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, EXHIBIT INDEX AND EXHIBITS IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL
13 Plaintiffs, CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO
14 v. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET
SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, Date:
16 INCLUSIVE, Time:
Dept.: 11B
17 Defendants.
Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters
18 File Date: February 23, 2021
Trial Date: None
19
20 Document Name Exhibit
21 Declaration of Lucy K. Galek ................................................................................................................ A
22 Plaintiff’s Complaint ............................................................................................................................ B
23 Requests for Admissions, Set One ......................................................................................................... C
24 Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One ................................................................................... D
25 Form Interrogatories, Set One ................................................................................................................ E
26 Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One .......................................................................................... F
27 Special Interrogatories, Set One ............................................................................................................. G
28 Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One ....................................................................................... H
-1-
EXHIBIT INDEX AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 Demand for Production, Set One ............................................................................................................ I
2 Responses to Demand for Production, Set One ...................................................................................... J
3 Defendant’s Meet and Confer Letter ..................................................................................................... K
4 Parties’ Meet and Confer Chain ............................................................................................................. L
5 DATED: August 16, 2021
HEATH & YUEN, APC
6
7
By
8 Lucy K. Galek
Attorneys for Defendants
9 GREWAL CARGO INC, AND
CHARANJEET SINGH
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
EXHIBIT INDEX AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
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
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
12 ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS
GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE, DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN
13 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL
Plaintiffs, CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL
14 PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO
v. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND
15 REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET
16 SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, Date:
INCLUSIVE, Time:
17 Dept.: 11B
Defendants.
18 Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters
File Date: February 23, 2021
19 Trial Date: None
20 I, Lucy K. Galek, declare that:
21 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the State of California, and am
22 a junior partner with the law firm of Heath & Yuen, APC, attorneys of record for the defendants in this
23 matter. I have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein below, unless noted as based on
24 information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal knowledge, and if called
25 upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
26 2. Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III (herein “plaintiff”) did not provide any further responses
27 or attempt to further meet and confer to attempt an informal resolution. Rather, plaintiff went on to
28 propound further discovery upon the moving party, Grewal Cargo Inc (herein “defendant”.)
-1-
DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
Exhibit A
1 3. I represent defendant Grewal Cargo Inc in this action, and have am familiar with the file
2 on this matter.
3 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
4 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of defendant’s requests for
5 admissions, set one to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021.
6 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to
7 defendant’s requests for admissions, set one.
8 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of defendant’s Form
9 Interrogatories, Set One to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021.
10 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to
11 defendant’s form interrogatories, set one.
12 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of defendant’s special
13 interrogatories, set one to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021.
14 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to
15 defendant’s special interrogatories, set one.
16 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of defendant’s demand for
17 production, set one to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021.
18 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to
19 defendant’s demand for production, set one.
20 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the detailed meet and confer
21 correspondence I had sent to plaintiff’s counsel Daniel Torem to meet and confer concerning plaintiff’s
22 discovery responses to the above.
23 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s counsel Daniel
24 Torem’s response to my meet and confer correspondence, and my response confirming an agreement
25 to extend response and motion deadlines.
26 15. To date, plaintiff has not provided further or supplemental written discovery responses.
27 16. I bill my client $200 per hour for work on this case, including the following fees and
28 costs. I spent 7.6 hours preparing this motion, including writing correspondence to meet and confer,
-2-
DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 preparing the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the instant motion, the separate
2 statement, the instant declaration and exhibits, the notice of motion, the request for judicial notice and
3 the proposed order. I expect to spend one more hour to review plaintiff’s opposition to this motion and
4 another hour to attend the hearing on this motion. The filing fee for this motion is $60. The total
5 amount I expect to bill for these services is $1,740.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
7 true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on August 16, 2021.
8
9
10 Lucy K. Galek
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS
Electronically Filed
Superior Court of California
County of San Joaquin
2021-02-23 08:52:17
Clerk: Kristy Kobus
Case Management Conference
08/20/2021 08:30 AM in 11B
STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
Exhibit B
- ·
1 resident of the City of Stockton, County of San Joaquin, State of California. Guardian Ad Litern.
2 TELISHA L. MOORE, has been duly appointed by the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedur
3 §372 on Plaintiffs behalf due to his incompetence which is a consequence of injuries sustained·
4 the subject accident.
5 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times here'
6 mentioned, Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH, and Does 1 through 10 is an individual residing ·
7 the City of Fresno, County of San Joaquin, State of California and was the operator of a Freightline
8 tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License plates XP71593 and 4TH720
9 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC.
10
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times herei
11
mentioned Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC, and Does 1 through 150 was the owner of th
12
Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attachment identified above and employers o
13
Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1 through 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes tha
14
GREWAL CARGO INC. is located in the City of Ceras, State of California, and operates true
15
within the State of California, and County of San Joaquin.
16
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times berei
17
mentioned, SR-99 at or near the intersection with Fremont Street was and is a public street located
18
in an unincorporated area of San Joaquin County, State of California.
19
20 5. On or about January 16, 2021at3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH an
Does 1 through 10, were operating a Freightliner tractor pulling a trailer owned by GREW
21
22 CARGO INC .. CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1-150 was driving southbound on SR-99 whe
23 Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for traffic and violently rear-ended Plaintiff JO
24 EDWIN TAYLOR's vehicle, causing an impact between the two vehicles, the force of which wa
25 so severe that Plaintiff was caused to suffer serious injuries to his body and brain from which he ha
26 not and will not recover.
27 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herei
2
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
- ·
1 mentioned Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH, and Does 1 through 10 was an employee o
2 Defendant, GREW AL CARGO, INC. and Does 11 through 40 and Defendant CHARANJEE
3 SINGH and Does 1 through 10 were acting within the course and scope of said employment wi
4 the Defendant, GREWAL CARGO, INC. and Does 11 through 40.
5 7. Plaintiff is ignorant ofthe true names ofDefendants identified as Does 1through150
6 inclusive, and there pursues them by such fictitious names and will ask legal court to amend thi
7 Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaint·
8 is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these Defendants was in some manne
9 responsible for the events and happenings allege herein, and for Plaintiffs injuries and damages a
10 hereinafter set forth.
11
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendant
12
designated as a Doe herein is responsible in some manner and legally liable herein for the events an
13
happenings herein alleged, and thereby proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff a
14
herein further alleged.
15
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
16
mentioned, each of the Defendants, whether specifically named or designated as a Doe, was th
17
agent, servant, and employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herei
18
alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment, and service with th
19
advance knowledge, consent and ratification of each of the remaining Defendants.
20
21 10. All of the acts and conduct herein described of each and every corporate Defendan
22 was duly authorized, ordered and directed by the respective Defendant corporate employees of sai
23 employees and agents; that in addition thereto, said corporate employers participated in the enforce
24 acts and conducts of said employees, agents, and each of them, and that in addition thereto, upon th
25 completion of the forced acts and conduct the said corporate employees and agents, the aforesai
26 Defendant corporations respectively ratified, accepted the benefits, condoned, and approve each an
27 all of the said acts and conduct of the aforesaid corporate employees.
3
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 11. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff
2 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, suffered serious and permanent injury, all of which injuries have caused
3 and continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer great mental and physical pain and suffering, and to exjs
4 in a persistent vegetative state. As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered general damage
5 in an amount according to proof.
6 12. As a further and proximate result of conduct by Defendants, and each of the
7 Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amoun:
8 according to proof.
9
13. As a further and proximate result of conduct by Defendants, and each of them
10
Plaintiff will be prevented from pursuing educational opportunities, future employmen
11
opportunities, and will be unable to participate in a meaningful and fulfilling life or pursue an
12
employment opportunities at all.
13
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14
15 (FOR NEGLIGENT RETENTION AND HIRING
16 AGAINST GREWAL CARGO, INC. AND
17 DOES 11 THROUGH 30, AND EACH OF THEM)
18
14. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint, inclusive an
19
incorporates them as though fully set forth.
20
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each o
21
them, did negligently and carelessly, employ, retain, contract with, supervise, and instruct Defendant
22
CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1 through 10, inclusive to drive trucks for them.
23
24 16. Defendants, and each ofthem, knew or reasonably should have known that Defendan
25 CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, was unfit to drive semi tractor/trailer
26 had a propensity to drive at unsafe speeds, disregard traffic laws, and to engage in conduct of tb
27 type of that which was engaged in the subject accident such as following vehicles too closely_
4
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
- · - ·
1 traveling at an unsafe speed, failing to stop a vehicle in a timely fashion, inattention, and otherwis
2 acting in a reckless and negligent manner.
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, a
4 follows:
5
1. For economic and consequential damages, according to proof;
6
2. For general damages according to proof;
7
3. For hospital, medical, nursing and incidental expenses according to proof and fo
8
9
future hospitals, medical, nursing, and incidental expenses according to proof;
10 4. For costs of suit incurred herein;
11 5. For loss of earning and loss of earning capacity, according to proof;
12
6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
13
14
15 Dated: February 22, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
16
17
18 YIGAL J. TOREM, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III,
19 incompetent adult by and through her Guardian A
Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
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,
GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR
13 Plaintiff, ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN
TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER ONE
14 v.
15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET
SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150,
16 INCLUSIVE,
17 Defendants.
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC
20 RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III
21 SET NUMBER: ONE
22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
23 Admit propounding party is not liable to responding party.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
25 Admit propounding party is not liable to responding party as alleged in responding party’s
26 complaint’s first cause of action for negligence.
27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
28 Admit propounding party is not liable to responding party as alleged in responding party’s
-1-
GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER
Exhibit C
ONE
1 complaint’s second cause of action for negligent retention and hiring.
2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
3 Admit propounding party’s alleged conduct did not harm responding party.
4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
5 Admit propounding party’s conduct as alleged in responding party’s complaint’s first cause of
6 action for negligence did not harm responding party.
7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
8 Admit propounding party’s conduct as alleged in responding party’s complaint’s second cause
9 of action for negligent retention and hiring did not harm responding party.
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
11 Admit propounding party’s conduct as alleged in responding party’s complaint was not a
12 substantial factor in causing responding party’s harm.
13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
14 Admit responding party has no documents to support liability against propounding party.
15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
16 Admit responding party has no things to support liability against propounding party.
17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
18 Admit responding party has no documents to support any claim of damages against
19 propounding party.
20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
21 Admit responding party has no things to support any claim of damages against propounding
22 party.
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
24 Admit responding was not employed at the time of the subject collision.
25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
26 Admit responding did not own the vehicle he was driving at the time of the subject collision.
27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:
28 Admit responding was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the subject collision.
-2-
GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER
ONE
1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
2 Admit responding party did not possess any document which would excuse him from wearing a
3 seatbelt at the time of the subject collision.
4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
5 Admit responding party’s blood alcohol levels were at least 0.08% at the time of the subject
6 collision.
7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
8 Admit responding party was in the commission of a felony at the time of the subject collision.
9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
10 Admit that responding party was an uninsured motorist at the time of the subject collision.
11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
12 Admit that responding party suddenly slowed his vehicle immediately prior to the subject
13 collision.
14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
15 Admit that responding party was stopped at the time of the subject collision.
16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
17 Admit that responding party caused the subject collision.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
19 Admit that there is presently at least one bench warrant for responding party’s arrest.
20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:
21 Admit that the tail lights to the vehicle responding party was driving were not lit at the time of
22 the subject collision.
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:
24 Admit that the brake lights to the vehicle responding party was driving were not lit at the time
25 of the subject collision.
26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25:
27 Admit that the hazard lights to the vehicle responding party was driving were not lit at the time
28 of the subject collision.
-3-
GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER
ONE
1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26:
2 Admit that plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III was driving the vehicle he was in at the time of the
3 subject collision.
4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27:
5 Admit that plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III did not possess automobile insurance at the time of
6 the subject collision.
7 DATED: April 7, 2021
HEATH & YUEN, APC
8
9
By
10 Lucy K. Galek
Attorneys for Defendant
11 GREWAL CARGO INC
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER
ONE
1 TOREM & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2 1607 Pontius Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90025
3 Telephone: (310) 276-7878
Facsimile: (310) 231-7445
4 Email: toremlit@torem.com
RON TOREM, ESQ., SBN: 134280
5 YIGAL TOREM, ESQ., SBN: 110015
DANIEL A. TOREM, ESQ., SBN: 325346
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult,
by and Through his Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
11
12 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, CASE NO.: STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD
13 LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE
Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters
14 Dept.: 11B
Plaintiff,
15 vs. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET
16 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET SINGH; ONE
and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC
20 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult,
21 by and Through his Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE
22 SET NUMBER: ONE
23 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, by and
24 Through his Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE, and responds to Plaintiff’s Response to
25 Requests for Admission, Set One, as follows:
26 RESPONSES
27 The responses and objections hereinafter set forth are based upon documents and
28 information presently known and currently available to this responding party. This responding
Exhibit D
1
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
1 party's discovery, investigation and preparation for trial is not yet completed and is continuing as of
2 the date of this response. This response is solely for the purpose of this action. All objections and
3 grounds not herein made are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. These responses
4 and objections are given and made without prejudice to this party's right to amend, modify or
5 supplement these responses based upon subsequently discovered information and documents.
6 Responding party expressly reserves its right to continue its discovery and investigation herein for
7 supplemental data which may reveal information which, if presently within its knowledge, would
8 have been included in this response.
9 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
10 Investigation and discovery by this answering party is continuing but is not complete. As
11 discovery proceeds, witnesses, facts and evidence may be discovered which are not set forth herein,
12 but which may have been responsive to a demand. Facts and evidence now known may be
13 imperfectly understood or the relevance or consequence of such facts and evidence may be
14 imperfectly understood, and, accordingly, such documents may, in good faith, not be included in
15 the following responses.
16 The answering party herein reserves the right to refer to, conduct discovery with reference
17 to, or offer into evidence at trial, any and all documents, facts and evidence, notwithstanding the
18 absence of such documents, facts or evidence in these responses. Plaintiff objects to these Requests
19 for Admissions to the extent that they call for information which is neither relevant to the subject
20 matter in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
21 Nothing in these responses should be construed as a waiver, defenses or privileges that Plaintiff
22 may now or later assert, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege and work-product
23 doctrine. Without waiving and subject to the foregoing objections, responding party responds to
24 these admissions as follows:
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 1
26 Deny.
27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 2
28 Deny.
2
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 3
2 Deny.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 4
4 Deny.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 5
6 Deny.
7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 6
8 Deny.
9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 7
10 Deny.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 8
12 Deny.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 9
14 Deny.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 10
16 Deny.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 11
18 Deny.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 12
20 Admit.
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 13
22 Objection. Compound Request for admission pursuant to CCP 2033.060(f). Plaintiff will not
23 respond to this request for admission as it assumes facts. Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer.
24 This request is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly
25 burdensome, vexatious, oppressive and harassing.
26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 14
27 After a good faith effort unable to admit or Deny as Plaintiff is currently in a quadriplegia
28 state and is unable to communicate.
3
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 15
2 Admit.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 16
4 Objection. Seeks Information for impeachment purposes, is overbroad as to time, scope, and
5 manner and is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request
6 is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly burdensome, vexatious,
7 oppressive and harassing. Objection. This request calls for the premature disclosure of expert
8 witness information opinions and conclusion in violation of CCP 2034.210 et seq. It is unknown
9 whether Plaintiff was the driver of the vehicle therefore this information is an invasion of Plaintiff’s
10 right to privacy. Plaintiff is currently in a quadriplegia state and is unable to communicate.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 17
12 Objection. Seeks Information for impeachment purposes, is overbroad as to time, scope, and
13 manner and is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request
14 is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly burdensome, vexatious,
15 oppressive and harassing. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiff responds:
16 Deny.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 18
18 Objection. Compound Request for admission pursuant to CCP 2033.060(f). Plaintiff will not
19 respond to this request for admission as it assumes facts. Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer.
20 This request is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly
21 burdensome, vexatious, oppressive and harassing. It is unknown who was the driver.
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 19
23 Objection. Compound Request for admission pursuant to CCP 2033.060(f). Plaintiff will not
24 respond to this request for admission as it assumes facts. Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer.
25 This request is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly
26 burdensome, vexatious, oppressive and harassing.
27 ///
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, EXHIBIT INDEX AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL 13 Plaintiffs, CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO 14 v. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, Date: 16 INCLUSIVE, Time: Dept.: 11B 17 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters 18 File Date: February 23, 2021 Trial Date: None 19 20 Document Name Exhibit 21 Declaration of Lucy K. Galek ................................................................................................................ A 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint ............................................................................................................................ B 23 Requests for Admissions, Set One ......................................................................................................... C 24 Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One ................................................................................... D 25 Form Interrogatories, Set One ................................................................................................................ E 26 Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One .......................................................................................... F 27 Special Interrogatories, Set One ............................................................................................................. G 28 Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One ....................................................................................... H -1- EXHIBIT INDEX AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 Demand for Production, Set One ............................................................................................................ I 2 Responses to Demand for Production, Set One ...................................................................................... J 3 Defendant’s Meet and Confer Letter ..................................................................................................... K 4 Parties’ Meet and Confer Chain ............................................................................................................. L 5 DATED: August 16, 2021 HEATH & YUEN, APC 6 7 By 8 Lucy K. Galek Attorneys for Defendants 9 GREWAL CARGO INC, AND CHARANJEET SINGH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- EXHIBIT INDEX AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 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 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 12 ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE, DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN 13 SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL Plaintiffs, CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO v. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND 15 REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET 16 SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, Date: INCLUSIVE, Time: 17 Dept.: 11B Defendants. 18 Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters File Date: February 23, 2021 19 Trial Date: None 20 I, Lucy K. Galek, declare that: 21 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the State of California, and am 22 a junior partner with the law firm of Heath & Yuen, APC, attorneys of record for the defendants in this 23 matter. I have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein below, unless noted as based on 24 information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal knowledge, and if called 25 upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. 26 2. Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III (herein “plaintiff”) did not provide any further responses 27 or attempt to further meet and confer to attempt an informal resolution. Rather, plaintiff went on to 28 propound further discovery upon the moving party, Grewal Cargo Inc (herein “defendant”.) -1- DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Exhibit A 1 3. I represent defendant Grewal Cargo Inc in this action, and have am familiar with the file 2 on this matter. 3 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 4 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of defendant’s requests for 5 admissions, set one to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021. 6 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to 7 defendant’s requests for admissions, set one. 8 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of defendant’s Form 9 Interrogatories, Set One to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021. 10 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to 11 defendant’s form interrogatories, set one. 12 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of defendant’s special 13 interrogatories, set one to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021. 14 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to 15 defendant’s special interrogatories, set one. 16 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of defendant’s demand for 17 production, set one to plaintiff served electronically on April 7, 2021. 18 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s responses to 19 defendant’s demand for production, set one. 20 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the detailed meet and confer 21 correspondence I had sent to plaintiff’s counsel Daniel Torem to meet and confer concerning plaintiff’s 22 discovery responses to the above. 23 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of plaintiff’s counsel Daniel 24 Torem’s response to my meet and confer correspondence, and my response confirming an agreement 25 to extend response and motion deadlines. 26 15. To date, plaintiff has not provided further or supplemental written discovery responses. 27 16. I bill my client $200 per hour for work on this case, including the following fees and 28 costs. I spent 7.6 hours preparing this motion, including writing correspondence to meet and confer, -2- DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 preparing the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the instant motion, the separate 2 statement, the instant declaration and exhibits, the notice of motion, the request for judicial notice and 3 the proposed order. I expect to spend one more hour to review plaintiff’s opposition to this motion and 4 another hour to attend the hearing on this motion. The filing fee for this motion is $60. The total 5 amount I expect to bill for these services is $1,740. 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 7 true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on August 16, 2021. 8 9 10 Lucy K. Galek 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- DECLARATION OF LUCY K. GALEK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Electronically Filed Superior Court of California County of San Joaquin 2021-02-23 08:52:17 Clerk: Kristy Kobus Case Management Conference 08/20/2021 08:30 AM in 11B STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576 Exhibit B - · 1 resident of the City of Stockton, County of San Joaquin, State of California. Guardian Ad Litern. 2 TELISHA L. MOORE, has been duly appointed by the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedur 3 §372 on Plaintiffs behalf due to his incompetence which is a consequence of injuries sustained· 4 the subject accident. 5 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times here' 6 mentioned, Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH, and Does 1 through 10 is an individual residing · 7 the City of Fresno, County of San Joaquin, State of California and was the operator of a Freightline 8 tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attached, with California License plates XP71593 and 4TH720 9 owned by Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC. 10 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times herei 11 mentioned Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC, and Does 1 through 150 was the owner of th 12 Freightliner tractor/trailer with an utility trailer attachment identified above and employers o 13 Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1 through 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes tha 14 GREWAL CARGO INC. is located in the City of Ceras, State of California, and operates true 15 within the State of California, and County of San Joaquin. 16 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times berei 17 mentioned, SR-99 at or near the intersection with Fremont Street was and is a public street located 18 in an unincorporated area of San Joaquin County, State of California. 19 20 5. On or about January 16, 2021at3:18 a.m., Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH an Does 1 through 10, were operating a Freightliner tractor pulling a trailer owned by GREW 21 22 CARGO INC .. CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1-150 was driving southbound on SR-99 whe 23 Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH failed to stop for traffic and violently rear-ended Plaintiff JO 24 EDWIN TAYLOR's vehicle, causing an impact between the two vehicles, the force of which wa 25 so severe that Plaintiff was caused to suffer serious injuries to his body and brain from which he ha 26 not and will not recover. 27 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herei 2 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - · 1 mentioned Defendant, CHARANJEET SINGH, and Does 1 through 10 was an employee o 2 Defendant, GREW AL CARGO, INC. and Does 11 through 40 and Defendant CHARANJEE 3 SINGH and Does 1 through 10 were acting within the course and scope of said employment wi 4 the Defendant, GREWAL CARGO, INC. and Does 11 through 40. 5 7. Plaintiff is ignorant ofthe true names ofDefendants identified as Does 1through150 6 inclusive, and there pursues them by such fictitious names and will ask legal court to amend thi 7 Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaint· 8 is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these Defendants was in some manne 9 responsible for the events and happenings allege herein, and for Plaintiffs injuries and damages a 10 hereinafter set forth. 11 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendant 12 designated as a Doe herein is responsible in some manner and legally liable herein for the events an 13 happenings herein alleged, and thereby proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff a 14 herein further alleged. 15 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein 16 mentioned, each of the Defendants, whether specifically named or designated as a Doe, was th 17 agent, servant, and employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herei 18 alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment, and service with th 19 advance knowledge, consent and ratification of each of the remaining Defendants. 20 21 10. All of the acts and conduct herein described of each and every corporate Defendan 22 was duly authorized, ordered and directed by the respective Defendant corporate employees of sai 23 employees and agents; that in addition thereto, said corporate employers participated in the enforce 24 acts and conducts of said employees, agents, and each of them, and that in addition thereto, upon th 25 completion of the forced acts and conduct the said corporate employees and agents, the aforesai 26 Defendant corporations respectively ratified, accepted the benefits, condoned, and approve each an 27 all of the said acts and conduct of the aforesaid corporate employees. 3 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 11. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff 2 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, suffered serious and permanent injury, all of which injuries have caused 3 and continue to cause, Plaintiff to suffer great mental and physical pain and suffering, and to exjs 4 in a persistent vegetative state. As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff has suffered general damage 5 in an amount according to proof. 6 12. As a further and proximate result of conduct by Defendants, and each of the 7 Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amoun: 8 according to proof. 9 13. As a further and proximate result of conduct by Defendants, and each of them 10 Plaintiff will be prevented from pursuing educational opportunities, future employmen 11 opportunities, and will be unable to participate in a meaningful and fulfilling life or pursue an 12 employment opportunities at all. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 15 (FOR NEGLIGENT RETENTION AND HIRING 16 AGAINST GREWAL CARGO, INC. AND 17 DOES 11 THROUGH 30, AND EACH OF THEM) 18 14. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint, inclusive an 19 incorporates them as though fully set forth. 20 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each o 21 them, did negligently and carelessly, employ, retain, contract with, supervise, and instruct Defendant 22 CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1 through 10, inclusive to drive trucks for them. 23 24 16. Defendants, and each ofthem, knew or reasonably should have known that Defendan 25 CHARANJEET SINGH and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, was unfit to drive semi tractor/trailer 26 had a propensity to drive at unsafe speeds, disregard traffic laws, and to engage in conduct of tb 27 type of that which was engaged in the subject accident such as following vehicles too closely_ 4 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - · - · 1 traveling at an unsafe speed, failing to stop a vehicle in a timely fashion, inattention, and otherwis 2 acting in a reckless and negligent manner. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, a 4 follows: 5 1. For economic and consequential damages, according to proof; 6 2. For general damages according to proof; 7 3. For hospital, medical, nursing and incidental expenses according to proof and fo 8 9 future hospitals, medical, nursing, and incidental expenses according to proof; 10 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; 11 5. For loss of earning and loss of earning capacity, according to proof; 12 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 13 14 15 Dated: February 22, 2021 TOREM & ASSOCIATES 16 17 18 YIGAL J. TOREM, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, 19 incompetent adult by and through her Guardian A Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 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, GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR 13 Plaintiff, ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER ONE 14 v. 15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, 16 INCLUSIVE, 17 Defendants. 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC 20 RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III 21 SET NUMBER: ONE 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 23 Admit propounding party is not liable to responding party. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 25 Admit propounding party is not liable to responding party as alleged in responding party’s 26 complaint’s first cause of action for negligence. 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 28 Admit propounding party is not liable to responding party as alleged in responding party’s -1- GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER Exhibit C ONE 1 complaint’s second cause of action for negligent retention and hiring. 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: 3 Admit propounding party’s alleged conduct did not harm responding party. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: 5 Admit propounding party’s conduct as alleged in responding party’s complaint’s first cause of 6 action for negligence did not harm responding party. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: 8 Admit propounding party’s conduct as alleged in responding party’s complaint’s second cause 9 of action for negligent retention and hiring did not harm responding party. 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: 11 Admit propounding party’s conduct as alleged in responding party’s complaint was not a 12 substantial factor in causing responding party’s harm. 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: 14 Admit responding party has no documents to support liability against propounding party. 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: 16 Admit responding party has no things to support liability against propounding party. 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: 18 Admit responding party has no documents to support any claim of damages against 19 propounding party. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: 21 Admit responding party has no things to support any claim of damages against propounding 22 party. 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: 24 Admit responding was not employed at the time of the subject collision. 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: 26 Admit responding did not own the vehicle he was driving at the time of the subject collision. 27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: 28 Admit responding was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the subject collision. -2- GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER ONE 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: 2 Admit responding party did not possess any document which would excuse him from wearing a 3 seatbelt at the time of the subject collision. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: 5 Admit responding party’s blood alcohol levels were at least 0.08% at the time of the subject 6 collision. 7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: 8 Admit responding party was in the commission of a felony at the time of the subject collision. 9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: 10 Admit that responding party was an uninsured motorist at the time of the subject collision. 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: 12 Admit that responding party suddenly slowed his vehicle immediately prior to the subject 13 collision. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: 15 Admit that responding party was stopped at the time of the subject collision. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: 17 Admit that responding party caused the subject collision. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: 19 Admit that there is presently at least one bench warrant for responding party’s arrest. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: 21 Admit that the tail lights to the vehicle responding party was driving were not lit at the time of 22 the subject collision. 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: 24 Admit that the brake lights to the vehicle responding party was driving were not lit at the time 25 of the subject collision. 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: 27 Admit that the hazard lights to the vehicle responding party was driving were not lit at the time 28 of the subject collision. -3- GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER ONE 1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: 2 Admit that plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III was driving the vehicle he was in at the time of the 3 subject collision. 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: 5 Admit that plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III did not possess automobile insurance at the time of 6 the subject collision. 7 DATED: April 7, 2021 HEATH & YUEN, APC 8 9 By 10 Lucy K. Galek Attorneys for Defendant 11 GREWAL CARGO INC 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- GREWAL CARGO INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, SET NUMBER ONE 1 TOREM & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 1607 Pontius Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025 3 Telephone: (310) 276-7878 Facsimile: (310) 231-7445 4 Email: toremlit@torem.com RON TOREM, ESQ., SBN: 134280 5 YIGAL TOREM, ESQ., SBN: 110015 DANIEL A. TOREM, ESQ., SBN: 325346 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, by and Through his Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 11 12 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, CASE NO.: STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576 BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD 13 LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters 14 Dept.: 11B Plaintiff, 15 vs. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET 16 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET SINGH; ONE and DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, GREWAL CARGO INC 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, 21 by and Through his Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE 22 SET NUMBER: ONE 23 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, an incompetent adult, by and 24 Through his Guardian Ad Litem, TELISHA L. MOORE, and responds to Plaintiff’s Response to 25 Requests for Admission, Set One, as follows: 26 RESPONSES 27 The responses and objections hereinafter set forth are based upon documents and 28 information presently known and currently available to this responding party. This responding Exhibit D 1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 1 party's discovery, investigation and preparation for trial is not yet completed and is continuing as of 2 the date of this response. This response is solely for the purpose of this action. All objections and 3 grounds not herein made are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. These responses 4 and objections are given and made without prejudice to this party's right to amend, modify or 5 supplement these responses based upon subsequently discovered information and documents. 6 Responding party expressly reserves its right to continue its discovery and investigation herein for 7 supplemental data which may reveal information which, if presently within its knowledge, would 8 have been included in this response. 9 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 10 Investigation and discovery by this answering party is continuing but is not complete. As 11 discovery proceeds, witnesses, facts and evidence may be discovered which are not set forth herein, 12 but which may have been responsive to a demand. Facts and evidence now known may be 13 imperfectly understood or the relevance or consequence of such facts and evidence may be 14 imperfectly understood, and, accordingly, such documents may, in good faith, not be included in 15 the following responses. 16 The answering party herein reserves the right to refer to, conduct discovery with reference 17 to, or offer into evidence at trial, any and all documents, facts and evidence, notwithstanding the 18 absence of such documents, facts or evidence in these responses. Plaintiff objects to these Requests 19 for Admissions to the extent that they call for information which is neither relevant to the subject 20 matter in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Nothing in these responses should be construed as a waiver, defenses or privileges that Plaintiff 22 may now or later assert, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege and work-product 23 doctrine. Without waiving and subject to the foregoing objections, responding party responds to 24 these admissions as follows: 25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 1 26 Deny. 27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 2 28 Deny. 2 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 3 2 Deny. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 4 4 Deny. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 5 6 Deny. 7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 6 8 Deny. 9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 7 10 Deny. 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 8 12 Deny. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 9 14 Deny. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 10 16 Deny. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 11 18 Deny. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 12 20 Admit. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 13 22 Objection. Compound Request for admission pursuant to CCP 2033.060(f). Plaintiff will not 23 respond to this request for admission as it assumes facts. Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer. 24 This request is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly 25 burdensome, vexatious, oppressive and harassing. 26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 14 27 After a good faith effort unable to admit or Deny as Plaintiff is currently in a quadriplegia 28 state and is unable to communicate. 3 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 15 2 Admit. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 16 4 Objection. Seeks Information for impeachment purposes, is overbroad as to time, scope, and 5 manner and is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request 6 is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly burdensome, vexatious, 7 oppressive and harassing. Objection. This request calls for the premature disclosure of expert 8 witness information opinions and conclusion in violation of CCP 2034.210 et seq. It is unknown 9 whether Plaintiff was the driver of the vehicle therefore this information is an invasion of Plaintiff’s 10 right to privacy. Plaintiff is currently in a quadriplegia state and is unable to communicate. 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 17 12 Objection. Seeks Information for impeachment purposes, is overbroad as to time, scope, and 13 manner and is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request 14 is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly burdensome, vexatious, 15 oppressive and harassing. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiff responds: 16 Deny. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 18 18 Objection. Compound Request for admission pursuant to CCP 2033.060(f). Plaintiff will not 19 respond to this request for admission as it assumes facts. Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer. 20 This request is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly 21 burdensome, vexatious, oppressive and harassing. It is unknown who was the driver. 22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, NO. 19 23 Objection. Compound Request for admission pursuant to CCP 2033.060(f). Plaintiff will not 24 respond to this request for admission as it assumes facts. Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer. 25 This request is a clear invasion of plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy and is unduly 26 burdensome, vexatious, oppressive and harassing. 27 ///