[ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[PHONE | EMAIL]
Attorneys for Plaintiff MARIA REYES

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

MARIA REYES,                                    Case No. CIVDS2401847 (FICTIONAL)
                        Plaintiff,
        v.                                      PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
                                                MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC.,               TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES — SET ONE;
a California corporation; JOHN DOE;            MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
and DOES 1 through 50,                         DECLARATION OF [ATTORNEY NAME];
                        Defendants.            REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
                                                UNDER CCP § 2023.030

                                               Hearing Date: May 15, 2026
                                               Time: 8:30 a.m.
                                               Department: [##]
                                               Reservation ID: [######]

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES — SET ONE

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 15, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department [##] of the above-entitled court, Plaintiff MARIA REYES will move this Court for an order:

1. Compelling Defendants PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC. and JOHN DOE to provide further, code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories — Set One, Nos. 14 and 22, without objection;

2. Awarding Plaintiff monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record in the amount of $1,950, representing attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030.

This motion is made on the grounds that Defendants’ responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 22 are evasive, incomplete, and objectively deficient under CCP § 2030.220, and that Defendants have failed to serve further verified responses despite an adequate meet-and-confer process spanning more than ten months. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, the Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######], the Separate Statement (filed concurrently), all records and papers on file in this action, and any oral argument the Court may permit.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a personal-injury action arising from a catastrophic November 4, 2023, collision in which a fully-loaded commercial semi-truck operated by Defendant JOHN DOE, an employee of Defendant PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC., ran a red traffic signal and struck Plaintiff MARIA REYES’ vehicle broadside at highway approach speed.

2. The collision left Plaintiff with herniated discs at C5-C6 and L4-L5, approximately one year of lost income from her licensed vocational nursing career, and substantial ongoing medical expenses. It also produced one critical liability fact: John Doe had been on duty for approximately fourteen hours in the twenty-four hours preceding the crash — a fact that emerged from John Doe’s own deposition and from ELD records produced at deposition.

3. That fourteen-hour figure is the heart of this motion. Plaintiff served Special Interrogatory No. 14 asking Defendants to identify any period in the thirty days before the collision in which Doe’s records reflected an exceedance of the FMCSA driving-hours limits under 49 C.F.R. § 395.3. Defendants responded with a non-answer dressed in objection clothing: they asserted privilege, declined to characterize the ELD data as reflecting a “violation,” and produced nothing.

4. Plaintiff served Special Interrogatory No. 22 asking for the identity of the telematics vendor, data retention period, and preservation status of telematics data. Defendants provided a partial response identifying the ELD vendor but refused to state the data retention period or preservation status — the two facts essential to preserving Plaintiff’s right to seek sanctions for spoliation if the data was not retained.

5. After more than ten months of good-faith meet-and-confer efforts, Plaintiff brings this motion to compel the straightforward factual answers that Defendants are obligated to provide under California law.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. Plaintiff MARIA REYES filed the Complaint in this action on July 15, 2024 (Case No. CIVDS2401847 — FICTIONAL), alleging negligence, negligent entrustment, and vicarious liability arising from the November 4, 2023, collision.

7. Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories — Set One on January 10, 2025. Defendants’ responses were received on February 11, 2025. (Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME], ¶ 3.)

8. Interrogatory No. 14 asked Defendants to state whether HOS records for the driver reflected any violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 395.3 or 395.5 in the thirty days preceding the INCIDENT. Defendants responded with an objection asserting attorney-client privilege and work product, followed by a statement declining to “characterize the ELD data as reflecting a ‘violation’ without expert analysis.” (Defendants’ Response to SROG No. 14, attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME].)

9. Interrogatory No. 22 asked for the telematics vendor identity, data recorded, data retention period, and preservation status. Defendants partially identified the ELD vendor and referenced a dashcam but refused to state the data retention period or whether data was preserved. (Defendants’ Response to SROG No. 22, attached as Exhibit B.)

10. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter on March 4, 2025, identifying the deficiencies in SROG Nos. 14 and 22. Defendants served supplemental responses on March 21, 2025, which did not cure the deficiencies. (Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME], ¶¶ 5–6.)

11. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a second meet-and-confer letter on March 25, 2025. A telephonic meet-and-confer conference occurred on April 2, 2025. Defense counsel represented that further supplementation would require additional time. No supplementation was received. (Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME], ¶¶ 7–8.)

12. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a final meet-and-confer letter on January 15, 2026, providing Defendants with a final opportunity to serve code-compliant responses. Defense counsel responded that Defendants’ position remained unchanged. (Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME], ¶ 9.)

13. Plaintiff now brings this motion.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

14. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.300(a), a propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response to an interrogatory if the propounding party deems that the response is (1) “evasive or incomplete,” (2) includes an objection that “is without merit or too general,” or (3) is based on a claim of privilege that does not apply.

15. The responding party has the burden of justifying any objections to interrogatories. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Assertions of privilege must be specifically stated, accompanied by facts sufficient to evaluate the claim, and may not be made in blanket or boilerplate form. (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 292.)

16. Under CCP § 2030.220(a), each answer must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party.” A response that declines to characterize facts already in the responding party’s possession as either constituting or not constituting a regulatory violation is evasive on its face. The interrogatory asks for a factual description of what the records show — not a legal conclusion.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. Defendants’ Response to SROG No. 14 Is Evasive and Must Be Compelled

17. SROG No. 14 asks a straightforward factual question: do the HOS records show any period in the thirty days before the collision during which Defendant Doe’s hours exceeded the regulatory maximums? Defendants’ response does not answer this question. It objects on privilege grounds — but the question is not about counsel’s communications or strategy; it is about objective data reflected in the ELD records that were produced at Doe’s deposition.

18. The attorney-client privilege does not protect the facts themselves from disclosure. (Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 601.) The ELD data is a business record generated in the ordinary course; it does not become privileged because counsel subsequently reviewed it. Defendants’ objection is without merit.

19. Defendants’ alternative position — that they cannot characterize the ELD data as a “violation” without expert analysis — is sophistry. The interrogatory does not ask Defendants to opine on legal liability. It asks them to describe what the records reflect. If the records show Doe drove eleven hours in a given day, Defendants must say so. Whether eleven hours constitutes a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 is for the Court and the jury to decide.

20. Courts have consistently held that a responding party may not avoid answering a factual interrogatory by asserting that the answer would require a legal conclusion. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Compelled responses to SROG No. 14 are warranted.

B. Defendants’ Response to SROG No. 22 Is Incomplete and Prejudices Plaintiff’s Spoliation Rights

21. SROG No. 22 asked three specific sub-questions: (1) identity of the telematics vendor; (2) data retention period; and (3) preservation status of data for the period surrounding the INCIDENT. Defendants answered (1) partially, and refused to answer (2) and (3).

22. The data retention period and preservation status are not privileged. They are facts about how Defendants store and manage business records. Withholding them serves no legitimate privilege purpose; it simply prevents Plaintiff from knowing whether the evidence still exists.

23. This is not a trivial procedural point. If Defendants allowed ELD or telematics data to be overwritten or purged after receiving Plaintiff’s June 25, 2024 litigation hold letter, Plaintiff is entitled to move for evidentiary sanctions or an adverse inference instruction under CCP § 2023.030 and Evidence Code § 413. The only way to determine whether spoliation occurred is to know what the retention period was and whether data was preserved. Defendants’ refusal to answer these questions conceals the very facts necessary for Plaintiff to enforce her rights.

24. An order compelling a complete response to SROG No. 22 is necessary to protect the integrity of the record.

C. The Meet-and-Confer Requirement Is Satisfied

25. CCP § 2030.300(b)(1) requires that a motion to compel be accompanied by a declaration stating that the movant has “made a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally” the issues presented. As detailed in the Declaration of [ATTORNEY NAME], Plaintiff’s counsel sent three written meet-and-confer letters over a period of ten months (March 4, 2025; March 25, 2025; January 15, 2026) and engaged in a telephonic conference (April 2, 2025). Defendants have had ample opportunity to cure the deficiencies and have declined to do so. The meet-and-confer requirement is satisfied.

D. Plaintiff Is Entitled to Monetary Sanctions

26. Under CCP § 2023.030(a), a court may impose monetary sanctions against a party who misuses the discovery process. CCP § 2030.300(d) provides that the court shall impose sanctions against a party who “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification.”

27. Defendants’ objections are not substantially justified. The privilege objections asserted are plainly inapplicable to the factual questions asked. The selective disclosure of some telematics information while withholding the preservation-status facts necessary to evaluate spoliation risk reflects a calculated discovery strategy rather than a good-faith privilege determination.

28. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,950, calculated as follows:

V. CONCLUSION

29. Defendants’ responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 22 are evasive, incomplete, and unsupported by legitimate privilege. Despite ten months of good-faith meet-and-confer efforts, Defendants have refused to provide the straightforward factual answers required by California law. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

(a) Order Defendants to serve further, verified, code-compliant responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 22 within fifteen (15) days of this Court’s order, without objection;

(b) Award Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,950 against Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty (30) days of this Court’s order.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: February 10, 2026

[ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######]
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys for Plaintiff MARIA REYES

DECLARATION OF [ATTORNEY NAME] IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL

I, [ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######], declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and a member of [FIRM NAME], attorneys of record for Plaintiff Maria Reyes in this action. I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge.

2. Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories — Set One on January 10, 2025. Defendants served their responses on February 11, 2025.

3. On March 4, 2025, I sent a meet-and-confer letter to defense counsel identifying the deficiencies in SROG Nos. 14 and 22. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

4. Defendants served supplemental responses on March 21, 2025. My review of those supplemental responses confirmed that SROG Nos. 14 and 22 remained deficient.

5. On March 25, 2025, I sent a second meet-and-confer letter. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

6. On April 2, 2025, I participated in a telephonic meet-and-confer conference with [DEFENSE COUNSEL NAME — REDACTED]. Defense counsel represented that additional time was needed to consult with the client. No further supplementation was received.

7. On January 15, 2026, I sent a final meet-and-confer letter providing Defendants a final opportunity to serve code-compliant responses. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

8. On January 20, 2026, defense counsel responded in writing that Defendants’ position remained unchanged.

9. I have expended and expect to expend approximately 4.5 hours of attorney time in connection with this motion, at my current billing rate of $400 per hour, plus a $150 filing fee.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 10, 2026, at [CITY, CA].

[ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######]