View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 1
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
RICHARD N. SIEVING, ESQ. (SB #133634)LUKE G. PEARS-DICKSON, ESQ. (SB #296581)THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 220NSacramento, California 95825Telephone: (916) 444-3366Facsimile: (916) 444-1223
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-ComplainantJELD-WEN, inc. dba SUMMIT WINDOW & PATIO DOOR (erroneously sued herein as separate entities “SUMMIT WINDOW & PATIO DOOR” and “Doe 3: Jeld-Wen, Inc. dba Summit Window & Patio Door”)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN NATIONALCONSTRUCTION, et al.
Defendants. /
AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. /
Case No. 1-13-CV-258281
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIALINTERROGATORIES
(SET NUMBER ONE)
Judge: Hon. Peter H. KirwanDept.: One (1)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff CILKER APARTMENTS, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant JELD-WEN, inc. dba SUMMIT WINDOW & PATIO DOOR
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant JELD-WEN, inc. dba SUMMIT
WINDOW & PATIO DOOR (hereinafter “JELD-WEN” or “responding party”) hereby
responds to the Special Interrogatories (Set Number One) served by Plaintiff CILKER
APARTMENTS, LLC as follows:
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 2
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
A. Responding party has not completed investigation of the facts relating to
this case, has not completed discovery in this action, and has not completed
preparation for trial. Therefore, the following responses are given without prejudice to
responding party’s right to modify or enlarge its responses herein based upon additional
information hereafter obtained or evaluated as a result of the continuing investigation.
Furthermore, these responses are made without prejudice to responding party’s right
to use or introduce at later times in the proceeding, including the time of trial,
subsequently discovered information or information omitted from these responses as
a result of a good faith oversight, error or mistake.
B. The responses herein are made on the basis of information presently
available to and located by responding party upon reasonable investigation of its
records and inquiry of present employees, agents and representatives. There may be
other and further information of which responding party, despite its investigation and
inquiry, is presently unaware. Responding party is continuing the development of facts
and legal issues which are presented in this matter and inquired into by the propounded
interrogatories.
C. The responses herein are made solely for the purpose of this action.
Each response is subject to all objections as to confidence, relevance, materiality,
propriety, admissibility, and to any and all other objections on any ground which would
require the exclusion from evidence of any statement herein if any request for admission
were asked of, or any statements contained herein were made by, a witness present
and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds are expressly reserved and
may be interposed at trial.
D. No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein.
The fact that responding party has responded or not objected to an interrogatory or any
part thereof shall not be deemed an admission that responding party accepts or admits
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 3
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by such interrogatory, or that such
response or objection constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that responding party
may have answered part or all of any interrogatory is not intended to, and shall not be
construed as, a waiver by responding party of any part of any objection to any
interrogatory.
E. To the extent any interrogatory or part thereof calls for information, legal
analysis or reasoning, writings, communications or anything else protected from
disclosure by the Work Product Doctrine or the attorney client privilege or any other
privilege, responding party hereby objects to each and every such interrogatory and part
thereof and will not supply or render information protected from discovery by virtue of
such Doctrine or Privileges.
F. Responding party objects to any interrogatory or part thereof which
purports to require responding party to conduct an investigation beyond their current
records or beyond present officers, agents, employees, and representatives, as
burdensome and oppressive.
G. This preliminary statement is incorporated by reference into each of the
individual interrogatory responses set forth below.
II.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please IDENTIFY the name, address,
phone number, and job title of each person who participated in the preparation of YOUR
responses to these Interrogatories.
RESPONSE:
Richard N. Sieving, Esq.Luke G. Pears-Dickson, Esq. THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please describe the work or services YOU
performed on the PROJECT.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 4
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
RESPONSE: Objection. Discovery and fact investigation are ongoing. This
request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “work or services.” This request is
compound. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding
party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of
objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: JELD-
WEN acted merely as a vinyl window and sliding glass door product supplier. JELD-
WEN also performed subsequent warranty or service work on its products at the Subject
Property.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please describe the materials YOU
provided or supplied for work on the PROJECT.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is compound. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding
party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of
objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: JELD-
WEN supplied vinyl window and sliding glass door products.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please IDENTIFY the name, address,
phone number and job title of all persons who performed YOUR work on the PROJECT.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request is compound. However, without waiving these
objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above,
responding party responds as follows: Not applicable. JELD-WEN acted merely as a
vinyl window and sliding glass door product supplier.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please IDENTIFY all contracts YOU
entered into with respect to the PROJECT.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: All parties were required to produced responsive documents in this litigation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 5
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
JELD-WEN has produced all responsive documents in this litigation. JELD-WEN and
propounding party have equal access to such documents. A copy of the subcontract
entered into between JELD-WEN and Western National Construction has been
produced by propounding party as Exhibit “A” to its Requests for Admissions, Set One,
to JELD-WEN. JELD-WEN is not aware of any additional contracts.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please IDENTIFY each person negotiated
the terms and conditions of the contracts identified in YOUR response to Special
Interrogatory No. 5.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request is compound. However, without waiving these
objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above,
responding party responds as follows: Unknown. JELD-WEN is unaware of anyone
currently within the company with knowledge of the events relevant to this litigation.
SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please IDENTIFY all written change
orders with respect to YOUR scope of work on the PROJECT.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: All parties were required to produced responsive documents in this litigation.
JELD-WEN has produced all responsive documents in this litigation. JELD-WEN and
propounding party have equal access to such documents. Change order documents
have been produced by propounding party as Exhibit “B” to its Requests for Admissions,
Set One, to JELD-WEN. JELD-WEN is not aware of any change orders not contained
within that set.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please IDENTIFY each person negotiated
the terms and conditions of the change orders identified in YOUR response to Special
Interrogatory No. 7.
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 6
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request is compound. However, without waiving these
objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above,
responding party responds as follows: Unknown. JELD-WEN is unaware of anyone
currently within the company with knowledge of the events relevant to this litigation.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do YOU contend that YOU performed
YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with YOUR contract?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Yes.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 9.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion. However, without waiving these objections or the
preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party
responds as follows: JELD-WEN is not aware of facts evidencing that it did not perform
its work in accordance with any and all contractual obligations.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Do YOU contend that YOU performed
YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with the plans and specifications?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“plans and specifications.” This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Yes.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 11.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. However, without
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 7
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions
stated above, responding party responds as follows: JELD-WEN is not aware of facts
evidencing that it did not perform its work in compliance with any and all plans and
specifications.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do YOU contend that YOU performed
YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with all relevant industry standards?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“relevant industry standards.” This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Yes.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 13.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly
burdensome upon responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the
preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party
responds as follows: JELD-WEN is not aware of facts evidencing that it did not perform
its work in compliance with any and all relevant industry standards.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Do YOU contend that YOU performed
YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with all relevant manufacturer
recommendations?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“manufacturer recommendations.” This request calls for an expert opinion or
testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of
objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Not
applicable. JELD-WEN is the manufacturer of its vinyl window and sliding glass door
products.
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 8
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 15.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly
burdensome upon responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the
preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party
responds as follows: Not applicable. JELD-WEN is the manufacturer of its vinyl window
and sliding glass door products.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do YOU contend that YOU performed
YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with all relevant ordinances, codes or
statutes?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“relevant ordinances, codes or statutes.” This request calls for an expert opinion or
testimony. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request calls for a legal
conclusion or opinion. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon
responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: Yes.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 17.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly
burdensome upon responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the
preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party
responds as follows: JELD-WEN is not aware of facts evidencing that it did not perform
its work in compliance with any and all relevant ordinances, codes or statutes.
/ / /
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 9
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does YOUR contract for work on the
PROJECT require YOU to indemnify any party for damages and/or losses relating to the
PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If YOUR response to Special
Interrogatory No. 19 is “yes” please state who are YOU required to indemnify for
damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Does YOUR contract for work on the
PROJECT require YOU to defend any party for damages and/or losses relating to the
PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: If YOUR response to Special
Interrogatory No. 21 is “yes” please state who are YOU required to defend for damages
and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Do YOU contend that YOU are not
required to indemnify propounding party for damages and/or losses relating to the
PROJECT?
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 10
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 23.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Do YOU contend that YOU are not
required to defend propounding party for damages and/or losses relating to the
PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 25.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Who do YOU contend, if anyone, is
required to indemnify YOU for damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 27.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Who do YOU contend, if anyone, is
required to defend YOU for damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 11
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
RESPONSE: Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 29.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Who, if anyone, are YOU required to
name as an additional named insured on YOUR liability insurance policy?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Who do YOU contend, if anyone, is
required to name YOU as an additional named insured on its liability insurance policy?
RESPONSE: Objection. Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or
opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 32.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Do YOU contend that YOU did not cause
or contribute to any of the damages claimed by propounding party in this case?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Yes.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 34.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: JELD-WEN acted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 12
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
merely as a vinyl window and sliding glass door product supplier. JELD-WEN is not
aware of any evidence of defects with its products.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Do YOU contend that any of propounding
party’s alleged damages are unreasonable?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This
request calls for an expert opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these
objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above,
responding party responds as follows: JELD-WEN is unable to answer this as discovery
is ongoing and Plaintiff has yet to produce a finalized defect list or accounting of its
damages.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 36.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This
request calls for an expert opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these
objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above,
responding party responds as follows: Not applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Do YOU contend that any of propounding
party’s alleged damages are not related to YOUR scope of work?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for an expert opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 13
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party
responds as follows: Yes.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 38.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for an expert opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the
preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party
responds as follows: JELD-WEN acted merely as a vinyl window and sliding glass door
product supplier. JELD-WEN is not aware of any evidence of defects with its products.
JELD-WEN is unable to answer this meaningfully as discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff
has yet to produce a finalized defect list or accounting of its damages.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Do YOU contend that any of propounding
party’s proposed repairs are unreasonable?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms
“repairs” and “unreasonable.” This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert
information in violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is
overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for
an expert opinion or testimony. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: JELD-WEN is
unable to answer this meaningfully as discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff has yet to
produce a finalized defect list or accounting of its damages.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 40.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 14
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
upon responding party. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This
request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. However, without waiving these
objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above,
responding party responds as follows: Not applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Do YOU contend that any of propounding
party’s proposed cost of repairs are unreasonable?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms
“repairs” and “unreasonable.” This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert
information in violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is
overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for
an expert opinion or testimony. This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Please state all facts which support YOUR
response to Special Interrogatory No. 42.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This
request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Please IDENTIFY who was responsible
for supervising YOUR work on the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“responsible for supervising” and “work.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or
opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 44.
RESPONSE: This request is vague and ambiguous. This request is overbroad
and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for a legal
conclusion or opinion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 15
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Do YOU contend that YOU were not
required to supervise YOUR work on the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“required to supervise.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 46.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request is
overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for
a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Do YOU contend that propounding party
was responsible for supervising YOUR work on the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“responsible for supervising.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 48.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Do YOU contend that propounding party
inadequately supervised YOUR work on the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 50.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls
for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 16
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Who was responsible for inspecting
YOUR work on the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“inspecting.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for
an expert opinion or testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: JELD-WEN acted merely as a vinyl window and sliding glass door product
supplier. To the extent this request is asking about responsibility for inspecting JELD-
WEN’s products, JELD-WEN believes Western National Construction had such
responsibility as the project’s general contractor. Alliance Building Products, Inc., as the
installer of such products, was also responsible for inspecting the JELD-WEN products.
Any other persons or entities which installed or supervised the installation of such
products also was responsible for inspecting the products.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 52.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or
testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding
party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of
objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Western
National Construction was charged with overseeing the project in its entirety, including
the work of all subcontractors. Alliance Building Products, Inc. was required to inspect
the products, as called for in its subcontract with Western National Construction (WNC
032048-WNC 032058).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Do YOU contend that YOU were not
required to inspect YOUR work on the PROJECT?
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 17
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“required to inspect.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request
calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This request seeks trade secret and/or other
proprietary information. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: JELD-WEN acted merely as a vinyl window and sliding glass door product
supplier. To the extent this request is asking about JELD-WEN’s internal inspection
requirements of its products, this request seek confidential and proprietary information
and will not be answered.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 54.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“required to inspect.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request
calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This request seeks trade secret and/or other
proprietary information. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: Not applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Do YOU contend that propounding party
was responsible for inspecting YOUR work on the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term “inspecting.”
This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert
opinion or testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon
responding party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: JELD-WEN acted merely as a vinyl window and sliding glass door product
supplier. To the extent this request is asking about responsibility for inspecting JELD-
WEN’s products, no.
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 18
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 56.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or
testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding
party. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of
objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Not
applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Do YOU contend that propounding party
inadequately inspected YOUR work on the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or
testimony.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 58.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or
testimony.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 60: What role, if any, did YOU play in
creation of the plans and specifications for the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous as to the terms “creation” and “plans and specifications.” This request is
overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. However, without
waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions
stated above, responding party responds as follows: None.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Do YOU contend that the plans and
specifications for the PROJECT are ambiguous?
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 19
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous as to the term “plans and specifications.” This request seeks the premature
disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et
seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party.
This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 61.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous as to the term “plans and specifications.” This request seeks the premature
disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et
seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party.
This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these
objections or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above,
responding party responds as follows: Not applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Do YOU contend that the plans and
specifications for the PROJECT do not provide adequate detail for proper construction?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous as to the terms “plans and specifications,” “adequate,” and “proper
construction.” This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in
violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and
thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for an expert
opinion or testimony.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 63.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous. This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in
violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and
thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for an expert
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 20
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: Not applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Do YOU contend that the plans and
specifications for the PROJECT are deficient in any manner?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous as to the terms “plans and specifications” and “deficient.” This request
seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 65.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous. This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in
violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and
thus unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for an expert
opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: Not applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67: Do YOU have any criticisms of the plans
and specifications for the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous as to the terms “criticisms” and “plans and specifications.” This request
seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This
request seeks information protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 21
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68: Please state all criticisms YOU identified
in response to Special Interrogatory No. 67.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is unintelligible. This request is vague and
ambiguous as to the terms “criticisms” and “plans and specifications.” This request
seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony. This
request seeks information protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Not applicable.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 69: Please describe each and every repair
YOU made to the PROJECT.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“repair.” This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party.
However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of objections
and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: JELD-WEN did not
make any repairs to the project. JELD-WEN performed limited warranty and service
work on its products subsequent to their installation at the Subject Property. This work
primarily related to minor issues with screens. All written documentation reflecting such
warranty and service work have been produced in this litigation and are available to
propounding party.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70: Please describe any and all repairs YOU
propose with respect to the PROJECT.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“repairs.” This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in violation
of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request is overbroad and thus
unduly burdensome upon responding party. This request calls for an expert opinion or
testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary statement of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 22
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as follows: Not
applicable. JELD-WEN currently does not propose any repairs for the project.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71: Please describe any and all repair
estimates YOU prepared with respect to the PROJECT.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“repair estimates.” However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary
statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party responds as
follows: Not applicable. JELD-WEN has not prepared any repair estimates for the
project.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 72: Do YOU contend that propounding party
has entered into any settlement agreement or release of any claims with YOU with
respect to the PROJECT?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 73: Please state all facts which support
YOUR response to Special Interrogatory No. 72.
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 74: Have you, YOUR attorneys, or any
person to YOUR knowledge obtained any oral or written statements, of any kind or
nature, concerning the PROJECT or any of the issues or damages alleged in the
complaint from any persons claiming to have knowledge of the facts relevant to the
damage alleged in the complaint?
RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome
upon responding party. This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert
information in violation of Code of Civil Procedure §2034.210, et seq. This request calls
for an expert opinion or testimony. This request seeks information protected by the
attorney-client and work product privileges. However, without waiving these objections
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 23
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
or the preliminary statement of objections and conditions stated above, responding party
responds as follows: No.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 75: If YOUR answer to Special Interrogatory
No. 74 is in the affirmative, please IDENTIFY all such persons and the type of statement
obtained.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
DATED: November 24, 2015 THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
By: /s/ Richard N. Sieving RICHARD N. SIEVINGAttorney for Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant JELD-WEN, inc. dba SUMMIT WINDOW &PATIO DOOR (erroneously sued hereinas separate entities “SUMMITWINDOW & PATIO DOOR” and “Doe 3:Jeld-Wen, Inc. dba Summit Window &Patio Door”)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. [Cilker - Resp to PLs Srogs (11-24-15).wpd (rns:slb)] 100 Howe Ave., Suite 220N Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 444-3366 24
JELD-WEN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET NUMBER ONE)
VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW
Recommended