NATHAN E.

BEHNAM, SBN 311656

1 DANIEL S. POULDAR, SBN 315051
BPN Law, A Professional Corporation
2 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
3 Telephone (310) 299-7617
Facsimile (310) 933-5822
4 Email: dpouldar@bpnlaw.com
nbehnam@bpnlaw.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
6 LAWRENCE HICKS

7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF FRESNO
9

10
LAWRENCE HICKS, an individual Case No. 23CECG00691
11
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE HICKS RESPONSES
12 TO DEFENDANT RICARDO TOLENTINO’S
v. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
13
RICARDO TOLENTINO, an individual, and Action Filed:
14 DOES 1-50,
Trial Date:
15 Defendants. 1

16

17

18

19

20

21
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
22
PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT RICARDO TOLENTINO
23
RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE HICKS
24
SET NO.: ONE
25
///
26
///
27
Plaintiff LAWRENCE HIC (“Responding Party” or “Plaintiff”) hereby responds and
28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1
 1 objects to Defendant RICARDO TOLENTINO (“Defendant” or “Propounding Party”) Special

2 Interrogatories, Set One, without waiving further discovery or the right to present any

3 subsequently discovered evidence at the time of trial or any hearing in this matter.

4 This introduction applies to each and every response herein and shall be incorporated by
5 this reference as though set forth in full to each and every response. The following responses will

6 be based solely upon facts, issues, documents and other information in the possession, custody, or

7 control of Plaintiff at the time of the preparation of these responses.

8 Discovery will continue as long as permitted by statute, order of the court, or stipulation of
9 parties, and investigation by Plaintiff shall continue to and through trial on this matter, and any

10 further prosecution of this matter. Plaintiff therefore specifically reserves the right to introduce

11 any evidence from whatever source which may hereinafter be discovered. If any information or

12 objections have been unintentionally omitted from these responses, Plaintiff specifically reserves

13 the right to apply for relief so as to permit the introduction of the omitted information or

14 objections.

15 Responding Party has not yet fully completed her investigation of the facts relating to this
16 case, has not yet completed her discovery in this case, and has not fully completed her preparation

17 for trial. Therefore, all responses contained herein are based only upon such information and

18 documents which are presently available to, and specifically known to this responding party, and

19 disclose only those contentions which presently occur to this responding party.

20 It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and

21 analysis will supply additional facts, add meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely

22 new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to,

23 changes in, and variations from the contentions set forth herein below.

24 Therefore, the following responses and production are given without prejudice to this
25 responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequent fact or facts which this responding

26 party may later recall. Accordingly, this responding party expressly reserves the right to change

27 and/or supplement any and all responses herein as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
2
 1 made, legal research is completed and contentions are developed, pursuant to Code of Civil

2 Procedure section 2031.010, et seq.

3 Responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual
4 information, and as much specification of legal contentions, as is presently known, but in no way

5 be to the prejudice of this responding party in relation to further discovery, research or analysis.

6 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
7 Responding Party makes the following General Objections to each and every
8 Interrogatory:

9 1. Responding Party objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they seek information

10 that is protected from discovery by any applicable privilege, doctrine or immunity, including

11 without limitation, the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine, and

12 information that is subject to the right of privacy guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the

13 California Constitution and the constitutional, statutory or decisional law of the United States, the

14 State of California and all other relevant jurisdictions. Plaintiff does not deem the Interrogatories

15 to seek such information and will not disclose such information in response to the Interrogatories.

16 2. Responding Party objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that they seek
17 information neither relevant to the subject matter or this action and are not reasonably calculated

18 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

19 3. All specific references are provided without a waiver of and with express
20 reservations of: (a) all objections to competency, relevancy, materiality and admissibility of the

21 responses and the subject matter thereof as evidence for any purpose in any further proceedings in

22 this action, including motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues, and the

23 trial of this action, or any other action; (b) all privileges and the attorney work product doctrine;

24 (c) the right to object to the use of such responses, of the subject matter thereof, on any ground in

25 any further proceedings in this action; and (d) the right to object on any ground at any time to a

26 demand or Interrogatory for further responses to these or any other Interrogatories or discovery

27 proceedings.

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
3
 1 4. These responses and objections are based upon information reasonably available to
2 Responding Party in her investigation to date and are subject to further investigation, discovery,

3 supplementation and amendment.

4 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

6 Please identify (name of lien holder, date of service, amount of lien) all liens by any medical

7 provider identified in your response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.4.

8 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

9
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
10
Please IDENTIFY ("IDENTIFY": this requires that the names, addresses and telephone
11
numbers be set forth for each person and/or entity being identified) all HEALTHCARE
12
PROVIDERS ("HEALTHCARE PROVIDER": means and refers to any and all doctors, hospitals,
13
clinics, medical providers, etc.) by whom you have been treated/examined in the last ten (10)
14
years.
15
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
16
Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades her right to
17
privacy. Objection is also interposed on the grounds that this interrogatory is burdensome,
18
oppressive, and overbroad, as to time and scope. Identifying all healthcare providers, including
19
those that treated body parts that were not injured as a result of the subject incident, for ten years is
20
burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party further objects on the grounds that this
21
interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Identifying
22
every healthcare provider, including those that treated body parts that were not injured as a result
23
of the subject incident, dating back ten years is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
24
of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
25
that the information sought is protected by her right to privacy. Notwithstanding and subject to,
26
without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party responds as
27
follows: Responding Party will respond after she and Propounding Party reach an agreement
28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
4
 1 limiting and tailoring the scope of this interrogatory to seek information that is relevant to this

2 action and does not amount to an invasion of privacy.

3 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

4 For each HEALTHCARE PROVIDER identified in response to interrogatory number two,

5 please state the condition for which you were seen.

6 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

7 Responding Party objects on the grounds that the term “condition” is vague and
8 ambiguous. Responding Party cannot be forced to speculate as to what information Propounding

9 Party is seeking. Responding Party also objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is

10 burdensome, oppressive, and overbroad, as to time and scope. Providing the information sought

11 for every healthcare provider, regardless of the grounds for treatment, for ten years is also

12 burdensome and oppressive. For this same reason, this interrogatory is not reasonably calculated

13 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this

14 interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is protected by her right to privacy.

15 Notwithstanding and subject to, without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections,

16 Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will respond after she and Propounding

17 Party reach an agreement limiting and tailoring the scope of this interrogatory to seek information

18 that is relevant to this action and does not amount to an invasion of privacy.

19 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

20 Please IDENTIFY all pharmacies that have filled prescriptions for you in the last ten (10)
21 years.

22 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

23 Responding Part objects on the grounds that the term “condition” is vague and ambiguous.
24 Responding Party cannot be forced to speculate as to what information Propounding Party is

25 seeking. Responding Party also objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is burdensome,

26 oppressive, and overbroad, as to time and scope. Providing the information sought for every

27 healthcare provider, regardless of the grounds for treatment for ten years, is burdensome and

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
5
 1 oppressive. For this same reason, this interrogatory is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

2 discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the

3 grounds that the information sought is protected by her right to privacy. Notwithstanding and

4 subject to, without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party

5 responds as follows: Responding Party will respond after she and Propounding Party reach an

6 agreement limiting and tailoring the scope of this interrogatory to seek information that is relevant

7 to this action and does not amount to an invasion of privacy.

8 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

9 Have you listed this claim on any bankruptcy petition filed between the date of the subject
10 accident and the present time?

11 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

12 Responding Party objects on the grounds that the terms “claim” and “subject incident” are
13 vague and ambiguous. Responding Party cannot be forced to speculate as to what information

14 Propounding Party is seeking. Notwithstanding and subject to, without waiving the foregoing

15 general and specific objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party has

16 never declared bankruptcy.

17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

18 Do you have any bankruptcy petitions still pending?

19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

20 Responding Party has never filed for bankruptcy. Therefore, no bankruptcy petitions are
21 pending.

22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

23 Please itemize the total amount of medical bills you claim to have incurred as a result of
24 the subject incident, including the name and address of the healthcare provider and the amount of

25 the bill.

26 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

27 Responding Party objects on the grounds that the terms “subject incident” and “itemize”
28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
6
 1 are vague and ambiguous. Responding Party cannot be forced to speculate as to what information

2 Propounding Party is seeking. Objection is also interposed on the grounds that the information

3 sought is protected by the attorney-work product doctrine. Notwithstanding and subject to, without

4 waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party responds as follows:

5 - Dr. Cory Waldman, (424) 239-1499, 435; North Roxbury Drive, suite 300, Beverly
6 Hills, CA 90212. Amount Billed: $550.00
7 - Andrew Glen Yun, M.D.: (310) 582-7474; 2001 Santa Monica Blvd #760, Santa
8 Monica, CA 90404. Amount billed: Unknown at this time.
9 - Dr. Jayson Sher, (310) 470-0154; 1990 Westwood Blvd., Unit 110, Los Angeles, CA
10 90025. Amount Billed: $1,075.00
11 - Dr. Kreitenberg, (310) 659-3400; 434 South San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA
12 90048. Amount billed: $1,470.00
13 - WestStar Physical Therapy, (888) 786-2888 12062 Valley View, Suite 200, Garden
14 Grove, CA 92845. Amount billed: Pending, as Responding Party is still obtaining
15 treatment.
16 Responding Party’s investigation and discovery are ongoing
17 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

18 For each bill identified in your response to interrogatory number seven, please state the
19 amount of the bill that was paid for by Medi-Cal.

20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

21 Responding Party is not a Medi-Cal beneficiary. Therefore, this interrogatory is not

22 applicable.

23 ///

24 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

25 For each bill identified in your response to interrogatory number seven, please state the
26 amount of the bill that was paid for by Medicare.

27 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
7
 1 - Dr. Cory Waldman, (424) 239-1499, 435; North Roxbury Drive, suite 300, Beverly
2 Hills, CA 90212. Amount paid by Medicare: Unknown.
3 - Andrew Glen Yun, M.D.: (310) 582-7474; 2001 Santa Monica Blvd #760, Santa
4 Monica, CA 90404. Amount paid by Medicare: Unknown at this time.
5 - Dr. Jayson Sher, (310) 470-0154; 1990 Westwood Blvd., Unit 110, Los Angeles, CA
6 90025. Amount paid by Medicare: None.
7 - Dr. Kreitenberg, (310) 659-3400; 434 South San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA
8 90048. Amount paid by Medicare: None.
9 - WestStar Physical Therapy, (888) 786-2888 12062 Valley View, Suite 200, Garden
10 Grove, CA 92845. Amount paid by Medicare: None.
11 Responding Party’s investigation and discovery are ongoing
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

13 Are you entitled to benefits under the Medicare program?

14 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

15 Yes.
16 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

17 Please state whether Medicare could pay part or all of any of the medical bills you have
18 incurred from the healthcare providers listed in interrogatory seven.

19 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

20 Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for speculation.
21 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

22 If your answer to Interrogatory number 11 was anything but an unqualified negative,

23 please list the names of those healthcare providers.

24 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

25 Plaintiff is unable to respond to this interrogatory on the grounds that Interrogatory No. 11
26 calls for speculation.

27 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
8
 1 Please state in detail how the subject accident and the injuries you claim to have suffered
2 as a result of the subject accident have affected your life.

3 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

4 Responding Party objects on the grounds that the terms “in detail” and “subject accident”
5 are vague and ambiguous. Responding Party cannot be forced to speculate as to what information

6 Propounding Party is seeking. Notwithstanding and subject to, without waiving the foregoing

7 general and specific objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party’s neck,

8 back, shoulders, legs, knees, hips, and buttocks were injured as a result of the August 10, 2021 car

9 crash (“Crash”) caused by Propounding Party. Due to her severe injuries, Responding Party

10 suffers from significant pain, which persists to date. She also has difficulty walking up stairs,

11 sitting, and standing. The ways in which the Crash has affected Responding Party are not limited

12 to physical injuries. The Crash has, and still causes, Plaintiff to suffer from significant emotional

13 distress, including but not limited to: Anxiety; Annoyance; Depression; Decrease in coordination,

14 numbness, weakness; Discomfort, loss of enjoyment, and frustration due to inability to perform

15 previous life abilities as she was previously able to perform; Discomfort, loss of enjoyment, and

16 frustration due to the decline in physical health because of her inability to perform activities as

17 previously performed; Loss of enjoyment and frustration due to the inability to perform activities

18 previously performed and other daily activities; Nervousness, anxiety, and worry surrounding her

19 inability to perform activities as previously performed; Severe aggravation due to loss of ability to

20 perform normal, daily activities as she did prior to the Crash. She has difficulty walking, standing

21 for extended periods of time, and cannot engage in hobbies that once brought her joy.

22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

23 Please provide the name, address, and phone number for every primary care physician,
24 family physician you have seen in the last 10 years.

25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

26 Responding Party objects on the grounds that the terms “primary care physician” and
27 “family physician” are vague and ambiguous. Responding Party cannot be forced to speculate as

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
9
 1 to what information Propounding Party is seeking. Responding Party also objects on the grounds

2 that this interrogatory is burdensome, oppressive, and overbroad, as to time and scope. Identifying

3 all “primary care physician” and “family physician”, including those that treated body parts

4 unrelated to the subject incident, for a full ten years is burdensome and oppressive. Relatedly,

5 objection is further interposed on the grounds that this interrogatory seeks information that is not

6 relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Identifying every “primary care physician” and

7 “family physician”, including those that treated body parts that were not injured as a result of

8 subject incident, dating back ten years is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

9 admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that

10 the information sought is protected by her right to privacy. Notwithstanding and subject to,

11 without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party responds as

12 follows: Responding Party will respond after she and Propounding Party reach an agreement

13 limiting and tailoring the scope of this interrogatory to seek information that is relevant to this

14 action and does not amount to an invasion of privacy.

15 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

16 From the Date of the INCIDENT to the present, have you had health insurance through
17 which you have submitted any of the bills for your treatment for injuries sustained in this

18 INCIDENT? (Discoverable through Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52

19 Cal.App.4th 541 and Corenbaum vs. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308).

20 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

21 Yes.
22 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

23 If the answer to interrogatory number 15 above is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY the

24 insurance carrier by name and address. (Propounded pursuant to Howell v. Hamilton Meats and

25 Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.App.4th 541 and Corenbaum vs. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th

26 1308).

27 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
10
 1 Yes, MediCare. Address: P.O. Box 1270, Lawrence Kansas 66044.
2 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

3 If the answer to interrogatory number 15 above is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY the health
4 insurance policy number thereto.

5 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

6 MediCare No. 7J95-RM5-KF72.

7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

8 If the answer to interrogatory number 15 above is in the affirmative, IDENTIFY the name
9 policy holder for the health insurance policy thereto.

10 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

11 Gail A. Mindell.
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

13 Identify your medical record number (MRN) pursuant to your health insurance policy
14 identified either in Special Interrogatory 15 and/or Form Interrogatory 4.1.

15 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

16 Unknown. Responding Party’s investigation and discovery are ongoing

17

18 Dated: July 17, 2023 BPN LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

19

20 /s/ DANIEL S. POULDAR, ESQ.

By: __________________________________
21 Nathan Behnam, Esq.
Daniel S. Pouldar, Esq.
22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
GAIL MINDELL and GAIL MINDELL
23

24

25

26

27

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
11
 1 VERIFICATION
2 I, GAIL MINDELL, declare and state that:

3 I have read the foregoing document entitled and know its contents:
4 PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S
5 SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
6 I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my
7 own knowledge expect as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to

8 those matters, I believe them to be true.

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

11 Executed on _________________ in Los Angeles, California.

12

13
_______________________
14 GAIL MINDELL
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
PLAINTIFF GAIL MINDELL’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT NOAH MASROUR’S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
12