Preview
JEANNE E. SCHERER, Chief Counsel
LAUREN A. MACHADO, Deputy Chief Counsel ‘eta no te
GINA CARDOZA, Assistant Chief Counsel ING MAR 21 Ail (0: 07
PAUL R. BROWN, Bar No. 154773
JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ, Bar No. 285274
1120 N Street (MS 57)
Sacramento, CA 95812-1438
Telephone: (916) 654-2630
Facsimile: (916) 654-6128
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant,
California Department of Transportation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
JOSE ROBERTO BOLANOS, et al., Case No. STK CV- ‘UNPI- ‘2017+ 0009320 -
Plaintiffs, NO
DELACRUZ IN. SUPPORT OF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION’S REPLY RE: 1)"
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
VS.
FRANCISCO BARRERA, et al., —
Defendants. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION, SET TWO; 2) MOTION TO
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
TRANSPORTATION, FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 3;
AND 3) MOTION TO COMPEL ,
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3 TO
PLAINTIFFS
Cross-Complainant
vs.
JOSE ROBERTO BOLANOS, successor in
interest to THE ESTATE OF ROBERTO
ESPINO BOLANOS, deceased, ROES 1-50
inclusive.
Date: March 28, 2019
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: 10A
Judge: Honorable Stephen W. Scott
Cross-Defendants.
Original Action Filed: March 2, 2017
NN ee ee eee
I, Justin C. Delacruz, declare as follows, and if called to testify in the above entitled action, T
can and will testify as follows:
Mf
1
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN-C. Soapb ww
om ITH W
10
uM
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1, I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this
Court. I am an attorney for Defendant State of California, Department of Transportation in the
above-entitled matter.
2. On March 14, 2019, I sent Ms. Romero a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiffs’
motion for protective order, identifying the reasons why we believed it lacked merit. Attached
hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my March 14, 2019 letter.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Signed, this 20th day of March 2019, at Sacramento, California
(/ JUSTIN ee ~
2
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONSEXHIBIT A
rib
Hn
me i \ iSTATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE PORTATION' AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .
LEGAL DIVISION — MS 57
1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
P.O. BOX 1438, SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-1438
Making Conservati
PHONE (916) 654-2630 ;
FAX (916) 654-6128 a California Way of Life.
TTY 711
March 14, 2019 VIA Express Mail and Email
Sandra R. Romero
Ruvalcaba Romero
1082 East Meta Street
Ventura, California 93001
sromero@romerolaw.us
Re: Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al, v. Francisco Barrera, et al., q
San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2017-0009320 —
Dear Ms. Romero:
This letter responds to yours dated March 12, 2019. Please consider this our attempt
to meet and confer on your potential motion for protective order. From our perspective, the
motion is untimely, the right to seek relief has on this motion has been waived, and there is
no good cause for a protective order. As a result, we do not believe the motion has merit
and will not withdraw any requests in our Requests for Admission, Set Two to your clients.
The Motion Is Untimely.
“The motion [for protective order] must be made “promptly” (CCP § 2033.080(a)), and
before expiration of the 30-day period within which to respond.” (Weil & Brown, Cal.
Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) 4 8:1304.1.) Based
on the timeline below, we think it would be difficult for you to show that you were timely on
this request. If you have legal authority supporting the assertion that your motion for
protective order is timely, please share it in response to this letter.
© December 5, 2019: The requests for admission at issue were served by overnight
mail.
« January 8, 2019: Original due date for responses.
© February 5, 2019: Responses to requests for admission uploaded to Dropbox.
e February 6, 2019: Responses due per 30-day extension.
« February 15, 2019; Responses served by mail,
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and officiont transportation system
10 enhauce California's economy and livability”Ms. Romero ~
Match 14, 2019
Page 2
. February 19, 2019: Caltrans serves ex parte application for an order shortening time
to compel discovery responses.
© February 20, 2019: Plaintiffs’ opposition to Caltrans’ ex parte application for an
order shortening time to compel discovery responses, where a protective order is
-mentioned for the first time.
© February 21, 2019: Hearing Caltrans’ ex parte application for an order shortening ”
time to compel discovery responses.
e February 27, 2019: Caltrans files motion to compel ‘further responses to requests for
admission.
© March 12,2019: Plaintiffs’ first attempt to meet and confer regarding protective
order.
- The Right to Seck a Protective Order Is Waived, Rendering Such an Order Moot.
We also believe that the requested protective order will be denied because this route of relief
was waived. Rather than move a protective order before responding, Plaintiffs responded to
the requests. Your proposed protective order would excuse Plaintiffs from responding to
requests they have already responded. Such an order would be moot. Having already
responded, it would seem to us that, by their actions, Plaintiffs waived the right to request a
protective order. If you have legal authority supporting the assertion that Plaintiffs did not
waive their right to request a-protective order, please share it in response to this letter.
. There Is No Good Cause fora Protective Order.
_ Furthermore, we believe there is no good cause for the issuance of a protective order
excusing Plaintiffs from their duty to answer the requests at issue. First, as noted above, an‘
order excusing Plaintiffs from answering a Set of requests that they already answered would ~
be moot. ‘Second, although the requests are similar, though not identical, to those previously
propounded, there was good reason for doing so. As explained in our moving papers in
support of our motion to compel, Plaintiffs’ responses to Requests for Admission, Set One
were that, among other things, they lacked knowledge to answer.the requests. In opposition
to our motion for summary judgment, you filed a document purporting to be a summary of.
these very same traffic collision reports. There being no mechanism requiring Plaintiffs to
supplement their responses to requests for admission and seeing that you could identify,
among other things, the time, the date, and the type of accident by reviewing the traffic
collision reports, we concluded that, after filing the opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiffs had reasonably available knowledge to answer requests for admission
’. asking about information on a traffic collision report. We do not see how these requests
create unwarranted annoyance, oppression, or undue burden on Plaintiffs.
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficlent transportation system
10 enhance California's economy and livability”Ms. Romero
March 14, 2019
Page 3
As to our requests regarding the authenticity of the traffic collision reports, you state that
“the CHP is probably the only agency that could authenticate such reports.” However, you
filed, as Exhibit 28, many redacted traffic collision reports, including some which were
subject to the requests for admission at issue here, in support of your opposition to our
motion for summary judgment. Indeed, on October 29, 2018, you declared under penalty of
perjury that these were “a true and correct copy of California. Highway Patrol Traffic
Collision Reports.” (Attachment |.) We have trouble seeing how on October 29, 2018 you
can assert that the traffic collision reports are true and cofrect copies but on February 6,
2019 you cannot do the same. ,
In conclusion, we will not be withdrawing any of the requests for admission for the
. - following reasons:
— -- 1. Your potential motion for protective order is untimely. The requests were served on
December 8, 2018. You waited 97 days after the discovery was served to meet and
confer on these requests.
2. Plaintiffs’ right to seek a protective order is waived. They responded to these
requests and thus chose to object rather than ask the court to limit the number of
requests that they had to answer.
3. Even if the motion is timely and not waived, there is no good cause to excuse
Plaintiffs from answering requests they already answered. Furthermore, the requests
do not create unwarranted annoyance, oppression or undue burden on Plaintiffs
because they performed the same analysis (i.e., reviewing the traffic collision reports
and extracting information from them) in support of their opposition to Caltrans’
motion for summary judgment.
You state that if we do not withdraw our requests for admission you will move for a
protective order and seek appropriate sanctions. If such a motion is brought, we will be
forced to seek appropriate sanctions for having to respond to a discovery motion brought
without substantial justification. -
Sincerely,
STIN C. DELAC!
eputy Attomey
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and officient transportation system
to enhance California's economy and livabiligr”Ms. Romero
March 14, 2019
Page 4
Ce:
SOMERA FREEMAN & CERVANTES
A Professional Corporation
Gilbert D. Somera. Esq.
Trina C. Cervantes, Esq.
2087 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 8
Stockton, CA 95207
trina@sfclawgroup.com
Enclosure
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
445 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2325
Los Angeles, CA 90071
jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system
to enhance California’s economy and livability”Oo Om NIN DA A BR WN
NR YF ee eB eB eB eB Be eB
BNHRRRRBBHFS SERS WITTE BHE AS
Jose Roberto Bolanos, et __», Francisco Barrera, et al.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Case no: STK-CV-UNPI-2017-0009320
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, say: I am, and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United
States and employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California, over the age of 18 years and nota
party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 1120 N Street, Sacramento,
California; that on the date below J enclosed a true copy of the attached:
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S REPLY RE: 1) MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO; 2) MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 3; AND 3)
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3
TO PLAINTIFFS
in a separate envelope for each of the persons named below, addressed as set forth immediately below
the respective names, as follows:
Sandra R. Romero, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs,
RUVALCABA ROMERO LAWYERS Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al.
1082 East Meta Street -
Ventura CA 93001
T: 805-233-3273 F; 805-275-1061 : : ie
Plaintiff Associate Counsel - Attorney for Plaintiffs, '
SOMERA FREEMAN & CERVANTES Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al.
A Professional Corporation
Gilbert D. Somera. Esq.
Trina C. Cervantes, Esq.
2087 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 8
Stockton, CA 95207
Tel: 209-465-6633Fax: 209-465-6635
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Graham G. Lambert, Esq. Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al.
HAFFNER LAW PC
445 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2625
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: 213-514-5681 Fax: 213-514-5682
&] By Overnight Courier Service: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered via overnight courier
service to the addressee(s) designated.
Xl By Electronic Service: I caused the documents to be sent to the person at the electronic service
addresses listed on the following page.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California, on March 20, 2019.
ry Ortiz
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
JEANNE E. SCHERER, Chief Counsel LAUREN A. MACHADO, Deputy Chief Counsel ‘eta no te GINA CARDOZA, Assistant Chief Counsel ING MAR 21 Ail (0: 07 PAUL R. BROWN, Bar No. 154773 JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ, Bar No. 285274 1120 N Street (MS 57) Sacramento, CA 95812-1438 Telephone: (916) 654-2630 Facsimile: (916) 654-6128 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, California Department of Transportation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN JOSE ROBERTO BOLANOS, et al., Case No. STK CV- ‘UNPI- ‘2017+ 0009320 - Plaintiffs, NO DELACRUZ IN. SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S REPLY RE: 1)" MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER VS. FRANCISCO BARRERA, et al., — Defendants. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO; 2) MOTION TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO TRANSPORTATION, FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 3; AND 3) MOTION TO COMPEL , FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3 TO PLAINTIFFS Cross-Complainant vs. JOSE ROBERTO BOLANOS, successor in interest to THE ESTATE OF ROBERTO ESPINO BOLANOS, deceased, ROES 1-50 inclusive. Date: March 28, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 10A Judge: Honorable Stephen W. Scott Cross-Defendants. Original Action Filed: March 2, 2017 NN ee ee eee I, Justin C. Delacruz, declare as follows, and if called to testify in the above entitled action, T can and will testify as follows: Mf 1 DECLARATION OF JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONS DECLARATION OF JUSTIN-C. Soapb ww om ITH W 10 uM 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1, I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this Court. I am an attorney for Defendant State of California, Department of Transportation in the above-entitled matter. 2. On March 14, 2019, I sent Ms. Romero a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order, identifying the reasons why we believed it lacked merit. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my March 14, 2019 letter. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed, this 20th day of March 2019, at Sacramento, California (/ JUSTIN ee ~ 2 DECLARATION OF JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ IN SUPPORT OF REPLY RE: DISCOVERY MOTIONSEXHIBIT A rib Hn me i \ iSTATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE PORTATION' AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . LEGAL DIVISION — MS 57 1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 P.O. BOX 1438, SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-1438 Making Conservati PHONE (916) 654-2630 ; FAX (916) 654-6128 a California Way of Life. TTY 711 March 14, 2019 VIA Express Mail and Email Sandra R. Romero Ruvalcaba Romero 1082 East Meta Street Ventura, California 93001 sromero@romerolaw.us Re: Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al, v. Francisco Barrera, et al., q San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2017-0009320 — Dear Ms. Romero: This letter responds to yours dated March 12, 2019. Please consider this our attempt to meet and confer on your potential motion for protective order. From our perspective, the motion is untimely, the right to seek relief has on this motion has been waived, and there is no good cause for a protective order. As a result, we do not believe the motion has merit and will not withdraw any requests in our Requests for Admission, Set Two to your clients. The Motion Is Untimely. “The motion [for protective order] must be made “promptly” (CCP § 2033.080(a)), and before expiration of the 30-day period within which to respond.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) 4 8:1304.1.) Based on the timeline below, we think it would be difficult for you to show that you were timely on this request. If you have legal authority supporting the assertion that your motion for protective order is timely, please share it in response to this letter. © December 5, 2019: The requests for admission at issue were served by overnight mail. « January 8, 2019: Original due date for responses. © February 5, 2019: Responses to requests for admission uploaded to Dropbox. e February 6, 2019: Responses due per 30-day extension. « February 15, 2019; Responses served by mail, “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and officiont transportation system 10 enhauce California's economy and livability”Ms. Romero ~ Match 14, 2019 Page 2 . February 19, 2019: Caltrans serves ex parte application for an order shortening time to compel discovery responses. © February 20, 2019: Plaintiffs’ opposition to Caltrans’ ex parte application for an order shortening time to compel discovery responses, where a protective order is -mentioned for the first time. © February 21, 2019: Hearing Caltrans’ ex parte application for an order shortening ” time to compel discovery responses. e February 27, 2019: Caltrans files motion to compel ‘further responses to requests for admission. © March 12,2019: Plaintiffs’ first attempt to meet and confer regarding protective order. - The Right to Seck a Protective Order Is Waived, Rendering Such an Order Moot. We also believe that the requested protective order will be denied because this route of relief was waived. Rather than move a protective order before responding, Plaintiffs responded to the requests. Your proposed protective order would excuse Plaintiffs from responding to requests they have already responded. Such an order would be moot. Having already responded, it would seem to us that, by their actions, Plaintiffs waived the right to request a protective order. If you have legal authority supporting the assertion that Plaintiffs did not waive their right to request a-protective order, please share it in response to this letter. . There Is No Good Cause fora Protective Order. _ Furthermore, we believe there is no good cause for the issuance of a protective order excusing Plaintiffs from their duty to answer the requests at issue. First, as noted above, an‘ order excusing Plaintiffs from answering a Set of requests that they already answered would ~ be moot. ‘Second, although the requests are similar, though not identical, to those previously propounded, there was good reason for doing so. As explained in our moving papers in support of our motion to compel, Plaintiffs’ responses to Requests for Admission, Set One were that, among other things, they lacked knowledge to answer.the requests. In opposition to our motion for summary judgment, you filed a document purporting to be a summary of. these very same traffic collision reports. There being no mechanism requiring Plaintiffs to supplement their responses to requests for admission and seeing that you could identify, among other things, the time, the date, and the type of accident by reviewing the traffic collision reports, we concluded that, after filing the opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs had reasonably available knowledge to answer requests for admission ’. asking about information on a traffic collision report. We do not see how these requests create unwarranted annoyance, oppression, or undue burden on Plaintiffs. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficlent transportation system 10 enhance California's economy and livability”Ms. Romero March 14, 2019 Page 3 As to our requests regarding the authenticity of the traffic collision reports, you state that “the CHP is probably the only agency that could authenticate such reports.” However, you filed, as Exhibit 28, many redacted traffic collision reports, including some which were subject to the requests for admission at issue here, in support of your opposition to our motion for summary judgment. Indeed, on October 29, 2018, you declared under penalty of perjury that these were “a true and correct copy of California. Highway Patrol Traffic Collision Reports.” (Attachment |.) We have trouble seeing how on October 29, 2018 you can assert that the traffic collision reports are true and cofrect copies but on February 6, 2019 you cannot do the same. , In conclusion, we will not be withdrawing any of the requests for admission for the . - following reasons: — -- 1. Your potential motion for protective order is untimely. The requests were served on December 8, 2018. You waited 97 days after the discovery was served to meet and confer on these requests. 2. Plaintiffs’ right to seek a protective order is waived. They responded to these requests and thus chose to object rather than ask the court to limit the number of requests that they had to answer. 3. Even if the motion is timely and not waived, there is no good cause to excuse Plaintiffs from answering requests they already answered. Furthermore, the requests do not create unwarranted annoyance, oppression or undue burden on Plaintiffs because they performed the same analysis (i.e., reviewing the traffic collision reports and extracting information from them) in support of their opposition to Caltrans’ motion for summary judgment. You state that if we do not withdraw our requests for admission you will move for a protective order and seek appropriate sanctions. If such a motion is brought, we will be forced to seek appropriate sanctions for having to respond to a discovery motion brought without substantial justification. - Sincerely, STIN C. DELAC! eputy Attomey “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and officient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livabiligr”Ms. Romero March 14, 2019 Page 4 Ce: SOMERA FREEMAN & CERVANTES A Professional Corporation Gilbert D. Somera. Esq. Trina C. Cervantes, Esq. 2087 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 8 Stockton, CA 95207 trina@sfclawgroup.com Enclosure Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Graham G. Lambert, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2325 Los Angeles, CA 90071 jhh@haffnerlawyers.com “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”Oo Om NIN DA A BR WN NR YF ee eB eB eB eB Be eB BNHRRRRBBHFS SERS WITTE BHE AS Jose Roberto Bolanos, et __», Francisco Barrera, et al. San Joaquin County Superior Court Case no: STK-CV-UNPI-2017-0009320 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, say: I am, and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California, over the age of 18 years and nota party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 1120 N Street, Sacramento, California; that on the date below J enclosed a true copy of the attached: DECLARATION OF JUSTIN C. DELACRUZ IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S REPLY RE: 1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO; 2) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET 3; AND 3) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET 3 TO PLAINTIFFS in a separate envelope for each of the persons named below, addressed as set forth immediately below the respective names, as follows: Sandra R. Romero, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs, RUVALCABA ROMERO LAWYERS Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al. 1082 East Meta Street - Ventura CA 93001 T: 805-233-3273 F; 805-275-1061 : : ie Plaintiff Associate Counsel - Attorney for Plaintiffs, ' SOMERA FREEMAN & CERVANTES Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al. A Professional Corporation Gilbert D. Somera. Esq. Trina C. Cervantes, Esq. 2087 Grand Canal Blvd., Ste. 8 Stockton, CA 95207 Tel: 209-465-6633Fax: 209-465-6635 Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs, Graham G. Lambert, Esq. Jose Roberto Bolanos, et al. HAFFNER LAW PC 445 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2625 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213-514-5681 Fax: 213-514-5682 &] By Overnight Courier Service: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered via overnight courier service to the addressee(s) designated. Xl By Electronic Service: I caused the documents to be sent to the person at the electronic service addresses listed on the following page. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California, on March 20, 2019. ry Ortiz 1 PROOF OF SERVICE