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 to Compel Further Response
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 TO COMPEL
15 vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;
16 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR
17 SINGH; and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, MONETARY SANCTIONS
AGAINST DEFENDANT GREWAL
18 CARGO, INC. AND ITS COUNSEL
Defendants. OF RECORD, LUCY K, GALEK;
19 DECLARATION OF DANIEL A.
TOREM; SEPARATE STATEMENT
20
21
Date: TBD
22
Time: TBD
23 Dept. : 11
24
Filing Date: 02/23/2021
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES SET ONE
1 TO DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 COMES NOW JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS
3 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE and hereby gives notice that on ____,2021 at a
4 time TBD in Department 11 of the San Joaquin Superior Court, located at 180 E Weber Ave
5 Stockton, CA 95202 he will seek the following orders:
6
1. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve further responses to Form
7
Interrogatories, Set One.
8
2. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve verified responses without
9
objection within 14 days of this hearing.
10
11 3. Imposing monetary sanctions against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS
12 COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of discovery
13 in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of $3,910.00.
14 4. Imposing the sanctions jointly and severally to be paid within 14 days of this hearing.
15 Said motion is made on the grounds that on April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written
16 discovery to Defendant Grewal to include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production,
17 Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses
18 were due by May 11, 2021.
19
On May 10, 2021, the date the responses were due and the date of a vehicle inspection of
20
Defendant’s vehicle, defense counsel’s assistant emailed requesting a three week extension with
21
no reasoning whatsoever. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel
22
advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss as Plaintiff had been
23
trying to contact defense counsel as there was evidence Defense’s motion to strike and demurrer
24
were moot. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Rather than attempting to avoid the
25
use of judicial resources or meet and confer, Defense counsel ignored Plaintiff. The assistant then
26
again inquired about the requested extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
27
28 2
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 Plaintiff counsel advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel
2 needed to call Plaintiff counsel during business hours and not at 8:30p.m. as Plaintiff wanted to
3 inquire as to why Defendant requires 3 weeks on the eve before the responses were due. See email
4 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Defense counsel never attempted to contact Plaintiff.
5 Instead, on May 11, 2021, Defendant Grewal at the end of day, served “responses” that
6 were nothing but boilerplate objections to all of the discovery. There was no substantive response
7 to any discovery, and no verifications, clearly an attempt to stonewall Plaintiff. What is more is
8 the fact that on that same day, Defense propounded additional discovery on Plaintiff.
9
On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed
10
to May 24, 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. Additionally Plaintiff advised that
11
if Defendant does not serve substantive responses by the 24th Plaintiff will immediately file a
12
protective order regarding responding to the discovery. Defendant is clearly attempting to stonewall
13
and abuse the discovery process. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
14
Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses without objection. Defendant is doing
15
exactly what the Code attempts to prevent and is using the discovery process as a shield and a
16
sword.
17
On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and
18
conferred requesting an response from Defendant. To date, Defense has continued to ignore
19
Plaintiff and prejudice Plaintiff in discovery. Of note, evidence has been revealed of potential
20
spoilation by Defendant and/or Defense Counsel and time is of the essence in this matter. Court
21
intervention is clearly necessary here.
22
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26
///
27
28 3
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 Said motion shall be based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities, the
2 declaration of Daniel A. Torem, the court file and pleadings and such other and further argument
3 as may be heard in this matter.
4 Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
5
6
By: ____________________________________
7
DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
8 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III,
an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian
9 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I.
3
INTRODUCTION
4
Plaintiff is informed and believes, that Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was the
5
6 operator of a Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License
7 plates XP71593 and 4TH7209 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC. On or about January
8 16, 2021 at 3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was operating a Freightliner tractor
9 pulling a trailer owned by GREWAL CARGO INC.. CHARANJEET SINGH was driving
10 southbound on SR-99 when Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for traffic and
11 violently rear-ended the vehicle that Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR was an occupant of, causing
12 an impact between the two vehicles, the force of which was so severe that Plaintiff was caused to
13 suffer serious injuries to his body including quadriplegia and brain damage from which he has not
14 and will not recover.
15 Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2021. Defendant Grewal and its counsel, Lucy K. Galek,
16 Esq. unleashed a full attack on Plaintiff. Defendant has deployed scorched earth tactics claiming
17 that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle struck by Mr. Singh and asserting that Plaintiff was
18 intoxicated, had an open container in the vehicle, was a wanted felon and career criminal. The
19 hospital records, provided to Defendant by Plaintiff informally as well as emergency records
20 clearly demonstrate that Mr. Taylor was not the driver of the vehicle. Nonetheless, Defendant
21 Grewal through Ms. Galek filed a demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not
22 bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine. See,
23 Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem
24 On May 20, 2021 the deposition was taken of the Emergency Room Phsyician who testified
25 under oath that Plaintiff was the passenger. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel countlessly advised Ms.
26 Galek that Plaintiff’s warrants are getting recalled as he is currently incapacitated as a quadriplegic.
27
28 5
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek continued with a demurrer and motion to
2 strike arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony
3 disentitlement doctrine. That Motion was denied and Defense failed to even request oral argument,
4 a showing of their belief in their own motion and a clear attempt to annoy and harass Plaintiff. See,
5 Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem
6 Along with their pleading tactics, Defendant Grewal has thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to
7 conduct an inspection of the subject tractor trailer including its Video Radar Decision Unit
8 (VRDU). Plaintiff appeared for the inspection only to be refused access to the Video Radar
9 Decision Unit (VRDU) without permission from the owner of the unit. It appears evident that
10 Defendant had already downloaded the data but, has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff, and
11 give it to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s preservation of evidence letter issued at the outset of the
12 accident and despite Plaintiff’s timely Notice of Inspection and discovery requests. Defendant has
13 ignored all of Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. That issue is the subject of a separate motion;
14 however, the information is discoverable and understanding what has transpired is to fully
15 understand Defense Counsel’s tactics in this matter. Furthermore, this information would have
16 been produced in Defendant’s discovery responses. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem
17
II.
18
THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE
19
20 On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to include
21 Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One
22 and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses were due by May 11, 2021.
23 On May 10, 2021, the date before the responses were due, defense counsel’s assistant
24 emailed requesting a three week extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
25 Plaintiff counsel advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss as
26 Plaintiff’s counsel had requested an extension of the hearing of the Demurrer and Motion to Strike
27 as Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defense counsel the warrants were going to get recalled. See email
28 6
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant then inquired again about the requested
2 extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel advised, again, that
3 if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel needed to call Plaintiff counsel. See email
4 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant advised that her boss left a message for
5 Plaintiff counsel, which was at 8:30 p.m. on the 11th. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit
6 “A.” No message was ever left. See Declaration of Daniel A. Torem
7 On May 11, 2021, Defense counsel never contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and instead,
8 Defendant Grewal served unverified blanket objections to the discovery in addition to propounding
9 additional discovery requests on Plaintiff which will be the subject of a protective order.
10
III.
11
PLAINTIFF HAS MET AND CONFERRED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL TO OBTAIN
12
CODE COMPLIANT RESPONSES AND DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE
13
THE RESPONSES
14
15 On May 11, 2021, Defendant Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were nothing
16 but untimely objections to all of the discovery. There was not one substantive response.
17 On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed
18 to May 24, 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. Additionally Plaintiff advised that
19 if Defendant does not serve substantive responses by the 24th Plaintiff will immediately file a
20 protective order regarding responding to the discovery. Defendant is clearly attempting to stonewall
21 and abuse the discovery process. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
22 Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses without objection. Defendant is doing
23 exactly what the Code attempts to prevent and is using the discovery process as a shield and a
24 sword.
25 Additionally on May 12, 2021 Plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence to Defense counsel
26 regarding potential spoilation of evidence by Defendant and/or Defense counsel. . See letter of
27
28 7
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
2 On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and
3 conferred requesting an response from Defendant. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as
4 Exhibit “D.” Defense counsel, specifically Ms. Galek has continued to stonewall Plaintiff. To date,
5 Defense has continued to ignore Plaintiff and prejudice Plaintiff in discovery. Of note, evidence
6 has been revealed of potential spoilation by Defendant and/or Defense Counsel and time is of the
7 essence in this matter. Court intervention is clearly necessary here.
8
III.
9
DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE CODE COMPLIANT
10
RESPONSES
11
12 On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an
13 order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following
14 apply:
15 (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.
16
(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is
17
unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.
18
(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. C.C.P. §
19
2030.300(a).
20
21 As shown in Plaintiff s’ Separate Statement of Discovery Issues In Dispute, filed
22 concurrently herewith, Defendant served responses riddled with improper objections with no
23 substantive response in an attempt to stonewall Plaintiff. There is no substantial justification.
24 ///
25
///
26
///
27
28 8
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 IV.
2 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES ARE BOILERPLATE AND REQUIRES AN ORDER
3 COMPELLING A FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSE
4
Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, a party may obtain discovery by
5
propounding interrogatories to a party. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.010(b). As stated above, Plaintiff
6
propounded Set One of discovery to Defendant, which included Form Interrogatories, Set One.
7
A. Defendants’ Responses to Set One Discovery Are Deficient, Boilerplate and not Code
8
or Case Law Compliant
9
10 As demonstrated in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements of Discovery Issues In Dispute,
11 Defendant has provided an incomplete, deficient, non-responsive and evasive answer to the entire
12 set of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories.
13 As demonstrated in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements of Discovery Issues In Dispute,
14 Defendant has provided an incomplete, deficient, non-responsive and evasive answer to the entire
15 set of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories. Failing to respond within the time limit waives most
16 objections to the interrogatories, including claims of privilege and “work product” protection.
17 [CCP § 2030.290(a); see Leach v. Sup.Ct. (Markum) (1980) 111 CA3d 902, 905-906, 169 CR 42,
18 43-44]. Unsworn responses to discovery are tantamount to no responses at all. Appleton v. Superior
19 Court (1988), 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; See also, Zorro Investment Company v. Great Pacific
20 Securities Corporation (1977), 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914. The responses are boilerplate objections
21 with no substantial justification. Defendant should be ordered to provide full and complete verified
22 responses without objection within 14 days of this hearing. See Plaintiff’s separate statement.
23 ///
24
///
25
///
26
27 ///
28 9
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 V.
2 MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL ARE
3 WARRANTED FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE DISCOVERY AND
4 FOR NECESSITATING THIS MOTION
5
Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has both mandatory and
6
discretionary power to award sanctions when a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to
7
compel further discovery responses. Because Defendant has failed to provide a further verified
8
response to the Form Interrogatories, Plaintiff should be awarded $3,910.00 in sanctions as set
9
forth in the Declaration of Daniel Torem.
10
A. Mandatory Sanctions
11
12 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300 (d) provides: "The court shall impose a monetary
13 sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or
14 attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to
15 interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
16 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Given
17 that Defendant has failed to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories thus
18 forcing Plaintiff to file this Motion and Separate Statement with the Court, the Court must award
19 Plaintiffs $3,910.00 in sanctions for Defendant’s unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel
20 further response to interrogatories.
21 B. Discretionary Sanctions
22 To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method and
23 after notice to any affected party, a court may award discretionary sanctions if it finds that a
24 party has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. Section 2023.030 states, in pertinent
25 part, that:
26
[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of
27
28 10
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable
2 expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.
3 Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030(a). (Emphasis added.)
4
"Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to...Failing to respond or to
5
submit to an authorized method of discovery...Making, without substantial justification, an
6
unmeritorious objection to discovery...Making an evasive response to discovery...[and]...Making
7
or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit
8
discovery." (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or
9
attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning
10
discovery. Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030.
11
In this case, there is no excuse or justification for Defendant’s’ refusal to provide a further
12
response in compliance with the discovery statutes. The Declaration of Daniel Torem attests to
13
the efforts expended on the part of Plaintiff to avoid this Motion. The purpose of discovery
14
sanctions is to prevent misuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. Do v.
15
Superior Court, (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1210,1213, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855. It is evident from the
16
facts presented that Defendant will not provide the required further response absent a Court order
17
and the imposition of sanctions.
18
19 Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code. §§ 2023.010 et seq. and § 2030.300 , and the power of this
20 Court to impose monetary sanctions against the losing party on a motion to compel answers to
21 interrogatories, Plaintiff submits that given the attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid this Motion,
22 and the lack of compliance by the Defendant, sanctions should properly be awarded to Plaintiff,
23 TAYLOR, and against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF
24 RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of discovery in the amount of
25 $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of $3,910.00 as reflected in the Declaration
26 of Daniel Torem.
27 ///
28 11
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 VI.
2 CONCLUSION
3
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose the following Orders:
4
A. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve further responses to Form
5
Interrogatories, Set One.
6
7 B. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to produce verified responses without
8 objection within 14 days of this hearing.
9 C. Imposing monetary sanctions against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND
10 ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of
11 discovery in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of
12 $3,910.00.
13 D. Imposing the sanctions jointly and severally to be paid within 14 days of this hearing.
14
Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
15
16
17
18 By: ____________________________________
19 DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III,
20 an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian
Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 12
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 DECLARATION OF DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
2 I, DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. DO DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
3
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of this state.
4
2. I am trial counsel at Torem & Associates, counsel of record for Plaintiff and I make this
5
declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I would and
6
could competently testify thereto.
7
8 3. Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2021. Defendant Grewal and its counsel, Lucy K.
9 Galek, Esq. unleashed a full attack on Plaintiff. Defendant has deployed scorched earth
10 tactics claiming that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle struck by Mr. Singh and
11 asserting that Plaintiff was intoxicated, had an open container in the vehicle, was a
12 wanted felon and career criminal. The hospital records, provided to Defendant by
13 Plaintiff informally as well as emergency records clearly demonstrate that Mr. Taylor
14 was not the driver of the vehicle. Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek
15 filed a demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action
16 pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine.
17 4. On May 20, 2021 the deposition was taken of the Emergency Room Phsyician who
18 testified under oath that Plaintiff was the passenger. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel
19 countlessly advised Ms. Galek that Plaintiff’s warrants are getting recalled as he is
20 currently incapacitated as a quadriplegic. Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms.
21 Galek continued with a demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not
22 bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine.
23 That Motion was denied and Defense failed to even request oral argument, a showing
24 of their belief in their own motion and a clear attempt to annoy and harass Plaintiff.
25 5. Along with their pleading tactics, Defendant Grewal has thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to
26 conduct an inspection of the subject tractor trailer including its Video Radar Decision
27
28 13
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 Unit (VRDU). Plaintiff appeared for the inspection only to be refused access to the
2 Video Radar Decision Unit (VRDU) without permission from the owner of the unit. It
3 appears evident that Defendant had already downloaded the data but, has refused to
4 meet and confer with Plaintiff, and give it to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s preservation of
5 evidence letter issued at the outset of the accident and despite Plaintiff’s timely Notice
6 of Inspection and discovery requests. Defendant has ignored all of Plaintiff’s efforts to
7 meet and confer. That issue is the subject of a separate motion; however, the
8 information is discoverable and understanding what has transpired is to fully understand
9 Defense Counsel’s tactics in this matter. Furthermore, this information would have been
10 produced in Defendant’s discovery responses.
11 6. On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to
12 include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special
13 Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One.
14
7. The responses were due by May 11, 2021
15
8. On May 10, 2021, the date before the responses were due, defense counsel’s assistant
16
emailed requesting a three week extension knowing there was a vehicle inspection that
17
day. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
18
19 9. I advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss. See
20 email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
21 10. The assistant than inquired again about the requested extension. See email trail
22 attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
23 11. I advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel needed to
24 call Plaintiff counsel. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
25
12. The assistant advised that her boss left a message for Plaintiff counsel. See email trail
26
attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
27
28 14
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 13. I never received a voice message but I received a missed call in my office on May 10,
2 2021 at 8:30 p.m. by Ms. Galek. I was not in the office at that time.
3 14. On May 11, 2021, Ms. Galek never attempted to contact me and instead, Defendant
4 Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were nothing but untimely objections
5 to all of the discovery. Additionally, Defendant propounded additional discovery on
6 Plaintiff.
7
12. On May 12, 2021 I met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed to May 24,
8
2021 to serve verified responses without objection. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached
9
hereto as Exhibit “B.” Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses
10
without objection.
11
13. Additionally on May 12, 2021 I sent correspondence to Defense counsel regarding
12
potential spoilation of evidence by Defendant and/or Defense counsel. . See letter of
13
May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
14
15 14. On May 19, 2021, In an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and conferred
16 requesting an response from Defendant. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as
17 Exhibit “D.” Defense counsel, specifically Ms. Galek has continued to stonewall
18 Plaintiff. Of note, evidence has been revealed of potential spoilation by Defendant
19 and/or Defense Counsel and time is of the essence in this matter. Court intervention is
20 clearly necessary here.
21 14. In this case, there is no excuse or justification for Defendant’s’ refusal to provide a
22 further response in compliance with the discovery statutes.
23 15. I have expended three hours researching, editing finalizing this motion. I have expended
24 five hours drafting the separate statement. I will expend two hours to review, research
25 and reply to the opposition and one hour to prepare for argument.
26
16. I bill at $350.00 an hour.
27
28 15
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
1 17. I ask for $3,850.00 in fees and $60 for the filing fee for the sum total of $3,910.00 as
2 against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD,
3 LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. jointly and severally.
4 18. I ask that the verified full and complete responses without objection be served within
5
14 days of this hearing.
6
19. Exhibit E is Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories
7
8 20. Exhibit F is Defendant’s “responses” to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories
9 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct this 25th day of May,
10 2021 at Los Angeles, California.
11
12
____________________________________________
13
DANIEL A, TOREM
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 16
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
EXHIBIT F
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 Defendants/Cross-Complainants
Grewal Cargo Inc, and Charanjeet Singh
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,
GREWAL CARGO INC’S RESPONSES TO
13 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN
INCOMPETENT ADULT, BY AND
14 v. THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM
TELISHA L. MOORE’S FORM
15 GREWAL
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 to Compel Further Response 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 TO COMPEL 15 vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; 16 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR 17 SINGH; and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT GREWAL 18 CARGO, INC. AND ITS COUNSEL Defendants. OF RECORD, LUCY K, GALEK; 19 DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. TOREM; SEPARATE STATEMENT 20 21 Date: TBD 22 Time: TBD 23 Dept. : 11 24 Filing Date: 02/23/2021 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET ONE 1 TO DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 COMES NOW JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS 3 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE and hereby gives notice that on ____,2021 at a 4 time TBD in Department 11 of the San Joaquin Superior Court, located at 180 E Weber Ave 5 Stockton, CA 95202 he will seek the following orders: 6 1. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve further responses to Form 7 Interrogatories, Set One. 8 2. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve verified responses without 9 objection within 14 days of this hearing. 10 11 3. Imposing monetary sanctions against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS 12 COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of discovery 13 in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of $3,910.00. 14 4. Imposing the sanctions jointly and severally to be paid within 14 days of this hearing. 15 Said motion is made on the grounds that on April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written 16 discovery to Defendant Grewal to include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, 17 Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses 18 were due by May 11, 2021. 19 On May 10, 2021, the date the responses were due and the date of a vehicle inspection of 20 Defendant’s vehicle, defense counsel’s assistant emailed requesting a three week extension with 21 no reasoning whatsoever. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel 22 advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss as Plaintiff had been 23 trying to contact defense counsel as there was evidence Defense’s motion to strike and demurrer 24 were moot. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Rather than attempting to avoid the 25 use of judicial resources or meet and confer, Defense counsel ignored Plaintiff. The assistant then 26 again inquired about the requested extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 27 28 2 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 Plaintiff counsel advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel 2 needed to call Plaintiff counsel during business hours and not at 8:30p.m. as Plaintiff wanted to 3 inquire as to why Defendant requires 3 weeks on the eve before the responses were due. See email 4 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Defense counsel never attempted to contact Plaintiff. 5 Instead, on May 11, 2021, Defendant Grewal at the end of day, served “responses” that 6 were nothing but boilerplate objections to all of the discovery. There was no substantive response 7 to any discovery, and no verifications, clearly an attempt to stonewall Plaintiff. What is more is 8 the fact that on that same day, Defense propounded additional discovery on Plaintiff. 9 On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed 10 to May 24, 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. Additionally Plaintiff advised that 11 if Defendant does not serve substantive responses by the 24th Plaintiff will immediately file a 12 protective order regarding responding to the discovery. Defendant is clearly attempting to stonewall 13 and abuse the discovery process. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 14 Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses without objection. Defendant is doing 15 exactly what the Code attempts to prevent and is using the discovery process as a shield and a 16 sword. 17 On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and 18 conferred requesting an response from Defendant. To date, Defense has continued to ignore 19 Plaintiff and prejudice Plaintiff in discovery. Of note, evidence has been revealed of potential 20 spoilation by Defendant and/or Defense Counsel and time is of the essence in this matter. Court 21 intervention is clearly necessary here. 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 3 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 Said motion shall be based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities, the 2 declaration of Daniel A. Torem, the court file and pleadings and such other and further argument 3 as may be heard in this matter. 4 Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES 5 6 By: ____________________________________ 7 DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. 8 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian 9 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. 3 INTRODUCTION 4 Plaintiff is informed and believes, that Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was the 5 6 operator of a Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License 7 plates XP71593 and 4TH7209 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC. On or about January 8 16, 2021 at 3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was operating a Freightliner tractor 9 pulling a trailer owned by GREWAL CARGO INC.. CHARANJEET SINGH was driving 10 southbound on SR-99 when Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for traffic and 11 violently rear-ended the vehicle that Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR was an occupant of, causing 12 an impact between the two vehicles, the force of which was so severe that Plaintiff was caused to 13 suffer serious injuries to his body including quadriplegia and brain damage from which he has not 14 and will not recover. 15 Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2021. Defendant Grewal and its counsel, Lucy K. Galek, 16 Esq. unleashed a full attack on Plaintiff. Defendant has deployed scorched earth tactics claiming 17 that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle struck by Mr. Singh and asserting that Plaintiff was 18 intoxicated, had an open container in the vehicle, was a wanted felon and career criminal. The 19 hospital records, provided to Defendant by Plaintiff informally as well as emergency records 20 clearly demonstrate that Mr. Taylor was not the driver of the vehicle. Nonetheless, Defendant 21 Grewal through Ms. Galek filed a demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not 22 bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine. See, 23 Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem 24 On May 20, 2021 the deposition was taken of the Emergency Room Phsyician who testified 25 under oath that Plaintiff was the passenger. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel countlessly advised Ms. 26 Galek that Plaintiff’s warrants are getting recalled as he is currently incapacitated as a quadriplegic. 27 28 5 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek continued with a demurrer and motion to 2 strike arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony 3 disentitlement doctrine. That Motion was denied and Defense failed to even request oral argument, 4 a showing of their belief in their own motion and a clear attempt to annoy and harass Plaintiff. See, 5 Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem 6 Along with their pleading tactics, Defendant Grewal has thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to 7 conduct an inspection of the subject tractor trailer including its Video Radar Decision Unit 8 (VRDU). Plaintiff appeared for the inspection only to be refused access to the Video Radar 9 Decision Unit (VRDU) without permission from the owner of the unit. It appears evident that 10 Defendant had already downloaded the data but, has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff, and 11 give it to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s preservation of evidence letter issued at the outset of the 12 accident and despite Plaintiff’s timely Notice of Inspection and discovery requests. Defendant has 13 ignored all of Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. That issue is the subject of a separate motion; 14 however, the information is discoverable and understanding what has transpired is to fully 15 understand Defense Counsel’s tactics in this matter. Furthermore, this information would have 16 been produced in Defendant’s discovery responses. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem 17 II. 18 THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE 19 20 On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to include 21 Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One 22 and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses were due by May 11, 2021. 23 On May 10, 2021, the date before the responses were due, defense counsel’s assistant 24 emailed requesting a three week extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 25 Plaintiff counsel advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss as 26 Plaintiff’s counsel had requested an extension of the hearing of the Demurrer and Motion to Strike 27 as Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defense counsel the warrants were going to get recalled. See email 28 6 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant then inquired again about the requested 2 extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel advised, again, that 3 if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel needed to call Plaintiff counsel. See email 4 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant advised that her boss left a message for 5 Plaintiff counsel, which was at 8:30 p.m. on the 11th. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit 6 “A.” No message was ever left. See Declaration of Daniel A. Torem 7 On May 11, 2021, Defense counsel never contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and instead, 8 Defendant Grewal served unverified blanket objections to the discovery in addition to propounding 9 additional discovery requests on Plaintiff which will be the subject of a protective order. 10 III. 11 PLAINTIFF HAS MET AND CONFERRED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL TO OBTAIN 12 CODE COMPLIANT RESPONSES AND DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE 13 THE RESPONSES 14 15 On May 11, 2021, Defendant Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were nothing 16 but untimely objections to all of the discovery. There was not one substantive response. 17 On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed 18 to May 24, 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. Additionally Plaintiff advised that 19 if Defendant does not serve substantive responses by the 24th Plaintiff will immediately file a 20 protective order regarding responding to the discovery. Defendant is clearly attempting to stonewall 21 and abuse the discovery process. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 22 Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses without objection. Defendant is doing 23 exactly what the Code attempts to prevent and is using the discovery process as a shield and a 24 sword. 25 Additionally on May 12, 2021 Plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence to Defense counsel 26 regarding potential spoilation of evidence by Defendant and/or Defense counsel. . See letter of 27 28 7 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 2 On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and 3 conferred requesting an response from Defendant. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as 4 Exhibit “D.” Defense counsel, specifically Ms. Galek has continued to stonewall Plaintiff. To date, 5 Defense has continued to ignore Plaintiff and prejudice Plaintiff in discovery. Of note, evidence 6 has been revealed of potential spoilation by Defendant and/or Defense Counsel and time is of the 7 essence in this matter. Court intervention is clearly necessary here. 8 III. 9 DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE CODE COMPLIANT 10 RESPONSES 11 12 On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an 13 order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following 14 apply: 15 (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. 16 (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is 17 unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. 18 (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. C.C.P. § 19 2030.300(a). 20 21 As shown in Plaintiff s’ Separate Statement of Discovery Issues In Dispute, filed 22 concurrently herewith, Defendant served responses riddled with improper objections with no 23 substantive response in an attempt to stonewall Plaintiff. There is no substantial justification. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 8 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 IV. 2 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES ARE BOILERPLATE AND REQUIRES AN ORDER 3 COMPELLING A FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSE 4 Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, a party may obtain discovery by 5 propounding interrogatories to a party. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.010(b). As stated above, Plaintiff 6 propounded Set One of discovery to Defendant, which included Form Interrogatories, Set One. 7 A. Defendants’ Responses to Set One Discovery Are Deficient, Boilerplate and not Code 8 or Case Law Compliant 9 10 As demonstrated in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements of Discovery Issues In Dispute, 11 Defendant has provided an incomplete, deficient, non-responsive and evasive answer to the entire 12 set of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories. 13 As demonstrated in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements of Discovery Issues In Dispute, 14 Defendant has provided an incomplete, deficient, non-responsive and evasive answer to the entire 15 set of Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories. Failing to respond within the time limit waives most 16 objections to the interrogatories, including claims of privilege and “work product” protection. 17 [CCP § 2030.290(a); see Leach v. Sup.Ct. (Markum) (1980) 111 CA3d 902, 905-906, 169 CR 42, 18 43-44]. Unsworn responses to discovery are tantamount to no responses at all. Appleton v. Superior 19 Court (1988), 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; See also, Zorro Investment Company v. Great Pacific 20 Securities Corporation (1977), 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914. The responses are boilerplate objections 21 with no substantial justification. Defendant should be ordered to provide full and complete verified 22 responses without objection within 14 days of this hearing. See Plaintiff’s separate statement. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 /// 28 9 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 V. 2 MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL ARE 3 WARRANTED FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE DISCOVERY AND 4 FOR NECESSITATING THIS MOTION 5 Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has both mandatory and 6 discretionary power to award sanctions when a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to 7 compel further discovery responses. Because Defendant has failed to provide a further verified 8 response to the Form Interrogatories, Plaintiff should be awarded $3,910.00 in sanctions as set 9 forth in the Declaration of Daniel Torem. 10 A. Mandatory Sanctions 11 12 Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300 (d) provides: "The court shall impose a monetary 13 sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or 14 attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to 15 interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial 16 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Given 17 that Defendant has failed to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories thus 18 forcing Plaintiff to file this Motion and Separate Statement with the Court, the Court must award 19 Plaintiffs $3,910.00 in sanctions for Defendant’s unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel 20 further response to interrogatories. 21 B. Discretionary Sanctions 22 To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method and 23 after notice to any affected party, a court may award discretionary sanctions if it finds that a 24 party has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. Section 2023.030 states, in pertinent 25 part, that: 26 [t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of 27 28 10 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable 2 expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. 3 Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030(a). (Emphasis added.) 4 "Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to...Failing to respond or to 5 submit to an authorized method of discovery...Making, without substantial justification, an 6 unmeritorious objection to discovery...Making an evasive response to discovery...[and]...Making 7 or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit 8 discovery." (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or 9 attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning 10 discovery. Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030. 11 In this case, there is no excuse or justification for Defendant’s’ refusal to provide a further 12 response in compliance with the discovery statutes. The Declaration of Daniel Torem attests to 13 the efforts expended on the part of Plaintiff to avoid this Motion. The purpose of discovery 14 sanctions is to prevent misuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. Do v. 15 Superior Court, (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 1210,1213, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855. It is evident from the 16 facts presented that Defendant will not provide the required further response absent a Court order 17 and the imposition of sanctions. 18 19 Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code. §§ 2023.010 et seq. and § 2030.300 , and the power of this 20 Court to impose monetary sanctions against the losing party on a motion to compel answers to 21 interrogatories, Plaintiff submits that given the attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid this Motion, 22 and the lack of compliance by the Defendant, sanctions should properly be awarded to Plaintiff, 23 TAYLOR, and against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF 24 RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of discovery in the amount of 25 $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of $3,910.00 as reflected in the Declaration 26 of Daniel Torem. 27 /// 28 11 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 VI. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose the following Orders: 4 A. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve further responses to Form 5 Interrogatories, Set One. 6 7 B. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to produce verified responses without 8 objection within 14 days of this hearing. 9 C. Imposing monetary sanctions against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND 10 ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of 11 discovery in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of 12 $3,910.00. 13 D. Imposing the sanctions jointly and severally to be paid within 14 days of this hearing. 14 Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES 15 16 17 18 By: ____________________________________ 19 DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, 20 an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 DECLARATION OF DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. 2 I, DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. DO DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all the courts of this state. 4 2. I am trial counsel at Torem & Associates, counsel of record for Plaintiff and I make this 5 declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I would and 6 could competently testify thereto. 7 8 3. Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2021. Defendant Grewal and its counsel, Lucy K. 9 Galek, Esq. unleashed a full attack on Plaintiff. Defendant has deployed scorched earth 10 tactics claiming that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle struck by Mr. Singh and 11 asserting that Plaintiff was intoxicated, had an open container in the vehicle, was a 12 wanted felon and career criminal. The hospital records, provided to Defendant by 13 Plaintiff informally as well as emergency records clearly demonstrate that Mr. Taylor 14 was not the driver of the vehicle. Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek 15 filed a demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action 16 pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine. 17 4. On May 20, 2021 the deposition was taken of the Emergency Room Phsyician who 18 testified under oath that Plaintiff was the passenger. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel 19 countlessly advised Ms. Galek that Plaintiff’s warrants are getting recalled as he is 20 currently incapacitated as a quadriplegic. Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. 21 Galek continued with a demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not 22 bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine. 23 That Motion was denied and Defense failed to even request oral argument, a showing 24 of their belief in their own motion and a clear attempt to annoy and harass Plaintiff. 25 5. Along with their pleading tactics, Defendant Grewal has thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to 26 conduct an inspection of the subject tractor trailer including its Video Radar Decision 27 28 13 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 Unit (VRDU). Plaintiff appeared for the inspection only to be refused access to the 2 Video Radar Decision Unit (VRDU) without permission from the owner of the unit. It 3 appears evident that Defendant had already downloaded the data but, has refused to 4 meet and confer with Plaintiff, and give it to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s preservation of 5 evidence letter issued at the outset of the accident and despite Plaintiff’s timely Notice 6 of Inspection and discovery requests. Defendant has ignored all of Plaintiff’s efforts to 7 meet and confer. That issue is the subject of a separate motion; however, the 8 information is discoverable and understanding what has transpired is to fully understand 9 Defense Counsel’s tactics in this matter. Furthermore, this information would have been 10 produced in Defendant’s discovery responses. 11 6. On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to 12 include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special 13 Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. 14 7. The responses were due by May 11, 2021 15 8. On May 10, 2021, the date before the responses were due, defense counsel’s assistant 16 emailed requesting a three week extension knowing there was a vehicle inspection that 17 day. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 18 19 9. I advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss. See 20 email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 21 10. The assistant than inquired again about the requested extension. See email trail 22 attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 23 11. I advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel needed to 24 call Plaintiff counsel. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 25 12. The assistant advised that her boss left a message for Plaintiff counsel. See email trail 26 attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 27 28 14 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 13. I never received a voice message but I received a missed call in my office on May 10, 2 2021 at 8:30 p.m. by Ms. Galek. I was not in the office at that time. 3 14. On May 11, 2021, Ms. Galek never attempted to contact me and instead, Defendant 4 Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were nothing but untimely objections 5 to all of the discovery. Additionally, Defendant propounded additional discovery on 6 Plaintiff. 7 12. On May 12, 2021 I met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed to May 24, 8 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached 9 hereto as Exhibit “B.” Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses 10 without objection. 11 13. Additionally on May 12, 2021 I sent correspondence to Defense counsel regarding 12 potential spoilation of evidence by Defendant and/or Defense counsel. . See letter of 13 May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 14 15 14. On May 19, 2021, In an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and conferred 16 requesting an response from Defendant. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as 17 Exhibit “D.” Defense counsel, specifically Ms. Galek has continued to stonewall 18 Plaintiff. Of note, evidence has been revealed of potential spoilation by Defendant 19 and/or Defense Counsel and time is of the essence in this matter. Court intervention is 20 clearly necessary here. 21 14. In this case, there is no excuse or justification for Defendant’s’ refusal to provide a 22 further response in compliance with the discovery statutes. 23 15. I have expended three hours researching, editing finalizing this motion. I have expended 24 five hours drafting the separate statement. I will expend two hours to review, research 25 and reply to the opposition and one hour to prepare for argument. 26 16. I bill at $350.00 an hour. 27 28 15 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 1 17. I ask for $3,850.00 in fees and $60 for the filing fee for the sum total of $3,910.00 as 2 against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD, 3 LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. jointly and severally. 4 18. I ask that the verified full and complete responses without objection be served within 5 14 days of this hearing. 6 19. Exhibit E is Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories 7 8 20. Exhibit F is Defendant’s “responses” to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories 9 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct this 25th day of May, 10 2021 at Los Angeles, California. 11 12 ____________________________________________ 13 DANIEL A, TOREM 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES EXHIBIT F 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 Defendants/Cross-Complainants Grewal Cargo Inc, and Charanjeet Singh 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, GREWAL CARGO INC’S RESPONSES TO 13 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT ADULT, BY AND 14 v. THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE’S FORM 15 GREWAL