory? If so, for each estimate or evaluation, state: 20 (a) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PRESON who prepared it and the date prepared; 21 (b) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who prepared itand the date 22 prepared; 23 (c) The amount of damage stated. 24 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.2: 25 Please refer to the response given to Form Interrogatory #23 hereinabove. 26 When the Defendants referred to Form Interrogatory #23 as directed by the Plaintiff, the 27 response was: 28 3 h:\6122]\7085 l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.srogs.and.fro gs.sepamtc FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statementdccx Objection as to relevancy in that this is [sic] lawsuit does not involve a vehicle. Without waiving said objection, yes I have a California Driver’s License. ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.2: For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form Interrogatory 7. 1 .” Form Interrogatory Number 7.2 requests information as any estimate received as to any \OOOVO‘N alleged property damage. Once again, B. BUNNELL references the response provided for Interrogatory Number 2.3, which is not responsive (as it is simply an objection and stating that B. BUNNELL holds a California Driver’s License). Information relating to any estimates for repair is clearly relevant to the 10 action given that B. BUNNELL is claiming significant property damage. Finally, the Plaintiff waived 11 any right to place objections on this interrogatory due to the untimely nature of their responses. See, e.g, 12 CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36 13 Cal. App.4"‘ 393, 394 (1995). Thus, a funher response is appropriate as to Form Interrogatory Number 14 7.2. 15 FORM INTERROGATORY 7.3: 16 Has item of property in your answer 7.12 been repaired? any referred to to interrogatory l7 If so, for each item stated: 18 (a) The date repaired; I 19 (b) A description of the repair; 20 (c) The repair cost; 21 (d) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who repaired it; 22 (e) The name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who pair for the repair. 23 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 7.3: Please refer to the response given to Form Interrogatory #2.3 hereinabove. 24 When the Defendants referred to Form Interrogatory #23 as directed by the Plaintiff, the 25 response was: 26 Objection as to relevancy in that this is [sic] lawsuit does not involve a vehicle. Without 27 waiving said objection, yes I have a California Driver’s License. 28 4 h:\61221\7085 l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c‘srogsandfm gs.sepamte FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statemenmocx ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 7.3: For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form Interrogatory 7.1.” Form Interrogatory Number 7.3 requests information as any repairs made on any alleged damaged property. Once again, B. BUNNELL references the response provided for Interrogatory Number 2.3, which isnot responsive (as it issimply an objection and stating that B. BUNNELL holds a California Driver’s License). Information relating to any estimates for repair is clearly relevant to the action given that B. BUNNELL is claiming significant property damage. Finally, the Plaintiff waived any right to place objections on this interrogatory due to the untimely nature of their responses. See, e.g, 10 CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36 11 Cal. App.4"' 393, 394 (1995). Thus, a further response is appropriate as to Form Interrogatory Number 12 7.2. 13 FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4: 14 State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was 15 calculated. 16 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4: 17 We took draws which varied from month to month depending on business. Kym fell 18 behind on my billing because she wasn’t’ able to access my home office or my regular office (which 19 became a holding tank for our clothes and other personal belongs [sic]. 20 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4: 21 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by 22 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form Interrogatory 7.1.” 23 B. BUNNELL claims lost wages as part of his damages, and therefore must provide 24 25 information as to his average monthly income at the time of the incident. If he took monthly draws from 26 his company, he needs to provide information as to the amounts of the draws before and after the 27 incident to show any changes in the amount 0f income that he was able to take from his company. As 28 5 h:\61221\7085 l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.srogs,and.fro gs.scparate FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statementdocx such, Defendants request that B. BUNNELL be ordered to provide additional responses to this interrogatory. FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1: LAAUJN Are there any other damages that you attribute to the incident? If so, for each item of damage state: (a)The nature; \OOOQQ (b) The date if occurred; (c) The amount; 10 (d) the name, address, and telephone of each person to whom an obligation was incurred. 11 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1: 12 Yes — please refer to the Excel Spreadsheet that lists the monetary damages, the overall 13 cost of expenses to us. I can explain anything in funher detail if you need it. We have receipts to 14 support the total expenses. 15 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1: 16 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by 17 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form 18 Interrogatory 7.1.” 19 For the response to Form Interrogatory Number 9.1, the Defendants were referred t0 20 review an excel spreadsheet. However, no such spreadsheet was annexed to the responses. Further, 21 even ifan excel spreadsheet was provided, the information in the spreadsheet needs to be verified under 22 23 oath by B. BUNNELL. As such, the Plaintiffs need to supplement to provide the responsive 24 information. 25 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2: 26 Do any documents support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in 27 interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, address, and telephone number of 28 the person who has each document. 6 h:\6l22l\7085 l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.5roy,and.fro gs.sepamte FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES stalcmenmocx RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2: Yes, receipts. ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2: UIAWN For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form Interrogatory 7. 1 .” Form Interrogatory Number 9.2 requested B. BUNNELL to provide information for each \OOOVON document that purports to show damages, and the identity of who has such documents in their possession. B. BUNNELL simply responded “Yes, receipts.” However, the remainder of the information requested in this interrogatory was not provided. As this information directly goes to B. 10 BUNNELL’s claims of damages, this information should be provided in a further response to this 11 Interrogatory. 12 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6: 13 Was a report made by any person concerning the incident? If so, state: 14 (a) The name, title, identification number, and employer ofthe person who made the report; 15 (b) the date and type of report made; 16 (c) the name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the repon was made; and 17 (d) the name, address, and telephone number of each person who has the original or a copy of the 18 report. 19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6: 20 Yes, Steve Swenson, Contractor who removed mold and whose contact information 21 included hereinabove [sic] 22 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6: 23 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by 24 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form Interrogatory 7.1 .” 25 26 For Form Interrogatory Number 12.6, B. BUNNELL failed to provide all the information 27 requested in that interrogatory. B. BUNNELL was asked to supplement, which he failed to do. B. 28 BUNNELL has identified the contractor who performed work on the property made a report relative to 7 h:\6122l\7085 1\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c,srogs.and.fro gs.separate FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statemenmocx the property, but all of the information should be provided so that the answer is full and complete. Clearly, information relative to any reports prepared by a third-pany are relevant, and should be appropriately identified by author and location. FORM INTERROGATORY 14.1: Do you or anyone acting on your behalf contend that any person involved in this incident violated any statute, ordinance or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the incident? \OOOVO\M¢ If so, identify the name, address, and telephone number of each person and the statute, ordinance, ore regulation that was violated. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 14.1: Yes. 10 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 14.1: 11 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by 12 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form 13 Interrogatory 7.1.” 14 B. BUNNELL has failed to provide any information that would support his affirmative 15 response that there was a violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation, and that the violation was a 16 proximate cause of the incident. Simply stating “yes” fails to answer this specific interrogatory. 17 Therefore, a supplemental response is needed to provide the Defendants the requested information. 18 FORM INTERROGATORIES 50.1-50.6 19 No response was received whatsoever to Form Interrogatories 50.1-50.6. Therefore, the 20 Defendants request that B. BUNNELL be compelled to respond to these Interrogatories. 21 INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFF, KYM BUNNELL’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE): 22 As a preliminary matter, the Defendants note that due to the untimely nature of the K. 23 BUNNELL’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, she waived her right to raise any objections. See, e.g, 24 CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36 25 Cal. App.4"‘ 393, 394 (1995). 26 FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4: 27 State your monthly income at the time of the INCIDENT and how the amount was calculated. 28 8 22 H7085 h:\6 l l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c,srogs.and.fro gsscparate FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statementdocx RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4: We took draws which varied from month to month depending on business. Kym fell behind on my billing because she wasn’t’ able to access my home office or my regular office (which became a holding tank for our clothes and other personal belongs [sic]. ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 8.4: For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).” Form Interrogatory Number 8.4 was answered as if B. BUNNELL was the responding 10 pany. It appears that this response is due to a copying and pasting error, and therefore requires r‘eview 11 to provide a response relative to K. BUNNELL. K. BUNNELL needs to provide a response from her 12 perspective as she has made a very significant claim of lost wages. 13 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1: 14 Are there any other damages that you attribute to the incident? If so, for each item of 15 damage state: 16 (a) The nature; 17 (b) The date if occurred; 18 19 (c) The amount; 20 (d) the name, address, and telephone of each person to whom an obligation was incurred. 21 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1: 22 Yes — please refer to the Excel Spreadsheet that lists the monetary damages, the overall 23 cost of expenses to us. 24 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 9.1: 25 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by 26 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form 27 7.1” Interrogatory in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill 28 Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set 036).” h:\6l 22 l\7085 l\pleadings\ml SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c‘srogsandfro gs‘sepamm FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statementdocx For the response to Form Interrogatory Number 9.1, the Defendants were referred to review an excel spreadsheet. However, no such spreadsheet was annexed to the responses. Further, even if an excel spreadsheet was provided, the information in the spreadsheet needs to be verified under oath by K. BUNNELL. As such, the Plaintiffs need to supplement to provide the responsive information. FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2: Do any documents support the existence or amount of any item of damages claimed in interrogatory 9.1? If so, describe each document and state the name, address, and telephone number of 10 the person who has each document. 11 RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2: 12 Yes, receipts and profit & loss statements. 13 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY 9.2: 14 Defendants For a procedural background as to this action, the incorporate herein by 15 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form 16 Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill 17 Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).” 18 Form Interrogatory Number 9.2 requested K. BUNNELL to provide information for each 19 document that purports to show damages, and the identity of who has such documents in their 20 possession. K. BUNNELL simply responded “Yes, receipts and profit & loss statements.” However, 21 the remainder of the information requested in this interrogatory was not provided. As this information directly goes to K. BUNNELL’S claims of damages, this information should be provided in a further 22 response to this Interrogatory. 23 FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6: 24 Was a report made by any person concerning the incident? If so, state: 25 (a) The name, title, identification number, and employer of the person who made the report; 26 (b) the date and type of report made; 27 (c) the name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the report was made; and 28 10 h:\61221\7085 l\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.srogs,and,fro gsseparate FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statementdocx (d) the name, address, and telephohe number of each person who has the original or a copy of the report. RESPONSE T0 FORM INTERROGATORY ALAN 12.6: Yes, Steve Swenson, Contractor who removed mold and whose contact information included hereinabove; also, the insurance company(ies) probably made reports. ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 12.6: For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by \OOOVO\UI reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).” 10 For Form Interrogatory Number 12.6, K. BUNNELL failed to provide all the information 11 requested in that interrogatory. K. BUNNELL was asked to supplement, which she failed to d0. K. 12 BUNNELL has identified the contractor who performed work on the property made a report relative to 13 the property, but all of the information should be provided so that the answer is fulland complete. Also, 14 reference was made to insurance company(ies) that may have made reports. However, full information 15 as to such company(ies) was not provided. Clearly, information relative to any reports prepared by a 16 third-party are relevant, and should be appropriately identified by author and location. 17 INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFF, BILL BUNNELL’S RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET ONEL: 18 19 As a preliminary matter, the Defendants note that due to the untimely nature of the B. 20 BUNNELL’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, he waived his right to raise any objections. See, e.g, CCP Secs. 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates, 36 21 Cal. App.4‘“ 393, 394 (1995). 22 DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 23 1. “YOU” and “YOUR” refers to PLAINTIFF, BILL BUNNELL, his agents, 24 attomeys, representatives, partners and anyone else acting on his behalf, and any PERSON(s) for whom 25 he acted as agent or representative. 26 2. “BILL BUNNELL”- refers to Plaintiff, BILL BUNNELL. 27 /// 28 11 h:\61221\7085 I\pleadings\mr SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.srog5.and.fro gs.separale FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statementdocx 3. “PERSON” includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, or public entity. 4. “INCIDENT” refers to the circumstances and events surrounding the breach of contract, which is the subject of YOUR Complaint filed in Case No. 2018041. 5. “ACTION” refers to the civil action filed by Plaintiff in this matter, bearing the Case No. 201 8041. 6. Whenever used herein, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. 7. Whenever used herein, “and” may be understood to mean “or” and vice versa whenever such construction results in a broader request for information. 10 SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 1: 11 Please state all facts that support your contention, as alleged in your Complaint, that 12 Great Valley Realtor’s, Inc., knew that the residence at 2440 Kasslin Drive, Modesto, California, was 13 infested with harmful mold, mildew and/or fungi, at any point in time. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY l: Plaintiff cannot response to this request at this time as discovery and investigation is 15 continuing. Plaintiff reserves his right to amend his answers. 16 ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 17 l: 18 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by 19 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response to Form 20 Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill 21 Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).” 22 In his response t0 Special Interrogatory Number 1, B. BUNNELL fails to provide a 23 responsive answer and instead states “Plaintiff cannot respond to this request at this time as discovery 24 and investigation iscontinuing. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his answers.” While it istrue that 25 discovery can always yield additional information, the Plaintiffs have made a specific allegation against 26 27 the Defendants, and need to provide the information that they believe supports the allegation. Therefore, 28 the response to Special Interrogatories Number 1 shlozuldbe supplemented. 221\7085 h:\61 1\pleadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.5rogs.and.fro gs,separate FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES statememdocx SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 2: Please identify the name, address and phone number of all individuals who, to your knowledge, support your contention, as alleged in your Complaint, that Great Valley Realtor’s Inc., knew that the residence at 2440 Kasslin Drive, Modesto, California, was infested with harmful mold, mildew and/or OOVQUI-bWN fungi, at any point in time. RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 2: Plaintiff cannot respond to this request at this time as discovery and investigation are continuing. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his answers. ARGUMENT FOR FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY g: 10 For a procedural background as to this action, the Defendants incorporate herein by 11 reference the information included in paragraph 1 under the “Argument for Further Response t0 Form 12 Interrogatory 7.1” in the section relating to “Interrogatories in Dispute Relative to Plaintiff, Bill 13 Bunnell’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One).” 14 B. BUNNELL failed to provide information as to the individuals who may have 15 knowledge regarding the specific allegations alleged against the Defendants, and the records that are 16 believed to support same. This is information that the Plaintiffs should provide to the extent available, 17 and simply cannot state that discovery is “ongoing.” In bringing these claims against the Defendants, 18 the Plaintiffs and counsel should have had a good-faith belied in doing so, and need to provide the 19 information during the discovery process that support the Plaintiffs’ believe of wrongdoing by the 20 Defendants. As such, funher response to this interrogatory isrequired. 21 SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 3: 22 Please identify all documents which support your contention, as alleged in your 23 Complaint, as alleged in your Complaint that Great Valley Relator’s, Inc., knew that the residence at 24 2440 Kasslin Drive, Modesto, California, was infested With harmful mold, mildew and/or fungi, at any 25 point in time. 26 RESPONSE TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORY 3: 27 Plaintiff cannot respond to this request at this time as discovery and investigation are 28 continuing. The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his answers. 13 h:\6122 l\7085 |\p|eadings\mt SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE c.srog5.