Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
SHAWN A. TOLIVER, SB# 148349 E-FILED
2 E-Mail: Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com 2/24/2021 1:17 PM
DEVERA L. PETAK, SB# 92991 Superior Court of California
3 E-Mail: Devera.Petak@lewisbrisbois.com County of Fresno
GARY A. CERIO, SB# 99468 By: E Alvarado, Deputy
4 E-Mail: Gary.Cerio@lewisbrisbois.com
2185 North California Boulevard, Suite 300
5 Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925.357.3456
6 Facsimile: 925.478.3260
7 Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND
LINES, INC.
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF FRESNO
11
12 FREEMAN MAYS; EDGAR JIMENEZ; CASE NO. 19CECG03480
DARIO GONZALEZ; and PEDRO ALONSO-
13 IFIL, [Assigned for All Purposes to
The Hon. D. Tyler Tharpe, Dept. 501]
14 Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
15 vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES,
16 GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; ASHTON INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RENNICK CASTILLO and DOES 1 to 100, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO
17 inclusive, WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
DEEM PLAINTIFF TO HAVE
18 Defendants. ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS, AND FOR MONETARY
19 SANCTIONS
20 Date: May 20, 2021
Time: 3:30 p.m.
21 Dept.: 501
22 Action Filed: September 25, 2019
Trial Date: June 21, 2021
23
24
25 I. INTRODUCTION
26 Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby moves this Court for an
27 order compelling plaintiff PEDRO ALONSO-IFIL (“Plaintiff”) to respond to Defendant’s duly
28 served written discovery consisting of (1) Form Interrogatories, Set Two, (2) Special
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 Interrogatories, Set Two, and (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, for an order
2 deeming Plaintiff to have Admitted Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for
3 monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,560.00 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees
4 and costs associated with having to file this motion to obtain basic and essential discovery from
5 the Plaintiff.
6 On December 22, 2020, Defendant served upon Plaintiff: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set
7 Two, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set Two, (3) Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four,
8 and Requests for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiff failed to respond to any of these discovery
9 requests1. Plaintiff did not seek to obtain an extension of time to respond to this discovery and did
10 not serve any objections to any of this discovery. Plaintiff has utterly refused to participate in
11 discovery and has failed to meet and confer in a good faith effort to informally resolve these
12 discovery disputes.
13 This failure warrants an Order by this Court compelling Plaintiff to respond fully and
14 completely without objection to each and every form and special interrogatory and each and every
15 request for production of documents without exception, also warrants an Order by this Court
16 deeming the Plaintiff to have admitted each and every of the requests for admissions without
17 exception, and further warrants an Order awarding monetary sanctions in favor of the Defendant
18 and against Plaintiff for this flagrant discovery abuse in the total amount of $2,560, including
19 attorney fees at the reasonable rate of $250 per hour, and the $60 filing fee incurred by Defendant
20 to file this motion to enforce their legal right to obtain basic and crucial discovery from the party
21 suing them.
22 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
23 This case arises out of a Greyhound single vehicle bus accident that took place on
24
25
1
Responses were due at the latest 35 days from the date of service, or on January 26, 2021. While Courts
26 have issued some orders relating to the Coronavirus that resulted declared “judicial holidays” extending
some of periods of time, none of those extensions typically related to written discovery responses.
27 However, even with the benefit of additional time, Plaintiff never responded to the Defendant’s discovery
at all.
28
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 2
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 March 24, 2019 outside of Fresno, California. Plaintiff and three other individuals sued
2 Greyhound and its bus driver for injuries they alleged they suffered in that accident. On
3 October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint for Damages against Defendant
4 for alleged Negligence, Common Carrier Liability, Negligent Entrustment and Negligent Hiring,
5 Supervision and Entrustment. (Declaration of Gary A. Cerio, ¶ 3 [hereinafter “Cerio Decl.”];
6 Ex. A)
7 The case was mediated on October 26, 2020, and three of the plaintiffs settled their claims
8 against the Defendant. The three plaintiffs filed their Request for Dismissal on or about
9 November 30, 2020. However, Plaintiff Pedro Alonso-Ifil refused all attempts to settle his claim
10 at the mediation and “fired” his attorneys, electing to represent himself in propria persona by
11 signing a Substitution of Attorneys form on October 28, 2020, which was filed shortly thereafter.
12 (Cerio Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B)
13 On December 22, 2020, Defendant Greyhound served its Requests for Admissions, Set
14 One, Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production
15 of Documents, Set Four directed to the Plaintiff. (Cerio Decl., ¶5; respectively, Exs. C, D, E and
16 F)
17 These written discovery requests sought basic, yet fundamental and critical information
18 from the Plaintiff regarding the factual basis for his claims, his admissions or denials concerning
19 his behavior on the bus, the lack of liability of the Defendant, and Plaintiff’s lack of support for
20 his claims of injuries and damages, and the documents supporting and/or refuting his claims. The
21 information is crucial to the Defendant’s defenses and Defendant’s counsel’s preparation of a
22 potential summary judgment motion and their preparation for trial. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 5)
23 Plaintiff did not request an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s Requests for
24 Admissions, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, or Request
25 for Production of Documents, Set Four, and did not serve any Responses to Defendants’ written
26 discovery requests or produce any documents. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 6)
27 Defendant’s counsel in good faith attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to informally
28 resolve his failure to respond to discovery without the necessity of the Court’s intervention. On
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 3
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 January 28, 2021, defense counsel e-mailed (and mailed) a meet and confer letter to the Plaintiff to
2 remind him that he never responded to the Defendant’s written discovery requests, including the
3 requests for admissions, that all objections had been waived, and giving him until February 4,
4 2021 to serve his responses. Defense counsel’s letter also advised him that Defendant would file a
5 motion to compel and to have the requests for admissions deemed admitted, along with a request
6 for monetary sanctions against him, if he failed to serve written responses. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 7;
7 Ex. G)
8 Defendant’s counsel has not received any response of any kind from the Plaintiff to his
9 letter, and Defendant has not received any discovery responses since then. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 8)
10 Plaintiff has been uncooperative with other discovery as well. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 9)
11 The discovery sought by Defendant through this motion is plainly relevant to Plaintiff’s
12 claims and includes the most basic information to enable a party to conduct further discovery and
13 to enable the defendant to file a Motion for Summary Judgment or properly prepare for trial.
14 Plaintiff’s non-compliance is unjustifiable; it has deprived the Defendant of the opportunity to
15 conduct follow-up discovery, prepare a potential Motion for Summary Judgment, and most
16 important, to prepare for the rapidly-approaching June 21, 2021 trial, and Plaintiff’s actions have
17 forced Defendant and its counsel to expend needless time and resources to prepare and file this
18 motion to obtain this information. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 10)
19 III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
20 A. The Court Should Issue an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to
Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set
21 Two, Without Objection.
22 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), regarding interrogatories, states:
23 “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely
response…The party to whom the interrogatories are directed
24 waives…any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on
privilege or on the protection for work product.”
25
26 Defendant served its Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two,
27 on December 22, 2020. Plaintiff has still not provided responses to these basic and important
28 discovery requests in this case now set for trial on June 21, 2021. Plaintiff failed to request any
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 4
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 extensions of time and failed to serve any timely objections to this discovery. Because of that
2 behavior, Defendant was authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(b) to file this
3 motion.
4 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(b) provides in relevant part: “The party
5 propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the
6 interrogatories.”
7 Notwithstanding its right to file the motion without a meet and confer requirement because
8 of Plaintiff’s utter non-compliance, Defendant attempted in good faith to informally resolve the
9 issue to avoid filing this motion, to no avail. Plaintiff has still failed or refused to serve discovery
10 responses without explanation or communication. Notwithstanding the January 26, 2021 deadline,
11 Defendant even provided the Plaintiff with an additional week to serve responses, yet Plaintiff not
12 only failed to provide any of the discovery responses but, moreover, failed to respond to defense
13 counsel at all.
14 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and
15 Special Interrogatories, monetary sanctions are mandated unless it finds “substantial justification”
16 by the party losing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)
17 Accordingly, the Court should issue an Order compelling the Plaintiff to respond without
18 objection to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and
19 award the Defendant monetary sanctions from the Plaintiff as well.
20 B. The Court Should Issue an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to
Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, Without
21 Objection.
22 Defendant served its Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, on December 22,
23 2020. Plaintiff has still not provided responses to these basic and important document requests in
24 this case now set for trial on June 21, 2021. Plaintiff failed to request any extensions of time and
25 failed to serve any timely objections to this discovery. Plaintiff also failed to produce any
26 documents. Due to such behavior, Defendant was authorized by Code of Civil Procedure
27 section 2031.300 (b) to file this motion.
28
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 5
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides in relevant part:
2 If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling
is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall
3 apply:
(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
4 sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one
based on privilege or on the protection for work product…”
5 ***
(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling
6 response to the demand.
7 Notwithstanding its right to file this motion without a meet and confer requirement because
8 of Plaintiff’s lack of compliance, Defendant in good faith attempted to informally resolve the issue
9 to avoid filing this motion, to no avail. Plaintiff has still failed or refused to serve document
10 responses and documents without explanation or communication. Notwithstanding the
11 January 26, 2021 deadline, Defendant even provided the Plaintiff with an additional week to
12 respond, yet Plaintiff not only failed to provide any of the discovery responses, but he failed to
13 respond to defense counsel at all.
14 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Requests for Production of
15 Documents, monetary sanctions are mandated unless it finds “substantial justification” by the
16 party losing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)
17 Accordingly, the Court should issue an Order compelling the Plaintiff to respond without
18 objection to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, produce responsive
19 documents, and award the Defendant monetary sanctions from the Plaintiff as well.
20 C. The Court Should Issue an Order Deeming Plaintiff to have Admitted Each
and Every of Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, Without
21 Objection.
22 Defendant also served its Requests for Admissions, Set One, on December 22, 2020.
23 Plaintiff has still not provided responses to these fundamentally important factual, liability and
24 damages requests in this case now set for trial on June 21, 2021. Plaintiff failed to request any
25 extensions of time and failed to serve any timely objections to this discovery. As a consequence
26 of such behavior, Defendant was authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) to
27 file this motion.
28
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 6
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides in relevant part:
2 If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely
response, the following rules apply:
3 (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any
objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection
4 for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010)….
(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any
5 documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed
admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing
6 with Section 2023.010).
(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the
7 requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on
the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in
8 substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court
impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
9 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely
response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.
10
11 Notwithstanding its right to file the motion without a meet and confer requirement because
12 of Plaintiff’s complete failure to respond, Defendant attempted in good faith to informally resolve
13 the issue to avoid filing this motion, to no avail. Plaintiff has still failed or refused to serve
14 responses to the requests for admissions without explanation or communication. Notwithstanding
15 the January 26, 2021 deadline, Defendant even provided the Plaintiff with an additional week to
16 respond, yet Plaintiff not only failed to provide any of responses to the requests for admissions
17 but, failed to respond to defense counsel at all.
18 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Requests for Admissions,
19 monetary sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)
20 Accordingly, the Court should issue an Order deeming the Plaintiff to have admitted all of
21 Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, without objection, and award the Defendant
22 monetary sanctions from the Plaintiff.
23 D. The Court Should Award Monetary Sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure
Sections 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280, and Pursuant to Section 2023.030(a) for
24 Abuse of the Discovery Process.
25 Defendant respectfully urges the Court to award monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, even
26 though he is representing himself in pro per, for his unjustified failure to respond to any of
27 Defendant’s written discovery, specifically: (1) Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two,
28 (2) Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, (3) Defendant’s Request for Production of
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 7
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 Documents, Set Four, and (4) Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiff’s decision
2 to substitute himself into the case as his own attorney means that he must be held to the same
3 standard as any attorney representing a plaintiff.
4 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two
5 and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c) provides:
6 “The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or
attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a
7 response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
8 make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Emphasis supplied)
9 Regarding Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ Request for Production of
10 Documents, Set Four, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(c) provides, in pertinent part:
11 “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person,
or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a
12 response to a demand for inspection…unless it finds that the one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
13 make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
14 For Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, Code
15 of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) provides, in pertinent part:
16 The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the
requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on
17 the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in
substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court
18 impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely
19 response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.
20 These three statutes alone justify this Court’s Order awarding the Defend monetary
21 sanctions. But Defendant submits that that monetary sanctions are also warranted pursuant to
22 Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a), which provides in relevant part:
23 “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in
the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct,
24 or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by
anyone as a result of that conduct.”
25
26 As applied to this motion, the conduct by Plaintiff in avoiding responding to Defendant’s
27 appropriate written discovery is simply an abuse of our discovery laws and practices. Such
28 conduct warrants the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary sanctions.
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 8
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 The Court is clearly empowered to issue such sanctions in this case.
2 Plaintiff’s non-compliance is unjustifiable; it has deprived Defendant of the opportunity to
3 conduct follow-up discovery and has forced it to expend needless time and resources to prepare
4 and file this motion to obtain this basic information, rather than preparing for trial. (Cerio Decl.,
5 ¶¶ 8, 10)
6 Defendant has still not been able to obtain Plaintiff’s attention, let alone cooperation, in
7 participating in basic, fundamental discovery, including responding to the subject interrogatories,
8 requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. Plaintiff cannot offer any
9 reasonable justification for refusing to respond to Defendant’s rightful discovery requests.
10 Accordingly, monetary sanctions are most certainly warranted in this case.
11 The conduct of Plaintiff warrants a Court Order compelling Plaintiff to respond fully and
12 completely without objection to each and every interrogatory and each and every request for
13 production of documents without exception, a Court Order deeming that the Plaintiff has admitted
14 each and every request for admission without objection, and further warrants an award of
15 monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the total amount of $2,560 for
16 attorney fees at the reasonable rate of $250 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee for this motion.
17 IV. CONCLUSION
18 For the reasons set forth above and in the supporting Declaration of Gary A. Cerio and its
19 exhibits, Defendant submits that good cause clearly exists for this Court to grant the requested
20 relief by: (1) ordering Plaintiff to respond without objection to each and every interrogatory
21 propounded to him in Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set
22 Two, and to respond to each and every document request in its Request for Production of
23 Documents, Set Four, within ten (10) days of service of the notice of entry of this Order; (2)
24 ordering that Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted without objection each and every request
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 9
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 propounded to him in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, and, (3) ordering Plaintiff
2 Pedro Alonso-Ifil to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $2,560.00, also within
3 ten (10) days of service of the notice of this Order.
4 DATED: February 24, 2021 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
5
6
By:
7 DEVERA L. PETAK
GARY A. CERIO
8 Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES,
INC.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 10
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Freeman Mays, et al. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al.
Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 19CECG03480
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
5 business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2872.
6 On February 24, 2021, I served a true copy of the following document: MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES,
7 INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY
REQUESTS, TO DEEM PLAINTIFF TO HAVE ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS,
8 AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
9 I served the document on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable):
10
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
11
The document was served by the following means:
12
(BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY) Only by e-mailing the document to the
13 persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above based on notice provided on March 16, 2020
that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely,
14 not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received
15 within a reasonable time after the transmission.
16 (BY U.S. MAIL) I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to
the person as indicated on the attached service list and:
17
Placed the envelope or package for collection and mailing, following our ordinary
18 business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, on the same day that correspondence is placed
19 for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal
Service, in a sealed envelope or package with the postage fully prepaid.I declare under penalty of
20 perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
21 Executed on February 24, 2021, at San Francisco, California.
22
23
Gina Forese
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 11
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
1 SERVICE LIST
Freeman Mays, et al. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al.
2 Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 19CECG03480
3 Arthur J. Chapman, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant
Marsha Kempson, Esq. ASHTON RENNICK CASTILLO
4 Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
11900 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800 Service via e-mail only
5 Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704
Tel: (310) 207-7722
6 Fax: (310) 207-6550
Email: achapman@cgdrlaw.com
7 mkempson@cgdrblaw.com
8 Pedro Alonso-Ifil Plaintiff IN PRO PER
1340 East 6th Street, Apt 305
9 Los Angeles, CA 90021 Service copies to be sent via First Class Mail
Tel: (786) 569-6324 and E-mail
10 Email: kingraspedromusic@gmail.com
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1
BRISBOIS 12
BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO
& SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS
Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SHAWN A. TOLIVER, SB# 148349 E-FILED 2 E-Mail: Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com 2/24/2021 1:17 PM DEVERA L. PETAK, SB# 92991 Superior Court of California 3 E-Mail: Devera.Petak@lewisbrisbois.com County of Fresno GARY A. CERIO, SB# 99468 By: E Alvarado, Deputy 4 E-Mail: Gary.Cerio@lewisbrisbois.com 2185 North California Boulevard, Suite 300 5 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: 925.357.3456 6 Facsimile: 925.478.3260 7 Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF FRESNO 11 12 FREEMAN MAYS; EDGAR JIMENEZ; CASE NO. 19CECG03480 DARIO GONZALEZ; and PEDRO ALONSO- 13 IFIL, [Assigned for All Purposes to The Hon. D. Tyler Tharpe, Dept. 501] 14 Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 15 vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, 16 GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; ASHTON INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL RENNICK CASTILLO and DOES 1 to 100, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO 17 inclusive, WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO DEEM PLAINTIFF TO HAVE 18 Defendants. ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, AND FOR MONETARY 19 SANCTIONS 20 Date: May 20, 2021 Time: 3:30 p.m. 21 Dept.: 501 22 Action Filed: September 25, 2019 Trial Date: June 21, 2021 23 24 25 I. INTRODUCTION 26 Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby moves this Court for an 27 order compelling plaintiff PEDRO ALONSO-IFIL (“Plaintiff”) to respond to Defendant’s duly 28 served written discovery consisting of (1) Form Interrogatories, Set Two, (2) Special LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 Interrogatories, Set Two, and (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, for an order 2 deeming Plaintiff to have Admitted Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for 3 monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $2,560.00 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees 4 and costs associated with having to file this motion to obtain basic and essential discovery from 5 the Plaintiff. 6 On December 22, 2020, Defendant served upon Plaintiff: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set 7 Two, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set Two, (3) Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four, 8 and Requests for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiff failed to respond to any of these discovery 9 requests1. Plaintiff did not seek to obtain an extension of time to respond to this discovery and did 10 not serve any objections to any of this discovery. Plaintiff has utterly refused to participate in 11 discovery and has failed to meet and confer in a good faith effort to informally resolve these 12 discovery disputes. 13 This failure warrants an Order by this Court compelling Plaintiff to respond fully and 14 completely without objection to each and every form and special interrogatory and each and every 15 request for production of documents without exception, also warrants an Order by this Court 16 deeming the Plaintiff to have admitted each and every of the requests for admissions without 17 exception, and further warrants an Order awarding monetary sanctions in favor of the Defendant 18 and against Plaintiff for this flagrant discovery abuse in the total amount of $2,560, including 19 attorney fees at the reasonable rate of $250 per hour, and the $60 filing fee incurred by Defendant 20 to file this motion to enforce their legal right to obtain basic and crucial discovery from the party 21 suing them. 22 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 23 This case arises out of a Greyhound single vehicle bus accident that took place on 24 25 1 Responses were due at the latest 35 days from the date of service, or on January 26, 2021. While Courts 26 have issued some orders relating to the Coronavirus that resulted declared “judicial holidays” extending some of periods of time, none of those extensions typically related to written discovery responses. 27 However, even with the benefit of additional time, Plaintiff never responded to the Defendant’s discovery at all. 28 LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 2 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 March 24, 2019 outside of Fresno, California. Plaintiff and three other individuals sued 2 Greyhound and its bus driver for injuries they alleged they suffered in that accident. On 3 October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint for Damages against Defendant 4 for alleged Negligence, Common Carrier Liability, Negligent Entrustment and Negligent Hiring, 5 Supervision and Entrustment. (Declaration of Gary A. Cerio, ¶ 3 [hereinafter “Cerio Decl.”]; 6 Ex. A) 7 The case was mediated on October 26, 2020, and three of the plaintiffs settled their claims 8 against the Defendant. The three plaintiffs filed their Request for Dismissal on or about 9 November 30, 2020. However, Plaintiff Pedro Alonso-Ifil refused all attempts to settle his claim 10 at the mediation and “fired” his attorneys, electing to represent himself in propria persona by 11 signing a Substitution of Attorneys form on October 28, 2020, which was filed shortly thereafter. 12 (Cerio Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B) 13 On December 22, 2020, Defendant Greyhound served its Requests for Admissions, Set 14 One, Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Production 15 of Documents, Set Four directed to the Plaintiff. (Cerio Decl., ¶5; respectively, Exs. C, D, E and 16 F) 17 These written discovery requests sought basic, yet fundamental and critical information 18 from the Plaintiff regarding the factual basis for his claims, his admissions or denials concerning 19 his behavior on the bus, the lack of liability of the Defendant, and Plaintiff’s lack of support for 20 his claims of injuries and damages, and the documents supporting and/or refuting his claims. The 21 information is crucial to the Defendant’s defenses and Defendant’s counsel’s preparation of a 22 potential summary judgment motion and their preparation for trial. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 5) 23 Plaintiff did not request an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s Requests for 24 Admissions, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set Two, Special Interrogatories, Set Two, or Request 25 for Production of Documents, Set Four, and did not serve any Responses to Defendants’ written 26 discovery requests or produce any documents. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 6) 27 Defendant’s counsel in good faith attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to informally 28 resolve his failure to respond to discovery without the necessity of the Court’s intervention. On LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 3 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 January 28, 2021, defense counsel e-mailed (and mailed) a meet and confer letter to the Plaintiff to 2 remind him that he never responded to the Defendant’s written discovery requests, including the 3 requests for admissions, that all objections had been waived, and giving him until February 4, 4 2021 to serve his responses. Defense counsel’s letter also advised him that Defendant would file a 5 motion to compel and to have the requests for admissions deemed admitted, along with a request 6 for monetary sanctions against him, if he failed to serve written responses. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 7; 7 Ex. G) 8 Defendant’s counsel has not received any response of any kind from the Plaintiff to his 9 letter, and Defendant has not received any discovery responses since then. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 8) 10 Plaintiff has been uncooperative with other discovery as well. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 9) 11 The discovery sought by Defendant through this motion is plainly relevant to Plaintiff’s 12 claims and includes the most basic information to enable a party to conduct further discovery and 13 to enable the defendant to file a Motion for Summary Judgment or properly prepare for trial. 14 Plaintiff’s non-compliance is unjustifiable; it has deprived the Defendant of the opportunity to 15 conduct follow-up discovery, prepare a potential Motion for Summary Judgment, and most 16 important, to prepare for the rapidly-approaching June 21, 2021 trial, and Plaintiff’s actions have 17 forced Defendant and its counsel to expend needless time and resources to prepare and file this 18 motion to obtain this information. (Cerio Decl., ¶ 10) 19 III. LEGAL DISCUSSION 20 A. The Court Should Issue an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set 21 Two, Without Objection. 22 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), regarding interrogatories, states: 23 “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response…The party to whom the interrogatories are directed 24 waives…any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” 25 26 Defendant served its Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, 27 on December 22, 2020. Plaintiff has still not provided responses to these basic and important 28 discovery requests in this case now set for trial on June 21, 2021. Plaintiff failed to request any LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 4 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 extensions of time and failed to serve any timely objections to this discovery. Because of that 2 behavior, Defendant was authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(b) to file this 3 motion. 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(b) provides in relevant part: “The party 5 propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the 6 interrogatories.” 7 Notwithstanding its right to file the motion without a meet and confer requirement because 8 of Plaintiff’s utter non-compliance, Defendant attempted in good faith to informally resolve the 9 issue to avoid filing this motion, to no avail. Plaintiff has still failed or refused to serve discovery 10 responses without explanation or communication. Notwithstanding the January 26, 2021 deadline, 11 Defendant even provided the Plaintiff with an additional week to serve responses, yet Plaintiff not 12 only failed to provide any of the discovery responses but, moreover, failed to respond to defense 13 counsel at all. 14 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Form Interrogatories and 15 Special Interrogatories, monetary sanctions are mandated unless it finds “substantial justification” 16 by the party losing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).) 17 Accordingly, the Court should issue an Order compelling the Plaintiff to respond without 18 objection to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and 19 award the Defendant monetary sanctions from the Plaintiff as well. 20 B. The Court Should Issue an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, Without 21 Objection. 22 Defendant served its Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, on December 22, 23 2020. Plaintiff has still not provided responses to these basic and important document requests in 24 this case now set for trial on June 21, 2021. Plaintiff failed to request any extensions of time and 25 failed to serve any timely objections to this discovery. Plaintiff also failed to produce any 26 documents. Due to such behavior, Defendant was authorized by Code of Civil Procedure 27 section 2031.300 (b) to file this motion. 28 LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 5 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 provides in relevant part: 2 If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall 3 apply: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or 4 sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” 5 *** (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling 6 response to the demand. 7 Notwithstanding its right to file this motion without a meet and confer requirement because 8 of Plaintiff’s lack of compliance, Defendant in good faith attempted to informally resolve the issue 9 to avoid filing this motion, to no avail. Plaintiff has still failed or refused to serve document 10 responses and documents without explanation or communication. Notwithstanding the 11 January 26, 2021 deadline, Defendant even provided the Plaintiff with an additional week to 12 respond, yet Plaintiff not only failed to provide any of the discovery responses, but he failed to 13 respond to defense counsel at all. 14 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Requests for Production of 15 Documents, monetary sanctions are mandated unless it finds “substantial justification” by the 16 party losing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).) 17 Accordingly, the Court should issue an Order compelling the Plaintiff to respond without 18 objection to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Four, produce responsive 19 documents, and award the Defendant monetary sanctions from the Plaintiff as well. 20 C. The Court Should Issue an Order Deeming Plaintiff to have Admitted Each and Every of Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, Without 21 Objection. 22 Defendant also served its Requests for Admissions, Set One, on December 22, 2020. 23 Plaintiff has still not provided responses to these fundamentally important factual, liability and 24 damages requests in this case now set for trial on June 21, 2021. Plaintiff failed to request any 25 extensions of time and failed to serve any timely objections to this discovery. As a consequence 26 of such behavior, Defendant was authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) to 27 file this motion. 28 LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 6 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides in relevant part: 2 If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: 3 (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection 4 for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010)…. (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any 5 documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing 6 with Section 2023.010). (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the 7 requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in 8 substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 9 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. 10 11 Notwithstanding its right to file the motion without a meet and confer requirement because 12 of Plaintiff’s complete failure to respond, Defendant attempted in good faith to informally resolve 13 the issue to avoid filing this motion, to no avail. Plaintiff has still failed or refused to serve 14 responses to the requests for admissions without explanation or communication. Notwithstanding 15 the January 26, 2021 deadline, Defendant even provided the Plaintiff with an additional week to 16 respond, yet Plaintiff not only failed to provide any of responses to the requests for admissions 17 but, failed to respond to defense counsel at all. 18 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, 19 monetary sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) 20 Accordingly, the Court should issue an Order deeming the Plaintiff to have admitted all of 21 Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, without objection, and award the Defendant 22 monetary sanctions from the Plaintiff. 23 D. The Court Should Award Monetary Sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280, and Pursuant to Section 2023.030(a) for 24 Abuse of the Discovery Process. 25 Defendant respectfully urges the Court to award monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, even 26 though he is representing himself in pro per, for his unjustified failure to respond to any of 27 Defendant’s written discovery, specifically: (1) Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, 28 (2) Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, (3) Defendant’s Request for Production of LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 7 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 Documents, Set Four, and (4) Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiff’s decision 2 to substitute himself into the case as his own attorney means that he must be held to the same 3 standard as any attorney representing a plaintiff. 4 With respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two 5 and Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c) provides: 6 “The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 7 response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances 8 make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Emphasis supplied) 9 Regarding Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ Request for Production of 10 Documents, Set Four, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(c) provides, in pertinent part: 11 “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 12 response to a demand for inspection…unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances 13 make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 14 For Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, Code 15 of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) provides, in pertinent part: 16 The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on 17 the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court 18 impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely 19 response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. 20 These three statutes alone justify this Court’s Order awarding the Defend monetary 21 sanctions. But Defendant submits that that monetary sanctions are also warranted pursuant to 22 Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a), which provides in relevant part: 23 “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, 24 or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” 25 26 As applied to this motion, the conduct by Plaintiff in avoiding responding to Defendant’s 27 appropriate written discovery is simply an abuse of our discovery laws and practices. Such 28 conduct warrants the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary sanctions. LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 8 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 The Court is clearly empowered to issue such sanctions in this case. 2 Plaintiff’s non-compliance is unjustifiable; it has deprived Defendant of the opportunity to 3 conduct follow-up discovery and has forced it to expend needless time and resources to prepare 4 and file this motion to obtain this basic information, rather than preparing for trial. (Cerio Decl., 5 ¶¶ 8, 10) 6 Defendant has still not been able to obtain Plaintiff’s attention, let alone cooperation, in 7 participating in basic, fundamental discovery, including responding to the subject interrogatories, 8 requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. Plaintiff cannot offer any 9 reasonable justification for refusing to respond to Defendant’s rightful discovery requests. 10 Accordingly, monetary sanctions are most certainly warranted in this case. 11 The conduct of Plaintiff warrants a Court Order compelling Plaintiff to respond fully and 12 completely without objection to each and every interrogatory and each and every request for 13 production of documents without exception, a Court Order deeming that the Plaintiff has admitted 14 each and every request for admission without objection, and further warrants an award of 15 monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the total amount of $2,560 for 16 attorney fees at the reasonable rate of $250 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee for this motion. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons set forth above and in the supporting Declaration of Gary A. Cerio and its 19 exhibits, Defendant submits that good cause clearly exists for this Court to grant the requested 20 relief by: (1) ordering Plaintiff to respond without objection to each and every interrogatory 21 propounded to him in Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set 22 Two, and to respond to each and every document request in its Request for Production of 23 Documents, Set Four, within ten (10) days of service of the notice of entry of this Order; (2) 24 ordering that Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted without objection each and every request 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 9 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 propounded to him in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, and, (3) ordering Plaintiff 2 Pedro Alonso-Ifil to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $2,560.00, also within 3 ten (10) days of service of the notice of this Order. 4 DATED: February 24, 2021 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 5 6 By: 7 DEVERA L. PETAK GARY A. CERIO 8 Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 10 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Freeman Mays, et al. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al. Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 19CECG03480 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My 5 business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2872. 6 On February 24, 2021, I served a true copy of the following document: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREYHOUND LINES, 7 INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO DEEM PLAINTIFF TO HAVE ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, 8 AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 9 I served the document on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): 10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 11 The document was served by the following means: 12 (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY) Only by e-mailing the document to the 13 persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above based on notice provided on March 16, 2020 that, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will be working remotely, 14 not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received 15 within a reasonable time after the transmission. 16 (BY U.S. MAIL) I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person as indicated on the attached service list and: 17 Placed the envelope or package for collection and mailing, following our ordinary 18 business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, on the same day that correspondence is placed 19 for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope or package with the postage fully prepaid.I declare under penalty of 20 perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 21 Executed on February 24, 2021, at San Francisco, California. 22 23 Gina Forese 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 11 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS 1 SERVICE LIST Freeman Mays, et al. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al. 2 Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 19CECG03480 3 Arthur J. Chapman, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Marsha Kempson, Esq. ASHTON RENNICK CASTILLO 4 Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger 11900 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800 Service via e-mail only 5 Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704 Tel: (310) 207-7722 6 Fax: (310) 207-6550 Email: achapman@cgdrlaw.com 7 mkempson@cgdrblaw.com 8 Pedro Alonso-Ifil Plaintiff IN PRO PER 1340 East 6th Street, Apt 305 9 Los Angeles, CA 90021 Service copies to be sent via First Class Mail Tel: (786) 569-6324 and E-mail 10 Email: kingraspedromusic@gmail.com 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4815-8801-7114.1 BRISBOIS 12 BISGAARD MPA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS, TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS