RICHARD N. SIEVING, ESQ. (SB #133634) LUKE G. PEARS ......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

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



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 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



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


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.


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



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.




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.




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






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.


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.






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



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.


YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with all relevant industry standards?


“relevant industry standards.” This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.






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



its work in compliance with any and all relevant industry standards.


YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with all relevant manufacturer

recommendations?


“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









responds as follows: Not applicable. JELD-WEN is the manufacturer of its vinyl window

and sliding glass door products.


YOUR work on the PROJECT in compliance with all relevant ordinances, codes or

statutes?


“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


follows: Yes.








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



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?



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?




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?




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?




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











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?









SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Who do YOU contend, if anyone, is

required to indemnify YOU for damages and/or losses relating to the PROJECT?






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







SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Who, if anyone, are YOU required to

name as an additional named insured on YOUR liability insurance policy?



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. 34: Do YOU contend that YOU did not cause

or contribute to any of the damages claimed by propounding party in this case?



for a legal conclusion or opinion. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.









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



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?


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


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.






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


responding party responds as follows: Not applicable.


party’s alleged damages are not related to YOUR scope of work?



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




responds as follows: Yes.





for an expert opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the


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.


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.


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.






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



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




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


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.





request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Please IDENTIFY who was responsible

for supervising YOUR work on the PROJECT?


“responsible for supervising” and “work.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or

opinion.



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



SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Do YOU contend that YOU were not

required to supervise YOUR work on the PROJECT?


“required to supervise.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.



RESPONSE: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous. This request is


a legal conclusion or opinion.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Do YOU contend that propounding party

was responsible for supervising YOUR work on the PROJECT?


“responsible for supervising.” This request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.







inadequately supervised 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



SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Who was responsible for inspecting

YOUR work on the PROJECT?


“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



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.




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


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




“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



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.




“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


follows: Not applicable.


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



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







testimony. This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding



applicable.


inadequately inspected YOUR work on the PROJECT?



testimony.





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




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.




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




specifications for the PROJECT do not provide adequate detail for proper construction?


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.




ambiguous. This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in



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



opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary




specifications for the PROJECT are deficient in any manner?


ambiguous as to the terms “plans and specifications” and “deficient.” This request



upon responding party. This request calls for an expert opinion or testimony.




ambiguous. This request seeks the premature disclosure of expert information in



opinion or testimony. However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary



SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 67: Do YOU have any criticisms of the plans

and specifications for the PROJECT?


ambiguous as to the terms “criticisms” and “plans and specifications.” This request




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



SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 68: Please state all criticisms YOU identified

in response to Special Interrogatory No. 67.


ambiguous as to the terms “criticisms” and “plans and specifications.” This request




request seeks information protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.


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.


“repair.” This request is overbroad and thus unduly burdensome upon responding party.


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.


“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




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.


“repair estimates.” However, without waiving these objections or the preliminary


follows: Not applicable. JELD-WEN has not prepared any repair estimates for the

project.


has entered into any settlement agreement or release of any claims with YOU with

respect to the PROJECT?


calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.




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?


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



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



VERIFICATION TO FOLLOW

Documents

RICHARD N. SIEVING, ESQ. (SB #133634) LUKE G. PEARS ......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