[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
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES — SET ONE
PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC.,
a California corporation; JOHN DOE;
and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES — SET ONE
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 Special Interrogatories — Set One, propounded January 10, 2025, as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS are incorporated by reference as set forth in Defendants’ responses to Form Interrogatories — Set One.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 1 (Driver Identity)
Response: Defendant JOHN DOE’s full legal name is [NAME — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER]. Defendant’s date of birth is [REDACTED]. His California CDL number is [######] (FICTIONAL). His CDL is issued by the State of California.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 2 (CDL Endorsements)
Response: At the time of the INCIDENT, Defendant JOHN DOE held a California Class A CDL with the following endorsements: [T] Doubles/Triples; [N] Tank Vehicle. He did not hold a HazMat endorsement.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 3 (Driver Training)
Response: In the five years preceding the INCIDENT, Defendant JOHN DOE completed the following training:
- Defensive Driving Course, [PROVIDER — REDACTED], completed [DATE — REDACTED]
- Annual Hours-of-Service Compliance Review, Pacific Western Logistics internal training, completed [DATE — REDACTED] and [DATE — REDACTED]
- Fatigue Awareness training, Pacific Western Logistics, completed [DATE — REDACTED]
Investigation is continuing; Defendants reserve the right to supplement.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 4 (Prior Accidents and Violations)
Response: In the five years preceding the INCIDENT, Defendant JOHN DOE received one citation for [VIOLATION TYPE — REDACTED] in [YEAR — REDACTED] in [COUNTY — REDACTED]. The citation was resolved by [DISPOSITION — REDACTED]. No at-fault accidents are on record during this period.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 5 (Date of Employment)
Response: Defendant JOHN DOE was first employed by Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. as a full-time Class A CDL driver on [DATE — REDACTED]. At the time of the INCIDENT, he was a regular full-time employee under an at-will employment agreement.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 6 (Pre-Employment Screening)
Response: Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. conducted the following pre-employment checks prior to Defendant JOHN DOE commencing driving duties: (1) DMV driving record pull; (2) FMCSA Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) inquiry; (3) road test; (4) DOT pre-employment physical examination; (5) pre-employment substance screening (negative result). Defendants will produce relevant documentation in response to Plaintiff’s RFP Set One following resolution of any privilege and confidentiality issues.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 7 (Route Assignment)
Response: On November 4, 2023, Defendant JOHN DOE was assigned a freight delivery route originating from Pacific Western Logistics’ Ontario, California terminal, with scheduled delivery stops in [CITY — REDACTED]. The cargo consisted of [CARGO CATEGORY — REDACTED]. The route was assigned by dispatch coordinator [NAME — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER]. Specific manifest and load sheet documents will be produced pursuant to RFP Set One.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 8 (Departure Time)
Response: Defendant JOHN DOE’s scheduled departure time was 5:00 a.m. on November 4, 2023. His actual departure time, per ELD records, was approximately 5:23 a.m.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 9 (On-Duty Hours — 24 Hours)
Objection: This interrogatory is compound and calls for information that is more readily ascertainable from ELD records subject to production in response to RFP Set One. Defendants further object that the definition of “on duty” under 49 C.F.R. § 395.2 requires interpretation that constitutes a legal conclusion. Without waiving these objections:
Partial Response: Based on available ELD records, Defendant JOHN DOE was on duty for approximately [##] hours in the twenty-four hours immediately preceding the INCIDENT. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this response upon further review of the full ELD data set.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 10 (Driving Hours — 24 Hours)
Objection: Same objections as SROG No. 9. Without waiving:
Partial Response: Based on available ELD records, Defendant JOHN DOE drove for approximately [##] hours in the twenty-four hours immediately preceding the INCIDENT.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 11 (Driving Hours — 72 Hours)
Objection: Defendants object that this interrogatory seeks information for a seventy-two-hour period that is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this stage of discovery, and is burdensome to compile without access to the full ELD data set. Without waiving:
Partial Response: Defendants are reviewing ELD records for this period. Response will be supplemented.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 12 (On-Duty Hours — 7 Days)
Objection: Same objections as SROG Nos. 9 and 11. Without waiving:
Partial Response: Defendants are reviewing ELD records. Response will be supplemented.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 13 (Rest Breaks — 24 Hours)
Response: Based on ELD records reviewed to date, Defendant JOHN DOE’s duty status during the twenty-four hours preceding the INCIDENT was as follows: [PERIOD 1 — OFF DUTY]: [TIME RANGE — REDACTED]; [PERIOD 2 — ON DUTY / DRIVING]: [TIME RANGE — REDACTED]. Specific rest location data is being reviewed and will be supplemented.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 14 (HOS Violations)
DEFICIENT RESPONSE — SUBJECT TO MOTION TO COMPEL:
Objection: This interrogatory seeks information that is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection to the extent it asks about the legal conclusions drawn from the HOS data during the course of counsel’s investigation. Defendants further object that this interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion regarding regulatory compliance. Without waiving:
Partial Response: Defendants are not aware of any FMCSA citation issued to Defendant JOHN DOE or to Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. in connection with this INCIDENT. To the extent the interrogatory asks defendants to self-identify regulatory violations in their own records, defendants decline to characterize the ELD data as reflecting a “violation” without expert analysis.
[Plaintiff’s counsel note: This response is evasive as to whether the records themselves reflect any exceedance of 49 C.F.R. § 395.3 thresholds — the core question asked. Motion to compel filed.]
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 15 (ELD Device Information)
Response: The VEHICLE was equipped with a [ELD VENDOR — REDACTED] ELD device, model [MODEL — REDACTED], as of November 4, 2023. Software version is being confirmed. The ELD vendor is [VENDOR NAME — REDACTED].
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 16 (ELD Malfunctions)
Response: Defendants are not aware of any ELD malfunction or compliance event recorded for the VEHICLE in the relevant period. Data review is continuing.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 17 (Vehicle Identification)
Response: The VEHICLE is a 2021 Freightliner Cascadia, VIN [######] (FICTIONAL), GVWR 80,000 lbs.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 18 (Maintenance Records)
Response: Maintenance records for the VEHICLE for the twelve months preceding the INCIDENT are being compiled and will be produced pursuant to RFP Set One subject to any applicable confidentiality designations.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 19 (Pre-Trip Inspection)
Response: A pre-trip inspection of the VEHICLE was performed by Defendant JOHN DOE on November 4, 2023, prior to departure. The inspection was performed at approximately 5:00 a.m. No deficiencies were noted on the inspection report.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 20 (Post-Accident Inspection)
Response: A post-accident inspection of the VEHICLE was performed by [INSPECTION COMPANY — REDACTED] on November 5, 2023. The inspection report is being reviewed for privilege and will be produced, or a privilege log entry provided, pursuant to RFP Set One.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 21 (Traffic Signal Information)
Response: Defendants are informed and believe that a standard traffic signal was present at the intersection. Defendants are not the custodian of the City of Ontario’s traffic signal records and are not in a position to confirm signal timing or phase data. Plaintiff should subpoena the City of Ontario directly.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 22 (Telematics / Recording Systems)
DEFICIENT RESPONSE — SUBJECT TO MOTION TO COMPEL:
Objection: Defendants object that the identity of the telematics vendor and the specific data formats and retention periods constitute proprietary commercial information protected as trade secrets under California Evidence Code § 1060. Defendants further object that this interrogatory is overbroad as to “all” electronic recording systems. Without waiving:
Partial Response: As stated in response to SROG No. 15, an ELD was installed. The VEHICLE may also have been equipped with a dashcam. Defendants are investigating whether dashcam footage from the relevant period was preserved.
[Plaintiff’s counsel note: This response fails to identify telematics system, data retention period, and preservation status — the three specific items asked. Motion to compel filed as to this interrogatory.]
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 23 (Dispatcher Identity)
Response: The dispatcher on duty who last communicated with Defendant JOHN DOE prior to the INCIDENT was [NAME — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER], a dispatch coordinator at Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. Contact through defense counsel.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 24 (Pre-Incident Communications)
Objection: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks content of communications that may be subject to privacy rights of third-party employees. Defendants further object that production of the content of all communications in a four-hour window is overbroad and disproportionate. Without waiving:
Partial Response: Defendants are reviewing dispatch system records for the relevant period. A summary of communications will be provided, or the records will be produced pursuant to RFP Set One, subject to any applicable privilege designations.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 25 (Safety Audits)
Response: Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. conducts annual internal safety audits of all CDL drivers, including Defendant JOHN DOE. Records of such audits are maintained in the ordinary course of business. Copies of audits for Defendant JOHN DOE will be produced pursuant to RFP Set One, subject to confidentiality designations, redaction of third-party personal information, and any privilege designations.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 26 (Prior Complaints)
Response: Defendants are not aware of any written complaints, reports, or formal concerns regarding Defendant JOHN DOE’s driving behavior, fatigue, or safety practices submitted prior to the INCIDENT. Investigation is continuing.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 27 (Safety Training — 2 Years)
Response: See response to SROG No. 3. In addition, Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. conducted quarterly driver safety meetings attended by Defendant JOHN DOE. Records are being compiled for production.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 28 (FMCSA Audits)
Response: Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. has been subject to the following FMCSA compliance reviews in the three (3) years preceding the INCIDENT: [AUDIT DATE — REDACTED] — Compliance Review, FMCSA Region [##]; result: [SATISFACTORY/CONDITIONAL — REDACTED]; no out-of-service order issued. Note: Defendants have limited the time period of this response to three years; plaintiff’s interrogatory requested five years. Defendants are willing to meet and confer as to the extended time period.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 29 (Citations / Fines)
Response: Pacific Western Logistics, Inc. has received [##] FMCSA roadside inspection violations in the five years preceding the INCIDENT. Details are being compiled. Defendants have not been placed out of service by any state or federal agency during this period. Specific citation records will be produced pursuant to RFP Set One.
RESPONSE TO SROG NO. 30 (Affirmative Defense Facts)
Response: Defendants’ affirmative defenses are based in part on the contention that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in operating her vehicle at the subject intersection. Investigation and discovery are continuing. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this response as additional facts are developed.
VERIFICATION — JOHN DOE
I, JOHN DOE, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on February 11, 2025, at [CITY, CA].
JOHN DOE
VERIFICATION — PACIFIC WESTERN LOGISTICS, INC.
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 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.