Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1 CHELSEA O'SULLIVAN Superior Court of California
CITY ATTORNEY County of Santa Barbara
2 CITY OF SOLVANG Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
6/21/2024 6:46 PM
3 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON By: M. Gutierrez , Deputy
A Professional Corporation
4 SASKIA T. ASAMURA (BAR NO. 156103)
sasamura@rwglaw.com
5 SARAH E. GERST (BAR NO. 299947)
sgerst@rwglaw.com
6 DANIEL M. PARLOW (BAR NO. 249650)
dparlow@rwglaw.com
7 350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
8 Telephone: 213.626.8484
Facsimile: 213.626.0078
9
Attorneys for Defendant
10 CITY OF SOLVANG
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - SANTA MARIA - COOK DIVISION
13
14 SOUTH COAST PROPERTY COMPANY Case No. 22CV00254
13-B, LP, a California limited partnership;
15 CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE
Plaintiff, STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
16 v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
17 CITY OF SOLVANG; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED
25. TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
18
Concurrently filed: Separate Statement in
19 Defendants. Support of Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Form
20 Interrogatories; Declaration of Sarah
E. Gerst
21
Hearing
22 Date: August 8, 2024
Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Dept: 4
24 Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Jed Beebe
25 [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov.
Code § 6103]
26
Trial Date: None
27 Action Filed: 01/21/2022
28
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v3.doc
1 The City of Solvang (“City”) respectfully submits this separate statement in support
2 of its concurrently filed motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set
3 One (“Motion to Compel”), against Plaintiff South Coast Property Company 13-B, LP
4 (“Plaintiff”). This separate statement lists the text of each Special Interrogatory at issue in
5 this motion; the text of Plaintiff’s responses; the factual and legal reasoning for compelling
6 a further response to each request; a summary of the pleadings and the text of any
7 definitions and other matter required to understand each of the requests and responses.
8 (Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345.)
9 DEFINITIONS
10 1. The terms “YOU,” “YOUR,” and/or “PLAINTIFF” shall mean and refer to
11 Plaintiff South Coast Property Company 13-B, LP., and its agents, officers, representatives,
12 employees, directors, partners, and/or shareholders.
13 2. The term “RASCHIATORE” shall mean and refer to Brian Raschiatore and his
14 agents, representatives, and assigns.
15 3. The term “AFFILIATED ENTITIES” shall mean and refer to any and all
16 business entities owned by, related to or affiliated with PLAINTIFF and/or RASCHIATORE,
17 and their respective agents, officers, representatives, employees, directors, partners, and/or
18 shareholders.
19 4. The term “CITY” shall mean and refer to the City of Solvang and its present
20 and former elected and appointed officials, employees, agents, and representatives.
21 5. The term “CLAIM” shall mean and refer to the six-page Government Claims
22 Act Claim filed by YOU against the CITY, dated “12-1-2020” and signed by Brian M.
23 Raschiatore, consisting of three versions of the two-page Claim form alleging damages
24 relating to the same property but different claimed damages, amounts, and estimates on pages
25 1, 3 and 5 thereof. For convenience and to avoid confusion, a true and correct copy of the
26 CLAIM is attached hereto.
27 6. The term “SAC” refers to the Second Amended Complaint that was filed on or
28 about January 23, 2023 in the above-captioned lawsuit, Case No. 22CV00254.
-2-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 7. The term “PROPERTY” refers to real property commonly known as 425, 431,
2 and 435 First Street, Solvang, California 93463, Assessor’s Parcel Number 139-192-024.
3 8. The term “PROJECT” refers to the development project YOU proposed to
4 build at the PROPERTY including any and all amendments and revisions thereto.
5 9. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to persons shall mean a request to state:
6 (i) the name of the natural person, firm, association, partnership, business, trust, corporation,
7 or entity, (ii) the firm, association, partnership, business, trust, corporation or entity that a
8 natural person is associated with, (iii) the job title of a natural person and (iv) the address,
9 email, and telephone number of the natural person, firm, association, partnership, business,
10 trust, corporation or entity.
11 10. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to DOCUMENTS shall mean a request to
12 state (i) the description of the DOCUMENT, (ii) the stated or estimated date thereof, (iii) the
13 author(s) or sender(s) thereof, (iv) the recipient(s) thereof whether directly, cc’ed, or bcc’ed,
14 and (iv) any attachments identified thereon, whether or not the attachments are in fact
15 attached.
16 11. The term “COMMUNICATIONS” shall mean any form of communication
17 between persons including, but not limited to, written correspondence, any form of electronic
18 communication medium (e.g., e-mail, text messages, zoom, etc.), personal meetings,
19 telephone calls, and voice mail messages.
20 12. The term “DOCUMENT(S)” shall mean all items within the scope of Evidence
21 Code § 250, and includes any reduction to tangible form, including computer or magnetic
22 memory storage. More particularly, the term “DOCUMENT” includes, without limitation,
23 the original and any non-identical copy of any printed, typewritten, handwritten, recorded,
24 taped, digital, photographic matter, or electronically stored information, however produced,
25 stored, or reproduced, whether sent or received or neither, in the actual or constructive
26 possession, care, custody or control of YOU, including, but without limitation, books, papers,
27 letters, correspondence, memoranda, minutes, ordinances, resolutions, enactments,
28 communications, notices, images, emails, texts, computer files or documents created, stored
-3-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 or saved in any program or format, notes, schedules, reports, diaries, financial records or
2 statements, invoices, applications, receipts, bills, checks, calendars, resumes, promissory
3 notes, lists, contracts, agreements, information made or maintained by electronic,
4 photographic or mechanical means such as electronic memory, disks, diskettes, tapes, back-
5 ups, or microfilms, drafts of the foregoing, and copies of the foregoing when the original is
6 not available or if the copy contains any additional writing or is not an identical copy without
7 change or interlineations of the original.
8 INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE1
9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
10 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR decision to purchase the
11 PROPERTY as alleged in paragraph 16 of the SAC.
12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
13 “Responding Party objects on the grounds the Interrogatory seeks information
14 protected from disclosure and discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
15 product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege(s). Responding Party intends to and does
16 claim these privileges with respect to all such materials. Responding Party objects on the
17 grounds the Interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this
18 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding
19 Party objects on the grounds the Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive.
20 Responding Party objects on the grounds the Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and
21 overbroad as to time and scope. Responding Party objects on the grounds that the
22 Interrogatory contains subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question in
23 violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 subdivision (f).”
24
25
26
27 1
All 183 Special Interrogatories propounded by the City are included in this Separate
28 Statement because South Coast did not provide a substantive response to a single
interrogatory.
-4-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
3 Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges that South Coast
4 decided to purchase the Property in 2013 as an investment property and to develop a resort
5 hotel. This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
6 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and
7 client, nor attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or
8 oppressive. It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited
9 to 2013. This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a
10 compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.
11 “[A] civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Any party may obtain discovery
12 regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
13 pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3
15 Cal.5th 531, 541, quotations omitted.) Where the party propounding an interrogatory
16 believes “an answer is evasive or incomplete” and/or “an objection to an interrogatory is
17 without merit or too general” it “may move for an order compelling a further response.”
18 (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300; see also id.§ 2031.310 (requests for production); id. §
19 2033.290 (requests for admission).) “While the propounding party may have the burden of
20 filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of
21 justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting
22 an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)
23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
24 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and
25 telephone number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the
26 preceding interrogatory.
27 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
28 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
-5-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.”
2 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
3 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
4 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory
5 No. 1. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory
6 No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
8 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR purchase of the PROPERTY.
9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
10 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
11 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
12 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
13 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
14 Paragraph 16 of the SAC alleges that South Coast decided to purchase the Property
15 in 2013. This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
16 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
17 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
18 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
19 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
20 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
21 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
23 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR efforts to finance the purchase
24 of the PROPERTY.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
26 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
27 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
28
-6-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
3 Paragraph 16 of the SAC alleges that South Coast decided to purchase the Property
4 in 2013. Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges that South Coast
5 decided to purchase the Property in 2013. This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s
6 claim of $24,000,000 in damages. This interrogatory does not inquire into communications
7 between attorney and client, nor attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not
8 overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time
9 and scope, since it is limited to 2013. This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not
10 contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual
11 and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated
12 herein by this reference.
13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
14 IDENTIFY all brokers or other professionals with whom YOU communicated in
15 connection with YOUR purchase of the PROPERTY.
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
17 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
18 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
19 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
20 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
21 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
22 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
23 attorney work product. The attorney-client privilege does not attach to communications
24 with non-attorneys, such as real estate professionals. (See, Evid. Code §§ 950, 952.)
25 Regardless of privilege, the existence of relevant communications or documents is not
26 confidential. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
27 This interrogatory is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
28 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
-7-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
2 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
3 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
5 As of September 27, 2013, was any part of the PROPERTY occupied or in use?
6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
7 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
8 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
9 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
10 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
11 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
12 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
13 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
14 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
15 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
16 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
17 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
19 If YOUR answer to the preceding interrogatory was “yes,” describe with specificity
20 any and all persons or entities occupying or using the PROPERTY or any part thereof.
21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
22 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
23 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.”
24 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
25 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
26 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory
27 No. 6. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory
28 Nos. 1 and 6, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
-8-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
2 If the PROPERTY was not occupied or in use as of September 27, 2013, state with
3 specificity how long the PROPERTY had been vacant.
4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
5 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
6 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
7 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
9 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
10 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
11 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
12 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
13 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
14 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
15 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
17 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and
18 telephone number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the
19 preceding interrogatory.
20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
21 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
22 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.”
23 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
24 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
25 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory
26 No. 8. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory
27 Nos. 1 and 8, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
28
-9-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
2 As of September 27, 2013, state how long the PROPERTY had been on the market.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
4 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
5 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
6 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
7 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
8 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
9 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
10 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
11 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
12 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
13 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
14 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
16 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and telephone
17 number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the preceding
18 interrogatory.
19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
20 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
21 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.”
22 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
23 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
24 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory
25 No. 10. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory
26 Nos. 1 and 10, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
28 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR decision to develop a “resort
-10-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 hotel” at the PROPERTY as an investment property, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the SAC.
2 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
3 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
4 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
5 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
6 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a
7 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party,
8 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the
9 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers
10 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of
11 documents.”
12 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
13 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
14 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
15 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
16 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
17 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
18 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
19 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
20 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
21 A response to this interrogatory does not require the preparation of a compilation,
22 abstract, audit or summary because this interrogatory queries into South Coast owner Brian
23 Rachiatore’s decision to develop a hotel at the Property. A “reference-to-documents”
24 answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be derived from the documents, as is
25 the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801,
26 805.) South Coast does not explain why a request relating to a specific individual’s decision
27 requires the preparation of any documents. Nor does South Coast present an affirmative
28 showing as to why such preparation would be unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v.
-11-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the
2 responding party to establish that a compilation would be unduly burdensome or
3 oppressive].)
4 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from
5 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South
6 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to
7 Special Interrogatory No. 12. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the
8 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the
9 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
11 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and
12 telephone number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the
13 preceding interrogatory.
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
15 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
16 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.”
17 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
18 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
19 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory
20 No. 12. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory
21 Nos. 1 and 12, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
23 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR decision to develop a “resort
24 hotel” at the PROPERTY as alleged in paragraph 16 of the SAC.
25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
26 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
27 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
28 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
-12-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a
2 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party,
3 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the
4 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers
5 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of
6 documents.”
7 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
9 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
10 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
11 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
12 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
13 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
14 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
15 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
16 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be
17 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior
18 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative
19 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be
20 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52
21 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation
22 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City
23 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South
24 Coast’s owner’s mental decision to develop a hotel at the Property. “The fact alone that the
25 response to an interrogatory may be expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to
26 answer.” (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259
27 Cal.App.2d 45, 55.)
28 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from
-13-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South
2 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to
3 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the
4 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the
5 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)
6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
7 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR evaluation of the financial
8 feasibility of developing the PROPERTY as a “resort hotel” before YOU purchased the
9 PROPERTY on or about September 27, 2013.
10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
11 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
12 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
13 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER
14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
15 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
16 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
17 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
18 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
19 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
20 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
21 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
23 IDENTIFY all persons or entities with whom YOU consulted in connection with
24 YOUR decision to develop a “resort hotel” at the PROPERTY, as alleged in paragraph 16
25 of the SAC.
26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
27 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
28 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.”
-14-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
3 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
4 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
5 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
6 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
7 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
8 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
9 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
10 Further, “N/A” is non-responsive to the interrogatory, requiring the City to guess as
11 to whether South Coast consulted with any persons or entities. “Each answer in a response
12 to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably
13 available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.)
14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
15 As of September 27, 2013, what were YOUR plans for the PROPERTY once the
16 PROJECT was completed?
17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
18 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
19 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
20 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
21 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a
22 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party,
23 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the
24 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers
25 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of
26 documents.”
27
28
-15-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
3 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
4 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
5 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
6 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
7 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
8 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
9 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
10 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be
11 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior
12 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative
13 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be
14 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52
15 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation
16 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City
17 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South
18 Coast’s owner’s personal plans for the Property. “The fact alone that the response to an
19 interrogatory may be expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.”
20 (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45,
21 55.)
22 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from
23 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South
24 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to
25 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the
26 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the
27 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)
28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
-16-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 IDENTIFY all persons or entities with whom YOU consulted in connection with
2 YOUR plans for the PROPERTY once the PROJECT was completed.
3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
4 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
5 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
6 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
7 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a
8 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party,
9 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the
10 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers
11 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of
12 documents.”
13 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
14 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
15 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
16 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
17 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
18 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
19 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
20 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
21 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
22 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be
23 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior
24 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative
25 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be
26 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52
27 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation
28 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City
-17-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South
2 Coast’s owner’s personal consultations. “The fact alone that the response to an
3 interrogatory may be expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.”
4 (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45,
5 55.)
6 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from
7 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South
8 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to
9 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the
10 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the
11 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
13 If YOUR plan in September 2013 was to sell the PROPERTY once the PROJECT
14 was completed, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating to any analysis of profit YOU
15 hoped to achieve from such sale.
16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
17 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
18 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
19 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
20 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a
21 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party,
22 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the
23 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers
24 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of
25 documents.”
26 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
27 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
28 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
-18-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
2 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
3 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
4 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
5 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
6 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
7 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be
8 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior
9 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative
10 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be
11 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52
12 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation
13 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City
14 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South
15 Coast’s profit analyses. “The fact alone that the response to an interrogatory may be
16 expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.” (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v.
17 Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 55.)
18 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from
19 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South
20 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to
21 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the
22 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the
23 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)
24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
25 If YOUR plan in September 2013 was to lease the PROPERTY once the PROJECT
26 was completed, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating to any analysis of profit YOU
27
28
-19-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 hoped to achieve from such sale.
2 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
3 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
4 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
5 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
6 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a
7 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party,
8 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the
9 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers
10 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of
11 documents.”
12 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
13 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
14 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages.
15 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor
16 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive.
17 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013.
18 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound,
19 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further
20 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
21 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be
22 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior
23 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative
24 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be
25 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52
26 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation
27 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City
28 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South
-20-
CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE)
10773-0022\2936954v1.doc
1 Coast’s profit analyses. “The fact alone that the response to an interrogatory may be
2 expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.” (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v.
3 Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 55.)
4 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from
5 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South
6 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to
7 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the
8 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the
9 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.)
10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
11 If YOUR plan in September 2013 was to operate the PROPERTY as a resort hotel
12 with spa and/or restaurant once the PROJECT was completed, IDENTIFY all
13 DOCUMENTS relating to any analysis of profit YOU hoped to achieve from YOUR
14 operations.
15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
16 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special
17 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above.
18 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
19 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a
20 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Respo
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1 CHELSEA O'SULLIVAN Superior Court of California CITY ATTORNEY County of Santa Barbara 2 CITY OF SOLVANG Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 6/21/2024 6:46 PM 3 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON By: M. Gutierrez , Deputy A Professional Corporation 4 SASKIA T. ASAMURA (BAR NO. 156103) sasamura@rwglaw.com 5 SARAH E. GERST (BAR NO. 299947) sgerst@rwglaw.com 6 DANIEL M. PARLOW (BAR NO. 249650) dparlow@rwglaw.com 7 350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 8 Telephone: 213.626.8484 Facsimile: 213.626.0078 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 CITY OF SOLVANG 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - SANTA MARIA - COOK DIVISION 13 14 SOUTH COAST PROPERTY COMPANY Case No. 22CV00254 13-B, LP, a California limited partnership; 15 CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE Plaintiff, STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 16 v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL 17 CITY OF SOLVANG; and DOES 1 through INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED 25. TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 18 Concurrently filed: Separate Statement in 19 Defendants. Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form 20 Interrogatories; Declaration of Sarah E. Gerst 21 Hearing 22 Date: August 8, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. 23 Dept: 4 24 Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Jed Beebe 25 [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov. Code § 6103] 26 Trial Date: None 27 Action Filed: 01/21/2022 28 CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v3.doc 1 The City of Solvang (“City”) respectfully submits this separate statement in support 2 of its concurrently filed motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set 3 One (“Motion to Compel”), against Plaintiff South Coast Property Company 13-B, LP 4 (“Plaintiff”). This separate statement lists the text of each Special Interrogatory at issue in 5 this motion; the text of Plaintiff’s responses; the factual and legal reasoning for compelling 6 a further response to each request; a summary of the pleadings and the text of any 7 definitions and other matter required to understand each of the requests and responses. 8 (Rule of Court, Rule 3.1345.) 9 DEFINITIONS 10 1. The terms “YOU,” “YOUR,” and/or “PLAINTIFF” shall mean and refer to 11 Plaintiff South Coast Property Company 13-B, LP., and its agents, officers, representatives, 12 employees, directors, partners, and/or shareholders. 13 2. The term “RASCHIATORE” shall mean and refer to Brian Raschiatore and his 14 agents, representatives, and assigns. 15 3. The term “AFFILIATED ENTITIES” shall mean and refer to any and all 16 business entities owned by, related to or affiliated with PLAINTIFF and/or RASCHIATORE, 17 and their respective agents, officers, representatives, employees, directors, partners, and/or 18 shareholders. 19 4. The term “CITY” shall mean and refer to the City of Solvang and its present 20 and former elected and appointed officials, employees, agents, and representatives. 21 5. The term “CLAIM” shall mean and refer to the six-page Government Claims 22 Act Claim filed by YOU against the CITY, dated “12-1-2020” and signed by Brian M. 23 Raschiatore, consisting of three versions of the two-page Claim form alleging damages 24 relating to the same property but different claimed damages, amounts, and estimates on pages 25 1, 3 and 5 thereof. For convenience and to avoid confusion, a true and correct copy of the 26 CLAIM is attached hereto. 27 6. The term “SAC” refers to the Second Amended Complaint that was filed on or 28 about January 23, 2023 in the above-captioned lawsuit, Case No. 22CV00254. -2- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 7. The term “PROPERTY” refers to real property commonly known as 425, 431, 2 and 435 First Street, Solvang, California 93463, Assessor’s Parcel Number 139-192-024. 3 8. The term “PROJECT” refers to the development project YOU proposed to 4 build at the PROPERTY including any and all amendments and revisions thereto. 5 9. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to persons shall mean a request to state: 6 (i) the name of the natural person, firm, association, partnership, business, trust, corporation, 7 or entity, (ii) the firm, association, partnership, business, trust, corporation or entity that a 8 natural person is associated with, (iii) the job title of a natural person and (iv) the address, 9 email, and telephone number of the natural person, firm, association, partnership, business, 10 trust, corporation or entity. 11 10. The term “IDENTIFY” with respect to DOCUMENTS shall mean a request to 12 state (i) the description of the DOCUMENT, (ii) the stated or estimated date thereof, (iii) the 13 author(s) or sender(s) thereof, (iv) the recipient(s) thereof whether directly, cc’ed, or bcc’ed, 14 and (iv) any attachments identified thereon, whether or not the attachments are in fact 15 attached. 16 11. The term “COMMUNICATIONS” shall mean any form of communication 17 between persons including, but not limited to, written correspondence, any form of electronic 18 communication medium (e.g., e-mail, text messages, zoom, etc.), personal meetings, 19 telephone calls, and voice mail messages. 20 12. The term “DOCUMENT(S)” shall mean all items within the scope of Evidence 21 Code § 250, and includes any reduction to tangible form, including computer or magnetic 22 memory storage. More particularly, the term “DOCUMENT” includes, without limitation, 23 the original and any non-identical copy of any printed, typewritten, handwritten, recorded, 24 taped, digital, photographic matter, or electronically stored information, however produced, 25 stored, or reproduced, whether sent or received or neither, in the actual or constructive 26 possession, care, custody or control of YOU, including, but without limitation, books, papers, 27 letters, correspondence, memoranda, minutes, ordinances, resolutions, enactments, 28 communications, notices, images, emails, texts, computer files or documents created, stored -3- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 or saved in any program or format, notes, schedules, reports, diaries, financial records or 2 statements, invoices, applications, receipts, bills, checks, calendars, resumes, promissory 3 notes, lists, contracts, agreements, information made or maintained by electronic, 4 photographic or mechanical means such as electronic memory, disks, diskettes, tapes, back- 5 ups, or microfilms, drafts of the foregoing, and copies of the foregoing when the original is 6 not available or if the copy contains any additional writing or is not an identical copy without 7 change or interlineations of the original. 8 INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE1 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 10 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR decision to purchase the 11 PROPERTY as alleged in paragraph 16 of the SAC. 12 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 13 “Responding Party objects on the grounds the Interrogatory seeks information 14 protected from disclosure and discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work 15 product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege(s). Responding Party intends to and does 16 claim these privileges with respect to all such materials. Responding Party objects on the 17 grounds the Interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this 18 action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding 19 Party objects on the grounds the Interrogatory is overbroad, burdensome, and oppressive. 20 Responding Party objects on the grounds the Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, and 21 overbroad as to time and scope. Responding Party objects on the grounds that the 22 Interrogatory contains subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question in 23 violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060 subdivision (f).” 24 25 26 27 1 All 183 Special Interrogatories propounded by the City are included in this Separate 28 Statement because South Coast did not provide a substantive response to a single interrogatory. -4- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 3 Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges that South Coast 4 decided to purchase the Property in 2013 as an investment property and to develop a resort 5 hotel. This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 6 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and 7 client, nor attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or 8 oppressive. It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited 9 to 2013. This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a 10 compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question. 11 “[A] civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Any party may obtain discovery 12 regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the 13 pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 15 Cal.5th 531, 541, quotations omitted.) Where the party propounding an interrogatory 16 believes “an answer is evasive or incomplete” and/or “an objection to an interrogatory is 17 without merit or too general” it “may move for an order compelling a further response.” 18 (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300; see also id.§ 2031.310 (requests for production); id. § 19 2033.290 (requests for admission).) “While the propounding party may have the burden of 20 filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of 21 justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting 22 an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) 23 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 24 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and 25 telephone number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the 26 preceding interrogatory. 27 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 28 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special -5- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.” 2 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 3 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 4 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory 5 No. 1. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory 6 No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 8 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR purchase of the PROPERTY. 9 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 10 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 11 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 12 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 13 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 14 Paragraph 16 of the SAC alleges that South Coast decided to purchase the Property 15 in 2013. This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 16 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 17 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 18 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 19 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 20 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 21 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 23 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR efforts to finance the purchase 24 of the PROPERTY. 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 26 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 27 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 28 -6- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 3 Paragraph 16 of the SAC alleges that South Coast decided to purchase the Property 4 in 2013. Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges that South Coast 5 decided to purchase the Property in 2013. This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s 6 claim of $24,000,000 in damages. This interrogatory does not inquire into communications 7 between attorney and client, nor attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not 8 overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time 9 and scope, since it is limited to 2013. This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not 10 contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual 11 and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated 12 herein by this reference. 13 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 14 IDENTIFY all brokers or other professionals with whom YOU communicated in 15 connection with YOUR purchase of the PROPERTY. 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 17 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 18 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 19 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 20 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 21 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 22 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 23 attorney work product. The attorney-client privilege does not attach to communications 24 with non-attorneys, such as real estate professionals. (See, Evid. Code §§ 950, 952.) 25 Regardless of privilege, the existence of relevant communications or documents is not 26 confidential. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) 27 This interrogatory is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 28 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. -7- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 2 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 3 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 4 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 5 As of September 27, 2013, was any part of the PROPERTY occupied or in use? 6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 7 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 8 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 9 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 10 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 11 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 12 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 13 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 14 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 15 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 16 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 17 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 19 If YOUR answer to the preceding interrogatory was “yes,” describe with specificity 20 any and all persons or entities occupying or using the PROPERTY or any part thereof. 21 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 22 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 23 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.” 24 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 25 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 26 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory 27 No. 6. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory 28 Nos. 1 and 6, which are incorporated herein by this reference. -8- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 2 If the PROPERTY was not occupied or in use as of September 27, 2013, state with 3 specificity how long the PROPERTY had been vacant. 4 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 5 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 6 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 7 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 9 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 10 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 11 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 12 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 13 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 14 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 15 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 17 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and 18 telephone number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the 19 preceding interrogatory. 20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 21 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 22 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.” 23 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 24 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 25 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory 26 No. 8. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory 27 Nos. 1 and 8, which are incorporated herein by this reference. 28 -9- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 2 As of September 27, 2013, state how long the PROPERTY had been on the market. 3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 4 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 5 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 6 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 7 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 8 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 9 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 10 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 11 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 12 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 13 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 14 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 16 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and telephone 17 number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the preceding 18 interrogatory. 19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 20 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 21 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.” 22 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 23 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 24 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory 25 No. 10. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory 26 Nos. 1 and 10, which are incorporated herein by this reference. 27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 28 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR decision to develop a “resort -10- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 hotel” at the PROPERTY as an investment property, as alleged in paragraph 16 of the SAC. 2 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 3 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 4 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 5 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 6 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a 7 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, 8 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the 9 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers 10 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of 11 documents.” 12 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 13 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 14 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 15 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 16 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 17 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 18 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 19 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 20 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 21 A response to this interrogatory does not require the preparation of a compilation, 22 abstract, audit or summary because this interrogatory queries into South Coast owner Brian 23 Rachiatore’s decision to develop a hotel at the Property. A “reference-to-documents” 24 answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be derived from the documents, as is 25 the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 26 805.) South Coast does not explain why a request relating to a specific individual’s decision 27 requires the preparation of any documents. Nor does South Coast present an affirmative 28 showing as to why such preparation would be unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. -11- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the 2 responding party to establish that a compilation would be unduly burdensome or 3 oppressive].) 4 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from 5 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South 6 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to 7 Special Interrogatory No. 12. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the 8 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the 9 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 11 IDENTIFY each and every person, including their last known address, email, and 12 telephone number, who has knowledge about any of the facts set forth in response to the 13 preceding interrogatory. 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 15 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 16 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.” 17 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 18 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 19 South Coast responded “N/A” based on its objection-only response to interrogatory 20 No. 12. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further Response to Interrogatory 21 Nos. 1 and 12, which are incorporated herein by this reference. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 23 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR decision to develop a “resort 24 hotel” at the PROPERTY as alleged in paragraph 16 of the SAC. 25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 26 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 27 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 28 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section -12- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a 2 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, 3 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the 4 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers 5 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of 6 documents.” 7 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 8 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 9 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 10 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 11 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 12 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 13 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 14 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 15 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 16 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be 17 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior 18 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative 19 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be 20 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52 21 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation 22 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City 23 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South 24 Coast’s owner’s mental decision to develop a hotel at the Property. “The fact alone that the 25 response to an interrogatory may be expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to 26 answer.” (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 27 Cal.App.2d 45, 55.) 28 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from -13- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South 2 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to 3 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the 4 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the 5 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) 6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 7 Describe with specificity all facts relating to YOUR evaluation of the financial 8 feasibility of developing the PROPERTY as a “resort hotel” before YOU purchased the 9 PROPERTY on or about September 27, 2013. 10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 11 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 12 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 13 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER 14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 15 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 16 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 17 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 18 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 19 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 20 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 21 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 23 IDENTIFY all persons or entities with whom YOU consulted in connection with 24 YOUR decision to develop a “resort hotel” at the PROPERTY, as alleged in paragraph 16 25 of the SAC. 26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 27 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 28 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. South Coast also responded: “N/A.” -14- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: 3 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 4 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 5 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 6 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 7 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 8 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 9 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 10 Further, “N/A” is non-responsive to the interrogatory, requiring the City to guess as 11 to whether South Coast consulted with any persons or entities. “Each answer in a response 12 to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably 13 available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220.) 14 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 15 As of September 27, 2013, what were YOUR plans for the PROPERTY once the 16 PROJECT was completed? 17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 18 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 19 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 20 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 21 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a 22 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, 23 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the 24 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers 25 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of 26 documents.” 27 28 -15- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 2 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 3 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 4 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 5 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 6 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 7 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 8 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 9 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 10 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be 11 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior 12 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative 13 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be 14 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52 15 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation 16 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City 17 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South 18 Coast’s owner’s personal plans for the Property. “The fact alone that the response to an 19 interrogatory may be expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.” 20 (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 21 55.) 22 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from 23 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South 24 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to 25 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the 26 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the 27 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) 28 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: -16- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 IDENTIFY all persons or entities with whom YOU consulted in connection with 2 YOUR plans for the PROPERTY once the PROJECT was completed. 3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 4 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 5 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 6 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 7 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a 8 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, 9 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the 10 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers 11 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of 12 documents.” 13 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 14 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 15 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 16 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 17 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 18 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 19 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 20 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 21 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 22 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be 23 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior 24 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative 25 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be 26 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52 27 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation 28 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City -17- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South 2 Coast’s owner’s personal consultations. “The fact alone that the response to an 3 interrogatory may be expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.” 4 (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 5 55.) 6 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from 7 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South 8 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to 9 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the 10 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the 11 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 13 If YOUR plan in September 2013 was to sell the PROPERTY once the PROJECT 14 was completed, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating to any analysis of profit YOU 15 hoped to achieve from such sale. 16 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 17 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 18 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 19 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 20 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a 21 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, 22 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the 23 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers 24 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of 25 documents.” 26 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 27 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 28 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. -18- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 2 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 3 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 4 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 5 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 6 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 7 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be 8 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior 9 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative 10 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be 11 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52 12 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation 13 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City 14 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South 15 Coast’s profit analyses. “The fact alone that the response to an interrogatory may be 16 expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.” (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. 17 Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 55.) 18 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from 19 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South 20 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to 21 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the 22 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the 23 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) 24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 25 If YOUR plan in September 2013 was to lease the PROPERTY once the PROJECT 26 was completed, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS relating to any analysis of profit YOU 27 28 -19- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 hoped to achieve from such sale. 2 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 3 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 4 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 5 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 6 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a 7 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Responding Party, 8 and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the 9 Propounding Party as for the Responding Party. Therefore, Responding Party refers 10 Propounding Party to documents produced with the responses to requests for production of 11 documents.” 12 FACTUAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE 13 TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: 14 This interrogatory is relevant to South Coast’s claim of $24,000,000 in damages. 15 This interrogatory does not inquire into communications between attorney and client, nor 16 attorney work product. It is straightforward, and not overbroad, burdensome, or oppressive. 17 It is not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad as to time and scope, since it is limited to 2013. 18 This interrogatory is a short sentence and does not contain subparts, or a compound, 19 conjunctive, or disjunctive question. See the City’s Factual and Legal Reasons Why Further 20 Response to Interrogatory No. 1, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 21 A “reference-to-documents” answer cannot be used if a complete answer cannot be 22 derived from the documents, as is the case here. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior 23 Court (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 801, 805.) South Coast does not present an affirmative 24 showing as to why preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary would be 25 unduly burdensome or oppressive. (Person v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies (1997) 52 26 Cal.App.4th 813, 818 [The burden is on the responding party to establish that a compilation 27 would be unduly burdensome or oppressive].) Further, the burden or expense for the City 28 would not be comparable because the City does not possess documents going to South -20- CITY OF SOLVANG'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PLAINTIFF (SET ONE) 10773-0022\2936954v1.doc 1 Coast’s profit analyses. “The fact alone that the response to an interrogatory may be 2 expensive and burdensome does not justify a refusal to answer.” (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. 3 Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 55.) 4 Regardless, a proper response under CCP 2030.230 must “specify the writings from 5 which the answer may be derived or ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) South 6 Coast’s response provides no information on which documents provide a response to 7 Special Interrogatory No. 14. “This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the 8 propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the 9 documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) 10 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 11 If YOUR plan in September 2013 was to operate the PROPERTY as a resort hotel 12 with spa and/or restaurant once the PROJECT was completed, IDENTIFY all 13 DOCUMENTS relating to any analysis of profit YOU hoped to achieve from YOUR 14 operations. 15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 16 South Coast repeated the boilerplate objection quoted in the “Response to Special 17 Interrogatory No. 1,” copied above. 18 South Coast also responded that “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 19 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory necessitates the preparation or the making of a 20 compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the Respo