Preview
|
oq @ — ntaiqune
ee
SCOTT L. WOODALL (181971)
JEANNE M. ROBERTS (248151)
WOODALL & ALMEIDA
2340 Santa Rita Road, Suite 5
Pleasanton, California 94566 TT aD
Telephone: (925) 600-0111 AL AMEDA COUNTY
Facsimile: (925) 600-0003
RGA
MAR oloYas tet
1009
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SHIRLEY MOORE and JACK MOORE CLERK 9 THE SPPERIOR COURT
By [xtc {0 Pehiparl™
Deppty
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SHIRLEY MOORE AND JACK MOORE, Case No.: RG08384703
10 ~ Plaintiff, a na -
V. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
11 PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE
MICHAEL GENE MATHIS; CRESCENT TRUCK] APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
12 LINES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING
13 Defendants. ‘| TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
14 Date: March 9, 2009
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Dept: 510
Res. No.: 922940
16
17 Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1345, Plaintiff SHIRLEY MOORE respectfully submits
18 the following statement setting forth the discovery requests, responses thereto, and the argument for why
19
a further or more complete response is necessary.
20
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
21
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Describe in as much detail as possible (including, but not limited to,corporate organization,
22
contracts and agreements, shared assets and resources, including: employees, officers, directors,
23
business accounts, customers, banking accounts, office locations, insurance accounts) the business
24
relationship between Eagle Distribution and Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. (hereafter "CRESCENT").
25
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
26
At the time of the subject accident, there was no "business relationship" between Eagle
27
Distribution and Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. Crescent Truck Lines, Inc., owned the truck being driven
28
-l-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
by driver Mathis at the time of the subject accident, and Mathis was an employee of Four Warns, Inc.,
dba Eagle Distribution at the time of the accident.
WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5 IS
NECESSARY AND PROPER:
California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories: grounds for
1] sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
12 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
13 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo vy.Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d
14 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
15 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
16 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....”” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
17 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
20
duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
21
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and
22
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
23
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
24
Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
25
In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. Clearly there is a business
26
relationship between the defendants. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is
27
contradictory evidence on who employed Defendant Mathis. Plaintiff is entitled to know the complete
28
-2-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
business relationship between Defendants as this directly relates to the liability of the defendants in
the action.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Provide dates of employment and termination of Michael Gene Mathis with Eagle Distribution.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Driver Mathis worked for Four Warns, Inc., dba Eagle Distribution from October 2005 to
November 2008. Prior to October 2005 he worked for Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. Driver Mathis has
never been terminated by Eagle.
WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 IS
NECESSARY AND PROPER:
3 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
12 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
13 If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
14 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
15 but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
16 App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for
17 sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
18
the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
19
answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d
771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
20
fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
21
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
22
Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
23
has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
24
Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
25
public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
26
duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
27
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and
28
-3-
SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. It states that the employment
of Defendant Mathis was never terminated, yet states Defendant Mathis was only employed for a
period of time. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is contradictory evidence on who
employed Defendant Mathis at the time of the accident. As Defendants are all represented by the
same firm (Lewis Brisbois), Plaintiff is entitled to know the exact dates of employment by this entity.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
10 Provide dates of employment and termination of Michael Gene Mathis as an employee of
11 CRESCENT.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
13 Driver Mathis worked for Four Warns, Inc., dba Eagle Distribution from October 2005 to
14 November 2008. Prior to October 2005 he worked for Crescent Truck Lines, Inc., starting in 1987.
15 Driver Mathis has never been terminated by Crescent.
16 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8 IS
17
NECESSARY AND PROPER:
18
California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
20
If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
21
but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
22
App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for
23
sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
24
the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
25
answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d
26
771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
27
fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
28
-4-
SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
has an obligation to provide information from all sources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
10 Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
1] In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. It states that the employment
12 of Defendant Mathis was never terminated, yet states Defendant Mathis was only employed for a
period of time. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is contradictory evidence on who
14 employed Defendant Mathis at the time of the accident. As Defendants are all represented by the
15 same firm (Lewis Brisbois), Plaintiff is entitled to know the exact dates of employment by this entity.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
17 Describe in as much detail as possible (including, but not limited to, corporate organization,
18
contracts and agreements, shared assets and resources, including: employees, officers, directors,
business accounts, customers, banking accounts, office locations, insurance accounts) the business
19
relationship between Four Warn and CRESCENT.
20
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
21
At the time of the subject accident, there was no "business relationship" between Eagle
22
Distribution and. Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. Crescent Truck Lines, Inc., owned the truck being driven
23
by driver Mathis at the time of the subject accident, and Mathis was an employee of Four Warns, Inc.,
24
dba Eagle Distribution at the time of the accident.
25
26
27
28
5-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5 IS
NECESSARY AND PROPER: |
California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing ,
but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for
sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
10 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
11 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d
771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
13 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
14 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
15 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
16 has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
18
public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
19
duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.-App. 2d 157-167-168); and
20
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
21
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
22
Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
23
In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. Clearly there is a business
24
relationship between the defendants. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is
25
contradictory evidence on who employed Defendant Mathis. Plaintiff is entitled to know the complete
26
business relationship between Defendants as this directly relates to the liability of the defendants in
27
the action.
28
-6-
SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS /FORM INTERROGATORIES'
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who
prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone
who simply typed or reproduced the responses.)
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1:
Lorena Matei, my attorney. 1
Sansome St, Suite 1400 San
Francisco, CA 94104
10 415-362-2580
11 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1 IS
12 NECESSARY AND PROPER:
13 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
14 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for
sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
20
the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d
21
' Plaintiff's
Form Interrogatories,Set Two constituted oftwo interrogatories:1.1and 17.1. Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks
22
the following:
23
Isyour response to each request foradmission served with these interrogatoriesan unqualified admission? Ifnot,
for each response that isnot an unqualified admission:
24
(a)state thenumber ofthe request;
(b) stateallfactsupon which you base your contention;
25
(c)state thenames, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers ofallPERSONS who have knowledge of those facts;
and
26
(d) identifyallDOCUMENTS and other tangiblethings that support your response and state thename,
ADDRESS, and telephone number ofthe PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.
27
For the sake thejudicialconvenience and economy, the Form Interrogatory 17.1 response isincluded with corresponding
28 Request forAdmission, if andwhen applicable.
-7-
SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth y. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
13 In this instant response, Crescent gives does not provide complete information as to who at
14 Crescent provided information to itsattorney to make a response to the Form Interrogatories, Set Two.
15 This response is clearly does not state the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Itis
16
completely evasive. Plaintiff isentitled to know and depose persons with knowledge who prepared
17
the responses.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Admit that MATHIS has previously been cited for the same vehicle code violations as in the
19
20
POLICE REPORT.’
21
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
This defendant lacks information and belief in order to admit or deny.
22
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1:
23
None given.
24
Hl
25
26
* The term “POLICE REPORT” was defined inRequest forAdmission No. 5 as the inthe police reportfor the
27 ACCIDENT, and attached tothe RFA’s as Exhibit 1 (See Woodall Dec., ex. 2). The term “ACCIDENT” was defined
Request forAdmission No. 1 aswhen defendant Crescent Truck Lines, Inc.'svehicle collided withPlaintiffShirley Moore's
28 vehicle on April 16, 2007. The term “MATHIS” isdefined in Request for Admission No.2 as Michael Gene Mathis.
-8-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
1 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 /FORM
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER:
3 California Code of Civil Procedure requires that a Request for Admission be responded to as
4 || fully as possible. “Each answer shall ...(a)dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is
5 || true, either expressed in the request itself or reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.”
6 || CCP § 2033.220(b)(1) When making a denial based on inability or lack of information to respond, a
7 || statement must be given that “‘areasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has
| 8 || been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to
9 || admit the matter.” CCP § 2033.220(c). The obligation to respond to Requests for Admission, and the
10 || good faith investigations required by Discovery Act, is the same as to the obligations to responding to
11 || written interrogatories. Chodos v. Sup. Ct. (Lowe) (1963) 215 Cal.App. 318, 322.
12 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
13 ||complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
14 || If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
15 || 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
16 || but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
17 || App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for
18
sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
19 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
59 ||answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d
21 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
29 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
33 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
34 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
35 has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
36 Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
4 public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
38 duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
-9-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
In this instant case, responding party shows no evidence that a reasonable inquiry was made to
respond to this Request. Defendant Mathis was employed by defendants and drove their trucks.
Defendant Mathis is represented by the same counsel as Defendant Crescent. It isclear that
information known to counsel regarding Defendant Mathis is therefore known to Defendant Crescent.
Plaintiff isentitled to a clear admission or denial to this Request as itgoes to directly to
10 liability on the part of Defendants in this matter.
11 If Defendant denies this, Plaintiff isentitled to full and complete answer to the 17.1, including
12 all facts, witnesses and documents that support such denial. Defendant has waived any objections to
13 in its 17.1 response due to its failure to provide 17.1 response originally.
14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
15 Admit that when MATHIS has been previously cited for vehicle code violations while
16 driving a vehicle owned by CRESCENT.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
18
Objection. This request does not make sense.
19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1:
None given.
20
WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 /FORM
21
INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER:
22
California Code of Civil Procedure requires that aRequest for Admission be responded to as
23
fully as possible. “Each answer shall ...(a)dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is
24
true, either expressed in the request itself or reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.”
25
CCP § 2033.220(b)(1) When making a denial based on inability or lack of information to respond, a
26
statement must be given that “‘areasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has
27
been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to
28
-10-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EXPARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
admit the matter.” CCP § 2033.220(c). The obligation to respond to Requests for Admission, and the
good faith investigations required by Discovery Act, isthe same as to the obligations to responding to
written interrogatories. Chodos v. Sup. Ct. (Lowe) (1963) 215 Cal.App. 318, 322.
_ California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for
10 sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
11 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
12 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d
771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
14 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
15 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations...” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
16 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (14998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
18
Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
19
public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
20
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon y.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and
21
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
22
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
23
Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
24
In this instant case, responding party shows no evidence that a reasonable inquiry was made to
25
respond to this Request. A clear reading shows that this Request is asking ifDefendant Mathis had
26
been driving a Crescent truck when he was previously cited. Itis clear that information known to
27
counsel regarding Defendant Mathis is therefore known to Defendant Crescent.
28
-ll-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
Plaintiff isentitled to a clear admission or denial to this Request as itgoes to directly to
liability on the part of Defendants in this matter.
If Defendant denies this, Plaintiff isentitled to full and complete answer to the 17.1, including
all facts, witnesses and documents that support such denial. Defendant has waived any objections to
in its 17.1 response due to its failure to provide a 17.1 response originally.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
Admit that CRESCENT had knowledge of MATHIS' previous citations and accidents prior to
the ACCIDENT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
10 Objection: vague and ambiguous, unlimited in time and scope. Responding party admits that it
11 had DMV pull notice documents pertaining to Mr. Mathis’ driving record.
12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1:
13 None given.
14 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 /FORM
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER:
16 California Code of Civil Procedure requires that a Request for Admission be responded to as
17
fully as possible. “Each answer shall ...(a)dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is
18
true, either expressed in the request itself or reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.”
CCP § 2033.220(b)(1) When making a denial based on inability or lack of information to respond, a
statement must be given that “a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has
20
been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to
21
admit the matter.” CCP § 2033.220(c). The obligation to respond to Requests for Admission, and the
22
good faith investigations required by Discovery Act, isthe same as to the obligations to responding to
23
written interrogatories. Chodos v. Sup. Ct. (Lowe) (1963) 215-Cal.App. 318, 322.
24
California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as
25
complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
26
If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP §
27
2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
28
-12-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal
App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for
sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of
the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary
answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d
771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond
fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain
the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....’”” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency
Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party
10 has an obligation to provide information from all sources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v.
11 Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or
12 public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding
13 duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be
personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and
trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead
ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782;
17
Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504.
18
Defendant’s objections are without merit and boilerplate. The Request is specific enough to
19
regarding subject matter and time. Defendant must give an unequivocal admission or denial to this
Interrogatory. It refused to do so. Plaintiff is entitled to a clear admission or denial to this Request as it
20
goes to directly to liability on the part of Defendants inthis matter.
21
If Defendant denies this Request, Plaintiff is entitled to fulland complete answer to the 17.1,
22
including all facts, witnesses and documents that support such denial. Defendant has waived any
23
objections to in its 17.1 response due to its failure to provide a 17.1 response originally.
24
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
25
Admit that Eagle Distribution is owned by Gregory Warn.
26
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
27
Deny.
28
-13-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1:
(a) 13
(b) Eagle Distribution was dba of Four Warns, Inc.
WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE
Preview
| oq @ — ntaiqune ee SCOTT L. WOODALL (181971) JEANNE M. ROBERTS (248151) WOODALL & ALMEIDA 2340 Santa Rita Road, Suite 5 Pleasanton, California 94566 TT aD Telephone: (925) 600-0111 AL AMEDA COUNTY Facsimile: (925) 600-0003 RGA MAR oloYas tet 1009 Attorney for Plaintiffs SHIRLEY MOORE and JACK MOORE CLERK 9 THE SPPERIOR COURT By [xtc {0 Pehiparl™ Deppty IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA SHIRLEY MOORE AND JACK MOORE, Case No.: RG08384703 10 ~ Plaintiff, a na - V. SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 11 PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE MICHAEL GENE MATHIS; CRESCENT TRUCK] APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER 12 LINES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING 13 Defendants. ‘| TIME ON HEARING ON SAME 14 Date: March 9, 2009 Time: 2:30 p.m. Dept: 510 Res. No.: 922940 16 17 Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1345, Plaintiff SHIRLEY MOORE respectfully submits 18 the following statement setting forth the discovery requests, responses thereto, and the argument for why 19 a further or more complete response is necessary. 20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Describe in as much detail as possible (including, but not limited to,corporate organization, 22 contracts and agreements, shared assets and resources, including: employees, officers, directors, 23 business accounts, customers, banking accounts, office locations, insurance accounts) the business 24 relationship between Eagle Distribution and Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. (hereafter "CRESCENT"). 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 26 At the time of the subject accident, there was no "business relationship" between Eagle 27 Distribution and Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. Crescent Truck Lines, Inc., owned the truck being driven 28 -l- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME by driver Mathis at the time of the subject accident, and Mathis was an employee of Four Warns, Inc., dba Eagle Distribution at the time of the accident. WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER: California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories: grounds for 1] sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of 12 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary 13 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo vy.Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 14 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond 15 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain 16 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....”” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency 17 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding 20 duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be 21 personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and 22 trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead 23 ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; 24 Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. 25 In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. Clearly there is a business 26 relationship between the defendants. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is 27 contradictory evidence on who employed Defendant Mathis. Plaintiff is entitled to know the complete 28 -2- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME business relationship between Defendants as this directly relates to the liability of the defendants in the action. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Provide dates of employment and termination of Michael Gene Mathis with Eagle Distribution. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Driver Mathis worked for Four Warns, Inc., dba Eagle Distribution from October 2005 to November 2008. Prior to October 2005 he worked for Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. Driver Mathis has never been terminated by Eagle. WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER: 3 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as 12 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. 13 If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 14 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 15 but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal 16 App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for 17 sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of 18 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary 19 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond 20 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain 21 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency 22 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party 23 has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. 24 Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or 25 public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding 26 duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be 27 personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and 28 -3- SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. It states that the employment of Defendant Mathis was never terminated, yet states Defendant Mathis was only employed for a period of time. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is contradictory evidence on who employed Defendant Mathis at the time of the accident. As Defendants are all represented by the same firm (Lewis Brisbois), Plaintiff is entitled to know the exact dates of employment by this entity. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 10 Provide dates of employment and termination of Michael Gene Mathis as an employee of 11 CRESCENT. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 13 Driver Mathis worked for Four Warns, Inc., dba Eagle Distribution from October 2005 to 14 November 2008. Prior to October 2005 he worked for Crescent Truck Lines, Inc., starting in 1987. 15 Driver Mathis has never been terminated by Crescent. 16 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8 IS 17 NECESSARY AND PROPER: 18 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. 20 If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 21 but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal 22 App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for 23 sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of 24 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary 25 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 26 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond 27 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain 28 -4- SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party has an obligation to provide information from all sources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; 10 Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. 1] In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. It states that the employment 12 of Defendant Mathis was never terminated, yet states Defendant Mathis was only employed for a period of time. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is contradictory evidence on who 14 employed Defendant Mathis at the time of the accident. As Defendants are all represented by the 15 same firm (Lewis Brisbois), Plaintiff is entitled to know the exact dates of employment by this entity. 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 17 Describe in as much detail as possible (including, but not limited to, corporate organization, 18 contracts and agreements, shared assets and resources, including: employees, officers, directors, business accounts, customers, banking accounts, office locations, insurance accounts) the business 19 relationship between Four Warn and CRESCENT. 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 21 At the time of the subject accident, there was no "business relationship" between Eagle 22 Distribution and. Crescent Truck Lines, Inc. Crescent Truck Lines, Inc., owned the truck being driven 23 by driver Mathis at the time of the subject accident, and Mathis was an employee of Four Warns, Inc., 24 dba Eagle Distribution at the time of the accident. 25 26 27 28 5- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER: | California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing , but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of 10 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary 11 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond 13 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain 14 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency 15 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party 16 has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or 18 public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding 19 duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.-App. 2d 157-167-168); and 20 trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead 21 ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; 22 Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. 23 In this instant response, Crescent gives contradictory responses. Clearly there is a business 24 relationship between the defendants. As the Declaration of Jeanne Roberts shows, there is 25 contradictory evidence on who employed Defendant Mathis. Plaintiff is entitled to know the complete 26 business relationship between Defendants as this directly relates to the liability of the defendants in 27 the action. 28 -6- SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS /FORM INTERROGATORIES' FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1: Lorena Matei, my attorney. 1 Sansome St, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 10 415-362-2580 11 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1 IS 12 NECESSARY AND PROPER: 13 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as 14 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of 20 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 21 ' Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories,Set Two constituted oftwo interrogatories:1.1and 17.1. Form Interrogatory 17.1 asks 22 the following: 23 Isyour response to each request foradmission served with these interrogatoriesan unqualified admission? Ifnot, for each response that isnot an unqualified admission: 24 (a)state thenumber ofthe request; (b) stateallfactsupon which you base your contention; 25 (c)state thenames, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers ofallPERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and 26 (d) identifyallDOCUMENTS and other tangiblethings that support your response and state thename, ADDRESS, and telephone number ofthe PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. 27 For the sake thejudicialconvenience and economy, the Form Interrogatory 17.1 response isincluded with corresponding 28 Request forAdmission, if andwhen applicable. -7- SEPARATE STATEMENT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth y. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. 13 In this instant response, Crescent gives does not provide complete information as to who at 14 Crescent provided information to itsattorney to make a response to the Form Interrogatories, Set Two. 15 This response is clearly does not state the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Itis 16 completely evasive. Plaintiff isentitled to know and depose persons with knowledge who prepared 17 the responses. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that MATHIS has previously been cited for the same vehicle code violations as in the 19 20 POLICE REPORT.’ 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: This defendant lacks information and belief in order to admit or deny. 22 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1: 23 None given. 24 Hl 25 26 * The term “POLICE REPORT” was defined inRequest forAdmission No. 5 as the inthe police reportfor the 27 ACCIDENT, and attached tothe RFA’s as Exhibit 1 (See Woodall Dec., ex. 2). The term “ACCIDENT” was defined Request forAdmission No. 1 aswhen defendant Crescent Truck Lines, Inc.'svehicle collided withPlaintiffShirley Moore's 28 vehicle on April 16, 2007. The term “MATHIS” isdefined in Request for Admission No.2 as Michael Gene Mathis. -8- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME 1 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 /FORM 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER: 3 California Code of Civil Procedure requires that a Request for Admission be responded to as 4 || fully as possible. “Each answer shall ...(a)dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is 5 || true, either expressed in the request itself or reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” 6 || CCP § 2033.220(b)(1) When making a denial based on inability or lack of information to respond, a 7 || statement must be given that “‘areasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has | 8 || been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to 9 || admit the matter.” CCP § 2033.220(c). The obligation to respond to Requests for Admission, and the 10 || good faith investigations required by Discovery Act, is the same as to the obligations to responding to 11 || written interrogatories. Chodos v. Sup. Ct. (Lowe) (1963) 215 Cal.App. 318, 322. 12 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as 13 ||complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. 14 || If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 15 || 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 16 || but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal 17 || App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for 18 sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of 19 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary 59 ||answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 21 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond 29 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain 33 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency 34 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party 35 has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. 36 Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or 4 public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding 38 duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be -9- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. In this instant case, responding party shows no evidence that a reasonable inquiry was made to respond to this Request. Defendant Mathis was employed by defendants and drove their trucks. Defendant Mathis is represented by the same counsel as Defendant Crescent. It isclear that information known to counsel regarding Defendant Mathis is therefore known to Defendant Crescent. Plaintiff isentitled to a clear admission or denial to this Request as itgoes to directly to 10 liability on the part of Defendants in this matter. 11 If Defendant denies this, Plaintiff isentitled to full and complete answer to the 17.1, including 12 all facts, witnesses and documents that support such denial. Defendant has waived any objections to 13 in its 17.1 response due to its failure to provide 17.1 response originally. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: 15 Admit that when MATHIS has been previously cited for vehicle code violations while 16 driving a vehicle owned by CRESCENT. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: 18 Objection. This request does not make sense. 19 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1: None given. 20 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 /FORM 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER: 22 California Code of Civil Procedure requires that aRequest for Admission be responded to as 23 fully as possible. “Each answer shall ...(a)dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is 24 true, either expressed in the request itself or reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” 25 CCP § 2033.220(b)(1) When making a denial based on inability or lack of information to respond, a 26 statement must be given that “‘areasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has 27 been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to 28 -10- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EXPARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME admit the matter.” CCP § 2033.220(c). The obligation to respond to Requests for Admission, and the good faith investigations required by Discovery Act, isthe same as to the obligations to responding to written interrogatories. Chodos v. Sup. Ct. (Lowe) (1963) 215 Cal.App. 318, 322. _ California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for 10 sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of 11 the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary 12 answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond 14 fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain 15 the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations...” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency 16 Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (14998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party has an obligation to provide information from allsources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. 18 Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or 19 public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be 20 personally known to answering agent.” Gordon y.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and 21 trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead 22 ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; 23 Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. 24 In this instant case, responding party shows no evidence that a reasonable inquiry was made to 25 respond to this Request. A clear reading shows that this Request is asking ifDefendant Mathis had 26 been driving a Crescent truck when he was previously cited. Itis clear that information known to 27 counsel regarding Defendant Mathis is therefore known to Defendant Crescent. 28 -ll- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME Plaintiff isentitled to a clear admission or denial to this Request as itgoes to directly to liability on the part of Defendants in this matter. If Defendant denies this, Plaintiff isentitled to full and complete answer to the 17.1, including all facts, witnesses and documents that support such denial. Defendant has waived any objections to in its 17.1 response due to its failure to provide a 17.1 response originally. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that CRESCENT had knowledge of MATHIS' previous citations and accidents prior to the ACCIDENT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: 10 Objection: vague and ambiguous, unlimited in time and scope. Responding party admits that it 11 had DMV pull notice documents pertaining to Mr. Mathis’ driving record. 12 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1: 13 None given. 14 WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 /FORM 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1 IS NECESSARY AND PROPER: 16 California Code of Civil Procedure requires that a Request for Admission be responded to as 17 fully as possible. “Each answer shall ...(a)dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is 18 true, either expressed in the request itself or reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.” CCP § 2033.220(b)(1) When making a denial based on inability or lack of information to respond, a statement must be given that “a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has 20 been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the party to 21 admit the matter.” CCP § 2033.220(c). The obligation to respond to Requests for Admission, and the 22 good faith investigations required by Discovery Act, isthe same as to the obligations to responding to 23 written interrogatories. Chodos v. Sup. Ct. (Lowe) (1963) 215-Cal.App. 318, 322. 24 California Code of Civil Procedure requires each answer to each interrogatory to be “as 25 complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. 26 If an answer cannot be answered completely, itshall be answered to the extent possible.” CCP § 27 2030.220(a). The responding party has an obligation to “state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 28 -12- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME but the truth in answering written interrogatories.” Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999( 85 Cal App. 4th 64, 76. See also CCP § 20323.010(f) (evasive response to interrogatories grounds for sanctions). Where the Interrogatory isspecific and explicit, an answer that provides only a portion of the information sought is improper. It isalso improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App. 3d 771, 783. Finally, “if the responding party does not have person knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations....’”” CCP § 2030.220(c); Regency Health Services, Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 1496, 1504. The responding party 10 has an obligation to provide information from all sources under itscontrol, be itslawyers (Smith v. 11 Supt. Ct. (Alfred) (1961) 18 Cal.App. 3d 6, 11-12), agents or employees (“while a corporation or 12 public agency may select the person who answers interrogatories on its behalf ithas a corresponding 13 duty to obtain information from all sources under itscontrol — information which may not be personally known to answering agent.” Gordon v.Sup.Ct. (1984) 161 Cal.App. 2d 157-167-168); and trial expert witnesses (Seigerseth v. Sup.Ct. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 427.). “A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo, supra, at 782; 17 Regency Health Services, Inc., supra at 1504. 18 Defendant’s objections are without merit and boilerplate. The Request is specific enough to 19 regarding subject matter and time. Defendant must give an unequivocal admission or denial to this Interrogatory. It refused to do so. Plaintiff is entitled to a clear admission or denial to this Request as it 20 goes to directly to liability on the part of Defendants inthis matter. 21 If Defendant denies this Request, Plaintiff is entitled to fulland complete answer to the 17.1, 22 including all facts, witnesses and documents that support such denial. Defendant has waived any 23 objections to in its 17.1 response due to its failure to provide a 17.1 response originally. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 25 Admit that Eagle Distribution is owned by Gregory Warn. 26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 27 Deny. 28 -13- SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SHIRLEY MOORE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON HEARING ON SAME RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY 17.1: (a) 13 (b) Eagle Distribution was dba of Four Warns, Inc. WHY A FURTHER RESPONSE