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
JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent CASE NO.
11 adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. Hon. Judge Robert T. Waters
12 MOORE
13
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
Plaintiff, AND MOTION TO COMPEL
14
vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET
ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST
16 SINGH; and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
17 AGAINST DEFENDANT GREWAL
CARGO, INC. AND ITS COUNSEL
Defendants. OF RECORD, LUCY K, GALEK;
18
DECLARATION OF DANIEL A.
19 TOREM; SEPARATE STATEMENT
20
21 Date: TBD
Time: TBD
22
Dept. : 11
23
Filing Date: 02/23/2021
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION, 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 Request for
7
Production, Set One.
8
2. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to produce all responsive documents
9
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 discovery
16 to Defendant Grewal to include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One,
17 Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses were due
18 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
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
5
Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
6
7
8 By: ____________________________________
DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
9 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III,
an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian
10 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1
2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3
I.
4
INTRODUCTION
5
6 Plaintiff is informed and believes, that Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was the
7 operator of a Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License
8 plates XP71593 and 4TH7209 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC. On or about
9 January 16, 2021 at 3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was operating a Freightliner
10 tractor pulling a trailer owned by GREWAL CARGO INC.. CHARANJEET SINGH was
11 driving southbound on SR-99 when Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for
12 traffic and violently rear-ended the vehicle that Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR was an
13 occupant of, causing an impact between the two vehicles, the force of which was so severe that
14 Plaintiff was caused to suffer serious injuries to his body including quadriplegia and brain
15 damage from which he has not and will not recover.
16 Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2021. Defendant Grewal and its counsel, Lucy K.
17 Galek, Esq. unleashed a full attack on Plaintiff. Defendant has deployed scorched earth tactics
18 claiming that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle struck by Mr. Singh and asserting that
19 Plaintiff was intoxicated, had an open container in the vehicle, was a wanted felon and career
20 criminal. The hospital records, provided to Defendant by Plaintiff informally as well as
21 emergency records clearly demonstrate that Mr. Taylor was not the driver of the vehicle.
22 Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek filed a demurrer and motion to strike
23 arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony
24 disentitlement doctrine. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem
25
On May 20, 2021 the deposition was taken of the Emergency Room Phsyician who
26
testified under oath that Plaintiff was the passenger. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel countlessly
27
28 5
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 advised Ms. Galek that Plaintiff’s warrants are getting recalled as he is currently incapacitated
2 as a quadriplegic. Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek continued with a
3 demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action pursuant to the
4 archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine. That Motion was denied and Defense
5 failed to even request oral argument, a showing of their belief in their own motion and a clear
6 attempt to annoy and harass Plaintiff. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem
7 Along with their pleading tactics, Defendant Grewal has thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to
8 conduct an inspection of the subject tractor trailer including its Video Radar Decision Unit
9 (VRDU). Plaintiff appeared for the inspection only to be refused access to the Video Radar
10 Decision Unit (VRDU) without permission from the owner of the unit. It appears evident that
11 Defendant had already downloaded the data but, has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff, and
12 give it to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s preservation of evidence letter issued at the outset of the
13 accident and despite Plaintiff’s timely Notice of Inspection and discovery requests. Defendant has
14 ignored all of Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. That issue is the subject of a separate motion;
15 however, the information is discoverable and understanding what has transpired is to fully
16 understand Defense Counsel’s tactics in this matter. Furthermore, this information would have
17 been produced in Defendant’s discovery responses. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem
18
II.
19
THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE
20
21 On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to
22 include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special
23 Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses were due by
24 May 11, 2021.
25 On May 10, 2021, the date before the responses were due, defense counsel’s assistant
26 emailed requesting a three week extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
27 Plaintiff counsel advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss as
28 6
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 Plaintiff’s counsel had requested an extension of the hearing of the Demurrer and Motion to
2 Strike as Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defense counsel the warrants were going to get recalled.
3 See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant then inquired again about the
4 requested extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel
5 advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel needed to call
6 Plaintiff counsel. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant advised that
7 her boss left a message for Plaintiff counsel, which was at 8:30 p.m. on the 11th. See email
8 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” No message was ever left. See Declaration of Daniel A.
9 Torem
10 On May 11, 2021, Defense counsel never contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and instead,
11 Defendant Grewal served unverified blanket objections to the discovery in addition to
12 propounding additional discovery requests on Plaintiff which will be the subject of a protective
13 order.
14
III.
15
PLAINTIFF HAS MET AND CONFERRED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL TO OBTAIN
16
CODE COMPLIANT RESPONSES AND DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE
17
THE RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS
18
19 On May 11, 2021, Defendant Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were
20 nothing but untimely objections to all of the discovery. There was not one substantive
21 response.
22 On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed
23 to May 24, 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. Additionally Plaintiff advised
24 that if Defendant does not serve substantive responses by the 24th Plaintiff will immediately file
25 a protective order regarding responding to the discovery. Defendant is clearly attempting to
26 stonewall and abuse the discovery process. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as
27 Exhibit “B.” Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses without objection.
28 7
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 Defendant is doing exactly what the Code attempts to prevent and is using the discovery
2 process as a shield and a sword.
3 Additionally on May 12, 2021 Plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence to Defense
4 counsel regarding potential spoilation of evidence by Defendant and/or Defense counsel. . See
5 letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
6
On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and
7
conferred requesting an response from Defendant. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto
8
as Exhibit “D.” Defense counsel, specifically Ms. Galek has continued to stonewall Plaintiff.
9
To date, Defense has continued to ignore Plaintiff and prejudice Plaintiff in discovery. Of note,
10
evidence has been revealed of potential spoilation by Defendant and/or Defense Counsel and
11
time is of the essence in this matter. Court intervention is clearly necessary here.
12
III.
13
14 DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE CODE COMPLIANT
15 RESPONSES AND PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS
16 The proponent of a Request for Production submitted under Code of Civil Procedure
17 §2031.010et seq may move the Court to compel an answer if the party served with the requests
18 refuses or fails to answer or if the responses are deemed inadequate. Code of Civil Procedure
19 §2031.310.
20
As shown in Plaintiff ‘s Separate Statement of Discovery Issues In Dispute, filed
21
concurrently herewith, Defendant has served SOLELY objections to the Request For Production,
22
Set One, clearly inadequate and an attempt to stonewall Plaintiff.
23
IV.
24
25 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES ARE UNTIMELY AND REQUIRES AN ORDER
26 COMPELLING A FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSE
27 Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, a party may obtain discovery by
28 8
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 propounding interrogatories to a party. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.010(b). As stated above, Plaintiff
2 propounded Set One of discovery to Defendant, which included Request for Production, Set One.
3 A. Defendants’ Responses to Set One Discovery Are Incomplete, Nonresponsive, and
4 Evasive.
5
I. Request for Production
6
In responding to Production, the California Code of Civil Procedure requires that:
7
8 (a) Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.210-2031.320 requires two acts for compliance
9 with this request:
10 (1) Service of a written response under oath within thirty (30) days; and
11 (2) Production of tangible things within thirty (30) days.
12
C.C.P. §§ 2031.210-2031.320. Requests for production may relate to any matters which can be
13
inquired into depositions or oral examinations as provided by Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010:
14
"Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may
15
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
16
17 involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the
18 matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
19 discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party
20 seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and
21 location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence,
22 description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or
23 other property."
24 As demonstrated in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements of Discovery Issues In Dispute,
25 Defendant has provided an incomplete, deficient, non-responsive and evasive answer to the entire
26 set of Plaintiff’s Request for Production. Unsworn responses to discovery are tantamount to no
27 responses at all. Appleton v. Superior Court (1988), 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; See also, Zorro
28 9
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 Investment Company v. Great Pacific Securities Corporation (1977), 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914. The
2 responses are unverified and amount to attorney objections not made in good faith. Defendant
3 should be ordered to provide full and complete verified responses without objection and to produce
4 all documents within 14 days of this hearing. Defendant has acted in bad faith in an attempt to
5 stonewall Plaintiff.
6 V.
7
MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL ARE
8
WARRANTED FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE DISCOVERY AND
9
FOR NECESSITATING THIS MOTION
10
Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has both mandatory and
11
discretionary power to award sanctions when a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel
12
further discovery responses. Because Defendant has failed to provide a further verified response
13
to Request for Production, Set One, Plaintiff should be awarded $3,910.00 in sanctions as set forth
14
in the Declaration of Daniel Torem.
15
16 A. Mandatory Sanctions
17 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(d) provides that a court "shall impose a monetary
18 sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion
19 to compel further response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the
20 sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the
21 sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(d) [emphasis added].) Given that Defendant
22 has failed to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, numbers thus forcing
23 Plaintiff to file this Motion and Separate Statement with the Court, the Court must award Plaintiffs
24 $3,910.00 in sanctions for Defendant’s unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel further
25 response to interrogatories. Here it is clear Defendant is using the discovery process to prejudice
26 burden and harass Plaintiff to their advantage. There is no substantial justification in opposing the
27 motion.
28 10
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 B. Discretionary Sanctions
2 To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method and
3 after notice to any affected party, a court may award discretionary sanctions if it finds that a party
4 has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. Section 2023.030 states, in pertinent part, that:
5
[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of
6
the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable
7
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.
8
Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030(a). (Emphasis added.)
9
10 "Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to...Failing to respond or to
11 submit to an authorized method of discovery...Making, without substantial justification, an
12 unmeritorious objection to discovery...Making an evasive response to discovery...[and]...Making
13 or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit
14 discovery." (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or
15 attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning
16 discovery. Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030.
17 In this case, there is no excuse or justification for Defendant’s’ refusal to provide a further
18 response in compliance with the discovery statutes. There is no excuse to IGNORE meet and
19 confer efforts. The Declaration of Daniel Torem attests to the efforts expended on the part of
20 Plaintiff to avoid this Motion. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent misuse of the
21 discovery process and correct the problem presented. Do v. Superior Court, (2003) 109 Cal. App.
22 4th 1210,1213, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855. It is evident from the facts presented that Defendant will
23 not provide the required further response absent a Court order and the imposition of sanctions.
24 Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code. §§ 2023.010 et seq. and § 2031.310(d) , and the power of this
25 Court to impose monetary sanctions against the losing party on a motion to compel answers to
26 interrogatories, Plaintiff submits that given the attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid this Motion,
27
28 11
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 and the lack of compliance by the Defendant, sanctions should properly be awarded to Plaintiff,,
2 and against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY
3 K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of discovery in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and
4 $60.00 in costs for the sum total of $3,910.00 as reflected in the Declaration of Daniel Torem.
5 VI.
6
CONCLUSION
7
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose the following Orders:
8
9 A. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve further responses to Request
10 for Production, Set One.
11 B. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to produce all responsive documents
12 within 14 days of this hearing.
13 C. Imposing monetary sanctions against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND
14 ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of
15 discovery in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of
16 $3,910.00.
17
D. Imposing the sanctions jointly and severally to be paid within 14 days of this hearing.
18
Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
19
20
21 By: ____________________________________
22 DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III,
23 an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian
Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
24
25
26
27
28 12
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
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 Request For Production
7
8 20. Exhibit F is Defendant’s “responses” to Plaintiff’s Request For Production
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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
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 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
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 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent CASE NO. 11 adult, BY AND THROUGH HIS STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. Hon. Judge Robert T. Waters 12 MOORE 13 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION Plaintiff, AND MOTION TO COMPEL 14 vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST 16 SINGH; and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 17 AGAINST DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO, INC. AND ITS COUNSEL Defendants. OF RECORD, LUCY K, GALEK; 18 DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. 19 TOREM; SEPARATE STATEMENT 20 21 Date: TBD Time: TBD 22 Dept. : 11 23 Filing Date: 02/23/2021 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, 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 Request for 7 Production, Set One. 8 2. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to produce all responsive documents 9 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 discovery 16 to Defendant Grewal to include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, 17 Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses were due 18 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 5 Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES 6 7 8 By: ____________________________________ DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. 9 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian 10 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 I. 4 INTRODUCTION 5 6 Plaintiff is informed and believes, that Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was the 7 operator of a Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License 8 plates XP71593 and 4TH7209 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC. On or about 9 January 16, 2021 at 3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH was operating a Freightliner 10 tractor pulling a trailer owned by GREWAL CARGO INC.. CHARANJEET SINGH was 11 driving southbound on SR-99 when Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for 12 traffic and violently rear-ended the vehicle that Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR was an 13 occupant of, causing an impact between the two vehicles, the force of which was so severe that 14 Plaintiff was caused to suffer serious injuries to his body including quadriplegia and brain 15 damage from which he has not and will not recover. 16 Plaintiff filed suit on February 23, 2021. Defendant Grewal and its counsel, Lucy K. 17 Galek, Esq. unleashed a full attack on Plaintiff. Defendant has deployed scorched earth tactics 18 claiming that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle struck by Mr. Singh and asserting that 19 Plaintiff was intoxicated, had an open container in the vehicle, was a wanted felon and career 20 criminal. The hospital records, provided to Defendant by Plaintiff informally as well as 21 emergency records clearly demonstrate that Mr. Taylor was not the driver of the vehicle. 22 Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek filed a demurrer and motion to strike 23 arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action pursuant to the archaic doctrine of the felony 24 disentitlement doctrine. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem 25 On May 20, 2021 the deposition was taken of the Emergency Room Phsyician who 26 testified under oath that Plaintiff was the passenger. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel countlessly 27 28 5 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 advised Ms. Galek that Plaintiff’s warrants are getting recalled as he is currently incapacitated 2 as a quadriplegic. Nonetheless, Defendant Grewal through Ms. Galek continued with a 3 demurrer and motion to strike arguing that Plaintiff could not bring this action pursuant to the 4 archaic doctrine of the felony disentitlement doctrine. That Motion was denied and Defense 5 failed to even request oral argument, a showing of their belief in their own motion and a clear 6 attempt to annoy and harass Plaintiff. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem 7 Along with their pleading tactics, Defendant Grewal has thwarted Plaintiff’s efforts to 8 conduct an inspection of the subject tractor trailer including its Video Radar Decision Unit 9 (VRDU). Plaintiff appeared for the inspection only to be refused access to the Video Radar 10 Decision Unit (VRDU) without permission from the owner of the unit. It appears evident that 11 Defendant had already downloaded the data but, has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiff, and 12 give it to Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s preservation of evidence letter issued at the outset of the 13 accident and despite Plaintiff’s timely Notice of Inspection and discovery requests. Defendant has 14 ignored all of Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. That issue is the subject of a separate motion; 15 however, the information is discoverable and understanding what has transpired is to fully 16 understand Defense Counsel’s tactics in this matter. Furthermore, this information would have 17 been produced in Defendant’s discovery responses. See, Declaration of Daniel A. TOrem 18 II. 19 THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE 20 21 On April 7, 2021 Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Grewal to 22 include Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production, Set One, Special 23 Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admissions, Set One. The responses were due by 24 May 11, 2021. 25 On May 10, 2021, the date before the responses were due, defense counsel’s assistant 26 emailed requesting a three week extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 27 Plaintiff counsel advised the assistant to have her counsel contact Plaintiff counsel to discuss as 28 6 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 Plaintiff’s counsel had requested an extension of the hearing of the Demurrer and Motion to 2 Strike as Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defense counsel the warrants were going to get recalled. 3 See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant then inquired again about the 4 requested extension. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff counsel 5 advised, again, that if Defendant wanted an extension, that defense counsel needed to call 6 Plaintiff counsel. See email trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The assistant advised that 7 her boss left a message for Plaintiff counsel, which was at 8:30 p.m. on the 11th. See email 8 trail attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” No message was ever left. See Declaration of Daniel A. 9 Torem 10 On May 11, 2021, Defense counsel never contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and instead, 11 Defendant Grewal served unverified blanket objections to the discovery in addition to 12 propounding additional discovery requests on Plaintiff which will be the subject of a protective 13 order. 14 III. 15 PLAINTIFF HAS MET AND CONFERRED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL TO OBTAIN 16 CODE COMPLIANT RESPONSES AND DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE 17 THE RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS 18 19 On May 11, 2021, Defendant Grewal served “responses” to the discovery that were 20 nothing but untimely objections to all of the discovery. There was not one substantive 21 response. 22 On May 12, 2021 Plaintiff counsel met and conferred with defense counsel and allowed 23 to May 24, 2021 to serve verified responses without objection. Additionally Plaintiff advised 24 that if Defendant does not serve substantive responses by the 24th Plaintiff will immediately file 25 a protective order regarding responding to the discovery. Defendant is clearly attempting to 26 stonewall and abuse the discovery process. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as 27 Exhibit “B.” Defendant Grewal failed to provide the verified responses without objection. 28 7 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 Defendant is doing exactly what the Code attempts to prevent and is using the discovery 2 process as a shield and a sword. 3 Additionally on May 12, 2021 Plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence to Defense 4 counsel regarding potential spoilation of evidence by Defendant and/or Defense counsel. . See 5 letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 6 On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid Court Intervention, again met and 7 conferred requesting an response from Defendant. See letter of May 12, 2021 attached hereto 8 as Exhibit “D.” Defense counsel, specifically Ms. Galek has continued to stonewall Plaintiff. 9 To date, Defense has continued to ignore Plaintiff and prejudice Plaintiff in discovery. Of note, 10 evidence has been revealed of potential spoilation by Defendant and/or Defense Counsel and 11 time is of the essence in this matter. Court intervention is clearly necessary here. 12 III. 13 14 DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE CODE COMPLIANT 15 RESPONSES AND PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS 16 The proponent of a Request for Production submitted under Code of Civil Procedure 17 §2031.010et seq may move the Court to compel an answer if the party served with the requests 18 refuses or fails to answer or if the responses are deemed inadequate. Code of Civil Procedure 19 §2031.310. 20 As shown in Plaintiff ‘s Separate Statement of Discovery Issues In Dispute, filed 21 concurrently herewith, Defendant has served SOLELY objections to the Request For Production, 22 Set One, clearly inadequate and an attempt to stonewall Plaintiff. 23 IV. 24 25 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES ARE UNTIMELY AND REQUIRES AN ORDER 26 COMPELLING A FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSE 27 Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, a party may obtain discovery by 28 8 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 propounding interrogatories to a party. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.010(b). As stated above, Plaintiff 2 propounded Set One of discovery to Defendant, which included Request for Production, Set One. 3 A. Defendants’ Responses to Set One Discovery Are Incomplete, Nonresponsive, and 4 Evasive. 5 I. Request for Production 6 In responding to Production, the California Code of Civil Procedure requires that: 7 8 (a) Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.210-2031.320 requires two acts for compliance 9 with this request: 10 (1) Service of a written response under oath within thirty (30) days; and 11 (2) Production of tangible things within thirty (30) days. 12 C.C.P. §§ 2031.210-2031.320. Requests for production may relate to any matters which can be 13 inquired into depositions or oral examinations as provided by Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010: 14 "Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may 15 obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter 16 17 involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the 18 matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 19 discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party 20 seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and 21 location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, 22 description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or 23 other property." 24 As demonstrated in Plaintiff’s Separate Statements of Discovery Issues In Dispute, 25 Defendant has provided an incomplete, deficient, non-responsive and evasive answer to the entire 26 set of Plaintiff’s Request for Production. Unsworn responses to discovery are tantamount to no 27 responses at all. Appleton v. Superior Court (1988), 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; See also, Zorro 28 9 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 Investment Company v. Great Pacific Securities Corporation (1977), 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914. The 2 responses are unverified and amount to attorney objections not made in good faith. Defendant 3 should be ordered to provide full and complete verified responses without objection and to produce 4 all documents within 14 days of this hearing. Defendant has acted in bad faith in an attempt to 5 stonewall Plaintiff. 6 V. 7 MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL ARE 8 WARRANTED FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE DISCOVERY AND 9 FOR NECESSITATING THIS MOTION 10 Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has both mandatory and 11 discretionary power to award sanctions when a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel 12 further discovery responses. Because Defendant has failed to provide a further verified response 13 to Request for Production, Set One, Plaintiff should be awarded $3,910.00 in sanctions as set forth 14 in the Declaration of Daniel Torem. 15 16 A. Mandatory Sanctions 17 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(d) provides that a court "shall impose a monetary 18 sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion 19 to compel further response to an inspection demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the 20 sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the 21 sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(d) [emphasis added].) Given that Defendant 22 has failed to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, numbers thus forcing 23 Plaintiff to file this Motion and Separate Statement with the Court, the Court must award Plaintiffs 24 $3,910.00 in sanctions for Defendant’s unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel further 25 response to interrogatories. Here it is clear Defendant is using the discovery process to prejudice 26 burden and harass Plaintiff to their advantage. There is no substantial justification in opposing the 27 motion. 28 10 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 B. Discretionary Sanctions 2 To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method and 3 after notice to any affected party, a court may award discretionary sanctions if it finds that a party 4 has engaged in a misuse of the discovery process. Section 2023.030 states, in pertinent part, that: 5 [t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of 6 the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable 7 expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. 8 Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030(a). (Emphasis added.) 9 10 "Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to...Failing to respond or to 11 submit to an authorized method of discovery...Making, without substantial justification, an 12 unmeritorious objection to discovery...Making an evasive response to discovery...[and]...Making 13 or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit 14 discovery." (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or 15 attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning 16 discovery. Civ. Proc. Code §2023.030. 17 In this case, there is no excuse or justification for Defendant’s’ refusal to provide a further 18 response in compliance with the discovery statutes. There is no excuse to IGNORE meet and 19 confer efforts. The Declaration of Daniel Torem attests to the efforts expended on the part of 20 Plaintiff to avoid this Motion. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent misuse of the 21 discovery process and correct the problem presented. Do v. Superior Court, (2003) 109 Cal. App. 22 4th 1210,1213, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855. It is evident from the facts presented that Defendant will 23 not provide the required further response absent a Court order and the imposition of sanctions. 24 Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code. §§ 2023.010 et seq. and § 2031.310(d) , and the power of this 25 Court to impose monetary sanctions against the losing party on a motion to compel answers to 26 interrogatories, Plaintiff submits that given the attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid this Motion, 27 28 11 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 and the lack of compliance by the Defendant, sanctions should properly be awarded to Plaintiff,, 2 and against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY 3 K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of discovery in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and 4 $60.00 in costs for the sum total of $3,910.00 as reflected in the Declaration of Daniel Torem. 5 VI. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose the following Orders: 8 9 A. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to serve further responses to Request 10 for Production, Set One. 11 B. Compelling Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC. to produce all responsive documents 12 within 14 days of this hearing. 13 C. Imposing monetary sanctions against DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC. AND 14 ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD, LUCY K. GALEK, ESQ. as and for the misuse of 15 discovery in the amount of $3,850.00 in fees and $60.00 in costs for the sum total of 16 $3,910.00. 17 D. Imposing the sanctions jointly and severally to be paid within 14 days of this hearing. 18 Dated: May 25, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES 19 20 21 By: ____________________________________ 22 DANIEL A, TOREM , ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, 23 an incompetent adult by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 24 25 26 27 28 12 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Request For Production 7 8 20. Exhibit F is Defendant’s “responses” to Plaintiff’s Request For Production 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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 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