Preview
FILED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
J. Edward Kerley (175695)
Dylan L. Schaffer (153612) Nov 0 2° 2018
Kerley Schaffer LLP
1939 Harrison Street, #500 perior Court
Oakland, California 94612 By
Telephone: (510) 379-5801 CLERK
Facsimile: (510) 228-0350
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Donna Meschi, Vincent Meschi,
and Dominique Joseph _ _—_—-
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS
SAN MATEO COUNTY — UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ==
==
10
DONNA MARIE MESCHI, an CLASS ACTION
1 individual, VINCENT ANDREW 2 23S=
MESCUHL, an individual, and CAROLE Case No. 16CIV02607
12s 82S
53
GIANFERMO guardian ad litem for aaa
12
DOMINIQUE CHESERE JOSEPH, an PLAINTIFFS’ CASE
individual, on behalf of themselves and a MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
class of similarly situated persons,
14
Plaintiffs, Assigned to Honorable V. Rayniond '
15 Swope, Dept. 23 for all purposes
Vv
16
MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, Date: November 16, 2018 BY Faye
17 a corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 23
18 Defendants.
Date filed: November 29, 2016
19 Trial Date: TBD
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
This is an action by insureds against Mercury Casualty Company (“Mercury”)
alleging both individual bad faith claims, and class causes of action relating to the
adjustment and payment of contents claims. Below Plaintiffs (“Meschis”) set forth the
present state of the case and seek Court assistance with moving discovery forward. Until
Mercury produces relevant documents, Plaintiffs cannot do the review necessary to
suggesting a schedule for a certification motion.
DISCOVERY
Plaintiff originally served written discovery requests relating to class and
individual claims in September 2017. Plaintiff additionally served a notice for the
10
deposition of Mercury’s PMQ on class-related issues for December 20, 2017.
11
Mercury moved to dismiss and sought a stay, which the Court granted. The Court
12
denied the motion to dismiss in November 2017.
13
Mercury did not thereafter serve responses to outstanding discovery. As matters
14
appeared to be at a standstill, in June 2018 Plaintiffs sought a CMC. At the time of the
15
CMC (July 13, 2018) the Court formally lifted the stay ordered Plaintiffs to reserve all
16
written discovery. The Court ordered Mercury to respond by September 11, 2016.
17
Discovery included the following:
18
(a) Request for Production, Set One (this applies to the individual cause of
19
action);
20
(b) Request for Production, Set Two (applies to the class causes of action);
21
(c) Form Interrogatories, Set One (applies to both class and individual causes of
22
action);
23
(d) Special Interrogatories, Set One (applies to the class causes of action).
24
25
--1--
Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement
Mercury has violated the Court’s order by failing entirely to serve responses to:
Request for Production Set One
Form Interrogatories, Set One
Counsel for Plaintiffs has sought responses from Mercury repeatedly, without
success. Plaintiffs request an order of this Court that Mercury comply fully with its order,
serve code-compliant responses, and deliver all responsive documents, forthwith.
Although it has not served responses to Request for Production, Set One, Mercury
has produced some documents. It has repeatedly
10 Mercury complied with the letter of the Court’s order by serving timely responses
11 to.
12 Request for Production, Set Two (attached as Exhibit A)
13 Special Interrogatories, Set One (attached as Exhibit B)
15 But as appears, Mercury’s responses are woefully deficient. Plaintiffs’ meet and
16 confer correspondence in this regard is attached here as Exhibits C and D.
17 As for the Request for Production, Set Two relating to class claims, although
18 Mercury indicated a willingness in its responses to produce some materials pursuant to a
19 stipulation and protective order, it did not provide such a stipulation and protective order.
20 Plaintiffs drafted and supplied that document, which Mercury finally placed before the
21 Court in mid-October. Plaintiffs urge the Court to enter the order.
22 Mercury has so far failed to meet and confer on various responses as to which it
23 has simply refused to produce any documents.
24 Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court imposing a deadline for production of all
25 documents promised by Mercury.
--2--
Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement
Plaintiffs likewise seek an order from the Court that Mercury meet and confer
regarding categories of documents as to which they have refused production—
specifically, categories 22-27, which are necessary for pre-certification discovery.
Mercury’s responses to special interrogatories relating to class claims are similarly
deficient, as set forth in Exhibit B. In various instances Mercury has supplied a promise
to answer the question posed, rather than an answer as per this Court’s order. See
Exhibits B, D.
Plaintiffs seek the Court’s order that Mercury meet and confer regarding its
answers to the special interrogatories to the extent it intends to maintain its answers and
10 objections, or to amend forthwith. Plaintiffs also seek an order of this Court setting an
1 informal discovery conference in 90 days pursuant to CCP section 2016.080 to address
12 any issues that remain relating to Mercury’s discovery responses and its production
13 obligations.
14
15 DISCOVERY: CRC 3.724(8) ISSUES
16 It is premature to address any issues relating to the storage and/or production of
17 electronic discovery. As noted, Plaintiffs have propounded class-related discovery, much
18 of which may be stored electronically. Mercury has yet to deliver a single document. As
19 noted, its responses are almost uniformly deficient. When production begins, Plaintiffs
20 will assess the e-discovery issues and inform the Court of any disputes at the proposed
21 informal discovery conference.
22
23 PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION:
24 Mercury has so far been resistant to producing a single document or interrogatory
25 response to move the class certification process forward. It plainly believes it is not
--3--
Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement
obligated to assist in that process. Plaintiffs therefore seek the Court’s oversight by way
of the orders and informal discovery conference set forth above. Plaintiffs hope to be able
to discuss a schedule for briefing and hearing on the certification issue in 120 days, but
that will depend on Mercury’s compliance with its discovery obligations.
SETTLEMENT/MEDIATION
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class, remain open to settlement
discussions and/or mediation of all causes of action. Likely resolution of class claims will
be difficult without pre-certification discovery in which Plaintiffs discover the extent of
10 the damages available to the class.
11 MOTIONS
12 Mercury’s motion for judgment on the pleading was denied. Plaintiffs believe the
13 next likely motion, barring the need for discovery practice, is a motion for certification.
:
14 CMC DATE
15 Plaintiffs request an informal discovery: conference in 90 days, and a CMC in 120
16 days.
17
Dated: November 1, 2018 KERLEY SCHAFFER LLP
18
19
20
Lye ALi
21
BY: Dylan Schaffer
22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
25
--4--
Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
IAN FRASER-THOMSON (BAR NO. 73526)
STEPHEN L. DAHM (BAR NO. 114745)
CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY
75 Southgate Avenue
Daly City, CA 94015
Telephone: (650) 991-5126
Facsimile: (650) 991-5134
ift@cwmlaw.com
rgebhardt@cwmlaw.com
6082-5M10
Attorneys for Defendant,
MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
11 DONNA MARIE MESCHI, an individual, No. 16CIV02607
JUNIOR EDDY JOSEPH, an individual,
12 VINCENT ANDREW MESCHI, an DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY
individual, and CAROLE GIANFERMO, COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO
13 guardian ad litem for DOMINIQUE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
CHESERE JOSEPH, an individual, on behalf
14 of themselves and a class of similarly situated PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
persons, TWO
1S
16
Plaintiffs,
17 vs.
18 MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a
corporation, et al.,
19
20 Defendants.
21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: _ Plaintiffs DONNA MARIE MESCHI, et al.
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY
23 SET NUMBER: TWO
24 Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY responds to the Request for
25 Production of Documents, Set Two, propounded by plaintiffs as follows:
26 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
27 Defendant's investigation and informal discovery concerning the facts related to this
28 case are ongoing. Thus, any responses are correct and complete as of the date of this Response
-1-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
to Request for Production of Documents. In addition, formal discovery is ongoing and
incomplete in this action, and thus the responses only reflect discovery completed. All
responses are made without prejudice to defendant's rights to produce evidence or further
responses reflecting after-discovered material and evidence at the time of trial of this action.
Defendant generally objects to the Request for Production of Documents as propounded
as violative of C.C.P. §2031.010 et seq. Any and all responses provided hereafter are provided
subject to and in light of this objection and without waiver of defendant's right to assert this
objection at any subsequent proceeding involving this Request for Production of Documents or
defendant's responses thereto.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10:
12 Each DOCUMENT (including but not limited to any manual or training guide for use
13 of any computer system operated by YOU or any vendor) sufficient to describe the manner in
14 which YOU have stored CLAIMS DATA in electronic form from January 1, 2012 to the
15 present,
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10:
17 Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter
18 involved in the pending action. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope
19 of the court’s pre-certification discovery orders. This request also seeks documents that are
20 protected from discovery by responding party’s trade secrets privilege.
21 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
22 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate manuals for any and all computers on which
23 responding party stored CLAIMS DATA during the period from November 29, 2012 to
24 November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged documents
25 it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and protective order.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11:
27 CLAIMS DATA YOU possess, produced electronically in comma separated value
28 format, for CONTENTS CLAIMS open from November 29, 2012, to the present, under any
2-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
DWELLING POLICY, as to which YOU paid at least $1 on the CONTENTS CLAIM for the
actual cash value of the CONTENTS CLAIM.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11:
Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s
trade secrets privilege. This request is also vague and ambiguous and burdensome and
oppressive. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-
certification discovery orders.
Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
10 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate CLAIMS DATA for CONTENTS CLAIMS
11 open at any time between November 29, 2012 and November 29, 2016. Responding party
12 will produce any relevant, non-privileged responsive documents it is reasonably able to
13 locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and protective order,
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12:
15 DOCUMENTS YOU possess, including but not limited to any training manual or
16 claims guidelines, pertaining to YOUR valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12:
18 Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter
19 involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s
20 trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope of the
21 court’s pre-certification discovery orders,
22 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
23 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate training manuals or claims guidelines
24 pertaining to valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS during the period from November 29, 2012
25 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged
26 responsive documents it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement
27 and protective order.
28 MW
3-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCT: ION 13:
DOCUMENTS YOU possess, including but not limited to any training manual or
claims guidelines, pertaining to YOUR estimation of depreciation as applied to CONTENTS
CLAIMS for the time period November 29, 2012 through the date of production.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13:
Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s
trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope of the
court’s pre-certification discovery orders,
10 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
11 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate training manuals and claims guidelines
12 pertaining to estimations of depreciation it applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS during the
13 period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any
14 relevant, non-privileged responsive documents it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a
15 confidentiality agreement and protective order.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14:
17 Contracts between you and any vendor in effect between January 1, 2012, and the
18 present, relating to services by any vendor provided to YOU for valuation of contents or
19 personal property.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14:
21 Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter
22 involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s
23 trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope the
24 court’s pre-certification discovery orders.
25 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
26 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate contracts with vendors during the period from
27 November 9, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-
28 privileged documents it is able to reasonably locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement
-4-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
and protective order.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15:
Contracts between you and any vendor in effect between January 1, 2012, and the
present, relating to services by any vendor provided to YOU for estimation of depreciation
as applies to contents or personal property.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15:
Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s
trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope the
10 court’s pre-certification discovery orders.
11 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
12 and a reasonable inquiry in.an effort to locate contracts with vendors during the period from
13 November 9, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-
14 privileged documents it is able to reasonably locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement
15 and protective order.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16:
17 DOCUMENTS YOU possess reflecting or pertaining to communications
18 between YOU and any employee or agent or vendor on the subject of valuation of
19 CONTENTS CLAIMS.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16:
21 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. _ This
22 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
23 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
24 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
25 party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege.
26 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
27 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate documents reflecting or pertaining to
28 communications with any employee or vendor during the period from November 29, 2012 to
5.
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged responsive
documents it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and
protective order.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17:
All DOCUMENTS YOU possess reflecting or pertaining to communications
between YOU and any employee or agent or vendor on the subject of estimation of
depreciation as applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17:
Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This
10 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
ll pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
12 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
13 party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege.
14 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
15 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate documents reflecting or pertaining to
16 communications with any employee or vendor on the subject of estimation of depreciation as
17 applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS during the period from November 29, 2012 to November
18 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged responsive documents
19 it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and protective order.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18:
21 All DOCUMENTS relating to advertising, marketing or sales of any product
22 by any vendor to YOU, which product assists with the ‘valuation of CONTENTS
23 CLAIMS.
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18:
25 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This
26 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
27 pending action, and the subject of which is beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification
28 discovery orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by
-6-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
responding party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege.
Without waiving any of these objections, responding party received advertising,
marketing and sales documents relating to valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS during the
period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016, but those documents are not relevant
to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and are protected by responding party’s
and its vendors’ trade secrets privileges and rights to privacy.
Also without waiving any of these objections, during the period from November 29,
2012 to November 29, 2016 responding party received news, research, and educational
information from Property & Liability Resources Bureau, 3025 Highland Parkway, Suite
10 800, Downers Grove, IL 60515, Telephone (630) 724-2000. To locate and produce
11 documents responsive to this request would require responding party to review all news,
12 coverage research and educational material provided by Property & Liability Resources
13 Bureau during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding
14 party estimates that this review would take at least 400 hours. These documents also are
15 protected by responding party’s and Property & Liability Resources Bureau’s trade secrets
16 privileges and rights to privacy.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 19:
18 All DOCUMENTS relating to the advertising, marketing or sales of any
19 product by any vendor to YOU, which product assists with the estimation of
20 depreciation as applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS.
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 19:
22 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This
23 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
24 pending action, and the subject of which is beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification
25 discovery orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by
26 responding party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege.
27 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party received advertising,
28 marketing and sales documents relating to estimation of depreciation as applied to
-7-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
CONTENTS CLAIMS during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016,
but those documents are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and
are protected by responding party’s and its vendors’ trade secrets privilege and rights to
privacy
Also without waiving any of these objections, during the period from November 29,
2012 to November 29, 2016 responding party received news, research, and educational
information from Property & Liability Resources Bureau, 3025 Highland Parkway, Suite
800, Downers Grove, IL 60515, Telephone (630) 724-2000 To locate and produce
documents responsive to this request would require responding party to review all news,
10 coverage research and educational material provided by Property & Liability Resources
11 Bureau during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding
12 party estimates that this review would take at least 400 hours. These documents also are
13 protected by responding party’s and Property & Liability Resources Bureau’s trade secrets
14 privileges and rights to privacy.
1S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20
16 All DOCUMENTS relating to advertising, marketing or sales of any product
17 by ENSERVIO to YOU.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20
19 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This
20 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
21 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
22 orders, This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
23 party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege.
24 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party received advertising,
25 marketing and sales documents from ENSERVIO during the period from November 29, 2012
26 to November 29, 2016, but those documents are not relevant to the subject matter involved in
27 the pending action, and are protected by responding party’s and ENSERVIO’s trade secrets
28 privileges and rights to privacy.
-8-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FFOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21:
All contracts or service agreements between YOU and ENSERVIO in effect at
any time between January 1, 2012, and the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21:
Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This
request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
party’s trade secrets privilege.
10 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search
11 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate responsive documents for the period November
12 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged
13 documents it is able to reasonably locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and
14 protective order.
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22:
16 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to
17 ENSERVIO from January 2010 to the present relating to valuation of CONTENTS
18 CLAIMS. '
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22:
20 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also,
21 this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
22 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
23 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
24 party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege.
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 23:
26 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to
27 ENSERVIO from January 2010 to the present relating to the estimation of
28 depreciation as applies to CONTENTS CLAIMS.
-9-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 23:
Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also,
this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
orders, This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 24:
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to all
vendors from 2010 to the present relating to valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 24:
11 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also,
12 this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
13 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
14 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
15 party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25:
17 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to all
18 vendors from January 2010 to the present relating to the estimation of depreciation as
19 applies to CONTENTS CLAIMS.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25:
21 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also,
22 this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the
23 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
24 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding
25 party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 26:
27 DOCUMENTS demonstrating YOUR compliance as to each CONTENTS
28 CLAIM from January 1, 2012, to the present, with 10 CCR 2695.9(f) which provides
-10-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
that all'for any adjustment relating to depreciation that “shall be contained in the
claims file” and “shall be fully explained to the claimant in writing.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 26:
Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This
request also seeks documents beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
orders.
In order to respond to this request responding party would have to review papers files
for each and every CONTENTS CLAIM for the relevant time period. Responding party
estimates that this would take at least 500 hours.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27:
11 DOCUMENTS demonstrating YOUR compliance with 10 CCR 2695.9(f)
12 which provides that all for any adjustment relating to depreciation that “shall be
13 contained in the claims file” and “shall be fully explained to the claimant in writing,”
14 including but not limited to any applicable training materials, guidelines, or manuals,
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27:
16 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. ‘Also,
17 this request seeks documents that are outside the scope of the court’s pre-certification
18 discovery orders.
19 In order to respond to this request responding party would have to review papers files
20 for each and every CONTENTS CLAIM for the relevant time period. Responding party
21 estimates that this would take at least 500 hours.
22
23 DATED: September 7, 2018 CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY
24
25
By
IAN FRASER-THOMSON
STEPHEN L. DAHM
26 Attorneys for Defendant
MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY
27
28
-ll-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMP. *”ANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
= —— S| SS
6082-5M10-14
1 VERIFICATION
2
3 1, GEOFF DAUMEYER, declare:
I am a Vendor Manager, Property Claims Administration, for Mercury Insurance
Services, LLC, administrator for defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, which is the defendant in the
above-entitled action, and I have been authorized to make this verification on its behalf.
T have read the foregoing MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO attached
10 hereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to
11 those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I
12 believe them to be true,
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
14 foregoing is true and correct,
15 Executed at Rancho Cucamonga, California on September\®, 2018
16
17
18
19 By:
20
ai
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION OF ART J. WILLS TO FOLLOW
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~6082-5M 10-14 |
VERIFICATION
I, ART J. WILLS, declare:
I am a Property Training & Audit Manager for Mercury Insurance Services, LLC,
administrator for defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of California, which is the defendant in the above-entitled action,
and I have been authorized to make this verification on its behalf.
T have read the foregoing MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , SET TWO attached
hereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to
10
those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I
il
believe them to be true.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13
foregoing is true and correct.
14
Executed at Rancho Cucamonga, California on September __, 2018
15
nen of - ~~ nnn ene ene: cere a
16
17
B ? OD YO
ee
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the
within action. My business address is CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY, 75 Southgate
Avenue, Daly City, California, 94015. On September 11, 2018, I served the within document:
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY -COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
O forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by transmitting via E-Mail the document(s) listed above to the E-Mail(s) set forth
O below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid,
in the United States mail Daly City, California addressed as follows.
by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to
10 the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
11
by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
12 address(es) set forth below.
13
14 By electronic service via Lexis Nexis File & Serve. By sending electronically a
true and correct copy thereof to Lexis Nexis File & Serve
15
O (www. lexisnexis.com/fileandserve) for service on all counsel of record by
electronic service.
16
J, Edward Kerley
17 Dylan L. Schaffer
Kerley Schaffer LLP
18 1939 Harrison Street, #500
Oakland, CA 94612
19 Telephone: (510) 379-5801
Facsimile: (510) 228-0350
20 edward@kslaw.us
21
Jam familiar with the firm's practice of processing mail. Under that practice it would
22
be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that day with postage thereon prepaid in the
23
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
24
presumed invalid if postal cancellation date/postage meter date is more than one day after
25
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
26
i
27
HW
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Executed on September 11, 2018, at Daly City, California.
TUpITH SAMPSON
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
JAN FRASER-THOMSON (BAR NO, 73526)
STEPHEN L. DAHM (BAR NO, 114745)
CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY
75 Southgate Avenue
Daly City, CA 94015
Telephone: (650) 991-5126
Facsimile: (650) 991-5134
ift@cwmlaw.com
tgebhardt@cwmlaw.com
6082-5M10
Attorneys for Defendant,
MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
ll DONNA MARIE MESCHI, an individual, No. 16CTV02607
JUNIOR EDDY JOSEPH, an individual,
12 VINCENT ANDREW MESCHI, an DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY
individual, and CAROLE GIANFERMO, COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO
13 guardian ad litem for DOMINIQUE PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL
CHESERE JOSEPH, an individual, on behalf
14 of themselves and a class of similarly situated INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
persons,
1S
16
Plaintiffs,
17 vs.
18 MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a
corporation, et al.,
19
20 Defendants.
21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs DONNA MARIE MESCHI, et al.
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY
23 SET NUMBER: ONE
24 Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY answers, objects, and responds to
25 the special interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs as follows:
26 PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
27 These responses are made solely for the purposes of this action, Each answer is
28 subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility
-1-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of any
statement herein if the interrogatories were asked of or any statements contained herein were
made by a witness present and testifying in Court, all of which objections and grounds are
reserved and may be interposed at the time of the trial.
Defendant has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case and has
not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses are based upon information
presently available to defendant and are made without prejudice to defendant’s right to utilize
subsequently discovered facts.
These Preliminary Statements are incorporated into each of the responses set forth
10 below.
11 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES:
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1:
13 If YOU are asserting advice of counsel as a defense to any allegation of bad faith by
14 Plaintiffs, state the specific opinion and advice, along with the date and attorney who provided
15 the advice YOU relied on.
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1:
17 Objection, this interrogatory seeks information protected from discovery as attorney
18 work product. This interrogatory also seeks information outside the scope of the court’s orders
19 re: pre-certification discovery. This interrogatory is also compound under Code of Civil
20 Procedure Section 2030.060(f) in that it contains subparts or a compound, conjunctive or
21 disjunctive question.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2:
23 State the number of CONTENT CLAIMS open from November 29, 2012, to the
24 present, under any DWELLING POLICY, as to which YOU paid at least $1 on the
25 CONTENTS CLAIM for the actual cash value of the CONTENTS CLAIM.
26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2:
27 Objection, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter
28 involved in the pending action, and is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the terms
-2-
DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
of the court’s orders for pre-certification discovery. Without waiving either of these objections,
responding party will make a good faith effort to answer this interrogatory regarding
CONTENT CLAIMS that were open during the period from November 29, 2012 to and
including November 29, 2016.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3:
State the number of CONTENT CLAIMS open from November 29, 2012, to the
present, under any DWELLING POLICY, as to which YOU paid at least $1 on the
CONTENTS CLAIM for the actual cash value, and YOU paid any additional money for
replacement costs,
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3:
11 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This
12 interrogatory also seeks information outside the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery
13 orders, The burden that would be imposed on responding party by having to answer this
14 interrogatory would be to review each paper file for every CONTENT CLAIM that was open
15 during the relevant time period. For the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016
16 responding party estimates that this review would take at least 500 hours.
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4:
18 Identify and describe the electronic or computer system on which YOU record and store
19 CLAIMS DATA.
20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4:
21 Objection, vague and ambiguous. This interrogatory also seeks information that is
22 beyond the scope of the court’s orders regarding pre-certification discovery. This interrogatory
23 also seeks information protected as trade secrets under Evidence Code Section 1060 and other
24 applicable law. Without waiving any of these objections, during the period from November 29,
25 2012 to November 29, 2016 responding party recorded and stored dates of loss, perils or types
26 of coverag
Preview
FILED SAN MATEO COUNTY J. Edward Kerley (175695) Dylan L. Schaffer (153612) Nov 0 2° 2018 Kerley Schaffer LLP 1939 Harrison Street, #500 perior Court Oakland, California 94612 By Telephone: (510) 379-5801 CLERK Facsimile: (510) 228-0350 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Donna Meschi, Vincent Meschi, and Dominique Joseph _ _—_—- SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS SAN MATEO COUNTY — UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION == == 10 DONNA MARIE MESCHI, an CLASS ACTION 1 individual, VINCENT ANDREW 2 23S= MESCUHL, an individual, and CAROLE Case No. 16CIV02607 12s 82S 53 GIANFERMO guardian ad litem for aaa 12 DOMINIQUE CHESERE JOSEPH, an PLAINTIFFS’ CASE individual, on behalf of themselves and a MANAGEMENT STATEMENT class of similarly situated persons, 14 Plaintiffs, Assigned to Honorable V. Rayniond ' 15 Swope, Dept. 23 for all purposes Vv 16 MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, Date: November 16, 2018 BY Faye 17 a corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: 23 18 Defendants. Date filed: November 29, 2016 19 Trial Date: TBD 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT This is an action by insureds against Mercury Casualty Company (“Mercury”) alleging both individual bad faith claims, and class causes of action relating to the adjustment and payment of contents claims. Below Plaintiffs (“Meschis”) set forth the present state of the case and seek Court assistance with moving discovery forward. Until Mercury produces relevant documents, Plaintiffs cannot do the review necessary to suggesting a schedule for a certification motion. DISCOVERY Plaintiff originally served written discovery requests relating to class and individual claims in September 2017. Plaintiff additionally served a notice for the 10 deposition of Mercury’s PMQ on class-related issues for December 20, 2017. 11 Mercury moved to dismiss and sought a stay, which the Court granted. The Court 12 denied the motion to dismiss in November 2017. 13 Mercury did not thereafter serve responses to outstanding discovery. As matters 14 appeared to be at a standstill, in June 2018 Plaintiffs sought a CMC. At the time of the 15 CMC (July 13, 2018) the Court formally lifted the stay ordered Plaintiffs to reserve all 16 written discovery. The Court ordered Mercury to respond by September 11, 2016. 17 Discovery included the following: 18 (a) Request for Production, Set One (this applies to the individual cause of 19 action); 20 (b) Request for Production, Set Two (applies to the class causes of action); 21 (c) Form Interrogatories, Set One (applies to both class and individual causes of 22 action); 23 (d) Special Interrogatories, Set One (applies to the class causes of action). 24 25 --1-- Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement Mercury has violated the Court’s order by failing entirely to serve responses to: Request for Production Set One Form Interrogatories, Set One Counsel for Plaintiffs has sought responses from Mercury repeatedly, without success. Plaintiffs request an order of this Court that Mercury comply fully with its order, serve code-compliant responses, and deliver all responsive documents, forthwith. Although it has not served responses to Request for Production, Set One, Mercury has produced some documents. It has repeatedly 10 Mercury complied with the letter of the Court’s order by serving timely responses 11 to. 12 Request for Production, Set Two (attached as Exhibit A) 13 Special Interrogatories, Set One (attached as Exhibit B) 15 But as appears, Mercury’s responses are woefully deficient. Plaintiffs’ meet and 16 confer correspondence in this regard is attached here as Exhibits C and D. 17 As for the Request for Production, Set Two relating to class claims, although 18 Mercury indicated a willingness in its responses to produce some materials pursuant to a 19 stipulation and protective order, it did not provide such a stipulation and protective order. 20 Plaintiffs drafted and supplied that document, which Mercury finally placed before the 21 Court in mid-October. Plaintiffs urge the Court to enter the order. 22 Mercury has so far failed to meet and confer on various responses as to which it 23 has simply refused to produce any documents. 24 Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court imposing a deadline for production of all 25 documents promised by Mercury. --2-- Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement Plaintiffs likewise seek an order from the Court that Mercury meet and confer regarding categories of documents as to which they have refused production— specifically, categories 22-27, which are necessary for pre-certification discovery. Mercury’s responses to special interrogatories relating to class claims are similarly deficient, as set forth in Exhibit B. In various instances Mercury has supplied a promise to answer the question posed, rather than an answer as per this Court’s order. See Exhibits B, D. Plaintiffs seek the Court’s order that Mercury meet and confer regarding its answers to the special interrogatories to the extent it intends to maintain its answers and 10 objections, or to amend forthwith. Plaintiffs also seek an order of this Court setting an 1 informal discovery conference in 90 days pursuant to CCP section 2016.080 to address 12 any issues that remain relating to Mercury’s discovery responses and its production 13 obligations. 14 15 DISCOVERY: CRC 3.724(8) ISSUES 16 It is premature to address any issues relating to the storage and/or production of 17 electronic discovery. As noted, Plaintiffs have propounded class-related discovery, much 18 of which may be stored electronically. Mercury has yet to deliver a single document. As 19 noted, its responses are almost uniformly deficient. When production begins, Plaintiffs 20 will assess the e-discovery issues and inform the Court of any disputes at the proposed 21 informal discovery conference. 22 23 PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION: 24 Mercury has so far been resistant to producing a single document or interrogatory 25 response to move the class certification process forward. It plainly believes it is not --3-- Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement obligated to assist in that process. Plaintiffs therefore seek the Court’s oversight by way of the orders and informal discovery conference set forth above. Plaintiffs hope to be able to discuss a schedule for briefing and hearing on the certification issue in 120 days, but that will depend on Mercury’s compliance with its discovery obligations. SETTLEMENT/MEDIATION Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class, remain open to settlement discussions and/or mediation of all causes of action. Likely resolution of class claims will be difficult without pre-certification discovery in which Plaintiffs discover the extent of 10 the damages available to the class. 11 MOTIONS 12 Mercury’s motion for judgment on the pleading was denied. Plaintiffs believe the 13 next likely motion, barring the need for discovery practice, is a motion for certification. : 14 CMC DATE 15 Plaintiffs request an informal discovery: conference in 90 days, and a CMC in 120 16 days. 17 Dated: November 1, 2018 KERLEY SCHAFFER LLP 18 19 20 Lye ALi 21 BY: Dylan Schaffer 22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 23 25 --4-- Plaintiffs’ CMC Statement EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A IAN FRASER-THOMSON (BAR NO. 73526) STEPHEN L. DAHM (BAR NO. 114745) CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY 75 Southgate Avenue Daly City, CA 94015 Telephone: (650) 991-5126 Facsimile: (650) 991-5134 ift@cwmlaw.com rgebhardt@cwmlaw.com 6082-5M10 Attorneys for Defendant, MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 11 DONNA MARIE MESCHI, an individual, No. 16CIV02607 JUNIOR EDDY JOSEPH, an individual, 12 VINCENT ANDREW MESCHI, an DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY individual, and CAROLE GIANFERMO, COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO 13 guardian ad litem for DOMINIQUE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR CHESERE JOSEPH, an individual, on behalf 14 of themselves and a class of similarly situated PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET persons, TWO 1S 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., 19 20 Defendants. 21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: _ Plaintiffs DONNA MARIE MESCHI, et al. 22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY 23 SET NUMBER: TWO 24 Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY responds to the Request for 25 Production of Documents, Set Two, propounded by plaintiffs as follows: 26 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE 27 Defendant's investigation and informal discovery concerning the facts related to this 28 case are ongoing. Thus, any responses are correct and complete as of the date of this Response -1- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO to Request for Production of Documents. In addition, formal discovery is ongoing and incomplete in this action, and thus the responses only reflect discovery completed. All responses are made without prejudice to defendant's rights to produce evidence or further responses reflecting after-discovered material and evidence at the time of trial of this action. Defendant generally objects to the Request for Production of Documents as propounded as violative of C.C.P. §2031.010 et seq. Any and all responses provided hereafter are provided subject to and in light of this objection and without waiver of defendant's right to assert this objection at any subsequent proceeding involving this Request for Production of Documents or defendant's responses thereto. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: 12 Each DOCUMENT (including but not limited to any manual or training guide for use 13 of any computer system operated by YOU or any vendor) sufficient to describe the manner in 14 which YOU have stored CLAIMS DATA in electronic form from January 1, 2012 to the 15 present, 16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: 17 Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter 18 involved in the pending action. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope 19 of the court’s pre-certification discovery orders. This request also seeks documents that are 20 protected from discovery by responding party’s trade secrets privilege. 21 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 22 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate manuals for any and all computers on which 23 responding party stored CLAIMS DATA during the period from November 29, 2012 to 24 November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged documents 25 it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and protective order. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11: 27 CLAIMS DATA YOU possess, produced electronically in comma separated value 28 format, for CONTENTS CLAIMS open from November 29, 2012, to the present, under any 2- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO DWELLING POLICY, as to which YOU paid at least $1 on the CONTENTS CLAIM for the actual cash value of the CONTENTS CLAIM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11: Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s trade secrets privilege. This request is also vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope of the court’s pre- certification discovery orders. Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 10 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate CLAIMS DATA for CONTENTS CLAIMS 11 open at any time between November 29, 2012 and November 29, 2016. Responding party 12 will produce any relevant, non-privileged responsive documents it is reasonably able to 13 locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and protective order, 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12: 15 DOCUMENTS YOU possess, including but not limited to any training manual or 16 claims guidelines, pertaining to YOUR valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12: 18 Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter 19 involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s 20 trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope of the 21 court’s pre-certification discovery orders, 22 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 23 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate training manuals or claims guidelines 24 pertaining to valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS during the period from November 29, 2012 25 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged 26 responsive documents it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement 27 and protective order. 28 MW 3- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO REQUEST FOR PRODUCT: ION 13: DOCUMENTS YOU possess, including but not limited to any training manual or claims guidelines, pertaining to YOUR estimation of depreciation as applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS for the time period November 29, 2012 through the date of production. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13: Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery orders, 10 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 11 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate training manuals and claims guidelines 12 pertaining to estimations of depreciation it applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS during the 13 period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any 14 relevant, non-privileged responsive documents it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a 15 confidentiality agreement and protective order. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14: 17 Contracts between you and any vendor in effect between January 1, 2012, and the 18 present, relating to services by any vendor provided to YOU for valuation of contents or 19 personal property. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14: 21 Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter 22 involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s 23 trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope the 24 court’s pre-certification discovery orders. 25 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 26 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate contracts with vendors during the period from 27 November 9, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non- 28 privileged documents it is able to reasonably locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement -4- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO and protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: Contracts between you and any vendor in effect between January 1, 2012, and the present, relating to services by any vendor provided to YOU for estimation of depreciation as applies to contents or personal property. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: Objection, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and production of which would violate responding party’s trade secrets privilege. This request also seeks documents that are beyond the scope the 10 court’s pre-certification discovery orders. 11 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 12 and a reasonable inquiry in.an effort to locate contracts with vendors during the period from 13 November 9, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non- 14 privileged documents it is able to reasonably locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement 15 and protective order. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16: 17 DOCUMENTS YOU possess reflecting or pertaining to communications 18 between YOU and any employee or agent or vendor on the subject of valuation of 19 CONTENTS CLAIMS. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16: 21 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. _ This 22 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the 23 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery 24 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding 25 party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege. 26 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 27 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate documents reflecting or pertaining to 28 communications with any employee or vendor during the period from November 29, 2012 to 5. DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged responsive documents it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: All DOCUMENTS YOU possess reflecting or pertaining to communications between YOU and any employee or agent or vendor on the subject of estimation of depreciation as applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This 10 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the ll pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery 12 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding 13 party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege. 14 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 15 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate documents reflecting or pertaining to 16 communications with any employee or vendor on the subject of estimation of depreciation as 17 applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 18 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged responsive documents 19 it is reasonably able to locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and protective order. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18: 21 All DOCUMENTS relating to advertising, marketing or sales of any product 22 by any vendor to YOU, which product assists with the ‘valuation of CONTENTS 23 CLAIMS. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18: 25 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This 26 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the 27 pending action, and the subject of which is beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification 28 discovery orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by -6- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO responding party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege. Without waiving any of these objections, responding party received advertising, marketing and sales documents relating to valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016, but those documents are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and are protected by responding party’s and its vendors’ trade secrets privileges and rights to privacy. Also without waiving any of these objections, during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016 responding party received news, research, and educational information from Property & Liability Resources Bureau, 3025 Highland Parkway, Suite 10 800, Downers Grove, IL 60515, Telephone (630) 724-2000. To locate and produce 11 documents responsive to this request would require responding party to review all news, 12 coverage research and educational material provided by Property & Liability Resources 13 Bureau during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding 14 party estimates that this review would take at least 400 hours. These documents also are 15 protected by responding party’s and Property & Liability Resources Bureau’s trade secrets 16 privileges and rights to privacy. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 19: 18 All DOCUMENTS relating to the advertising, marketing or sales of any 19 product by any vendor to YOU, which product assists with the estimation of 20 depreciation as applied to CONTENTS CLAIMS. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 19: 22 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This 23 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the 24 pending action, and the subject of which is beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification 25 discovery orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by 26 responding party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege. 27 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party received advertising, 28 marketing and sales documents relating to estimation of depreciation as applied to -7- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO CONTENTS CLAIMS during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016, but those documents are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and are protected by responding party’s and its vendors’ trade secrets privilege and rights to privacy Also without waiving any of these objections, during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016 responding party received news, research, and educational information from Property & Liability Resources Bureau, 3025 Highland Parkway, Suite 800, Downers Grove, IL 60515, Telephone (630) 724-2000 To locate and produce documents responsive to this request would require responding party to review all news, 10 coverage research and educational material provided by Property & Liability Resources 11 Bureau during the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding 12 party estimates that this review would take at least 400 hours. These documents also are 13 protected by responding party’s and Property & Liability Resources Bureau’s trade secrets 14 privileges and rights to privacy. 1S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20 16 All DOCUMENTS relating to advertising, marketing or sales of any product 17 by ENSERVIO to YOU. 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20 19 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This 20 request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the 21 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery 22 orders, This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding 23 party’s right to privacy and trade secrets privilege. 24 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party received advertising, 25 marketing and sales documents from ENSERVIO during the period from November 29, 2012 26 to November 29, 2016, but those documents are not relevant to the subject matter involved in 27 the pending action, and are protected by responding party’s and ENSERVIO’s trade secrets 28 privileges and rights to privacy. -8- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FFOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21: All contracts or service agreements between YOU and ENSERVIO in effect at any time between January 1, 2012, and the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21: Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This request also seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding party’s trade secrets privilege. 10 Without waiving any of these objections, responding party will make a diligent search 11 and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate responsive documents for the period November 12 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016. Responding party will produce any relevant, non-privileged 13 documents it is able to reasonably locate, subject to a confidentiality agreement and 14 protective order. 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22: 16 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to 17 ENSERVIO from January 2010 to the present relating to valuation of CONTENTS 18 CLAIMS. ' 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22: 20 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also, 21 this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the 22 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery 23 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding 24 party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege. 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 23: 26 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to 27 ENSERVIO from January 2010 to the present relating to the estimation of 28 depreciation as applies to CONTENTS CLAIMS. -9- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 23: Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery orders, This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 24: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to all vendors from 2010 to the present relating to valuation of CONTENTS CLAIMS. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 24: 11 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also, 12 this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the 13 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery 14 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding 15 party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25: 17 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the amount of money YOU paid to all 18 vendors from January 2010 to the present relating to the estimation of depreciation as 19 applies to CONTENTS CLAIMS. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25: 21 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. Also, 22 this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in the 23 pending action, and which are beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery 24 orders. This request also seeks documents that are protected from discovery by responding 25 party’s right to privacy and by its trade secrets privilege. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 26: 27 DOCUMENTS demonstrating YOUR compliance as to each CONTENTS 28 CLAIM from January 1, 2012, to the present, with 10 CCR 2695.9(f) which provides -10- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO that all'for any adjustment relating to depreciation that “shall be contained in the claims file” and “shall be fully explained to the claimant in writing.” RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 26: Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This request also seeks documents beyond the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery orders. In order to respond to this request responding party would have to review papers files for each and every CONTENTS CLAIM for the relevant time period. Responding party estimates that this would take at least 500 hours. 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27: 11 DOCUMENTS demonstrating YOUR compliance with 10 CCR 2695.9(f) 12 which provides that all for any adjustment relating to depreciation that “shall be 13 contained in the claims file” and “shall be fully explained to the claimant in writing,” 14 including but not limited to any applicable training materials, guidelines, or manuals, 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27: 16 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. ‘Also, 17 this request seeks documents that are outside the scope of the court’s pre-certification 18 discovery orders. 19 In order to respond to this request responding party would have to review papers files 20 for each and every CONTENTS CLAIM for the relevant time period. Responding party 21 estimates that this would take at least 500 hours. 22 23 DATED: September 7, 2018 CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY 24 25 By IAN FRASER-THOMSON STEPHEN L. DAHM 26 Attorneys for Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY 27 28 -ll- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMP. *”ANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO = —— S| SS 6082-5M10-14 1 VERIFICATION 2 3 1, GEOFF DAUMEYER, declare: I am a Vendor Manager, Property Claims Administration, for Mercury Insurance Services, LLC, administrator for defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, which is the defendant in the above-entitled action, and I have been authorized to make this verification on its behalf. T have read the foregoing MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO attached 10 hereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to 11 those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I 12 believe them to be true, 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 14 foregoing is true and correct, 15 Executed at Rancho Cucamonga, California on September\®, 2018 16 17 18 19 By: 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION OF ART J. WILLS TO FOLLOW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~6082-5M 10-14 | VERIFICATION I, ART J. WILLS, declare: I am a Property Training & Audit Manager for Mercury Insurance Services, LLC, administrator for defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, which is the defendant in the above-entitled action, and I have been authorized to make this verification on its behalf. T have read the foregoing MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , SET TWO attached hereto and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to 10 those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I il believe them to be true. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct. 14 Executed at Rancho Cucamonga, California on September __, 2018 15 nen of - ~~ nnn ene ene: cere a 16 17 B ? OD YO ee 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam a resident of the State of California, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY, 75 Southgate Avenue, Daly City, California, 94015. On September 11, 2018, I served the within document: DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY -COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set O forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. by transmitting via E-Mail the document(s) listed above to the E-Mail(s) set forth O below on this date before 5:00 p.m. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid, in the United States mail Daly City, California addressed as follows. by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to 10 the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. 11 by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the 12 address(es) set forth below. 13 14 By electronic service via Lexis Nexis File & Serve. By sending electronically a true and correct copy thereof to Lexis Nexis File & Serve 15 O (www. lexisnexis.com/fileandserve) for service on all counsel of record by electronic service. 16 J, Edward Kerley 17 Dylan L. Schaffer Kerley Schaffer LLP 18 1939 Harrison Street, #500 Oakland, CA 94612 19 Telephone: (510) 379-5801 Facsimile: (510) 228-0350 20 edward@kslaw.us 21 Jam familiar with the firm's practice of processing mail. Under that practice it would 22 be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that day with postage thereon prepaid in the 23 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is 24 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date/postage meter date is more than one day after 25 date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 26 i 27 HW 28 PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on September 11, 2018, at Daly City, California. TUpITH SAMPSON 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B JAN FRASER-THOMSON (BAR NO, 73526) STEPHEN L. DAHM (BAR NO, 114745) CESARI, WERNER AND MORIARTY 75 Southgate Avenue Daly City, CA 94015 Telephone: (650) 991-5126 Facsimile: (650) 991-5134 ift@cwmlaw.com tgebhardt@cwmlaw.com 6082-5M10 Attorneys for Defendant, MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ll DONNA MARIE MESCHI, an individual, No. 16CTV02607 JUNIOR EDDY JOSEPH, an individual, 12 VINCENT ANDREW MESCHI, an DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY individual, and CAROLE GIANFERMO, COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO 13 guardian ad litem for DOMINIQUE PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL CHESERE JOSEPH, an individual, on behalf 14 of themselves and a class of similarly situated INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE persons, 1S 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., 19 20 Defendants. 21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs DONNA MARIE MESCHI, et al. 22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY 23 SET NUMBER: ONE 24 Defendant MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY answers, objects, and responds to 25 the special interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs as follows: 26 PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS 27 These responses are made solely for the purposes of this action, Each answer is 28 subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility -1- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE and any and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of any statement herein if the interrogatories were asked of or any statements contained herein were made by a witness present and testifying in Court, all of which objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at the time of the trial. Defendant has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case and has not completed its preparation for trial. The following responses are based upon information presently available to defendant and are made without prejudice to defendant’s right to utilize subsequently discovered facts. These Preliminary Statements are incorporated into each of the responses set forth 10 below. 11 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES: 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1: 13 If YOU are asserting advice of counsel as a defense to any allegation of bad faith by 14 Plaintiffs, state the specific opinion and advice, along with the date and attorney who provided 15 the advice YOU relied on. 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1: 17 Objection, this interrogatory seeks information protected from discovery as attorney 18 work product. This interrogatory also seeks information outside the scope of the court’s orders 19 re: pre-certification discovery. This interrogatory is also compound under Code of Civil 20 Procedure Section 2030.060(f) in that it contains subparts or a compound, conjunctive or 21 disjunctive question. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2: 23 State the number of CONTENT CLAIMS open from November 29, 2012, to the 24 present, under any DWELLING POLICY, as to which YOU paid at least $1 on the 25 CONTENTS CLAIM for the actual cash value of the CONTENTS CLAIM. 26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2: 27 Objection, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter 28 involved in the pending action, and is outside the scope of permissible discovery under the terms -2- DEFENDANT MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE of the court’s orders for pre-certification discovery. Without waiving either of these objections, responding party will make a good faith effort to answer this interrogatory regarding CONTENT CLAIMS that were open during the period from November 29, 2012 to and including November 29, 2016. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3: State the number of CONTENT CLAIMS open from November 29, 2012, to the present, under any DWELLING POLICY, as to which YOU paid at least $1 on the CONTENTS CLAIM for the actual cash value, and YOU paid any additional money for replacement costs, 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3: 11 Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous and burdensome and oppressive. This 12 interrogatory also seeks information outside the scope of the court’s pre-certification discovery 13 orders, The burden that would be imposed on responding party by having to answer this 14 interrogatory would be to review each paper file for every CONTENT CLAIM that was open 15 during the relevant time period. For the period from November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2016 16 responding party estimates that this review would take at least 500 hours. 17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4: 18 Identify and describe the electronic or computer system on which YOU record and store 19 CLAIMS DATA. 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4: 21 Objection, vague and ambiguous. This interrogatory also seeks information that is 22 beyond the scope of the court’s orders regarding pre-certification discovery. This interrogatory 23 also seeks information protected as trade secrets under Evidence Code Section 1060 and other 24 applicable law. Without waiving any of these objections, during the period from November 29, 25 2012 to November 29, 2016 responding party recorded and stored dates of loss, perils or types 26 of coverag