Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622
sheath@heathandyuen.com Electronically Filed
2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 Superior Court of California
syuen@heathandyuen.com County of San Joaquin
3 Lucy K. Galek - 227237 2021-08-16 17:37:02
lgalek@heathandyuen.com Clerk: Kristy Kobus
4 HEATH & YUEN, APC
268 Bush Street, #3006 Motion to Compel
5 San Francisco, CA 94104 09/14/2021 09:00 AM in 11B
Tel: (415) 622-7004
6 Fax: (415) 373-3957
7 Attorneys for Defendants
GREWAL CARGO INC, AND
8 CHARANJEET SINGH
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, DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S
SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING
13 Plaintiffs, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
14 v. PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR
15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET MONETARY SANCTIONS
SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150,
16 INCLUSIVE, Date:
Time:
17 Defendants. Dept.:
18 Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters
File Date: February 23, 2021
19 Trial Date: None
20
21 Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, Defendant Grewal Cargo Inc respectfully submits
22 this separate statement in support of their motion to compel further written discovery responses and
23 monetary sanctions.
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
26 IDENTIFY any and all INDIVIDUALS who resided with Joe Edwin Taylor III at any time
27 from January 15, 2014 to the present.
28 ///
-1-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
2 Following a good faith search and a reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff does not have the complete
3 requested information in her care, custody, possession or control. Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III has not
4 recovered from the injuries suffered as result of the crash on January 16, 2021. Plaintiff has suffered
5 catastrophic life threatening injuries and complications and is unable to speak due to those injuries.
6 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III is quadriplegic; therefore, the full extent of Plaintiff’s damages are
7 presently unknown and Plaintiff’s interrogatory response is not to be construed to limit evidence at
8 trial as to any theory of liability upon which Plaintiff wishes to proceed. Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor is
9 unable to engage in communications; therefore, the information produced is limited to the Guardian
10 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE’s knowledge and recollection of the individuals that lived with
11 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor from January 15, 2014 to present as follows:
12 Defendant, DARRISHA RAQUEL WHEELER and Plaintiff’s four minor children; and
13 On January 16, 2021 Plaintiff lived alone in his residence.
14 Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement, amend and/or modify this response at a later time, if,
15 and when new additional information becomes available to Plaintiff.
16 Why a further response is required:
17 Regarding interrogatories, Section 2030.220(a), requires responses to be “as complete and
18 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Section
19 2030.220(b) provides that if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, “it shall be answered to
20 the extent possible.” If a party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond to the interrogatory, the
21 party must so state, as well as make a “reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by
22 inquiry to other natural persons or organizations” unless the information is equally available to the
23 propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).)
24 In responding to discovery, "[i]t is well established by numerous authorities that knowledge of
25 an agent is imputed to his principal and also that the knowledge of an attorney is imputed to his
26 clients. (Laukkare v. Abramson (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 447, 449.) When responding to discovery,
27 counsel generally must disclose information known to counsel, such as the names of witnesses, without
28 regard to whether the client is competent. (See, e.g., Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal. App. 2d
-2-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 6, 12.)
2 A party served with interrogatories has 30 days from the date of service, extended by 5
3 calendar days if served by mail, to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a); 1013.) The time for
4 response can further be extended upon written agreement by the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §
5 2030.270.) A party that does not serve responses timely (either within 30 days of service or pursuant
6 to a written confirmation of extension of time to respond) waives any objection to the interrogatories.
7 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)
8 If a responding party serves evasive or incomplete interrogatory responses, or if an objection to
9 an interrogatory is without merit or too general, the propounding party may move to compel further
10 responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)-(3).) This motion must be made within 45 days of
11 service of the verified response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c).) Before filing a motion to compel, a
12 propounding party must attempt to resolve the matter informally through the meet and confer process.
13 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(3)(b).)
14 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III, (herein, “plaintiff”) filed his complaint on February 23, 2021,
15 alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Retention and Hiring against defendant
16 Grewal Cargo Inc (herein, “defendant”) (Exhibit B; Request for Judicial Notice [herein, “RJN], ¶ 2.)
17 Plaintiff alleges that on January 16, 2021 an auto accident occurred between a Freightliner
18 tractor/trailer operated by defendant, and an unidentified vehicle operated by an unidentified person.
19 (Exhibit B, ¶ 5.) Defendant contends that plaintiff was an intoxicated and uninsured vehicle driver, at
20 night, who slowed and stopped his without any lights and without any warning.
21 On April 7, 2021, defendant Grewal Cargo Inc served plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III with Form
22 Interrogatories, Set One. (Exhibit G.) Plaintiff served his responses to of the above items on May 11,
23 2021. (Exhibits H.) Overall, plaintiff’s’ responses were incomplete, evasive and with unmeritorious
24 objections. (Exhibits H.) On June 11, 2021, defendant sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff
25 outlining the deficiencies contained to each set of discovery responses. (Exhibit K.) Defense counsel
26 requested that further responses be provided by no later than June 23, 2021. (Exhibit K.)
27 Additionally, defense counsel advised that he preferred to handle the matter informally without court
28 intervention and that if plaintiff’s counsel had any concerns to contact her. (Exhibit K.) Plaintiff
-3-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 asked to have until July 16, 2021 to provide his further responses, and offered to allow defendant until
2 August 16, 2021 to file its motion to compel, which defendant agreed to. (Exhibit L.) However,
3 plaintiff did not provide any further responses or attempt to further meet and confer to attempt an
4 informal resolution. (Declaration of Lucy K. Galek [herein “Exhibit A”, ¶ 2.)
5 In response to this interrogatory, plaintiff failed to identify his four minor children by name.
6 Surely, he and his guardian ad litem – his own mother – know the names of those children.
7 Accordingly, the responsive is evasive and incomplete and a further response should be ordered.
8 DATED: August 16, 2021
HEATH & YUEN, APC
9
10
By
11 Lucy K. Galek
Attorneys for Defendants
12 GREWAL CARGO INC, AND CHARANJEET
SINGH
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622 sheath@heathandyuen.com Electronically Filed 2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 Superior Court of California syuen@heathandyuen.com County of San Joaquin 3 Lucy K. Galek - 227237 2021-08-16 17:37:02 lgalek@heathandyuen.com Clerk: Kristy Kobus 4 HEATH & YUEN, APC 268 Bush Street, #3006 Motion to Compel 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 09/14/2021 09:00 AM in 11B Tel: (415) 622-7004 6 Fax: (415) 373-3957 7 Attorneys for Defendants GREWAL CARGO INC, AND 8 CHARANJEET SINGH 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, DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING 13 Plaintiffs, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 14 v. PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR 15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET MONETARY SANCTIONS SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, 16 INCLUSIVE, Date: Time: 17 Defendants. Dept.: 18 Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters File Date: February 23, 2021 19 Trial Date: None 20 21 Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, Defendant Grewal Cargo Inc respectfully submits 22 this separate statement in support of their motion to compel further written discovery responses and 23 monetary sanctions. 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 25 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 26 IDENTIFY any and all INDIVIDUALS who resided with Joe Edwin Taylor III at any time 27 from January 15, 2014 to the present. 28 /// -1- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 2 Following a good faith search and a reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff does not have the complete 3 requested information in her care, custody, possession or control. Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III has not 4 recovered from the injuries suffered as result of the crash on January 16, 2021. Plaintiff has suffered 5 catastrophic life threatening injuries and complications and is unable to speak due to those injuries. 6 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III is quadriplegic; therefore, the full extent of Plaintiff’s damages are 7 presently unknown and Plaintiff’s interrogatory response is not to be construed to limit evidence at 8 trial as to any theory of liability upon which Plaintiff wishes to proceed. Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor is 9 unable to engage in communications; therefore, the information produced is limited to the Guardian 10 Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE’s knowledge and recollection of the individuals that lived with 11 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor from January 15, 2014 to present as follows: 12 Defendant, DARRISHA RAQUEL WHEELER and Plaintiff’s four minor children; and 13 On January 16, 2021 Plaintiff lived alone in his residence. 14 Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement, amend and/or modify this response at a later time, if, 15 and when new additional information becomes available to Plaintiff. 16 Why a further response is required: 17 Regarding interrogatories, Section 2030.220(a), requires responses to be “as complete and 18 straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Section 19 2030.220(b) provides that if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, “it shall be answered to 20 the extent possible.” If a party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond to the interrogatory, the 21 party must so state, as well as make a “reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by 22 inquiry to other natural persons or organizations” unless the information is equally available to the 23 propounding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(c).) 24 In responding to discovery, "[i]t is well established by numerous authorities that knowledge of 25 an agent is imputed to his principal and also that the knowledge of an attorney is imputed to his 26 clients. (Laukkare v. Abramson (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 447, 449.) When responding to discovery, 27 counsel generally must disclose information known to counsel, such as the names of witnesses, without 28 regard to whether the client is competent. (See, e.g., Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal. App. 2d -2- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 6, 12.) 2 A party served with interrogatories has 30 days from the date of service, extended by 5 3 calendar days if served by mail, to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a); 1013.) The time for 4 response can further be extended upon written agreement by the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 5 2030.270.) A party that does not serve responses timely (either within 30 days of service or pursuant 6 to a written confirmation of extension of time to respond) waives any objection to the interrogatories. 7 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) 8 If a responding party serves evasive or incomplete interrogatory responses, or if an objection to 9 an interrogatory is without merit or too general, the propounding party may move to compel further 10 responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)-(3).) This motion must be made within 45 days of 11 service of the verified response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c).) Before filing a motion to compel, a 12 propounding party must attempt to resolve the matter informally through the meet and confer process. 13 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(3)(b).) 14 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III, (herein, “plaintiff”) filed his complaint on February 23, 2021, 15 alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Retention and Hiring against defendant 16 Grewal Cargo Inc (herein, “defendant”) (Exhibit B; Request for Judicial Notice [herein, “RJN], ¶ 2.) 17 Plaintiff alleges that on January 16, 2021 an auto accident occurred between a Freightliner 18 tractor/trailer operated by defendant, and an unidentified vehicle operated by an unidentified person. 19 (Exhibit B, ¶ 5.) Defendant contends that plaintiff was an intoxicated and uninsured vehicle driver, at 20 night, who slowed and stopped his without any lights and without any warning. 21 On April 7, 2021, defendant Grewal Cargo Inc served plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III with Form 22 Interrogatories, Set One. (Exhibit G.) Plaintiff served his responses to of the above items on May 11, 23 2021. (Exhibits H.) Overall, plaintiff’s’ responses were incomplete, evasive and with unmeritorious 24 objections. (Exhibits H.) On June 11, 2021, defendant sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff 25 outlining the deficiencies contained to each set of discovery responses. (Exhibit K.) Defense counsel 26 requested that further responses be provided by no later than June 23, 2021. (Exhibit K.) 27 Additionally, defense counsel advised that he preferred to handle the matter informally without court 28 intervention and that if plaintiff’s counsel had any concerns to contact her. (Exhibit K.) Plaintiff -3- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 asked to have until July 16, 2021 to provide his further responses, and offered to allow defendant until 2 August 16, 2021 to file its motion to compel, which defendant agreed to. (Exhibit L.) However, 3 plaintiff did not provide any further responses or attempt to further meet and confer to attempt an 4 informal resolution. (Declaration of Lucy K. Galek [herein “Exhibit A”, ¶ 2.) 5 In response to this interrogatory, plaintiff failed to identify his four minor children by name. 6 Surely, he and his guardian ad litem – his own mother – know the names of those children. 7 Accordingly, the responsive is evasive and incomplete and a further response should be ordered. 8 DATED: August 16, 2021 HEATH & YUEN, APC 9 10 By 11 Lucy K. Galek Attorneys for Defendants 12 GREWAL CARGO INC, AND CHARANJEET SINGH 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S SEPARATE STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS