On July 07, 2020 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Estate Of Moises Hernandez, Sr., By And Through Its Successor In Interest Justine,
Guillen, Yadira,
Hernandez Jr., Moises,
Hernandez, Justine,
Hernandez Moreno, Jesus Alberto,
Hernandez Moreno, Mayra Candelaria,
and
Apostolic Assembly Of The Faith In Christ Jesus, A California Corporation,
San Diego Gas & Electric Company A California Corporation,
Sempra Energy A California Corporation,
for PI personal injury not MV
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
u
'-
GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER, LLP (SPACE BELow FoR FILING STAMP ONLY)
LAWYERS
222 N PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAV‘ suns 2100
EL SEGUNEOO caforgosémA 90245
SUPERB“ Mg‘DCAU‘ORNM
Iii ((313)) 2:211:33 C°UWOF9AN Benmnomo
W;
hWN
OR. ROBERT JARCHL SBN 204|68 (rjarchi@gbw.law)
D.
CHRISTIAN T. F. NICKERSON, SBN 28|084 (cnickersonflgbwlaw) Nov 1 3 m23
ALEXANDRO ()ARZA. SBN 339718 (agar/a'u gb\\.la\\)
Attorneys for Plainti ffs
_ _
FAX
SUPERIOR COURT ()F THE STATE ()F CALIFORNIA
BY [UR 'I‘HI; ('()LN'I'Y ()l’ SAN BERNARDINU
l-IS I‘A Hi ()F .\1()lSl-IS
HERNANDEZ. SR.. b) C:\Sli N0. (‘lV’DSZOl-le:
and Ihrough its successor in interest .ll 'STINE [. [\Aigmw/fin' (Ill pur/mxm In Hun. Brian 5'.
HERNANDEZ; JUSTINE HERNANDEZ. an \
\l(-('ur\'illc. Dept. S30]
indi\ iduul; .\1()lSliS HI‘IRNANIH-Il. .lR.. an
indi\ iduul; MAYRA (X»\\l)fil.;\RlA ‘
((‘nmpluim l-‘ilcd: Jul) 7. 2020)
HERNANDEZ MORENO. an indi\iduul; ‘
JESUS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ MORENO. i
PLAINTIFF‘S SEPARATE
an indi\ iduul. STATEN [INT IN Sl'l’l’ORT ()F
MOTION (UMPEL DEFENDANT
'l‘()
Plaintiffs. APOSTOLK‘ ASSEMBLY ()F THE
FAITH IN .lESl'S ('HRIST’S
'
\s. Fl'RTHER RESPONSES T0
l’LAINTll—‘l-"S REQl’ESTS FOR
SAN
‘
l)l[i(i() (iAS & Iil.[i("l‘Rl(' PRODUCTION
)MPANY. a California Corporation;
g
('(
SEMPRA ENERGY. a California Corporation;
25
1
Date: JanuaryM 2024
APOSTOLK‘ ASSEMBLY ()F 'I‘Hli FAITH i
Time: 8:30 a.m.
IN JESUS CHRIST. a (‘alitbmia Corporation. Location: [)cpt. S30
dbu North (‘oast Fcllmx ship; 21nd DOES
‘
I
J
through 100. inclush c. "
[Filed ('mu'nrrwlrb' will] Plaintiff's
'
,Uorion
m ('ompvl um! [Proposed] ()rdcr/
Defendants.
_ |
-
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT'S FURTHER
RESPONSES To PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
RECORD:
AWN Pursuant t0 California Rules ofCourt, Rule 3.1345, Plaintiffs hereby submit the following
Separate Statement in Support 0f Plaintiffs' Motion to (‘ompcl Further Response to Requests for
Production. Set ()ne. Nos. 5. 6. 7. I0. 26. 38. 39. 40, 59. 60. 67, 70, 75, 76. 80. 83. 89. and 93.
6 DISCOVERY ITEMS IN DISPUTE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 5:
l'hc cnlirc I'llc (clcclmnic and hard cop) ) pcrlaining I0 lhc SUBJECT INCIDENI' (Augml
l. 30] 8 incident \xhcrcin Moixcx Hcrnamdw “ax killed).
RESPONSE T() REQl’EST FOR PRODl'CTION N0. 5:
()bjcclinn. This rcqucsl ix \aguc. ambiguous. m crl) broad. assumes tllcls nnl in c» idcncc.
LLP
lacks I'ounduliun. and is nut rcuwnahly calculated In lcud 10 lhc discm cry ul'admisxiblc m idcncc.
WHEELER
90245
Further. this rcqucst scckx intbrmulinn in \ iolutiun ot'lhc attorncy—clicnl prix ilcgc zmd \mrk product.
955
CA
& REASONS FOR (”OMPELLING A RESPONSE:
BOX
BROILLET
O SEGUNDO Thaw urc baixic dixcm cr) rcqucus seeking documents that rctbr. discuss. and or rclzuc I0 Ihc
P
EL
incidcnl and an) indixiduuls entities that mu) ham: kmmlcdgc rcgarding thc incident. ’l‘hcrc is
GREENE
nothing \aguc 21nd ambiguous about Ihcsc requests. they scck all documents relating 10 Ihc incident.
zmd documents relating l0 Ihcsc issues arc highly rclcmm, zmd ut a minimum cusil) satisfy
(‘alit‘omia's broad “reasonably calculatcd I0 lead Io Ihc discovery ()t'admissihlc evidence“ standard
Sec (‘alitbmia ('odc 0f (‘iViI Procedure section 2()l7.()l(). lndccd. (‘alitbmia courts broadly
construe thc right t0 discm cry. (irqr/an/IRH 'm'p. r. Superior (‘uurt( 196| ) 56 (‘aLZd 355. 377-378.
Thc defense is straining t0 crculc cwuxcs Io moid pruducing high!) rclm ant cvidcncc that
\\ ill harm the dct'cnsc case. Defendant rcsponds to Ihcsc requests with nuisance boilerplate
[J .L‘
ubjcctions. lndccd. Defendant refused I0 answer Ihcsc requests. relying 0n nuisance “Vague“
objectiuns and similar mcrillcss objcctions that arc sunclionablc. See Stum/(m ('u.. lm: v. Sup ('1‘
(I990) 225 (‘uI./\pp.3d 898. 90] (“\w construe this [\'aguc. ambiguous. and unintelligible objection]
as a ‘nuisancc‘ objection [had responding party] relied 0n this objection Io thc extent ot‘rcl'using
1
PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT‘S FURTHER
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Document Filed Date
November 13, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 07, 2020
Category
PI personal injury not MV
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
u '- GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER, LLP (SPACE BELow FoR FILING STAMP ONLY) LAWYERS 222 N PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAV‘ suns 2100 EL SEGUNEOO caforgosémA 90245 SUPERB“ Mg‘DCAU‘ORNM Iii ((313)) 2:211:33 C°UWOF9AN Benmnomo W; hWN OR. ROBERT JARCHL SBN 204|68 (rjarchi@gbw.law) D. CHRISTIAN T. F. NICKERSON, SBN 28|084 (cnickersonflgbwlaw) Nov 1 3 m23 ALEXANDRO ()ARZA. SBN 339718 (agar/a'u gb\\.la\\) Attorneys for Plainti ffs _ _ FAX SUPERIOR COURT ()F THE STATE ()F CALIFORNIA BY [UR 'I‘HI; ('()LN'I'Y ()l’ SAN BERNARDINU l-IS I‘A Hi ()F .\1()lSl-IS HERNANDEZ. SR.. b) C:\Sli N0. (‘lV’DSZOl-le: and Ihrough its successor in interest .ll 'STINE [. [\Aigmw/fin' (Ill pur/mxm In Hun. Brian 5'. HERNANDEZ; JUSTINE HERNANDEZ. an \ \l(-('ur\'illc. Dept. S30] indi\ iduul; .\1()lSliS HI‘IRNANIH-Il. .lR.. an indi\ iduul; MAYRA (X»\\l)fil.;\RlA ‘ ((‘nmpluim l-‘ilcd: Jul) 7. 2020) HERNANDEZ MORENO. an indi\iduul; ‘ JESUS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ MORENO. i PLAINTIFF‘S SEPARATE an indi\ iduul. STATEN [INT IN Sl'l’l’ORT ()F MOTION (UMPEL DEFENDANT 'l‘() Plaintiffs. APOSTOLK‘ ASSEMBLY ()F THE FAITH IN .lESl'S ('HRIST’S ' \s. Fl'RTHER RESPONSES T0 l’LAINTll—‘l-"S REQl’ESTS FOR SAN ‘ l)l[i(i() (iAS & Iil.[i("l‘Rl(' PRODUCTION )MPANY. a California Corporation; g ('( SEMPRA ENERGY. a California Corporation; 25 1 Date: JanuaryM 2024 APOSTOLK‘ ASSEMBLY ()F 'I‘Hli FAITH i Time: 8:30 a.m. IN JESUS CHRIST. a (‘alitbmia Corporation. Location: [)cpt. S30 dbu North (‘oast Fcllmx ship; 21nd DOES ‘ I J through 100. inclush c. " [Filed ('mu'nrrwlrb' will] Plaintiff's ' ,Uorion m ('ompvl um! [Proposed] ()rdcr/ Defendants. _ | - PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL DEFENDANT'S FURTHER RESPONSES To PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: AWN Pursuant t0 California Rules ofCourt, Rule 3.1345, Plaintiffs hereby submit the following Separate Statement in Support 0f Plaintiffs' Motion to (‘ompcl Further Response to Requests for Production. Set ()ne. Nos. 5. 6. 7. I0. 26. 38. 39. 40, 59. 60. 67, 70, 75, 76. 80. 83. 89. and 93. 6 DISCOVERY ITEMS IN DISPUTE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 5: l'hc cnlirc I'llc (clcclmnic and hard cop) ) pcrlaining I0 lhc SUBJECT INCIDENI' (Augml l. 30] 8 incident \xhcrcin Moixcx Hcrnamdw “ax killed). RESPONSE T() REQl’EST FOR PRODl'CTION N0. 5: ()bjcclinn. This rcqucsl ix \aguc. ambiguous. m crl) broad. assumes tllcls nnl in c» idcncc. LLP lacks I'ounduliun. and is nut rcuwnahly calculated In lcud 10 lhc discm cry ul'admisxiblc m idcncc. WHEELER 90245 Further. this rcqucst scckx intbrmulinn in \ iolutiun ot'lhc attorncy—clicnl prix ilcgc zmd \mrk product. 955 CA & REASONS FOR (”OMPELLING A RESPONSE: BOX BROILLET O SEGUNDO Thaw urc baixic dixcm cr) rcqucus seeking documents that rctbr. discuss. and or rclzuc I0 Ihc P EL incidcnl and an) indixiduuls entities that mu) ham: kmmlcdgc rcgarding thc incident. ’l‘hcrc is GREENE nothing \aguc 21nd ambiguous about Ihcsc requests. they scck all documents relating 10 Ihc incident. zmd documents relating l0 Ihcsc issues arc highly rclcmm, zmd ut a minimum cusil) satisfy (‘alit‘omia's broad “reasonably calculatcd I0 lead Io Ihc discovery ()t'admissihlc evidence“ standard Sec (‘alitbmia ('odc 0f (‘iViI Procedure section 2()l7.()l(). lndccd. (‘alitbmia courts broadly construe thc right t0 discm cry. (irqr/an/IRH 'm'p. r. Superior (‘uurt( 196| ) 56 (‘aLZd 355. 377-378. Thc defense is straining t0 crculc cwuxcs Io moid pruducing high!) rclm ant cvidcncc that \\ ill harm the dct'cnsc case. Defendant rcsponds to Ihcsc requests with nuisance boilerplate [J .L‘ ubjcctions. lndccd. Defendant refused I0 answer Ihcsc requests. relying 0n nuisance “Vague“ objectiuns and similar mcrillcss objcctions that arc sunclionablc. See Stum/(m ('u.. lm: v. Sup ('1‘ (I990) 225 (‘uI./\pp.3d 898. 90] (“\w construe this [\'aguc. ambiguous. and unintelligible objection] as a ‘nuisancc‘ objection [had responding party] relied 0n this objection Io thc extent ot‘rcl'using 1 PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT‘S FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION