Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1 JASON H. ANDERSON, State Bar No. 172087 Superior Court of California
janderson@stradlinglaw.com County of Santa Barbara
2 ANDREW B. MASON, State Bar No. 317944 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
amason@stradlinglaw.com 11/9/2021 5:52 PM
3 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH By: Madelyn Mercer, Deputy
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422
5 Telephone: 949 725 4000
Facsimile: 949 725 4100
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 THOMAS KOPITNIK
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - COOK
10 THOMAS KOPITNIK, an individual, CASE NO. 21CV02266
Honorable James F Rigali.
11 Plaintiff, Dept. SM2
12 vs. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF THOMAS
13 CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. a KOPITNIK’S NOTICE OF MOTION
California corporation; CHRISTOPHER AND MOTION TO COMPEL
14 HULME, and individual; and, DOES FURTHER RESPONSES BY
1,THROUGH 10, DEFENDANT CLEARVIEW
15 PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. TO
Defendant. KOPITNIK’S FIRST SET OF
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS.
1, 2, and 4
17
18 Hearing:
Date: January 18, 2022
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Location: Dept. SM2
20 312-C East Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
21
Complaint Filed: June 8, 2021
22 Trial Date: None Set
23
24
25
26
27
28
S TRADLING Y OCCA -1-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
2 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
3 Kopitnik hereby submits pursuant to California Rule 3.1345, a Separate Statement in
4 Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories – Set One,
5 Nos. 1, 2, and 4.
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
8 IDENTIFY each PERSON who worked on the PROPERTY on YOUR behalf.
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
10 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the
11 undefined term "worked" is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non-specific. The defined term
12 "YOUR" is also vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome in that it identifies multiple
13 persons and references. The term "YOUR" as defined also seeks to invade the attorney work
14 product and calls for premature production of expert witness information. This interrogatory is
15 vague, ambiguous, overbroad, non-specific, invasive of the attorney-client privilege and
16 attorney work product doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness
17 information. Responding party additionally objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
18 is not sufficiently limited in time and scope, and is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and
19 harassing. Responding party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds to the extent
20 that it seeks information that is equally available to Propounding Party. Responding party also
21 objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is an invasion of privacy and seeks information
22 that violates the right of privacy of persons that are not parties to this action. However, subject
23 to and without waiving the above-stated objections, this responding party responds as follows:
24 Responding Party's RMO/CEO/President and Defendant Christopher Hulme and Mr. Hulme's
25 wife, Jennifer Hulme, both of whom may be contacted through Responding Party's counsel of
26 record; Responding Party's employees who may be contacted through Responding Party's
27 counsel of record:
28 • Kevin Downs
S TRADLING Y OCCA -2-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 • Filiberto M. Martinez
2 • Isaias S. Mendez
3 • Mario Olmos
4 • Jose "Geronimo" Santillan
5 • Josue Talamantes
6 • Guadalupe Vargas
7 Responding Party's former employees who may be contacted through Responding
8 Party's counsel of record:
9 • Luis Calderon
10 • Salvador B. Calvo
11 • Santos Q. Carbajal
12 • Armando Espino
13 • Alberto L. Flores
14 • Jesus P. Garcia
15 • Odilon "Andres" Garcia
16 • Albert F. Ineira
17 • Hermenegildo Mora
18 • Pedro Ortiz
19 • Oscar Sanchez
20 • Jose A. Santillan
21 • Jesus Zavala
22 FACTUAL REASON FOR COMPELLING A RESPONSE:
23 As a threshold matter Clearview’s generalized objections provide no factual basis or
24 specific basis for the objection, and accordingly, should be disregarded in their entirety. See
25 Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516 (1997) (finding
26 objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections); Standon, 225 Cal. App. 3d. at
27 903 (noting that a party refusing to produce documents based on nuisance objections that a
28 request is “vague and ambiguous” is subject to discovery sanctions).
S TRADLING Y OCCA -3-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 Clearview also makes an objection that the request invades the “attorney work product
2 doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness information” and also invades the
3 attorney-client privilege. Yet Clearview does not identify, nor can it, how the attorney work
4 product, attorney-client privilege or expert witness information from this lawsuit is implicated
5 by providing basic information about prior lawsuits against it. See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible
6 & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 596 (2016) (burden is on party
7 claiming privilege to show the preliminary facts supporting the application of the privilege).
8 Plaintiff’s nuisance objection that the interrogatory imposes an undue burden or
9 oppression on it is without merit. The objecting party must demonstrate that the burden is
10 oppressive and unjust; specifically, it must appear that the amount of work required to respond
11 to the discovery is so great, and the utility of the information so minimal, that it would defeat
12 the ends of justice to require responses. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior
13 Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (1968); West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior
14 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418 (1961). The objecting party must provide detailed evidence of
15 how much work is required to answer; conclusory statements are insufficient. Id. Clearview’s
16 boilerplate objection does not identify what burden, if any, it would suffer by providing this
17 information. Moreover, Defendants have not and cannot demonstrate any undue burden in
18 simply providing a short statement about each of these projects given the records it
19 undoubtedly reviewed in formulating the incomplete response provided that it has worked on
20 119 projects from September 2012 to December 2018.
21 Clearview’s privacy objection, ostensibly on behalf of third parties who neither it nor
22 its counsel represent, is without merit. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a
23 legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given
24 circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v Superior Court, 3 Cal.
25 5th 531, 552 (2017). Even if Clearview could invoke a third party’s right to privacy as its own,
26 Clearview provides no information or authority demonstrating anyone has an objectively
27 reasonable expectation of privacy in these claims or why such information presents serious
28 intrusion issues.
S TRADLING Y OCCA -4-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 Clearview provided a response listing its current and former employees who worked on
2 the Project, yet refusing to provide contact information for its former employees, who are
3 ostensibly not represented by Clearview’s counsel nor are they under Clearview’s control. In
4 response to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts, Clearview responded that it would “provide a
5 further response to this interrogatory with the names, addresses and last known telephone
6 numbers of Clearview's former employees who worked on Plaintiff's ranch.” (Mason Decl.,
7 Ex. 4 [Clearview’s October 15, 2021 Letter].) Yet, Clearview has not provided a supplemental
8 response regarding this information.
9
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
11 IDENTIFY each landscape project YOU worked on in the ten years prior to working on
12 the PROJECT. (For purposes of this interrogatory, “identify” means state the address of the
13 project, the owner or owners of the project, the scope of the project, and the current status of
14 the project).
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
16 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the
17 undefined term "worked" is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non-specific. The defined term
18 "YOU" is also vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome in that it identifies multiple
19 persons and references. The term "YOU" as defined also seeks to invade the attorney work
20 product and calls for premature production of expert witness information. This interrogatory is
21 vague, ambiguous, overbroad, non-specific, invasive of the attorney-client privilege and
22 attorney work product doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness
23 information. Responding party additionally objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
24 is not sufficiently limited in time and scope, and is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and
25 harassing. Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
26 information not relevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, the facts plead in
27 Plaintiff's complaint and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
28 admissible evidence. Responding party also objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is an
S TRADLING Y OCCA -5-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 invasion of privacy and seeks information that violates the right of privacy of persons that are
2 not parties to this action. However, subject to and without waiving the above-stated objections,
3 and in the spirit of discovery, this responding party responds as follows:
4 Responding Party has worked on 119 projects in Santa Barbara County from September
5 13, 2012 to approximately December of 2018.
6 FACTUAL REASON FOR COMPELLING A RESPONSE:
7 As a threshold matter Clearview’s generalized objections provide no factual basis or
8 specific basis for the objection, and accordingly, should be disregarded in their entirety. See
9 Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516 (1997) (finding
10 objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections); Standon, 225 Cal. App. 3d. at
11 903 (noting that a party refusing to produce documents based on nuisance objections that a
12 request is “vague and ambiguous” is subject to discovery sanctions).
13 Clearview’s objection on relevance grounds is without merit. Plaintiff has alleged that
14 Defendants made specific, false representations to him regarding their landscape project skills,
15 licensing and prior experience and that he relied on those representations to enter into the
16 contract and pay Defendants money. Pursuant to another cause of action, Plaintiff also alleged
17 that Defendant negligently performed its contracting work well below the standard of care and
18 thus, by implication, that Defendants lacked the requisite skills, knowledge and prior
19 experience to perform their job duties in accordance with the standard of care. Indeed, Plaintiff
20 has already discovered one lawsuit where Defendant Hulme and a predecessor entity to
21 Clearview were found to have fraudulently misrepresented their skills, qualifications and
22 billing practices. See Moler v. Hulme, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case No.
23 1417847. The information about past projects is relevant because Defendants represented to
24 Plaintiff that they had the skill and experience to undertake a project of the size and complexity
25 as Plaintiff’s multi-acre project, i.e. that they had successfully undertaken projects of similar
26 size and scope before. Thus, basic information about the size, scope and location of other
27 projects is relevant to whether this representation was true.
28
S TRADLING Y OCCA -6-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 Clearview also makes an objection that the request invades the “attorney work product
2 doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness information” and also invades the
3 attorney-client privilege. Yet Clearview does not identify, nor can it, how the attorney work
4 product, attorney-client privilege or expert witness information from this lawsuit is implicated
5 by providing basic information about prior lawsuits against it. See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible
6 & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 596 (2016) (burden is on party
7 claiming privilege to show the preliminary facts supporting the application of the privilege).
8 Plaintiff’s nuisance objection that the interrogatory imposes an undue burden or
9 oppression on it is without merit. The objecting party must demonstrate that the burden is
10 oppressive and unjust; specifically, it must appear that the amount of work required to respond
11 to the discovery is so great, and the utility of the information so minimal, that it would defeat
12 the ends of justice to require responses. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior
13 Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (1968); West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior
14 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418 (1961). The objecting party must provide detailed evidence of
15 how much work is required to answer; conclusory statements are insufficient. Id. Clearview’s
16 boilerplate objection does not identify what burden, if any, it would suffer by providing this
17 information. Moreover, Defendants have not and cannot demonstrate any undue burden in
18 simply providing a short statement about each of these projects given the records it
19 undoubtedly reviewed in formulating the incomplete response provided that it has worked on
20 119 projects from September 2012 to December 2018.
21 Clearview’s privacy objection, ostensibly on behalf of third parties who neither it nor
22 its counsel represent, is without merit. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a
23 legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given
24 circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v Superior Court, 3 Cal.
25 5th 531, 552 (2017). Even if Clearview could invoke a third party’s right to privacy as its own,
26 Clearview provides no information or authority demonstrating anyone has an objectively
27 reasonable expectation of privacy in these claims or why such information presents serious
28 intrusion issues.
S TRADLING Y OCCA -7-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
2 IDENTIFY all claims made against YOU arising out of YOUR work as a contractor in
3 the last ten years. (For purposes of this interrogatory, “identify” means state the nature of the
4 claim, the date of the claim and the name of the court or arbitration and case number where
5 applicable).
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
7 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the
8 undefined terms "claims," "work" and "contractor" are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non-
9 specific. Responding party additionally objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
10 not limited in time and scope, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. The defined
11 terms "YOU" and "YOUR" are also vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome in that it
12 identifies multiple persons and references. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as defined also seek
13 to invade the attorney work product and calls for premature production of expert witness
14 information. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, non-specific, invasive of the
15 attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine and calls for premature production
16 of expert witness information. Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
17 that it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, the facts
18 plead in Plaintiff's complaint and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
19 discovery of admissible evidence. Responding party also objects on the grounds that this
20 interrogatory is an invasion of privacy and seeks information that violates the right of privacy
21 of persons that are and are not parties to this action.
22 FACTUAL REASON FOR COMPELLING A RESPONSE:
23 As a threshold matter Clearview’s generalized objections provide no factual basis or
24 specific basis for the objection, and accordingly, should be disregarded in their entirety. See
25 Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516 (1997) (finding
26 objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections); Standon, 225 Cal. App. 3d. at
27 903 (noting that a party refusing to produce documents based on nuisance objections that a
28 request is “vague and ambiguous” is subject to discovery sanctions).
S TRADLING Y OCCA -8-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 Clearview’s objection on relevance grounds is without merit. Plaintiff has alleged that
2 Defendants made specific, false representations to him regarding their landscape project skills,
3 licensing and prior experience and that he relied on those representations to enter into the
4 contract and pay Defendants money. Pursuant to another cause of action, Plaintiff also alleged
5 that Defendant negligently performed its contracting work well below the standard of care and
6 thus, by implication, that Defendants lacked the requisite skills, knowledge and prior
7 experience to perform their job duties in accordance with the standard of care. Indeed, Plaintiff
8 has already discovered one lawsuit where Defendant Hulme and a predecessor entity to
9 Clearview were found to have fraudulently misrepresented their skills, qualifications and
10 billing practices. See Moler v. Hulme, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case No.
11 1417847. Information about this and other lawsuits or arbitrations is highly relevant as to
12 whether Defendants’ actually had the skill and experience to undertake the project and is
13 relevant as to whether Defendants’ knew their representations to Plaintiff were false.
14 Clearview also makes an objection that the request invades the “attorney work product
15 doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness information” and also invades the
16 attorney-client privilege. Yet Clearview does not identify, nor can it, how the attorney work
17 product, attorney-client privilege or expert witness information from this lawsuit is implicated
18 by providing basic information about prior lawsuits against it. See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible
19 & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 596 (2016) (burden is on party
20 claiming privilege to show the preliminary facts supporting the application of the privilege).
21 Plaintiff’s nuisance objection that the interrogatory imposes an undue burden or
22 oppression on it is without merit. The objecting party must demonstrate that the burden is
23 oppressive and unjust; specifically, it must appear that the amount of work required to respond
24 to the discovery is so great, and the utility of the information so minimal, that it would defeat
25 the ends of justice to require responses. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior
26 Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (1968); West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior
27 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418 (1961). The objecting party must provide detailed evidence of
28 how much work is required to answer; conclusory statements are insufficient. Id. Clearview’s
S TRADLING Y OCCA -9-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
1 boilerplate objection does not identify what burden, if any, it would suffer by providing this
2 information. Moreover, the request is limited in scope as it asks for Clearview to identify
3 claims in the last 10 years.
4 Clearview’s privacy objection, ostensibly on behalf of third parties who neither it nor
5 its counsel represent, is without merit. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a
6 legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given
7 circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v Superior Court, 3 Cal.
8 5th 531, 552 (2017). Even if Clearview could invoke a third party’s right to privacy as its own,
9 Clearview provides no information or authority demonstrating anyone has an objectively
10 reasonable expectation of privacy in these claims or why such information presents serious
11 intrusion issues.
12 Clearview’s objection that the terms "claims," "work" and "contractor" and “YOU” and
13 “YOUR” are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non-specific are undefined and thus it cannot
14 answer the interrogatory is without merit. Clearview provides no specific basis for its
15 objection why it cannot answer the interrogatory based on the plain meaning of the undefined
16 words or the defined terms. Clement v. Alegre, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1283 (2009)
17 (awarding sanctions when party made frivolous objection that term used in special
18 interrogatory was undefined).
19
20
DATED: November 9, 2021 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
21 A Professional Corporation
22
23 By:
Jason H. Anderson
24 Andrew B. Mason
Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS KOPITNIK
25
26
27
28
S TRADLING Y OCCA -10-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21CV02266
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
2 ) ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
3
I am employed by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth A Professional Corporation in the
4 County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within
action. My business address is: 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600, Newport Beach, CA
5 92660-6422. On November 9, 2021, I served the within documents:
6 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF THOMAS KOPITNIK’S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY
7 DEFENDANT CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. TO KOPITNIK’S FIRST
SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1, 2, and 4
8
By email or electronic transmission. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to
9 accept service by electronic transmission, I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-
10 mail address kmilanowski@stradlinglaw.com to the person(s) at the email address(es) listed in
the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
11 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
12 Sheila E. Fix Attorneys for Defendants
S. Joanna Dyriam CHRISTOPHER HULME and
13 WOOD, SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP CLEARVIEW PROPERTY
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215 SERVICES, INC.
14 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361-5827
Telephone: (820) 333-4233
15 Facsimile: (820) 333-4249
Email: sfix@wshblaw.com
16 sdyriam@wshblaw.com
17 Cc: Allie S. Sayle; ASayle@wshblaw.com
18
19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court whose
direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
20 California that the above is true and correct.
21 Executed on November 9, 2021at Newport Beach, California
22
By:
23 Kayla Milanowski
24
25
26
27
28
S TRADLING Y OCCA -11-
C ARLSON & R AUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
PROOF OF SERVICE
21CV02266
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1 JASON H. ANDERSON, State Bar No. 172087 Superior Court of California janderson@stradlinglaw.com County of Santa Barbara 2 ANDREW B. MASON, State Bar No. 317944 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer amason@stradlinglaw.com 11/9/2021 5:52 PM 3 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH By: Madelyn Mercer, Deputy A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 5 Telephone: 949 725 4000 Facsimile: 949 725 4100 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 THOMAS KOPITNIK 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - COOK 10 THOMAS KOPITNIK, an individual, CASE NO. 21CV02266 Honorable James F Rigali. 11 Plaintiff, Dept. SM2 12 vs. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF THOMAS 13 CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. a KOPITNIK’S NOTICE OF MOTION California corporation; CHRISTOPHER AND MOTION TO COMPEL 14 HULME, and individual; and, DOES FURTHER RESPONSES BY 1,THROUGH 10, DEFENDANT CLEARVIEW 15 PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. TO Defendant. KOPITNIK’S FIRST SET OF 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1, 2, and 4 17 18 Hearing: Date: January 18, 2022 19 Time: 8:30 a.m. Location: Dept. SM2 20 312-C East Cook Street Santa Maria, CA 93454 21 Complaint Filed: June 8, 2021 22 Trial Date: None Set 23 24 25 26 27 28 S TRADLING Y OCCA -1- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER 2 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 3 Kopitnik hereby submits pursuant to California Rule 3.1345, a Separate Statement in 4 Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories – Set One, 5 Nos. 1, 2, and 4. 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 8 IDENTIFY each PERSON who worked on the PROPERTY on YOUR behalf. 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 10 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 11 undefined term "worked" is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non-specific. The defined term 12 "YOUR" is also vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome in that it identifies multiple 13 persons and references. The term "YOUR" as defined also seeks to invade the attorney work 14 product and calls for premature production of expert witness information. This interrogatory is 15 vague, ambiguous, overbroad, non-specific, invasive of the attorney-client privilege and 16 attorney work product doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness 17 information. Responding party additionally objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it 18 is not sufficiently limited in time and scope, and is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and 19 harassing. Responding party further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds to the extent 20 that it seeks information that is equally available to Propounding Party. Responding party also 21 objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is an invasion of privacy and seeks information 22 that violates the right of privacy of persons that are not parties to this action. However, subject 23 to and without waiving the above-stated objections, this responding party responds as follows: 24 Responding Party's RMO/CEO/President and Defendant Christopher Hulme and Mr. Hulme's 25 wife, Jennifer Hulme, both of whom may be contacted through Responding Party's counsel of 26 record; Responding Party's employees who may be contacted through Responding Party's 27 counsel of record: 28 • Kevin Downs S TRADLING Y OCCA -2- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 • Filiberto M. Martinez 2 • Isaias S. Mendez 3 • Mario Olmos 4 • Jose "Geronimo" Santillan 5 • Josue Talamantes 6 • Guadalupe Vargas 7 Responding Party's former employees who may be contacted through Responding 8 Party's counsel of record: 9 • Luis Calderon 10 • Salvador B. Calvo 11 • Santos Q. Carbajal 12 • Armando Espino 13 • Alberto L. Flores 14 • Jesus P. Garcia 15 • Odilon "Andres" Garcia 16 • Albert F. Ineira 17 • Hermenegildo Mora 18 • Pedro Ortiz 19 • Oscar Sanchez 20 • Jose A. Santillan 21 • Jesus Zavala 22 FACTUAL REASON FOR COMPELLING A RESPONSE: 23 As a threshold matter Clearview’s generalized objections provide no factual basis or 24 specific basis for the objection, and accordingly, should be disregarded in their entirety. See 25 Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516 (1997) (finding 26 objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections); Standon, 225 Cal. App. 3d. at 27 903 (noting that a party refusing to produce documents based on nuisance objections that a 28 request is “vague and ambiguous” is subject to discovery sanctions). S TRADLING Y OCCA -3- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 Clearview also makes an objection that the request invades the “attorney work product 2 doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness information” and also invades the 3 attorney-client privilege. Yet Clearview does not identify, nor can it, how the attorney work 4 product, attorney-client privilege or expert witness information from this lawsuit is implicated 5 by providing basic information about prior lawsuits against it. See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible 6 & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 596 (2016) (burden is on party 7 claiming privilege to show the preliminary facts supporting the application of the privilege). 8 Plaintiff’s nuisance objection that the interrogatory imposes an undue burden or 9 oppression on it is without merit. The objecting party must demonstrate that the burden is 10 oppressive and unjust; specifically, it must appear that the amount of work required to respond 11 to the discovery is so great, and the utility of the information so minimal, that it would defeat 12 the ends of justice to require responses. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior 13 Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (1968); West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior 14 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418 (1961). The objecting party must provide detailed evidence of 15 how much work is required to answer; conclusory statements are insufficient. Id. Clearview’s 16 boilerplate objection does not identify what burden, if any, it would suffer by providing this 17 information. Moreover, Defendants have not and cannot demonstrate any undue burden in 18 simply providing a short statement about each of these projects given the records it 19 undoubtedly reviewed in formulating the incomplete response provided that it has worked on 20 119 projects from September 2012 to December 2018. 21 Clearview’s privacy objection, ostensibly on behalf of third parties who neither it nor 22 its counsel represent, is without merit. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a 23 legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given 24 circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v Superior Court, 3 Cal. 25 5th 531, 552 (2017). Even if Clearview could invoke a third party’s right to privacy as its own, 26 Clearview provides no information or authority demonstrating anyone has an objectively 27 reasonable expectation of privacy in these claims or why such information presents serious 28 intrusion issues. S TRADLING Y OCCA -4- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 Clearview provided a response listing its current and former employees who worked on 2 the Project, yet refusing to provide contact information for its former employees, who are 3 ostensibly not represented by Clearview’s counsel nor are they under Clearview’s control. In 4 response to Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts, Clearview responded that it would “provide a 5 further response to this interrogatory with the names, addresses and last known telephone 6 numbers of Clearview's former employees who worked on Plaintiff's ranch.” (Mason Decl., 7 Ex. 4 [Clearview’s October 15, 2021 Letter].) Yet, Clearview has not provided a supplemental 8 response regarding this information. 9 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 11 IDENTIFY each landscape project YOU worked on in the ten years prior to working on 12 the PROJECT. (For purposes of this interrogatory, “identify” means state the address of the 13 project, the owner or owners of the project, the scope of the project, and the current status of 14 the project). 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 16 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 17 undefined term "worked" is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non-specific. The defined term 18 "YOU" is also vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome in that it identifies multiple 19 persons and references. The term "YOU" as defined also seeks to invade the attorney work 20 product and calls for premature production of expert witness information. This interrogatory is 21 vague, ambiguous, overbroad, non-specific, invasive of the attorney-client privilege and 22 attorney work product doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness 23 information. Responding party additionally objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it 24 is not sufficiently limited in time and scope, and is overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and 25 harassing. Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks 26 information not relevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, the facts plead in 27 Plaintiff's complaint and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 28 admissible evidence. Responding party also objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is an S TRADLING Y OCCA -5- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 invasion of privacy and seeks information that violates the right of privacy of persons that are 2 not parties to this action. However, subject to and without waiving the above-stated objections, 3 and in the spirit of discovery, this responding party responds as follows: 4 Responding Party has worked on 119 projects in Santa Barbara County from September 5 13, 2012 to approximately December of 2018. 6 FACTUAL REASON FOR COMPELLING A RESPONSE: 7 As a threshold matter Clearview’s generalized objections provide no factual basis or 8 specific basis for the objection, and accordingly, should be disregarded in their entirety. See 9 Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516 (1997) (finding 10 objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections); Standon, 225 Cal. App. 3d. at 11 903 (noting that a party refusing to produce documents based on nuisance objections that a 12 request is “vague and ambiguous” is subject to discovery sanctions). 13 Clearview’s objection on relevance grounds is without merit. Plaintiff has alleged that 14 Defendants made specific, false representations to him regarding their landscape project skills, 15 licensing and prior experience and that he relied on those representations to enter into the 16 contract and pay Defendants money. Pursuant to another cause of action, Plaintiff also alleged 17 that Defendant negligently performed its contracting work well below the standard of care and 18 thus, by implication, that Defendants lacked the requisite skills, knowledge and prior 19 experience to perform their job duties in accordance with the standard of care. Indeed, Plaintiff 20 has already discovered one lawsuit where Defendant Hulme and a predecessor entity to 21 Clearview were found to have fraudulently misrepresented their skills, qualifications and 22 billing practices. See Moler v. Hulme, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case No. 23 1417847. The information about past projects is relevant because Defendants represented to 24 Plaintiff that they had the skill and experience to undertake a project of the size and complexity 25 as Plaintiff’s multi-acre project, i.e. that they had successfully undertaken projects of similar 26 size and scope before. Thus, basic information about the size, scope and location of other 27 projects is relevant to whether this representation was true. 28 S TRADLING Y OCCA -6- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 Clearview also makes an objection that the request invades the “attorney work product 2 doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness information” and also invades the 3 attorney-client privilege. Yet Clearview does not identify, nor can it, how the attorney work 4 product, attorney-client privilege or expert witness information from this lawsuit is implicated 5 by providing basic information about prior lawsuits against it. See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible 6 & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 596 (2016) (burden is on party 7 claiming privilege to show the preliminary facts supporting the application of the privilege). 8 Plaintiff’s nuisance objection that the interrogatory imposes an undue burden or 9 oppression on it is without merit. The objecting party must demonstrate that the burden is 10 oppressive and unjust; specifically, it must appear that the amount of work required to respond 11 to the discovery is so great, and the utility of the information so minimal, that it would defeat 12 the ends of justice to require responses. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior 13 Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (1968); West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior 14 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418 (1961). The objecting party must provide detailed evidence of 15 how much work is required to answer; conclusory statements are insufficient. Id. Clearview’s 16 boilerplate objection does not identify what burden, if any, it would suffer by providing this 17 information. Moreover, Defendants have not and cannot demonstrate any undue burden in 18 simply providing a short statement about each of these projects given the records it 19 undoubtedly reviewed in formulating the incomplete response provided that it has worked on 20 119 projects from September 2012 to December 2018. 21 Clearview’s privacy objection, ostensibly on behalf of third parties who neither it nor 22 its counsel represent, is without merit. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a 23 legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given 24 circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v Superior Court, 3 Cal. 25 5th 531, 552 (2017). Even if Clearview could invoke a third party’s right to privacy as its own, 26 Clearview provides no information or authority demonstrating anyone has an objectively 27 reasonable expectation of privacy in these claims or why such information presents serious 28 intrusion issues. S TRADLING Y OCCA -7- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 2 IDENTIFY all claims made against YOU arising out of YOUR work as a contractor in 3 the last ten years. (For purposes of this interrogatory, “identify” means state the nature of the 4 claim, the date of the claim and the name of the court or arbitration and case number where 5 applicable). 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 7 Objection. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the 8 undefined terms "claims," "work" and "contractor" are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non- 9 specific. Responding party additionally objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is 10 not limited in time and scope, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. The defined 11 terms "YOU" and "YOUR" are also vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and burdensome in that it 12 identifies multiple persons and references. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as defined also seek 13 to invade the attorney work product and calls for premature production of expert witness 14 information. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, non-specific, invasive of the 15 attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine and calls for premature production 16 of expert witness information. Responding party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds 17 that it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, the facts 18 plead in Plaintiff's complaint and is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the 19 discovery of admissible evidence. Responding party also objects on the grounds that this 20 interrogatory is an invasion of privacy and seeks information that violates the right of privacy 21 of persons that are and are not parties to this action. 22 FACTUAL REASON FOR COMPELLING A RESPONSE: 23 As a threshold matter Clearview’s generalized objections provide no factual basis or 24 specific basis for the objection, and accordingly, should be disregarded in their entirety. See 25 Korea Data Systems Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516 (1997) (finding 26 objecting party subject to sanctions for “boilerplate” objections); Standon, 225 Cal. App. 3d. at 27 903 (noting that a party refusing to produce documents based on nuisance objections that a 28 request is “vague and ambiguous” is subject to discovery sanctions). S TRADLING Y OCCA -8- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 Clearview’s objection on relevance grounds is without merit. Plaintiff has alleged that 2 Defendants made specific, false representations to him regarding their landscape project skills, 3 licensing and prior experience and that he relied on those representations to enter into the 4 contract and pay Defendants money. Pursuant to another cause of action, Plaintiff also alleged 5 that Defendant negligently performed its contracting work well below the standard of care and 6 thus, by implication, that Defendants lacked the requisite skills, knowledge and prior 7 experience to perform their job duties in accordance with the standard of care. Indeed, Plaintiff 8 has already discovered one lawsuit where Defendant Hulme and a predecessor entity to 9 Clearview were found to have fraudulently misrepresented their skills, qualifications and 10 billing practices. See Moler v. Hulme, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case No. 11 1417847. Information about this and other lawsuits or arbitrations is highly relevant as to 12 whether Defendants’ actually had the skill and experience to undertake the project and is 13 relevant as to whether Defendants’ knew their representations to Plaintiff were false. 14 Clearview also makes an objection that the request invades the “attorney work product 15 doctrine and calls for premature production of expert witness information” and also invades the 16 attorney-client privilege. Yet Clearview does not identify, nor can it, how the attorney work 17 product, attorney-client privilege or expert witness information from this lawsuit is implicated 18 by providing basic information about prior lawsuits against it. See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible 19 & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 596 (2016) (burden is on party 20 claiming privilege to show the preliminary facts supporting the application of the privilege). 21 Plaintiff’s nuisance objection that the interrogatory imposes an undue burden or 22 oppression on it is without merit. The objecting party must demonstrate that the burden is 23 oppressive and unjust; specifically, it must appear that the amount of work required to respond 24 to the discovery is so great, and the utility of the information so minimal, that it would defeat 25 the ends of justice to require responses. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior 26 Court, 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 19 (1968); West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior 27 Court, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417-418 (1961). The objecting party must provide detailed evidence of 28 how much work is required to answer; conclusory statements are insufficient. Id. Clearview’s S TRADLING Y OCCA -9- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 1 boilerplate objection does not identify what burden, if any, it would suffer by providing this 2 information. Moreover, the request is limited in scope as it asks for Clearview to identify 3 claims in the last 10 years. 4 Clearview’s privacy objection, ostensibly on behalf of third parties who neither it nor 5 its counsel represent, is without merit. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a 6 legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given 7 circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” Williams v Superior Court, 3 Cal. 8 5th 531, 552 (2017). Even if Clearview could invoke a third party’s right to privacy as its own, 9 Clearview provides no information or authority demonstrating anyone has an objectively 10 reasonable expectation of privacy in these claims or why such information presents serious 11 intrusion issues. 12 Clearview’s objection that the terms "claims," "work" and "contractor" and “YOU” and 13 “YOUR” are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and non-specific are undefined and thus it cannot 14 answer the interrogatory is without merit. Clearview provides no specific basis for its 15 objection why it cannot answer the interrogatory based on the plain meaning of the undefined 16 words or the defined terms. Clement v. Alegre, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1283 (2009) 17 (awarding sanctions when party made frivolous objection that term used in special 18 interrogatory was undefined). 19 20 DATED: November 9, 2021 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH 21 A Professional Corporation 22 23 By: Jason H. Anderson 24 Andrew B. Mason Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS KOPITNIK 25 26 27 28 S TRADLING Y OCCA -10- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21CV02266 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 2 ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 3 I am employed by Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth A Professional Corporation in the 4 County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600, Newport Beach, CA 5 92660-6422. On November 9, 2021, I served the within documents: 6 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF THOMAS KOPITNIK’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY 7 DEFENDANT CLEARVIEW PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. TO KOPITNIK’S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1, 2, and 4 8 By email or electronic transmission. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to 9 accept service by electronic transmission, I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e- 10 mail address kmilanowski@stradlinglaw.com to the person(s) at the email address(es) listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any 11 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 12 Sheila E. Fix Attorneys for Defendants S. Joanna Dyriam CHRISTOPHER HULME and 13 WOOD, SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP CLEARVIEW PROPERTY 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215 SERVICES, INC. 14 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361-5827 Telephone: (820) 333-4233 15 Facsimile: (820) 333-4249 Email: sfix@wshblaw.com 16 sdyriam@wshblaw.com 17 Cc: Allie S. Sayle; ASayle@wshblaw.com 18 19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 20 California that the above is true and correct. 21 Executed on November 9, 2021at Newport Beach, California 22 By: 23 Kayla Milanowski 24 25 26 27 28 S TRADLING Y OCCA -11- C ARLSON & R AUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH PROOF OF SERVICE 21CV02266