[DEFENSE ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######]
[DEFENSE FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[PHONE | EMAIL]
Attorneys for Defendants PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC. and JOHN DOE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

MARIA REYES,                                    Case No. CIVDS2401847 (FICTIONAL)
                        Plaintiff,
        v.                                      DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
                                                REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION — SET ONE;
PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC.,               PRIVILEGE LOG
a California corporation; JOHN DOE;
and DOES 1 through 50,
                        Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS — SET ONE; PRIVILEGE LOG

Propounding Party: Plaintiff MARIA REYES
Responding Party: Defendants PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC. and JOHN DOE
Set Number: One (1)

Defendants hereby respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents — Set One, propounded January 10, 2025, as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS (incorporated into each specific response below):

1. Defendants object to each request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege (California Evidence Code §§ 950–954), attorney work product doctrine (CCP § 2018.030), or any other applicable privilege.
2. Defendants object to each request seeking “all” documents of a category as overbroad and disproportionate under CCP § 2017.020 to the extent not reasonably limited in time or scope.
3. Defendants object to each request seeking trade secrets or commercially sensitive business information without an appropriate protective order in place. Defendants request that the parties meet and confer regarding a confidentiality stipulation before production of such materials.
4. Defendants object to each request to the extent it seeks documents that are publicly available and therefore equally available to Plaintiff.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 1 (Employment/Contractor Records — DRIVER)

Objection: Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks personal records of Defendant JOHN DOE that constitute private information protected under California Constitution, Article I, § 1 and California Labor Code § 1198.5.

Response: Without waiving and subject to a confidentiality stipulation, Defendants will produce non-privileged, responsive employment records for Defendant JOHN DOE including: employment application (redacted for SSN), employment contract, and offer letter. Production forthcoming within 21 days of entry of a confidentiality order.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 2 (CDL and Medical Certificate)

Response: Defendants will produce Defendant JOHN DOE’s CDL documentation and DOT Medical Examiner’s Certificate in effect as of November 4, 2023. Produced herewith as Exhibit 1 (FICTIONAL).

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 3 (Driving History — 5 Years)

Objection: Defendant objects to the five-year time period as overbroad and disproportionate. Without waiving:

Response: Defendants will produce the DMV driving record obtained at the time of JOHN DOE’s most recent annual review. Production forthcoming.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 4 (Driver Logs — 30 Days)

Objection: Defendants object on the grounds that paper driver logs, if any, are in the possession of the FMCSA and are not in Defendants’ custody. Defendants further object to the extent this request duplicates the ELD data demand in RFP No. 5.

Response: Defendants will produce ELD-generated daily log summaries for the thirty-day period. Production forthcoming within 30 days.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 5 (ELD Data — Native Format)

Objection: Defendants object to production in “native format” to the extent that doing so would require disclosure of proprietary software architecture of the ELD vendor. Defendants further object that the request is unduly burdensome without specification of a data format acceptable to Plaintiff.

Response: Defendants are willing to meet and confer regarding the format of ELD data production. Defendants are in the process of extracting the relevant data from the ELD vendor and will provide it in the most complete available format. Production status: in progress — ELD data request submitted to vendor.

[NOTE: This response is the subject of the pending Motion to Compel.]

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 6 (ECM / Black Box Data)

Objection: Same objections as RFP No. 5 regarding format and vendor cooperation.

Response: Defendants are investigating whether ECM data for the relevant period was preserved. Counsel has been advised that standard post-accident ECM download protocols were not followed within the critical preservation window. Defendants will supplement this response with information regarding data preservation status. If data was not preserved, a declaration will be provided.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 7 (GPS / Telematics — 72 Hours)

Response: Defendants will produce GPS tracking records for the VEHICLE for the 72-hour window to the extent available and retrievable from the fleet management system. Production forthcoming within 30 days.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 8 (Dispatch Records / Route Assignment)

Response: Defendants will produce the dispatch record, trip sheet, manifest, and bill of lading for Defendant JOHN DOE’s November 4, 2023 route. Production forthcoming.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 9 (Communications — November 3–4, 2023)

Objection: Defendants object to the extent this request seeks communications that constitute attorney-client privileged communications or attorney work product, or that implicate the privacy rights of third-party employees.

Response: Without waiving, Defendants will produce non-privileged dispatch system communications between Pacific Western Logistics dispatch and Defendant JOHN DOE for November 3–4, 2023. Any withheld communications are identified in the Privilege Log below.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 10 (Maintenance Records — 12 Months)

Response: Defendants will produce vehicle maintenance records, inspection logs, and repair orders for the VEHICLE for the twelve months preceding the INCIDENT. The pre-trip inspection report for November 4, 2023 is produced herewith as Exhibit 2 (FICTIONAL). The post-accident inspection report dated November 5, 2023, is withheld — see Privilege Log, Entry PL-003.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 11 (FMCSA Compliance Records — 5 Years)

Objection: Defendants object to the five-year period as disproportionate. Without waiving:

Response: Defendants will produce records of FMCSA compliance reviews for the three years preceding the INCIDENT. Responsive documents are being compiled. Production forthcoming within 30 days.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 12 (Safety Manuals and Policies)

Response: Defendants will produce COMPANY’s Driver Safety Manual and Hours-of-Service Compliance Policy in effect as of November 4, 2023, subject to confidentiality designations for proprietary content. Production forthcoming.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 13 (Driver Training Records — 2 Years)

Response: Defendants will produce records of safety training completed by Defendant JOHN DOE in the two years preceding the INCIDENT. Production forthcoming.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 14 (Prior Accident / Incident Reports — DRIVER — 5 Years)

Objection: Defendants object that internal incident reports may constitute attorney work product if prepared in anticipation of litigation. Without waiving:

Response: Defendants will produce non-privileged accident and incident records for Defendant JOHN DOE. Any withheld documents are identified in the Privilege Log.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 15 (Internal Investigation — INCIDENT)

Objection: Defendants object on grounds of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The post-accident investigation was conducted at the direction of counsel in anticipation of litigation. See Privilege Log, Entry PL-001.

Response: No production.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 16 (Photos / Video — INCIDENT)

Response: Defendants will produce all photographs of the VEHICLE taken at the scene on November 4, 2023. Produced herewith as Exhibit 3 (FICTIONAL). Defendants are not in possession of any dashcam footage; investigation is continuing.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 17 (Post-Accident Vehicle Photos)

Response: Produced herewith as part of Exhibit 3 (FICTIONAL).

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 18 (Cell Phone Records — DRIVER)

Objection: Defendants object on grounds of privacy (California Constitution, Article I, § 1) as to personal cell phone records. Defendants further object that carrier records are in the possession of the cell phone carrier, not Defendants.

Response: Defendants will produce records of company-issued phone communications on November 4, 2023, subject to a confidentiality designation. Personal cell phone records, if any, are not in Defendants’ custody or control; Plaintiff should seek those records by subpoena.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 19 (Insurance Policies)

Response: Defendants will produce the declarations page and relevant endorsements for the primary commercial auto liability policy and umbrella policy identified in response to FROG 4.1. Production forthcoming.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 20 (Coverage / Reservation-of-Rights Correspondence)

Objection: Defendants object on the grounds that coverage correspondence between insured and insurer may be protected by a joint defense privilege or attorney-client privilege.

Response: No reservation-of-rights letters have been issued as of the date of these responses. Any future coverage correspondence will be handled under a separate confidentiality designation as appropriate.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 21 (Prior Accidents — VEHICLE — 3 Years)

Response: Defendants are not aware of any prior motor vehicle accidents or insurance claims involving the VEHICLE in the three years preceding the INCIDENT. If such records exist, they will be produced. Response to be supplemented.

RESPONSE TO RFP NO. 22 (Indemnification Agreements)

Objection: Defendants object on grounds that any indemnification agreement between Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. and Defendant JOHN DOE is protected by the attorney-client privilege and is work product if prepared in anticipation of this litigation. Defendants further object on relevance grounds — indemnification obligations between co-defendants are not relevant to plaintiff’s claims. Without waiving:

Response: Defendants are reviewing whether a written indemnification agreement exists and will supplement this response.

PRIVILEGE LOG

The following documents are withheld in their entirety on privilege grounds. Documents redacted but partially produced are not listed here.

VERIFICATION

I, [AUTHORIZED OFFICER — NAME REDACTED], declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am authorized to verify these responses on behalf of Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. and John Doe, and that the foregoing responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Executed on February 11, 2025, at [CITY, CA].

[AUTHORIZED OFFICER — NAME REDACTED], [TITLE — REDACTED]
Pacific Western Logistics, Inc.