Motion for Protective Order in Telisha L. Moore et al. vs Grewal Cargo Inc. et al.| Trellis.Law

On February 23, 2021 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Grewal Cargo Inc., Silchuk Logistics, Llc, Singh, Charanjeet, Singh, Tajinder, and California Department Of Health Care Services, Darrisha Raquel Wheeler, Fage Usa Dairy Industry, Inc, Grewal Cargo Inc., Grewel Logistics, Silchuk Logistics, Llc, Singh, Charanjeet, Singh, Tajinder, for Unlimited Civil Auto Tort in the District Court of San Joaquin County.

Preview
Electronically Filed
1 TOREM & ASSOCIATES Superior Court of California
ATTORNEYS AT LAW County of San Joaquin
2 1607 Pontius Avenue 2021-05-25 16:54:49
Los Angeles, California 90025
Clerk: Rocio Pimentel
3 Telephone: (310) 276-7878
Facsimile: (310) 231-7445
4 RON TOREM, ESQ. Motion for Order
YIGAL TOREM, ESQ. 07/09/2021 09:00 AM in 11B
5 DANIEL A. TOREM, ESQ.
State Bar Nos. 134280/110015/325346
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH
7 HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
10

11
JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent CASE NO.
12 adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. Hon. Judge Robert T. Waters
13 MOORE

14 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
Plaintiff, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
15 vs. ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
16 REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN
GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET THE AMOUNT OF $3,910.00
17 SINGH; and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, AGAINST DEFENDANT GREWAL
CARGO INC AND/OR ITS
18 ATTORNEY OF RECORD LUCY
Defendants. GALEK, ESQ. PURSUANT TO C.C.P
19 2023.010; DECLARATION OF
DANIEL A. TOREM
20

21 Date: TBD
Time: TBD
22
Dept. : 11
23
Filing Date: 02/23/2021
24

27
TO DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 COMES NOW JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS

2 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE and hereby gives notice that on ____,2021 at

3 a time TBD in Department 11 of the San Joaquin Superior Court, located at 180 E Weber Ave

4 Stockton, CA 95202 he will seek the following orders:

5 1. Staying Grewal’s discovery in this case until after Plaintiff’s motions to compel
6 are heard;
7
2. Staying Grewal from compelling OR serving any discovery in this case until after
8
Plaintiff’s motions to compel are heard.
9
3. Sanctions in the amount of $3,910.00 to be paid within 14 days from this hearing
10

11 under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 et. seq., 2023.040 et. seq. and 2025.010 et seq.

13 The motion is on the grounds that Defendant Grewal is not abiding by its statutory

14 obligations to respond to discovery. Plaintiff has filed Motions to Compel all defendant’s

15 discovery concurrently with this subject Motion.

16 On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to

17 include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special

18 Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. One day before the responses

19 were due, defense counsel’s assistant emailed requesting a three week extension. See email

20 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel advised the assistant to have her

21 counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

22 The assistant than inquired again about the requested extension. See email trail attached

23 hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an

24 extension, that defense counsel needed to call Plaintiff counsel. See email trail attached hereto

25 as Exhibit “A.” The assistant advised that her boss left a message for Plaintiff counsel. See

26 email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel did not have a voice mail from

27 Ms. Galek. Plaintiff counsel wanted to discuss the purpose and need for the extension with

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
defense counsel. Defense counsel never followed up and instead on May 11, 2021, Defendant
2
Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were nothing but improper objections to all of
3
the discovery. See Defendant’s Responses Exhibit B. On that same date, Grewal propounded
4
additional discovery to plaintiff. Gerwal is using discovery as a sword and a shield. See,
5
Exhibit C.
6
On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and
7
allowed to May 24, 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. See letter of May 12,
8
2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified
9
responses without objection. Defendant ignored the meet and confer efforts of Plaintiff.
10
Plaintiff also met and conferred in his May 12, 2021 letter that if Grewal was not going to
11
provide further Code and Case Law compliant responses that Plaintiff would seek a
12
Protective Order. See Id.
13
Said motion shall be based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities,
14
the declaration of Daniel A. Torem, the court file and pleadings and such other and further
15
argument as may be heard in this matter.
16

17 Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES

20
By: ____________________________________
21
DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
22

23 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III,

24 an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian

25 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1

2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3

4 I.

5 INTRODUCTION

6 Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2021. Defendant Grewal and its counsel, Lucy K.
7 Galek, Esq unleashed a full attack on Plaintiff. Defendant has deployed scorched earth tactics
8 claiming that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle struck by Mr. Singh and asserting that
9 Plaintiff was intoxicated, had an open container in the vehicle, was a wanted felon and career
10 criminal. The hospital records, provided to Defendant by Plaintiff informally as well as the
11 police report clearly demonstrate that Mr. Taylor was not the driver of the vehicle. Nonetheless,
12 Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek filed a demurrer and motion to strike arguing that
13 Plaintiff could not bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement
14 doctrine. The demurrer was overruled and motion denied
15
Along with their pleading tactics, Defendant Grewal has thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to
16
conduct an inspection of the subject tractor trailer including its Video Radar Decision Unit
17 (VRDU). Plaintiff appeared for the inspection only to be refused access to the Video Radar
18 Decision Unit (VRDU) without permission from the owner of the unit. Defendant had already
19 downloaded the data but, refused to give it to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s preservation of
20 evidence letter issued at the outset of the accident and despite Plaintiff’s timely Notice of
21 Inspection. That issue is the subject of a separate motion.
22
The court is empowered to enter a protective order staying all discovery propounded
23
and staying Grewal from compelling any discovery because they have failed to participate fully
24
in discovery by interposing improper, obstructive and boilerplate objections. Grewal is not
25
responding to any discovery, prohibiting Grewal from conducting discovery is the most
26
minimal means by which the irreparable prejudice to Plaintiff may be can be limited. A trial
27
court may impose harsher sanctions where necessary to prevent a party from benefitting
28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
from his/her noncompliance with a discovery order. (See Collision & Kaplan v. Hartunian
2
(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1619.)(emphasis added)
3
A protective order should be entered to prevent further burden, harassment, expense
4
and annoyance to the Plaintiff and provide minimal relief to plaintiff to somehow level the
5
playing field.
6
II.
7

8 THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE

9 On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to
10 include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special
11 Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. One day before the responses
12 were due, defense counsel’s assistant emailed requesting a three week extension. See email
13 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel advised the assistant to have her
14 counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
15 The assistant than inquired again about the requested extension. See email trail attached
16 hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an
17 extension, that defense counsel needed to call Plaintiff counsel. See email trail attached hereto
18 as Exhibit “A.” The assistant advised that her boss left a message for Plaintiff counsel. See
19 email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel did not have a voice mail from
20 counsel. On May 11, 2021, instead of calling Plaintiff counsel to discuss the extension,
21 Defendant Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were nothing but objections to all of

22 the discovery. See Defendants discovery responses attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” To

23 compound matters and further prejudice Plaintiff, Grewal propounded a second set of

24 discovery. See discovery attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”

25 ///
26
///
27
///
28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
III.
2
PLAINTIFF HAS MET AND CONFERRED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL TO OBTAIN
3
CODE COMPLIANT RESPONSES AND DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE
4
THE RESPONSES
5
On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed
6
to May 24, 2021 to serve verified further responses without objection. See letter of May 12,
7
2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified
8
responses or to meet and confer with counsel. Plaintiff also warned in his meet and confer that
9
he would seek a protective order if Defendant was going to play discovery games. See Id.
10
Plaintiff has filed Motions to Compel all defendant’s discovery concurrently with this subject
11
Motion.
12

13 III.

14 PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING GREWAL
15 FROM CONDUCTING ANY DISCOVER IN THIS CASE
16 A. APPLICABLE LAW
17
This Court has broad discretion to enter a protective order controlling discovery.
18
California courts are afforded “fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative
19 powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation before them.” Rutherford v.
20 Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 967 (1997). Indeed, the California Code of Civil
21 Procedure explicitly extends a court's powers to include the management of discovery. Cal.
22 Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2017.010 (West 2007) (entitling a party to discovery “[u]nless ... limited by
23 order of court”); 2019.020(b) (West 2007) (“the court may establish the sequence and timing of

24 discovery ... in the interests of justice”); 2019.030 (West 2007) (court may “restrict” discovery

25 pursuant to a “motion for a protective order”); and 2031.060(b)(2) (West 2007) (court may

26 enter an order “to protect any party ... from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or
oppression, or undue burden and expense”).
27

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
A protective order may issue to protect against discovery misuse. C.C.P. § 2023.010
2
“Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to,… (a) Persisting, over
3 objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials
4 that are outside the scope of permissible discovery… (b) Using a discovery method in a manner
5 that does not comply with its specified procedures…(c) Employing a discovery method in a
6 manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or
7 undue burden and expense…Once the court has determined that an individual has engaged in

8 the misuse of discovery as indicated above, the Court has several options to impose the

9 appropriate remedy. California Code of Civil Procedure §2023.030(a) states in pertinent part:

10 ...(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is

11 obeyed.(emphasis added).

12 B. ARGUMENT
13 Plaintiff has complied with his duties and responsibilities to respond to discovery in this
14 case. He has answered initial discovery. He has produced documents and disclosed evidence,
15 facts and witnesses that support his claims in this matter. As a matter of fairness and
16 furtherance of justice a defendant who has refused to respond to discovery, should not be
17 allowed to move forward with discovery.

18 It is unconscionable and inappropriate to allow a recalcitrant litigant to litigate their
19 case in chief with impunity while at the same time refusing to respond to discovery or verify
20 responses to discovery. One should not be able to utilize the judicial process as a sword and

21 shield by insisting on pursuing their case in chief while refusing to allow the opposing party the

22 same right. The discovery act is clear that if you misuse discovery, there are ramifications to

23 that which, while potentially a death knell to the offending party, allow the Court to fashion a
just remedy that embraces the purpose of the discovery act.
24

25 Moreover, a long line of case authority established that a discovery sanction's ultimate

26 purpose is to put the demanding party in the position they would have been had the
discovery requested been adequately provided and entirely favorable to their cause. Stein v.
27

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
Hassen (2nd 20 Dist. 1973) 34 Cal.App.3rd 294,303. While discovery sanctions certainly are
2
appropriate to coerce prospective compliance with discovery, they also are the only
3 appropriate means to level the playing field among litigants when all else fails to coerce
4 compliance. Sauer, 195 Cal.App.3rd at 229 (“Where a party has refused to supply information
5 relevant to a particular claim [or defense], an order precluding that claim [or defense] is an
6 appropriate sanction.”) Deyo 84 Cal.App.3rd at 792; Caryl Richards, 188 Cal.App.2nd at 305.
7 Defendant Grewal’s failure to respond to the discovery, has caused and continues to
8 cause Plaintiffs prejudice. Defendant Grewal is contesting liability, causation and the
9 nature and extent of Plaintiffs damages. Grewal’s responses to discovery, and evidence in
10 support of its defenses is critical to the prosecution of this case. Without Grewal’s factual,

11 documentary and evidentiary support for their defenses, plaintiff is blindfolded and will

12 suffer surprise and prejudice at trial. Further, Defendant Grewal continues to hide

13 discoverable evidence.

14 A protective order must be imposed staying all of their discovery until the Court rules

15 on Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions and Defendant has been ordered to respond to the discovery.

16 Defendant has not responded to discovery and Defendant cannot be allowed to defend this case
either by testimony, witnesses, evidence or documents that would necessarily have been
17
provided if it responded to discovery.The protective order is necessary to eliminate and protect
18
Plaintiff so that he is not victimized by surprise at the time of trial. See Xebec Development
19
Partners, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1993) 12 Cai. App. 4th 501, 569. The court in
20
Xebec held, “[a] party cannot have it both ways: He or she cannot assert the privilege in
21
discovery and then (having as a practical matter denied the adversary's legitimate discovery
22
rights) waive the privilege and offer the proof at trial without taking or suffering steps
23
appropriate to cure the prejudice to the adversary.” Id.
24
Here, defendant seeks to “blow hot and cold” by unfairly prejudicing plaintiff and keep
25
in its back pocket otherwise discoverable evidence. See A & M Records. Inc., v. Heilman
26
(1977) 75 Cal. App. 3d 554, 566. This frustrates the purpose of the Civil Discovery Act and
27
rewards trial by ambush.
28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
VI.
2 THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER DEFENDANT TO PAY SANCTIONS, COSTS, AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 2023.010 FOR
3 COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO SEEK COURT INTERVENTION
4 Defendant used dilatory tactics and plans of subterfuge by refusing to respond to discovery
5 and serving additional discovery on Plaintiff. Clearly this is ill willed actions. Pursuant to the
6 Code, sanctions may be imposed if a party fails “to confer . . . with an opposing party or attorney
7 in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if
8 the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts
9 showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.” C.C.P. § 2023.010(i).
10
Here, Plaintiff met and conferred on numerous occasions with Defendants to resolve the
11
discovery issues, including allowing Defendant additional time to provide substantive responses
12
or to meet and confer. DEFENDANT DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO SPEAK WITH
13
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL. See, e.g., supra. Moreover, Defendant went as far as to serve addtional
14
discovery on Plaintiff when they failed to respond to discovery as it was solely objections. Time
15
is of the essence in this matter as Defendant is disputing liability and withholding information.
16
Plaintiff’s counsel tirelessly attempted to meet and confer to avoid Court Intervention. Defendant
17
never met and conferred ONCE with Plaintiff to resolve the issue informally; and instead, used
18
trickery and deceit to gain an unfair advantage. Since Code section 2019.030(b) requires a
19
declaration showing an attempt at informal resolution, and because Defendant used dilatory
20
tacticsin an attempt to sandbag Plaintiff, Defendant should pay Plaintiff sanctions, pursuant to
21 Code section 2023.010, in the amount of $3,910.00, as set forth in the Declaration of Daniel A.
22 Torem.
23
///
24
///
25

26 ///

27 ///
28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
V.
2
CONCLUSION
3

4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose the following Orders:

5 1. Staying Grewal’s discovery in this case until after Plaintiff’s motions to compel

6 are heard;

7 2. Staying Grewal from compelling any discovery in this case until after Plaintiff’s
8 ` motions to compel are heard..
9
3. Sanctions in the amount of $3,910.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel against
10
Defendant Grewal Cargo Inc and/or its Attorney of record Lucy Galek esq.
11
Within 14 days of this hearing.
12

13
Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
14

18
By: ____________________________________
19
DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
20

21 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III,

22 an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian

23 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1

2
DECLARATION OF DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
3

4 I, DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. DO DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

5 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of this state.

6 2. I am trial counsel at Torem & Associates, counsel of record for Plaintiff and I make this
7 declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I would and
8 could competently testify thereto.
9
3. On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to
10
include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special
11
Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One.
12
4. One day before the responses were due, defense counsel’s assistant emailed requesting a
13
three week extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
14
5. I advised the assistant to have her counsel contact me to discuss. See email trail
15
attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
16

17 6. The assistant than inquired again about the requested extension. See email trail

18 attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

19 7. I advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel needed to
20 call Plaintiff counsel. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
21 8. The assistant advised that her boss left a message for Plaintiff counsel. See email trail
22 attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
23
9. I did not have a voice mail from counsel.
24
10. On May 11, 2021, instead of calling me to discuss the extension, Defendant Grewal
25
served “responses” to the discovery that were nothing but objections to all of the
26
discovery. attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
27

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
11. Defendant’s discovery responses consisted of solely objections. See discovery
2
responses attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
3
12. Defendant also propounded additional discovery. See discovery attached hereto as
4
Exhibit “C.”
5
13. On May 12, 2021 I met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed to May 24,
6
2021 to serve verified responses without objection. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached
7
hereto as Exhibit “D.”
8

9 14. Plaintiff also warned in his meet and confer that he would seek a protective order if

10 Defendant was going to play discovery games. See Id.

11 15. Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses without objection.
12
16. Defendant failed to respond to the meet and confer.
13
17. In this case, there is no excuse or justification for Defendant’s’ refusal to provide a
14
further response in compliance with the discovery statutes.
15
18. I have expended three hours researching, editing finalizing this motion. I have expended
16
five hours drafting the separate statement. I will expend two hours to review, research
17
and reply to the opposition and one hour to prepare for argument.
18

19 19. I bill at $350.00 an hour.

20 20. I ask for $3,850.00 in fees and $60 for the filing fee for the sum total of $3,910.00 as
21 against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD,
22 LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. jointly and severally.
23 ///
24
///
25
///
26

27 ///

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
21. I ask that the Court stay Defendant’s new discovery and prevent them from compelling
2
same until after the Court rules on Plaintiff’s discovery motions and Defendant has
3
served Code and Case Law compliant responses.
4
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct this 25th day of May,
5
2021 at Los Angeles, California.
6

8 ____________________________________________

9 DANIEL A, TOREM
10

28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622
sheath@heathandyuen.com
2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768
syuen@heathandyuen.com
3 Lucy K. Galek - 227237
lgalek@heathandyuen.com
4 HEATH & YUEN, APC
268 Bush Street, #3006
5 San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 622-7004
6 Fax: (415) 373-3957

7 Attorneys for Defendant
GREWAL CARGO INC
8

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

11 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT Case No.: STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS
12 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE,
13 Plaintiff, GREWAL CARGO INC’S OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN
14 v. INCOMPETENT ADULT, BY AND
THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM
15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET TELISHA L. MOORE’S DEMAND FOR
SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, PRODUCTION, SET NUMBER ONE
16 INCLUSIVE,
17 Defendants.
18

19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT
20 ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM
21 TELISHA L. MOORE
22 RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC
23 SET NUMBER: ONE
24 DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
25 All DOCUMENTS (as used herein, the term “DOCUMENTS” means and includes every
26 writing and record of every type or description, whether originals, copies, drafts, revisions or
27 supplements, and each non-identical copy thereof, including, but not limited to, letters, memoranda,
28 written notes, tape recordings, video recordings, or transcriptions thereof, photographs, desk calendars,

-1-
w
1 diaries, logs, reports, letters and accounts) reflecting the owner of the vehicle Defendant Charanjeet

2 Singh was driving at the time of the INCIDENT (as used herein, the term “INCIDENT” shall refer to

3 the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident or injury giving rise to this action or

4 proceeding).

5 RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 1:

6 Responding party objects to this demand upon the ground it violates Civil Procedure Code

7 section 2017.010 in that the information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this

8 action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

9 Responding party objects to this demand upon the grounds it is unduly burdensome, discovery

10 propounded by propounding party upon the grounds the information propounding party seeks is unduly
11 burdensome, expensive, and/or intrusive in that the discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the

12 information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in violation of Civil Procedure

13 Code section 2017.020.

14 Responding party objects to this demand to the extent it calls for information protected by the

15 attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, privacy, including financial privacy, private

16 settlement information and tax information, California Constitution at article I, section 1, Civil Code

17 section 3295, Civil Procedure Code sections 2017.020, 2017.210, 2018.020, 2018.030, 2030.230,

18 2034.210 and 2034.220, Evidence Code sections 940, 950 to 952 and 1152, and the Fifth Amendment

19 to the United States Constitution.

20 DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
21 All DOCUMENTS that identify every individual who inspected the vehicle Defendant

22 Defendant Charanjeet Singh was driving at the time of the INCIDENT as a result of the INCIDENT.

23 OBJECTIONS TO DEMAND NO. 2:

24 Responding party objects to this demand upon the ground it violates Civil Procedure Code

25 section 2017.010 in that the information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this

26 action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

27 Responding party objects to this demand upon the grounds it is unduly burdensome, discovery
28 propounded by propounding party upon the grounds the information propounding party seeks is unduly
-2-
GREWAL CARGO INC’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT ADULT,
BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, SET
NUMBER ONE
w
1 burdensome, expensive, and/or intrusive in that the discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the

2 information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in violation of Civil Procedure

3 Code section 2017.020.

4 Responding party objects to this demand upon the ground it violates Civil Procedure Code

5 sections 2034.210 and 2034.220, and the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges (Evid.

6 Code §§ 950 to 952; and Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2018.020 & 2018.030) to the extent propounding party

7 seeks information concerning responding party’s expert witnesses, including the identity, testimony,

8 opinions, and bases. Such information will be disclosed to propounding party per Civil Procedure

9 Code sections 2034.210 and 2034.220 at the appropriate time before trial once responding party

10 determines and discloses expert witness information.
11 Responding party objects to this demand to the extent it calls for information protected by the

12 attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, privacy, including financial privacy, private

13 settlement information and tax information, California Constitution at article I, section 1, Civil Code

14 section 3295, Civil Procedure Code sections 2017.020, 2017.210, 2018.020, 2018.030, 2030.230,

15 2034.210 and 2034.220, Evidence Code sections 940, 950 to 952 and 1152, and the Fifth Amendment

16 to the United States Constitution.

17 DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

18 All DOCUMENTS that identify every individual who inspected the vehicle Plaintiff was in at

19 the time of the INCIDENT as a result of the INCIDENT.

20 OBJECTIONS TO DEMAND NO. 3:
21 Responding party objects to this demand upon the ground it violates Civil Procedure Code

22 section 2017.010 in that the information requested is neither relevant to the subject matter of this

23 action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

24 Responding party objects to this demand upon the grounds it is unduly burdensome, discovery

25 propounded by propounding party upon the grounds the information propounding party seeks is unduly

26 burdensome, expensive, and/or intrusive in that the discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the

27 information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in violation of Civil Procedure
28 Code section 2017.020.
-3-
GREWAL CARGO INC’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT ADULT,
BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE’S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, SET
NUMBER ONE
w
1 Responding party objects to this demand upon the ground it violates Civil Procedure Code

2 sections 2034.210 and 2034.220, and the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges (Evid.

3 Code §§ 950 to 952; and Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2018.020 & 2018.030) to the extent propounding party

4 seeks information concerning responding party’s expert witnesses, including the identity, testimony,

5 opinions, and bases. Such information will be disclosed to propounding party per Civil Procedure

6 Code sections 2034.210 and 2034.220 at the appropriate time before trial once responding party

7 determines and discloses expert witness information.

8 Responding party objects to this demand to the extent it calls for information protected by the

9 attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, privacy, including financial privacy, private

10 settlement information and tax information, California Constitution at article I, section 1, Civil Code
11 section 3295, Civil Procedure Code sections 2017.020, 2017.210, 2018.020, 2018.030, 2030.230,

12 2034.210 and 2034.220, Evidence Code sections

Case Info

Judge

Waters, Robert T. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 25, 2021

Case Filing Date

February 23, 2021

County

Parties

California Department of Health Care Services Defendant In Intervention
California Department of Health Care Services Interested Party
Darrisha Raquel Wheeler (DOE 1) Defendant
FAGE USA Dairy Industry, Inc (Doe 6) Defendant
Grewal Cargo Inc. Cross-complainant
Grewal Cargo Inc. Defendant
Grewel Logistics (DOE 2) Defendant
Lopes, David Cross-defendant
Lopes, David Interested Party
Mam, Savith Cross-defendant
Mam, Savith Interested Party
Moore, Telisha L. Guardian Ad Litem
Silchuk Logistics, LLC Cross-complainant
Silchuk Logistics, LLC (Doe 4) Defendant
Singh, Charanjeet Cross-complainant
Singh, Charanjeet Defendant
Singh, Tajinder Cross-complainant
Singh, Tajinder Defendant
Taylor III, Joe Edwin Interested Party
Taylor III, Joe Edwin Minor
United Specialty Insurance Company Interested Party
United Specialty Insurance Company Intervenor
Ron Torem Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steven Blum Attorneys for Defendants
Stephen Heath Attorneys for Defendants
Steven Yuen Attorneys for Defendants
Yigal Torem Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lucy Galek Attorney
Shawn Toliver Attorney
David Kahn Attorney
Ekaterina Golovanova Attorney
Daniel Torem Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Dordick Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert Reagan Attorney
Brandon Rainey Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Telisha L. Moore et al. vs Grewal Cargo Inc. et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties