Preview
Electronically Filed
2/8/2021 3:00 PM
1 LILY D. BLAKE, ESQ. – State Bar No. 219172 Superior Court of California
STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGO County of Stanislaus
2 Mailing Address Clerk of the Court
P.O. Box 258829 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy
3 Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829
Physical Address
4 7108 N. Fresno Street, Suite 310
Fresno, CA 93720
5 Phone: (559) 434-0308
Email: lily.blake@farmersinsurance.com
6
Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
7 TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS, ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS TRACIE THOMPKINS
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
12 GERARDO ELIZARRARAZ, Case No.: CV-19-004676
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
13 Plaintiff,
ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES:
14 vs. DEPT: Not Assigned
15 MARIA ISLAS, SARBJIT ATHWAL, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
HARBINDER S. BAINS, GENESIS RAMOS- TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION
16 BARRAZA, TRACIE THOMPKINS and DOES 1 TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
to 30, INCLUSIVE, RESPONSES
17
Defendants.
18
_____________________________________
19
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
20
21
22 Pursuant to Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Opposing party provides the following Separate
23 Statement in opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Shooter Farms,
24 LP.
25 As a preliminary statement to this Separate Statement in Opposition to the Motion to Compel
26 further responses, Opposing party, TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS (hereinafter referred to as
27 “Thompkins”), asserts that moving party, Shooter Farms, LP’s (hereinafter referred to as “Shooter
28 Farms”), completely and utterly failed to meet and confer with the attorney of record, Lily D. Blake,
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 1
1 prior to filing the instant motion to compel. Accordingly, moving party’s motion to compel further
2 responses, should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434;
3 Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see
4 id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.1:
6
State:
7
(a) Your name;
8 (b) Every name she has used in the past; and
(c) The dates you used each name.
9
Response:
10
11 (a) Traci Marie Thompkins.
(b) This information will be provided when obtained.
12 (c) This information will be provided when obtained.
13 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code
of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall
14
be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
15 permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent
possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a
16 statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to
others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to
17 subsections (b) and (c).
18
Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.1
19
The pertinent information as to Ms. Thompkins name was provided. The information related to
20
every name used in the past and the dates of use, were not available at the time of the response was
21
served. Accordingly, the response to subsection (b) and (c) state that the information will be provided
22
when obtained. Implied in this response is that the party is continuing the good faith and diligent efforts
23
to obtain the information and that once it has been obtained it shall be provided.
24
Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses
25
should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend
26
v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section
27
2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 2
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2:
2
State the date and place of your birth.
3
Response:
4
October 21, 1969
5
Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code
6
of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall
7 be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent
8 possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a
statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to
9 others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins’ response is deficient
in that she failed to provide the place of her birth.
10
11
Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.2
12
The pertinent informational background information as to Ms. Thompkins date of birth was
13
provided. The location of her birth is not relevant for purposes of the matters alleged in plaintiff’s
14
complaint and is thus not material to this action. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer
15
with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior
16
Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th
17
1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories];
18
2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
19
INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5:
20
(a) your present ADDRESS;
21 (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past 5 years; and
(c) the dates you lived at each.
22
Response:
23
24 (a) 90 Baylor Avenue, Turlock, CA.
(b) This information will be provided when obtained.
25 (c) This information will be provided when obtained.
26 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code
of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall
27
be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
28 permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 3
1 possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a
statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to
2
others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to
3 subsections (b) and (c).
4
5 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.5
6 The pertinent information relating to Ms. Thompkins present address were provided. The
7 information as to her addresses for the past 5 years and the dates she lived at the locations were not
8 available at the time responses were provided. Implied in the response that the information will be
9 provided when obtained, is that a good faith diligent search is continuing and that the information will
10 be provided when it is obtained. Furthermore, the addresses where Ms. Thompkins has lived is not
11 relevant to or material to issues and matters surrounding the plaintiff’s complaint. Furthermore, Shooter
12 Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be
13 denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v.
14 Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section
15 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6:
17 State:
18
(a) the name, address, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment;
19 and
(b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-
20 employment she has had from five years before the incident until today.
21 Response:
22
(a) This information will be provided when obtained.
23 (b) This information will be provided when obtained.
24 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code
of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall
25 be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent
26
possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a
27 statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to
others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to
28 subsections (a) and (b).
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 4
1 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.6
2 This request is not relevant to or material to the issues and matters surrounding the plaintiff’s
3 complaint. The scope of the plaintiff’s pleadings determine relevance. The background information
4 related to Traci Thompkins employment are not relevant to the subject matter of the complaint and are
5 thus immaterial. Additionally, implied in the response to this request is that the party did not have the
6 information at the time of the response, but is conducting a good faith diligent search for the information
7 and that the same will be provided when it is obtained. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and
8 confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v.
9 Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61
10 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b)
11 [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6:
13
State:
14
(a) the name, address, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment;
15 and
(b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-
16 employment she has had from five years before the incident until today.
17
Response:
18
(a) This information will be provided when obtained.
19 (b) This information will be provided when obtained.
20 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code
of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall
21
be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
22 permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent
possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a
23 statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to
others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to
24 subsections (a) and (b).
25
Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.7
26
This interrogatory seeks background information related to Ms. Thompkins education and is not
27
relevant to or material to the issues presented by plaintiff’s complaint. Additionally, implied in the
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 5
1 response to this request is that the party did not have the information at the time of the response, but is
2 conducting a good faith diligent search for the information and that when such information was obtained
3 it would be provided. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue
4 and therefore further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th
5 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure
6 section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document
7 requests]).
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8:
9
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state:
10
(a) The city and state where you were convicted;
11 (b) The date of conviction;
(c) The offense; and
12 (d) The court and case number.
13
Response:
14
(a) This information will be provided when obtained.
15 (b) This information will be provided when obtained.
(c) This information will be provided when obtained.
16 (d) This information will be provided when obtained.
17
Basis for Opposition to Motion to compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.8
18
This request seeks background information related to whether Ms. Thompkins has been
19
convicted of a felony. Implied in the response is that the information sought was not available at the
20
time of the response, but that a continued good faith diligent search for more information was being
21
conducted and that when such information is obtained it will be provided. Furthermore, Shooter Farms
22
failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see
23
Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court,
24
(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd.
25
(b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
26
///
27
///
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 6
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.1:
2
Do you contend that any person, other than you or plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of the incident
3 or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each person:
(a) State the name, address, and telephone number of the person;
4 (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention;
(c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts;
5 and
(d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name,
6
address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.
7
Response:
8
Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are
9 continuing.
10
Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.1
11
This request seeks information as to whether anyone other than Ms. Thompkins or plaintiff
12
Contributed to the occurrence of the incident, injuries, or damages. The discovery in this matter as of
13
December 7, 2020 when responses were served were ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were
14
and still remain to be taken and completed. Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought
15
contentions of Ms. Thompkins which counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover,
16
the request further calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet
17
commenced. It is well established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical
18
opinion must be provided to establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries
19
claimed to a reasonable medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged
20
injuries attributable to the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and
21
the associated costs thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and
22
damages are a matter that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature
23
and the investigation and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state
24
that “The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used
25
until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of
26
plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable
27
investigation of plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident.
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 7
1 Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further
2 responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434;
3 Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see
4 id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2:
6
Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the incident? If so:
7
(a) State all facts upon which you base your contention;
8 (b) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts;
and
9 (c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name,
address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.
10
11 Response:
12 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are
continuing.
13
Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
14
premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s
15 Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9,
16 2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been
provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has
17 been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery
of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California
18
Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to
19 interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the
responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to
20 the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must
make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by
21 inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c).
22
Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.2
23
This request seeks Thompkins contentions related to whether or not plaintiff was injured in the
24
subject incident. The discovery in this matter as of December 7, 2020 when responses were served were
25
ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were and still remain to be taken and completed.
26
Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought contentions of Ms. Thompkins which
27
counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover, the request further calls for the
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 8
1 premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet commenced. It is well
2 established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical opinion must be provided to
3 establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries claimed to a reasonable
4 medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged injuries attributable to
5 the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and the associated costs
6 thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and damages are a matter
7 that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature and the investigation
8 and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state that “The interrogatories
9 in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had
10 a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.”
11 Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable investigation of plaintiff’s
12 injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident. Furthermore, Shooter Farms
13 failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see
14 Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court,
15 (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd.
16 (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
17 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2:
18
Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the incident? If so:
19
(a) State all facts upon which you base your contention;
20 (b) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts;
and
21 (c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name,
address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.
22
23 Response:
24 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are
continuing.
25
Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
26
premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s
27 Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9,
28 2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 9
1 provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has
been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery
2
of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California
3 Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the
4 responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to
the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must
5 make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by
inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c).
6
7 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.3
8 This request seeks the contentions of Thompkins as to whether or not the injuries or extent of the
9 injuries claimed by plaintiff were not caused by the incident. The discovery in this matter as of
10 December 7, 2020 when responses were served were ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were
11 and still remain to be taken and completed. Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought
12 contentions of Ms. Thompkins which counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover,
13 the request further calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet
14 commenced. It is well established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical
15 opinion must be provided to establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries
16 claimed to a reasonable medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged
17 injuries attributable to the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and
18 the associated costs thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and
19 damages are a matter that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature
20 and the investigation and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state
21 that “The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used
22 until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of
23 plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable
24 investigation of plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident.
25 Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further
26 responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434;
27 Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see
28 id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 10
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.4:
2
Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any health care provider claimed by plaintiff in
3 discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the incident? If so:
4 (a) Identify each service;
(b) State all facts upon which you base your contention;
5 (c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts;
and
6
(d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name,
7 address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.
8 Response:
9 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are
continuing.
10
11 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s
12 Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9,
13 2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been
provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has
14
been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery
15 of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California
Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to
16 interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the
responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to
17 the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must
make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by
18
inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c).
19
Basis for the Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.4
20
This request seeks information related to whether Thompkins contends that any of the services
21
furnished by plaintiff’s health care providers were not due to the incident. The discovery in this matter
22
as of December 7, 2020 when responses were served were ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions
23
were and still remain to be taken and completed. Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further
24
sought contentions of Ms. Thompkins which counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing.
25
Moreover, the request further calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery
26
has not yet commenced. It is well established law in California that in personal injury action expert
27
medical opinion must be provided to establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 11
1 injuries claimed to a reasonable medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of
2 the alleged injuries attributable to the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of
3 treatment and the associated costs thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed
4 injuries and damages are a matter that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is
5 premature and the investigation and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form
6 interrogatories state that “The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury,
7 should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or
8 discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct
9 the reasonable investigation of plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject
10 accident. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore
11 further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431,
12 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section
13 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document
14 requests]).
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.5:
16
Do you contend that any of the costs of services furnished by any health care provider claimed as
17
damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not necessary or unreasonable?
If so:
18
(a) Identify each cost;
19 (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention;
(c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts;
20
and
21 (d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name,
address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.
22
Response:
23
Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are
24
continuing.
25
Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
26 premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s
Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to
27 conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9,
2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 12
1 provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has
been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery
2
of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California
3 Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the
4 responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to
the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must
5 make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by
inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c).
6
7
Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory No. 16.5
8
This request seeks whether Thompkins contends costs of services were not necessary or
9
unreasonable. The discovery in this matter as of December 7, 2020 when responses were served were
10
ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were and still remain to be taken and completed.
11
Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought contentions of Ms. Thompkins which
12
counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover, the request further calls for the
13
premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet commenced. It is well
14
established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical opinion must be provided to
15
establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries claimed to a reasonable
16
medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged injuries attributable to
17
the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and the associated costs
18
thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and damages are a matter
19
that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature and the investigation
20
and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state that “The interrogatories
21
in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had
22
a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.”
23
Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable investigation of plaintiff’s
24
injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident. Furthermore, Shooter Farms
25
failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see
26
Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court,
27
(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd.
28
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 13
1 (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]).
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.6:
3
Do you contend that any of the loss of earnings or income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings
4 thus far in this case was unreasonable or was not caused by the incident? If so:
5 (a) Identify each part of the loss;
(b) State all facts upon which you base your contention;
6 (c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts;
and
7
(d) Identify all doc
Preview
Electronically Filed 2/8/2021 3:00 PM 1 LILY D. BLAKE, ESQ. – State Bar No. 219172 Superior Court of California STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGO County of Stanislaus 2 Mailing Address Clerk of the Court P.O. Box 258829 By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy 3 Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829 Physical Address 4 7108 N. Fresno Street, Suite 310 Fresno, CA 93720 5 Phone: (559) 434-0308 Email: lily.blake@farmersinsurance.com 6 Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, 7 TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS, ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS TRACIE THOMPKINS 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 12 GERARDO ELIZARRARAZ, Case No.: CV-19-004676 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES: 14 vs. DEPT: Not Assigned 15 MARIA ISLAS, SARBJIT ATHWAL, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HARBINDER S. BAINS, GENESIS RAMOS- TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION 16 BARRAZA, TRACIE THOMPKINS and DOES 1 TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER to 30, INCLUSIVE, RESPONSES 17 Defendants. 18 _____________________________________ 19 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. 20 21 22 Pursuant to Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, Opposing party provides the following Separate 23 Statement in opposition to the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Shooter Farms, 24 LP. 25 As a preliminary statement to this Separate Statement in Opposition to the Motion to Compel 26 further responses, Opposing party, TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS (hereinafter referred to as 27 “Thompkins”), asserts that moving party, Shooter Farms, LP’s (hereinafter referred to as “Shooter 28 Farms”), completely and utterly failed to meet and confer with the attorney of record, Lily D. Blake, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 1 1 prior to filing the instant motion to compel. Accordingly, moving party’s motion to compel further 2 responses, should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; 3 Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see 4 id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.1: 6 State: 7 (a) Your name; 8 (b) Every name she has used in the past; and (c) The dates you used each name. 9 Response: 10 11 (a) Traci Marie Thompkins. (b) This information will be provided when obtained. 12 (c) This information will be provided when obtained. 13 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall 14 be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party 15 permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a 16 statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to 17 subsections (b) and (c). 18 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.1 19 The pertinent information as to Ms. Thompkins name was provided. The information related to 20 every name used in the past and the dates of use, were not available at the time of the response was 21 served. Accordingly, the response to subsection (b) and (c) state that the information will be provided 22 when obtained. Implied in this response is that the party is continuing the good faith and diligent efforts 23 to obtain the information and that once it has been obtained it shall be provided. 24 Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses 25 should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend 26 v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 27 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 2 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2: 2 State the date and place of your birth. 3 Response: 4 October 21, 1969 5 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code 6 of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall 7 be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent 8 possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to 9 others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins’ response is deficient in that she failed to provide the place of her birth. 10 11 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.2 12 The pertinent informational background information as to Ms. Thompkins date of birth was 13 provided. The location of her birth is not relevant for purposes of the matters alleged in plaintiff’s 14 complaint and is thus not material to this action. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer 15 with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior 16 Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 17 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 18 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5: 20 (a) your present ADDRESS; 21 (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past 5 years; and (c) the dates you lived at each. 22 Response: 23 24 (a) 90 Baylor Avenue, Turlock, CA. (b) This information will be provided when obtained. 25 (c) This information will be provided when obtained. 26 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall 27 be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party 28 permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 3 1 possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to 2 others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to 3 subsections (b) and (c). 4 5 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.5 6 The pertinent information relating to Ms. Thompkins present address were provided. The 7 information as to her addresses for the past 5 years and the dates she lived at the locations were not 8 available at the time responses were provided. Implied in the response that the information will be 9 provided when obtained, is that a good faith diligent search is continuing and that the information will 10 be provided when it is obtained. Furthermore, the addresses where Ms. Thompkins has lived is not 11 relevant to or material to issues and matters surrounding the plaintiff’s complaint. Furthermore, Shooter 12 Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be 13 denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. 14 Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 15 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6: 17 State: 18 (a) the name, address, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; 19 and (b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self- 20 employment she has had from five years before the incident until today. 21 Response: 22 (a) This information will be provided when obtained. 23 (b) This information will be provided when obtained. 24 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall 25 be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent 26 possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a 27 statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to 28 subsections (a) and (b). SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 4 1 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.6 2 This request is not relevant to or material to the issues and matters surrounding the plaintiff’s 3 complaint. The scope of the plaintiff’s pleadings determine relevance. The background information 4 related to Traci Thompkins employment are not relevant to the subject matter of the complaint and are 5 thus immaterial. Additionally, implied in the response to this request is that the party did not have the 6 information at the time of the response, but is conducting a good faith diligent search for the information 7 and that the same will be provided when it is obtained. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and 8 confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. 9 Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 10 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) 11 [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.6: 13 State: 14 (a) the name, address, and telephone number of your present employer or place of self-employment; 15 and (b) the name, address, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self- 16 employment she has had from five years before the incident until today. 17 Response: 18 (a) This information will be provided when obtained. 19 (b) This information will be provided when obtained. 20 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall 21 be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party 22 permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a 23 statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). Thompkins failed to respond to 24 subsections (a) and (b). 25 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.7 26 This interrogatory seeks background information related to Ms. Thompkins education and is not 27 relevant to or material to the issues presented by plaintiff’s complaint. Additionally, implied in the 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 5 1 response to this request is that the party did not have the information at the time of the response, but is 2 conducting a good faith diligent search for the information and that when such information was obtained 3 it would be provided. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue 4 and therefore further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 5 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure 6 section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document 7 requests]). 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 2.8: 9 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, for each conviction state: 10 (a) The city and state where you were convicted; 11 (b) The date of conviction; (c) The offense; and 12 (d) The court and case number. 13 Response: 14 (a) This information will be provided when obtained. 15 (b) This information will be provided when obtained. (c) This information will be provided when obtained. 16 (d) This information will be provided when obtained. 17 Basis for Opposition to Motion to compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 2.8 18 This request seeks background information related to whether Ms. Thompkins has been 19 convicted of a felony. Implied in the response is that the information sought was not available at the 20 time of the response, but that a continued good faith diligent search for more information was being 21 conducted and that when such information is obtained it will be provided. Furthermore, Shooter Farms 22 failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see 23 Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, 24 (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. 25 (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 26 /// 27 /// 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 6 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.1: 2 Do you contend that any person, other than you or plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of the incident 3 or the injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff? If so, for each person: (a) State the name, address, and telephone number of the person; 4 (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts; 5 and (d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, 6 address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. 7 Response: 8 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are 9 continuing. 10 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.1 11 This request seeks information as to whether anyone other than Ms. Thompkins or plaintiff 12 Contributed to the occurrence of the incident, injuries, or damages. The discovery in this matter as of 13 December 7, 2020 when responses were served were ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were 14 and still remain to be taken and completed. Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought 15 contentions of Ms. Thompkins which counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover, 16 the request further calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet 17 commenced. It is well established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical 18 opinion must be provided to establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries 19 claimed to a reasonable medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged 20 injuries attributable to the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and 21 the associated costs thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and 22 damages are a matter that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature 23 and the investigation and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state 24 that “The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used 25 until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of 26 plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable 27 investigation of plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident. 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 7 1 Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further 2 responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; 3 Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see 4 id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2: 6 Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the incident? If so: 7 (a) State all facts upon which you base your contention; 8 (b) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts; and 9 (c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. 10 11 Response: 12 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are continuing. 13 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 14 premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s 15 Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9, 16 2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has 17 been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California 18 Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to 19 interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to 20 the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by 21 inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). 22 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.2 23 This request seeks Thompkins contentions related to whether or not plaintiff was injured in the 24 subject incident. The discovery in this matter as of December 7, 2020 when responses were served were 25 ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were and still remain to be taken and completed. 26 Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought contentions of Ms. Thompkins which 27 counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover, the request further calls for the 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 8 1 premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet commenced. It is well 2 established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical opinion must be provided to 3 establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries claimed to a reasonable 4 medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged injuries attributable to 5 the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and the associated costs 6 thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and damages are a matter 7 that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature and the investigation 8 and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state that “The interrogatories 9 in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had 10 a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” 11 Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable investigation of plaintiff’s 12 injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident. Furthermore, Shooter Farms 13 failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see 14 Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, 15 (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. 16 (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2: 18 Do you contend that plaintiff was not injured in the incident? If so: 19 (a) State all facts upon which you base your contention; 20 (b) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts; and 21 (c) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. 22 23 Response: 24 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are continuing. 25 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 26 premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s 27 Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9, 28 2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 9 1 provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery 2 of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California 3 Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the 4 responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must 5 make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). 6 7 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.3 8 This request seeks the contentions of Thompkins as to whether or not the injuries or extent of the 9 injuries claimed by plaintiff were not caused by the incident. The discovery in this matter as of 10 December 7, 2020 when responses were served were ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were 11 and still remain to be taken and completed. Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought 12 contentions of Ms. Thompkins which counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover, 13 the request further calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet 14 commenced. It is well established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical 15 opinion must be provided to establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries 16 claimed to a reasonable medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged 17 injuries attributable to the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and 18 the associated costs thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and 19 damages are a matter that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature 20 and the investigation and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state 21 that “The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used 22 until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of 23 plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable 24 investigation of plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident. 25 Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further 26 responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; 27 Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see 28 id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 10 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.4: 2 Do you contend that any of the services furnished by any health care provider claimed by plaintiff in 3 discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not due to the incident? If so: 4 (a) Identify each service; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; 5 (c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts; and 6 (d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, 7 address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. 8 Response: 9 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are continuing. 10 11 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s 12 Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9, 13 2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has 14 been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery 15 of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to 16 interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to 17 the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by 18 inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). 19 Basis for the Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 16.4 20 This request seeks information related to whether Thompkins contends that any of the services 21 furnished by plaintiff’s health care providers were not due to the incident. The discovery in this matter 22 as of December 7, 2020 when responses were served were ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions 23 were and still remain to be taken and completed. Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further 24 sought contentions of Ms. Thompkins which counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. 25 Moreover, the request further calls for the premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery 26 has not yet commenced. It is well established law in California that in personal injury action expert 27 medical opinion must be provided to establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 11 1 injuries claimed to a reasonable medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of 2 the alleged injuries attributable to the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of 3 treatment and the associated costs thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed 4 injuries and damages are a matter that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is 5 premature and the investigation and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form 6 interrogatories state that “The interrogatories in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, 7 should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or 8 discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct 9 the reasonable investigation of plaintiff’s injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject 10 accident. Furthermore, Shooter Farms failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore 11 further responses should be denied. (see Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 12 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 13 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document 14 requests]). 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.5: 16 Do you contend that any of the costs of services furnished by any health care provider claimed as 17 damages by plaintiff in discovery proceedings thus far in this case were not necessary or unreasonable? If so: 18 (a) Identify each cost; 19 (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; (c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts; 20 and 21 (d) Identify all documents and other tangible things that support your contention and state the name, address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing. 22 Response: 23 Objection: This interrogatory is premature. (See Instruction 2d.) Investigation and discovery are 24 continuing. 25 Reason for Motion to Compel: Thompkins objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 26 premature and violates Instruction 2(d) which states “The interrogatories in section 16, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to 27 conduct an investigation or discovery of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” Suit was filed on August 9, 2019. Thompkins answered the complaint on or about December 12, 2019. Further, she has been 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 12 1 provided the pertinent medical records, and the depositions of the parties have taken place. There has been more than enough reasonable opportunity for Thompkins to conduct an investigation and discovery 2 of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Further, Thompkins’ response is deficient pursuant to California 3 Civil Code of Procedure § 2030.220 (a) and (b) which states that each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the 4 responding party permits and if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible. If Thompkins is unable to provide information responsive to this request, she must 5 make a statement that she has made a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to others pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220(c). 6 7 Basis for Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory No. 16.5 8 This request seeks whether Thompkins contends costs of services were not necessary or 9 unreasonable. The discovery in this matter as of December 7, 2020 when responses were served were 10 ongoing and still in its infancy. Depositions were and still remain to be taken and completed. 11 Subpoenas have yet to be issued. The request further sought contentions of Ms. Thompkins which 12 counsel has not yet made as discovery is continuing. Moreover, the request further calls for the 13 premature disclosure of expert opinion and expert discovery has not yet commenced. It is well 14 established law in California that in personal injury action expert medical opinion must be provided to 15 establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged injuries claimed to a reasonable 16 medical probability. Here, issues relating to the nature and extent of the alleged injuries attributable to 17 the instant accident, along with the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and the associated costs 18 thereof, and a causal connection between the accident and the claimed injuries and damages are a matter 19 that require expert testimony. As stated in the objection this request is premature and the investigation 20 and discovery are continuing. Instruction 2(d) of the Form interrogatories state that “The interrogatories 21 in section 16.0, Defendant’s Contentions-Personal Injury, should not be used until the defendant has had 22 a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation or discovery of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.” 23 Thompkins has still not had the opportunity to conduct the reasonable investigation of plaintiff’s 24 injuries, damages, and whether it is attributable to the subject accident. Furthermore, Shooter Farms 25 failed to meet and confer with regard to this issue and therefore further responses should be denied. (see 26 Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431, 433-434; Townsend v. Superior Court, 27 (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040, see id, section 2020.300, subd. 28 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TRACI MARIE THOMPKINS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES - 13 1 (b) [Interrogatories]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) document requests]). 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 16.6: 3 Do you contend that any of the loss of earnings or income claimed by plaintiff in discovery proceedings 4 thus far in this case was unreasonable or was not caused by the incident? If so: 5 (a) Identify each part of the loss; (b) State all facts upon which you base your contention; 6 (c) State the names, address and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of the facts; and 7 (d) Identify all doc