INTERROGATORIES,SETONE Defendants ...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Leonard T. Fink, Esq., SBN 171735Kathryn L. Kim, Esq., SBN 238658Benjamin J. Angulo, Esq., SBN 2901 12SPRINGEL & FINK LLP18100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 750Irvine, CA 92612

Telephone: (714) 957-5742 / (714) 957-5762

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant, COURTNEY, INC. erroneously sued and served asCOURTNEY WATERPROOFING, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC,; ) Case No.: 1 13CV258281) [Assigned to: Hon. Peter H Kinvan

Plaintiff, ^ Dept. 1

vs. )) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKERWESTERN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION, et ) APARTMENTS, LLC'S SPECIAL

ah, ) INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Defendants. ^ ) Complaint Filed: December 26, 201 3

) Trial Date: June 13, 2016AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS )

))

PROPOUNDING PARTY: CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: COURTNEY, INC

SET NO.: ONE

Defendant/Cross-Defendant, COURTNEY, INC. (hereinafter "Courtney") hereby provides

responses to Plaintiff, CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S Special Interrogatories - Set One as follows.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject to all

appropriate objections which would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the

- 1

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLCS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Interrogatories were asked of a witness present and testifying in court. All objections and grounds are

reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.

This responding party has not yet completed its investigation of the facts relating to this action,

its discovery in this action, or its preparation for trial of this action. Consequently, these responses are

given without prejudice to the right of any responding party to produce at the time of trial, and all

subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proof of the presently known material facts, and to

produce all evidence, whether discovered, relating to the proof of subsequently discovered material

facts.

Except for the explicit facts admitted herein, no admissions of any nature whatsoever are implied

or should be inferred. The fact that any Interrogatory herein has been responded to should not be taken

as an admission or acceptance of the existence of any fact or facts as set forth or assumed by such

Interrogatory, or that such answer constitutes admissible evidence.

It is assumed by this responding party that the party propounding the Interrogatories and all

parties to this lawsuit possess and are familiar with the entire product of discovery proceedings in this

action. Therefore, when an Interrogatory calls for information which is contained in the discovery

materials available to all parties, said Interrogatory will be responded to only by reference to those

discovery materials.

This preliminary statement is, by this reference, incorporated into each and every answer to these

Interrogatories.

RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. X:

Please IDENTIFY the name, address, phone number, and job title of each person who

participated in the preparation of YOUR responses to these Interrogatories.

ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. I:

Leonard T. Fink and Benjamin J. Angulo of Springel & Fink LLP, counsel for Courtney. 575

Market Street, Suite 2200, San Francisco, California 94105. (415) 541-5363.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Please describe the work or services YOU performed on the PROJECT.


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 2:

Objection, SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2 seeks information that was already answered

per Case Management Order No.l. Thus, Plaintiff already has access to this information. Assuming

arguendo Plaintiff believes Courtney's previously provided information concerning its scope of work at

One Pearl Place located at 5210 Temer Way, San Jose, CA was inadequate, Plaintiff cannot use this

interrogatory as another attempt to seek information that was already sought under the Case

Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt., 207 Cal. App.

3d 490 (1989).


Please describe the materials YOU provided or supplied for work on the PROJECT.

ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3 seeks information that was already answered



One Pearl Place located at 5210 Terner Way, San Jose, CA was inadequate. Plaintiff cannot use this



3d 490(1989).


Please IDENTIFY the name, address, phone number and job title of all persons who performed

YOUR work on the PROJECT.








-3

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3d 490 (1989).


Please IDENTIFY all contracts YOU entered into with respect to the PROJECT.



per Case Management Order No.l. Thus, Plaintiff already has access to this information per the Case

Management Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming


One Pearl Place located at 5210 Temer Way, San Jose, CA was inadequate. Plaintiff cannot use this


Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt. , 207 Cal. App.

3d 490 (1989).


Please IDENTIFY each person negotiated the terms and conditions of the contracts identified in

YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 5.






One Pearl Place located at 5210 Terner Way, San Jose, CA was inadequate, Plaintiff cannot use this



3d 490 (1989).


Please IDENTIFY all written change orders with respect to YOUR scope of work on the

PROJECT.

///

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Objection, SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7 seeks information that was already answered

per Case Management Order No. I. Thus, Plaintiff already has access to this information per the Case





Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Cri., 207 Cal. App.

3d 490 (1989). Without waiving the above objections and subject to them, Courtney responds as

follows: See Change Order No. 4 dated on February 24, 2003 (See CWI0033).


Please IDENTIFY each person negotiated the terms and conditions of the change orders

identified in YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 7.



per Case Management Order No.I. Thus, Plaintiff already has access to this information per the Case





Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt 207 Cal. App.


follows: See Western National Construction's letter dated on February 13, 2003 (See WNC072616) and

Change Order No. 4 dated on February 24, 2003 (See CWI0033).


Do YOU contend that YOU performed YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with

YOUR contract?

///

-5

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLCYS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9;








3d 490 (1989). Further, this interrogatory impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving

the above objections and subject to them, Courtney responds as follows: See Western National

Construction's letter dated on February 13, 2003 (See WNC072616) and Change Order No. 4 dated on

February 24, 2003 (See CWI0033).


Please state all facts which support YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 9.








Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt. , 207 Cal. App.





Do YOU contend that YOU performed YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with the

plans and specifications?

-6RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF C1LKER APARTMENTS, LLC.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 1 seeks information that was already answered






Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt, 207 Cal. App.

3d 490 (1989). This interrogatory also impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving the

above objections and subject to them, Courtney responds as follows: See Western National

Construction's letter dated on February 13, 2003 (See WNC072616) and Change Order No. 4 dated on

February 24, 2003 (See CWI0033).


Please state all facts which support YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 1 .










follows: See Western National Construction's letter dated on February 13, 2003 (See WNC07261 6) and



Do YOU contend that YOU performed YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with all

relevant industry standards?

-7RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28








Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Ol, 207 Cal. App.

3d 490 (1989). This interrogatory also impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion. It also impermissibly

calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving the above objections and subject to them, Courtney

responds as follows: See Western National Construction's letter dated on February 13, 2003 (See

WNC072616) and Change Order No. 4 dated on February 24, 2003 (See CWI0033).










Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt, 207 CaL App.






relevant manufacturer recommendations?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




























relevant ordinances, codes or statutes?

-9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28








Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Of., 207 Cal. App.








Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 8 seeks information that was already answered


Management Order and can access ail contracts at Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming









Does YOUR contract for work on the PROJECT require YOU to indemnify any party for

damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?

- 10RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 9 impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion. It

also seeks information that was already provided per Case Management Order No.l . Thus, Plaintiff has

access to this information per the Case Management Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's

online depository. Assuming arguendo Plaintiff believes Courtney's previously provided information

concerning its scope of work at One Pearl Place located at 5210 Temer Way, San Jose, CA was

inadequate. Plaintiff cannot use this interrogatory as another attempt to seek information that was

already sought under the Case Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career

Colleges v. Sup. Crt.t 207 Cal. App. 3d 490 (1989).


If YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 9 is "yes" please state who are YOU required to

indemnify for damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?


Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20 impermissibly calls for a legal conclusion. It

also seeks information that was already provided per Case Management Order No.l. Thus, Plaintiff has

access to this information per the Case Management Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's

online depository. Assuming arguendo Plaintiff believes Courtney's previously provided information

concerning its scope of work at One Pearl Place located at 5210 Temer Way, San Jose, CA was

inadequate, Plaintiff cannot use this interrogatory as another attempt to seek information that was


Colleges v. Sup. Crt., 207 Cal. App. 3d 490 (1989).


Does YOUR contract for work on the PROJECT require YOU to defend any party for damages

and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?


Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21 is vague and ambiguous in its entirety.

Further, it assumes facts not in evidence by stating Courtney was required to defend any party for

damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT. Tins interrogatory seeks information that was already

- II


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

answered per Case Management Order No. 1 . Plaintiff already has access to this information per the

Case Management Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming






above objections and subject to diem, Courtney responds as follows: Assuming arguendo Plaintiff

believes Courtney is required to defend Plaintiff from damages and/or losses, Plaintiff has not produced

evidence showing that it needs defense from a third party against damages and/or losses relating to the

PROJECT as it relates to Courtney's scope of work if Courtney indeed had the obligation to do so.


IfYOUR response to Special Interrogatory No, 21 is "yes" please state who are YOU required to

defend for damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?



Further it assumes facts not in evidence by stating Courtney was required to defend any party for

damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT. This interrogatory seeks information that was already

answered per Case Management Order No.l. Plaintiff already has access to this information per the

Case Management Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming






above objections and subject to them, Courtney responds as follows: Assuming arguendo Plaintiff



12RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Do YOU contend that YOU are not required to indemnify propounding party for damages and/or

losses relating to the PROJECT?


Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23 seeks information that impermissibly calls

for a legal conclusion. It is also vague and ambiguous in its entirety. This interrogatory seeks

information that was already answered per Case Management Order No.l. Plaintiff already has access

to this information per the Case Management Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's online

depository- Assuming arguendo Plaintiff believes Courtney's previously provided information

concerning its scope of work at One Pearl Place located at 5210 Terner Way, San Jose, CA was

inadequate, Plaintiff cannot use this interrogatory as another attempt to seek information that was


Colleges v. Sup. Crt., 207 Cal. App. 3d 490 (1989).




Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24 is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. This

interrogatory seeks information that was already answered per Case Management Order No.l. Plaintiff

already has access to this information per the Case Management Order and can access all contracts at

Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming arguendo Plaintiff believes Courtney's previously

provided information concerning its scope of work at One Pearl Place located at 5210 Temer Way, San

Jose, CA was inadequate. Plaintiff cannot use this interrogatory as another attempt to seek infonnation

that was already sought under the Case Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional

Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt., 207 Cal. App. 3d 490 (1989).


Do YOU contend that YOU are not required to defend propounding party for damages and/or

losses relating to the PROJECT?

- 13RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLCS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Further it assumes facts not in evidence by inferring Courtney was required to defend any party for

damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT. This interrogatory seeks information that was already

answered per Case Management Order No.l. Plaintiff already has access to this information per the

Case Management Order and can access ail contracts at Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming


One Pearl Place located at 5210 Terner Way. San Jose, CA was inadequate. Plaintiff cannot use this


Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Of., 207 Cal. App.


above objections and subject to them, Courtney responds as follows: Assuming arguendo Plaintiff







Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26 is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. This

interrogatory seeks information that was already answered per Case Management Order No.l. Plaintiff

already has access to this information per the Case Management Order and can access all contracts at

Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming arguendo Plaintiff believes Courtney's previously

provided information concerning its scope of work at One Pearl Place located at 5210 Terner Way, San

Jose, CA was inadequate, Plaintiff cannot use this interrogatory as another attempt to seek information

that was already sought under the Case Management Order No. 1 interrogatories per Professional

Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt., 207 Cal. App. 3d 490 (1989). Without waiving the above objections and

subject to them, Courtney responds as follows: Assuming arguendo Plaintiff believes Courtney is

required to defend Plaintiff from damages and/or losses, Plaintiff has not produced evidence showing

- 14

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF C1LKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that it needs defense from a third party against damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT as it

relates to Courtney's scope of work if Courtney indeed had the obligation to do so.


Who do YOU contend, if anyone, is required to indemnify YOU for damages and/or losses

relating to the PROJECT?



for a legal conclusion. It is also vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Without waiving the above

objections and subject to them, Courtney responds as follows: Informed and believes no.




N/A


Who do YOU contend, if anyone, is required to defend YOU for damages and/or losses relating

to the PROJECT?



for a legal conclusion. It is also vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Without waiving the above

objections and subject to them, Courtney responds as follows: Informed and believes not applicable.




N/A


Who, if anyone, are YOU required to name as an additional named insured on YOUR liability

insurance policy?

///

- 15-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Upon information and belief: Plaintiff and Western National Construction. Courtney reserves its

right to amend and/or supplement this response as additional information is discovered.


Who do YOU contend, if anyone, is required to name YOU as an additional named insured on its

liability insurance policy?


Objection. This interrogatory seeks information that was already answered per Case

Management Order No. 1 . Plaintiff already has access to this information per the Case Management

Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming arguendo Plaintiff

believes Courtney's previously provided information concerning its scope of work at One Pearl Place

located at 5210 Temer Way, San Jose, CA was inadequate, Plaintiff cannot use this interrogatory as

another attempt to seek information that was already sought under the Case Management Order No. 1

interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup, Crt, , 207 Cal. App. 3d 490 (1 989).




Objection. This interrogatory seeks information that was already answered per Case

Management Order No. 1 . Plaintiff already has access to this infonnation per the Case Management

Order and can access all contracts at Aiken Welch's online depository. Assuming arguendo Plaintiff

believes Courtney's previously provided information concerning its scope of work at One Pearl Place

located at 5210 Temer Way, San Jose, CA was inadequate, Plaintiff cannot use this interrogatory as

another attempt to seek infonnation that was already sought under the Case Management Order No. 1

interrogatories per Professional Career Colleges v. Sup. Crt,, 207 Cal. App. 3d 490 (1989).


Do YOU contend that YOU did not cause or contribute to any of the damages claimed by

propounding party in this case?

Hi

- 16


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Objection. This intenogatory is an impermissible compound or conjunctive. Without waiving the

above objection and subject to it, Courtney responds as follows: Informed and believes Plaintiff has not

produced evidence indicating Courtney caused or contributed to any damages claimed by propounding

party in this case.




Informed and believes Plaintiff has not produced evidence indicating Courtney caused or

contributed to any damages claimed by propounding party in this case.


Do YOU contend that any of propounding party's alleged damages are unreasonable?


Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36 violates California Code ofCivil Procedure,

§2030.030(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further, Plaintiffs

declaration does not satisfy Code Civ. Proc., §2030.2050 or has shown that more than 35 specially

prepared interrogatories are warranted per Code Civ. Proc., §2030. 2040(a). Thus, Courtney is not

providing a response to this interrogatory per Code Civ. Proc., §2030.030(c).





§2030. 030(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further, Plaintiffs


prepared interrogatories are warranted per Code Civ. Proc., §2030.2040(a). Thus, Courtney is not

providing a response to this interrogatory per Code Civ. Proc., §2030. 030(c).


Do YOU contend that any of propounding party's alleged damages are not related to YOUR

- 17


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

scope of work?








Please state all facts which support YOUR response to Special interrogatory No. 38.








Do YOU contend that any of propounding party's proposed repairs are unreasonable?












- 18

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF C1LKER APARTMENTS, LLC.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





Do YOU contend that any of propounding party's proposed cost of repairs are unreasonable?



§2030. 030(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutoiy limit. Further, Plaintiffs










prepared interrogatories are wan-anted per Code Civ. Proc., §2030.2040(a). Thus, Courtney is not



Please IDENTIFY who was responsible for supervising YOUR work on the PROJECT?


Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 44 violates California Code of Civil Procedure,





m

- 19RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28










Do YOU contend that YOU were not required to supervise YOUR work on the PROJECT?
















Do YOU contend that propounding party was responsible for supervising YOUR work on the

PROJECT?

HI

-20

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF C1LKER APARTMENTS, LLC.'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
















Do YOU contend that propounding party inadequately supervised YOUR work on the

PROJECT?












-21


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





Who was responsible for inspecting YOUR work on the PROJECT?
















Do YOU contend that YOU were not required to inspect YOUR work on the PROJECT?



§2030.030(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutoiy limit. Further, Plaintiffs




Ill

-22-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






declaration does not satisfy Code Civ. Proc., §2030.2050 or has show that more than 35 specially


providing a response to this interrogatory per Code Civ. Proc., §2030.03Q(c).


Do YOU contend that propounding party was responsible for inspecting YOUR work on the

PROJECT?



§2030.030(0) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further, Plaintiffs










prepared interrogatories are warranted per Code Civ. Proc., §2030.2040(a). Thus. Courtney is not



Do YOU contend that propounding party inadequately inspected YOUR work on the PROJECT?

HI

-23

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET ONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



§2030.03Q(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further, Plaintiffs








§2030.030(h) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further, Plaintiffs





What role, if any, did YOU play in creation of the plans and specifications for the PROJECT?



§2030.030(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit Further, Plaintiffs


prepared interrogatories are warranted per Code Civ. Proc., §203Q.2040(a). Thus, Courtney is not


SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 61:

Do YOU contend that the plans and specifications for the PROJECT are ambiguous?



§2030.030(h) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further, Plaintiffs


-24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prepared interrogatories are warranted per Code Civ. Proc., §2030.2040(a), Thus, Courtney is not


SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62;



Objection. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62 violates California Code of Civil Procedure,






Do YOU contend that the plans and specifications for the PROJECT do not provide adequate

detail for proper construction?






providing a response to this interrogatory per Code Civ. Proc., §2030. 030(c) .

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 64:








II!

-25


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Do YOU contend that the plans and specifications for the PROJECT are deficient in any

manner?





prepared interrogatories are warranted per Code Civ. Proc., §2030. 2040(a). Thus. Courtney is not











Do YOU have any criticisms of the plans and specifications for the PROJECT?








Please state all criticisms YOU identified in response to Special Interrogatory No. 67.

Hi

26


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28








Please describe each and every repair YOU made to the PROJECT.

ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69*.


§2030.030(0) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further, Plaintiffs





Please describe any and all repairs YOU propose with respect to the PROJECT.








Please describe any and all repair estimates YOU prepared with respect to the PROJECT.



§2030,030(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further. Plaintiffs


27


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Do YOU contend that propounding party has entered into any settlement agreement or release of

any claims with YOU with respect to the PROJECT?



§2030.030(b) by exceeding the 35 specially prepared interrogatory statutory limit. Further. Plaintiffs



providing a response to this inten'ogatory per Code Civ. Proc., §2030.030(c).










Have you, YOUR attorneys, or any person to YOUR knowledge obtained any oral or written

statements, of any kind or nature, concerning the PROJECT or any of the issues or damages alleged in

the complaint from any persons claiming to have knowledge of the facts relevant to the damage alleged

in the complaint?





-28


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




If YOUR answer to Special Interrogatory No. 74 is in the affirmative, please IDENTIFY all such

persons and the type of statement obtained.







DATED: November 23, 2015 SPRINGEL & FINK LLP

Kathryn L. Kim

Benjamin J. Angulo

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant,COURTNEY, INC. erroneously sued and served asCOURTNEY WATERPROOFING, INC.

-29-


VERIFICATIONSTATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

I have read the foregoing RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS. LLC'S SPECIALINTERROGATORIES, SET ONE and know its contents.

m CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPHSI] I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as tothose matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

[D I am I I an Officer I I a partner I x I a n agent of COURTNEY. INC.

a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for thatreason. HTI I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document aretrue. I x I The matters stated In the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which arestated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

J 1 am one of the attorneys for a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I makethis verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege thatthe matters stated In the foregoing document are true.Executed on November 23. 2015 . at Irvine , California.I declare under penalty of peijury under the laws of the Stale of California that the foregoing is true and correc

GARY TOLLERTypa or Print Name

—• ¦

SignaturePROOF OF SERVICE

1012h (3) CCP Revised 5/1 /8B

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

I am employed in the county of , State of California.1 am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is;

On, I served the foregoing document described as

on in this action.. W| I

I i by placing the tme copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list:i I by placing I I the original II a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

J BY MAIL

i I 'I deposited such envelope in the mail at , California.The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.

I I As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of theparty served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for mailing in affidavit.Executed on , at , California.

] "(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee-Executed on , at , California.

] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Typa or Print Name Signature

•(BY MAIL SIGNATURE MUST BE OF PERSON DEPOSITING ENVELOPE INMAIL SLOT. BOX, OR BAG)

-(FOR PERSONAL SERVICE SIGNATURE MUST BE THAT OF MESSENGER)

dSol$&aPius

Rev. 7m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the City of Irvine, County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite750, Irvine, CA 92612. On November 23, 2015, 1 served the documents named below on the parties inthis action as follows:

DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC'SSPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

SERVED UPON: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

[ ] (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with Springel & Fink LLP's practice for collection andprocessing of documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I caused suchdocument(s) to be placed in a sealed envelope, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to bedelivered pursuant to the attached service list, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be depositedwith the United States mail at Irvine, California that same day in the ordinary course of business.[CCP §1013]

[X ] (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused such document(s) to be electronically served, via theCourt's Website http://www.scefiling.org, served on all interested parties in this action shown byElectronic-Filing through http://www.scefiling.org which is then printed and maintained with theoriginal documents in our office.

[ ] (BY CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) I am readily familiar withSpringel & Fink LLP's practice for collection and processing of documents for mailing viacertified mail with the United States Postal Service. I caused such document(s) to be placed in asealed envelope, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be delivered pursuant to the attachedservice list, with postage thereon fully prepaid, marked certified and return receipt requested, tobe deposited with the United States mail at Irvine, California that same day in the ordinarycourse of business. [CCP §11]

[ ] (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am readily familiar with Springel & Fink, LLP's practice forcollection and processing of documents for mailing via overnight delivery. I caused suchdocument(s) to be placed in a sealed envelope designated by the overnight service carrier,addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served pursuant to the attached service list, anddeposited said envelope in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the overnight servicecarrier with delivery fees paid or provided for. [CCP § 1 0 1 3(c)]

[ ] (BY FACSIMILE) I caused the document(s) described herein to be transmitted by facsimile tothe facsimile number(s) for each party indicated on the attached service list. [CCP § 1013(e)]

[X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theforegoing is true and correct.

Executed on November 23, 2015, at Irvine, California.

Ann Porter

{C0161016; 1}

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cilker Apartments, LLC v. Weslern National Construction Corp.

SERVICE LIST

Jon B. Zimmerman, Esq.

Steven M. Wheeler, Esq.ROBINSON & WOOD, INC.227 N. 1st StreetSan Jose, CA95n3

(408) 298-7120; Fax: (408) 298-0477

[email protected]@robinsonwood.com;

[email protected];

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Michael A. Erlinger, Esq.Sophia S. DeFrancis, Esq.GREEN & HALL, APC1851 E. First Street, 10th FloorSanta Ana, CA 92705

(7 1 4) 9 1 8-7000; Fax: (7 14)91 8-6996se 1 1 is@ greenhall .com

Attorneys for Western National

Construction Corp.

Jenna L. Fischer-Reyes, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF MELISSA M.BALLARD

1551 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 830Santa Ana, CA 92705(714) 547-0407; Fax: (877) 369-5799

Direct: (714) [email protected] Address:

P.O. Box 2282, Brea, CA 92822Attorneys for Robecks Welding &Fabrication, Inc.

Thomas B. Wait, Esq.Robert A. Hufnagel, Esq.Matthew P. Malczynski, Esq.

WAIT & HUFNAGEL250 West First Street, Suite 222

Claremont, CA 9171 [email protected]@[email protected]@wait-hufhagel.com(909) 621-5672; Fax: (909) 399-0645

Attorneys for Tara Coatings, Inc.

Richard N. Sieving, Esq.Luke G. Pears-Dickson, Esq.THE SIEVING LAW FIRM100 Howe Avenue, Suite 220N

Sacramento, CA 95825(9 1 6) 444-3366; Fax: (9 1 6) 444- 1 223

[email protected]@sievinglawfirm.comAttorneys for Jeld-Wen, Inc. dba SummitWindow & Patio Door

Todd A. Jones, Esq.Gregory K. Federico, Esq.

ARCHER NORRIS301 University Avenue, Suite 1 10 Sacramento,CA 95825 [email protected]

[email protected] (916) 646-2480;Fax: (916) 646-5696

Attorneys for Robecks Welding &Fabrication, Inc.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Laura K. Buttrell, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. WALLIS2251 Harvard Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 921-9353; Fax: (916) [email protected] for Robecks Welding &Fabrication; Eastern LandscapeCompany

Michael L. Marx, Esq.

Denise R. Sutherland, Esq.GOODMAN NEUMAN HAMILTON LLP41 7 Montgomery Street, 10th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94104(41 5) 705-0400; Fax: (415) 705-041 [email protected]@gnhllp.comAttorneys for Joseph J. Albanese, Inc.

Chad S. Tapp

PORTER SCOTT350 University Ave., #200

Sacramento, CA 95825Tel: (916)929-1481 /Fax: (916) [email protected] for Pacific Coast BuildingProducts dba Anderson Truss

G. Geoffrey Wood, Esq.

ERICKSEN, ARBUTHNOT155 Grand Avenue, Suite 1050

Oakland, CA 94612(5 1 0) 832-7770 ext 1 1 6; Fax: (5 1 0) 832-0 1 [email protected] for Dimetrius Painting II, Inc.

Thomas R. Kirvin, Esq.LAW OFFICES OF HELEN SANTANA71 Stevenson Street, Suite 700San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 777-1308; Fax; (415) 896-9063

[email protected] for Intervener Liberty Mutual Ininsured California Classic Paver Designs

David M. Levy

VAN DE POEL, LEVY & ALLEN, LLP1600 South Main Plaza, Suite 325Walnut Creek, CA 94596(925) 934-6102; Fax: (925) [email protected] for LDI Mechanical, Inc.; EasternLandscape Company, Inc.

Brian H. Gunn, Esq.

Rebecca J. Collaco, Esq.

WOLFE & WYMAN LLP2175 N. California Blvd., Suite 645Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3502(925) 280-0004; Fax: (925) [email protected] col 1 aco@wo 1 fewyman.comAttorneys for Alliance Building Products,Inc.

Marcia A. Pollioni, Esq.

Joseph A. Long, Esq.

LONG BLUMBERG, LLP2950 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 3 1 5Walnut Creek, California 94597(925) 941-0090; Fax: (925) 941-0085Cell: (415) 730-0072

[email protected]@longblumberg.comAttorneys for Los Nietos Construction

Michael J. Estep, Esq.LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY R.WAGNER

1655 Grant Street, Suite 800-BConcord, CA 94520

(925) 681-3600; Fax: (866) [email protected] for Pyramid Builders, Inc. andDavey Roofing, Inc.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Larry D, Letofsky, Esq.Robyn S. McCiain, Esq.

LETOFSKY MCCLAIN3655 Nobel Drive, Suite 400San Diego, CA [email protected]^[email protected](858) 642-1372; Fax: (858) 642-1379Attorneys for AMPAM ParksMechanical, Inc.

Samuel J. Muir, Esq.Stephen B. Litchfield, Esq.COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWAR11 999 Harrison Street, Suite 1 700Oakland. CA 94612(5 1 0) 844-5 1 00: Fax: (5 1 0) 844-5 1 0 [email protected]@ccmslaw.comAttorneys for McLarland, Vasquez &Partners, Inc.

Philip T. Bazzano, Esq.SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA201 N. Civic Dr., Suite 145Walnut Creek, CA 94596(925) 938-1430; Fax: (925) [email protected] for Madera Construction

Thomas Yen, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF BEVERLY E.NARAYAN

525 Market St., Suite 2850San Francisco, CA 94105(415) 227-2300

Attorneys for Casey-Fogli ConcreteContractors, Inc.

Brett L. McKague, Esq.FLESHER MCKAGUE2202 Plaza Drive

Rockiin, CA 95765(916) 358-9042 / (916) 673-9672Attorneys for Gentry AssociatesConstruction Consultants

Joseph D. Ryan, Esq.Jill J. Lifter, Esq.

RYAN & LIFTER, APC2000 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 400San Ramon, CA 94583

(925) 884-2080; Fax: (925) [email protected]@rallaw.comAttorneys for Cell-Crete Corporation

Daniel A. Serot, Esq.VAN DE POEL, LEVY & ALLEN, LLP1600 South Main Plaza, Suite 325Walnut Creek, CA 94596(925) 934-6102; Fax: (925) [email protected]

Attorneys for ADM Painting Company;ADM Construction Co., Inc.

Robert B. Lueck, Esq.Alexander R. Moore, Esq.

John A. Castro, Esq.BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE555 12th Street, Suite 1800Oakland, CA 94607(510) 834-4350; Fax: (510) [email protected]

[email protected]@bjg.com

Attorneys for Madera Framing, Inc.

Geoffrey Kraemer, Esq.MORROW & WHITE

535 Anton Blvd., Suite 1 1 50Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(714) 979-7999 / (714) [email protected]@morrow-white.comAttorneys for ADM Construction Co., Inc.

Todd A. Fischer, Esq.Bryan P. Kerney, Esq.

FISCHER KERNEY888 Munras Avenue

Monterey, CA 93940(831) 372-9200/(831) [email protected]

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Steven W. Ferla, Esq.

MENEKSHE LAW Film

950 East Campbell AvenueCampbell, CA 95008

(408) 358-1200/(408) [email protected] for Cell-Crete Corporation

Elizabeth W. Lawley, Esq.HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL

2485 Natomas Park Dr., Suite 450Sacramento, CA 95833

(916) 702-3200/(916) [email protected]

Attorneys for Madera Framing, Inc.

[email protected],corn

Attorneys for Pyramid Builders, Inc.

Frank J. Perretta, Esq.

MILLER MORTION CAILLAT & NEVIS50 West San Fernando St., Suite 1300

San Jose, CA 95113

(408) 292-1765 / (408) 436-8272

Attorneys for White Residential, Inc.

INTERROGATORIES,SETONE Defendants ...

Documents

Transcript of INTERROGATORIES,SETONE Defendants ...