PLAINTIFF MATEO TO BERETTA CORPORATION'S …michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11.13.00_People-v... · 21 People, etc., et al. v. Arcadia ... e.g., People v. Jmnes, 122

1 Robert J. Nelson (SBN 132797) Richard M. Franco (SBN 170970)

2 Jennie Lee Anderson (SBN 203586) LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN

& BERNSTEIN, LLP Embarcadero Center West

3

4 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

5 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

6 Michael J. Dowd (SBN 135628)

7 Jonah Goldstein (SBN 193777) Stephen P. Polapink (SBN 177489)

8 MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH,LLP

9 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101

10 Telephone: (619) 231-1058

11 Patrick J. Coughlin (SBN 111070) Ex Kano Sams (SBN 192936)

12 MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACHLLP

13 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 288-4545

14 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534

Thomas F. Casey III (SBN 47562) San Mateo County Counsel Brenda B. Carlson (SBN 121355) Deputy County Counsel 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 363-4760 Facsimile: (650) 363-4034

15 FULL ADDRESSES AND ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED AFTER SIGNATURE PAGE

16

17 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

18 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 1550(b))

19 FIREARM CASES

20 Including actions:

21 People, etc., et al. v. Arcadia Machine & Tool, Inc., et al.

22 People, etc., et al. v. Arcadia Machine & Tool, Inc., et al.

23 People, etc., et al. v. Arcadia Machine & Tool, 24 Inc., et al.

25

26

27

JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING No. 4095

San Francisco Superior Court No. 303753

Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC210894

Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC214794

PLAINTIFF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPON:SES TO BERETTA U.S.A. CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

DATE ACTION FILED: 05/25/99

28 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT BERETTA U.S.A. CORPORATION ON

13l.guc

PLTF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO BERETTA U.S.A.'s 1ST SET OF SPECIALINTERROGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

RESPONDING PARTIES:

SET NUMBER:

BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS IN THESE COORDINATED ACTIONS

PLAINTIFFS, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL, THOMAS F. CASEY, III, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BY AND THROUGH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY.

ONE

7 Plaintiffs, The People of the State of California, et. al. ("plaintiffs"), specifically, San

8 Mateo County, by counsel, hereby respond to defendant Beretta U.S.A. Corporation's ("Beretta")

9 First Set of Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs ("interrogatories") as follows:

10 I.

11

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs respond to these interrogatories on the basis of their current knowledge and

12 belief, without the benefit of full discovery in this case. As such, these responses are based only on

13 the infonnation that is presently available to, and specifically known by, plaintiffs. Further

14 discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis may supply additional facts and add

15 meaning to the known facts, as well as establish new factual conclusions and legal contentions.

16 Accordingly, plaintiffs reserve their right to update these responses as fonnal and infonnal discovery

17 proceeds in this matter. Subject to the following general and specific objections, plaintiffs' responses

18 to these interrogatories are, therefore, made without prejudice to their right to provide supplemental

19 responses and objections.

20 II.

21

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

The following objections apply to this entire set of interrogatories. Plaintiffs reserve

22 the right to assert additional/supplemental objections to these interrogatories as appropriate. These

23 general obj ections are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in each ofthe responses to

24 the interrogatories listed below.

25 1. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories on the ground that they "contain

26 subparts" and/or "compound, conjunctive or disjunctive question[s]" in violation of

27 section 2030(c)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

28 2. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories on the ground that they seek

-1-13l.gUC


1 infonnation that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to

2 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In an action such as this - a civil public enforcement

3 action brought by the People of California for violations of Business & Professions Code

4 sections17200, et seq., and 17500, et seq., and violations of public nuisance laws - the defendants'

5 conduct is the only conduct at issue. Plaintiffs' conduct is wholly irrelevant. Therefore, any

6 infonnation and/or documents that defendants request regarding plaintiffs' conduct and actions are

7 irrelevant, and plaintiffs object to producing any such materials. Plaintiffs also object to producing

8 materials and infonnation regarding plaintiffs' conduct and actions to the degree that defendants seek

9 use such infonnation to assert any equitable defenses because such defenses do not apply to this type

10 of action. See, e.g., People v. Jmnes, 122 Cal. App.3d 25,40 (1981).

11 3. Plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the tenn "plaintiffs" as vague and

12 ambiguous, and need further clarification of this tenn in order to accurately respond to these

13 intelTogatories.

14 4. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they seek confidential

15 infonnation concerning ongoing criminal investigations or infonnation the disclosure of which may

16 jeopardize the public safety or the safety oflaw enforcement officers.

17 5. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek official

18 infonnation provided in confidence to a public entity that is protected and privileged under section

19 1040 of the Evidence Code.

20 6. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they seek any

21 infonnation concerning juvenile records and/or reports, which is protected and privileged under

22 section 827 of the Welfare & Institutions Code.

23 7. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories on the grounds that they are overly

24 broad and unduly burdensome. C.C.P. § 2019(b )(2). These interrogatories cast an unreasonably

25 wide net, requesting infonnation that is immensely difficult and burdensome to collect and largely

26 irrelevant to the issues at hand in this case.

27 8. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they seek infonnation

28 dating back any further than four years from the filing of the original complaint in this action.

-2-13l.gUC


1 Plaintiffs will provide, however, relevant infonnation dating back to 1990 to the degree it is not

2 overly burdensome to do so.

3 9. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they seek disclosure of

4 any information that is shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work

. 5 product doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege or protection.

6 10. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they seek infonnation

7 that would violate an individual's right to privacy and/or any other applicable protection.

8 11. Plaintiffs object to these interrogatories to the extent they prematurely seek

9 expert testimony or opinion at a time when no experts have been designated.

10

11 III. RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

12 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

13 Please identify by manufacturer, model, style and caliber, each and every fireann that

14 has been approved, authorized and used during each of the last ten years for use by the PLAINTIFFS'

15 law enforcement agencies or any other subdivision, department or agency of the PLAINTIFFS

16 authorized by law to carry fireanns.

17 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.1:

18 Plaintiffs obj ect to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly

19 burdensome as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 7. Plaintiffs further

20 object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks infonnation that is not relevant to the subject

21 matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as

22 explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 2. Plaintiffs also object to this

23 interrogatory to the extent it seeks infonnation that is equally available to defendants in this action.

24 Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the tenn "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.

25 INTERROGATORY NO.2:

26 With respect to each of the fireanns identified in the preceding interrogatory, state

27 whether the PLAINTIFFS or any subdivision, department, agency or representative thereof ever

28 communicated to the fireann's manufacturer a complaint or criticism that the fireann lacked

-3-13 Lguc


1 available safety features, safety mechanism or wamings.


3 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly


5 object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject


7 explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 2. Plaintiffs also object to this

8 interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is equally available to defendants in this action or

9 already in defendants' possession, custody or control. Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants'

10 definition of the term "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.


12 If your response to the preceding interrogatory was in the affirmative, please state the

13 specific dates on which such complaints or criticisms were made, the person making the complaint

14 or criticism; the specific complaint or criticism made; whether the complaint or criticism was written

15 or oral; whether the complaint or criticism was responded to by the firearm's manufacturer; and

16 whether the basis of the complaint or criticism led to the discontinued use of the firearm.


18 Plaintiffs obj ect to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly




22 explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 2. Finally, plaintiffs object to

23 defendants' definition of the term "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.


25 Describe with specificity all of defendants' advertisements, wamings, instructions,

26 publications or other written communications that the PLAINTIFFS contend have deceived, misled

27 or confused the PLAINTIFFS and/or its citizens on the use of firearms for self protection, home

28 defense or other lawful purposes.

-4-13l.guc

PLTF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO BERETTA U.S.A.'S 1ST SET OF SPECIALINTERROGS


2 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as irrelevant in that it seeks materials that the

3 plaintiffs "contend have deceived, misled or confused the plaintiffs and/or its citizens." This is not

4 the proper standard under which to evaluate a claim for violations of sections 17200, et seq., and

5 17500, et seq., of the Business & Professions Code. Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory on the

6 grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks to have plaintiffs "[ d]escribe

7 with specificity all of defendants' advertisements, warnings, instructions, publications or other

8 written communications." C.C.P. § 2019(b)(2). Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory as

9 vague and ambiguous by its directive to "[ d]escribe with specificity" the requested information

10 because Beretta's corresponding Request For Production No.3 seeks production of "[a]ll

11 advertisements, promotions, warnings, instructions, pUblications and other ... communications."

12 Thus, Beretta's request for an additional specific description of that same material is confusing.

13 Moreover, notwithstanding that Beretta's request for the actual materials is also overly broad and

14 unduly burdensome, a request to then "describe with specificity" the same materials is, in addition,

15 unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. C.c.P. § 2019(b)(1). Plaintiffs further object to defendants'

16 definition of the term "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs also note that this request is

17 premature because, without the benefit of full discovery, plaintiffs cannot respond more specifically

18 to this interrogatory. Finally, to the extent this interrogatory seeks expert opinion or analysis of the

19 infoffi1ation sought, it is premature and improper at this time.

20 Subject to and without waiving any of their general or specific objections, pursuant to

21 section 2030(£)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs will provide samples of advertisements

22 in their possession that they contend violate sections 17200, et seq., or 17500, et seq., of the

23 Business & Professions Code. Plaintiffs will also provide published reports and articles in their

24 possession regarding deceptive and misleading firearm advertisements and marketing campaigns.

25 Further, as discovery progresses, plaintiffs will continue to produce firearm responsive

26 advertisements and marketing materials.


28 Describe the approved method of practice used by the PLAINTIFFS and/or their law

-5-13l.guc

PLTF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO BERETTA U.S.A.'s 1ST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGS

1 enforcement agencies and officers to sell, transfer or dispose of duty firearms, off-duty firearms

2 and/or firearms that are seized, recovered or otherwise obtained by PLAINTIFFS.


4 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly

5 burdensome as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 7. Plaintiffs also

6 object on the ground that it seeks information regarding Plaintiffs' conduct that is not relevant to the

7 subject matter ofthis litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

8 evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 2. In addition,

9 Plaintiffs object to the defendants' definition of "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous. Finally,

1 0 plaintiffs object to the fonn of this interrogatory pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure

11 section 2030(c)(5).


13 the Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(f)(2), plaintiffs respond as follows: As a preliminary

14 matter, plaintiffs note that several state statutes govern the destmction or disposal of confiscated or

15 unclaimed weapons and plaintiffs comply with all such applicable statutes. See, e.g., Pen. Code

16 §§ 12028, 12029 and 12032. In addition to complying with relevant state statutes, San Mateo

17 County destroys all pennanently seized firearms, although on occasion such firearms are used for

18 law enforcement purposes. Plaintiffs will produce documents that describe these policies in further

19 detail.


21 Describe each INCIDENT in which the firearm used was a firearm that had been sold,

22 trans felTed or otherwise disposed of by the PLAINTIFFS(s).


24 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly

25 burdensome as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 7. Plaintiffs also

26 object to defendants' definition of the telm "incident" as vague and ambiguous. Defendants'

27 definition of "incident" also incorrectly assumes that plaintiffs' claims for relief are premised on

28 specific occurrences involving the use or discharge of a firearm and, therefore, misstates plaintiffs'

-6-I3l.guc


1 theory of liability. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks

2 infonnation that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to

3 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general

4 objection number 2. Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the tenn "plaintiffs" as

5 vague and ambiguous.

6 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.7:

7 Do the PLAINTIFFS or any oftheir subdivisions, departments or agencies collect,

8 maintain or possess data or statistics on crimes reported to its law enforcement agencies involving

9 alleged violations of laws relating to fireanns sales ownership and/or possession?


11 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the grounds that is overly broad and unduly

12 burdensome, as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 7. Plaintiffs

13 further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks infonnation that is not relevant to the

14 subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

15 evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 2. Plaintiffs also

16 object to defendants' definition of the teml "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.


18 the Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(f)(2), plaintiffs respond as follows: The San Mateo

19 Sheriffs Department maintains records regarding the guns confiscated and held in its property room,

20 including some infonnation regarding the types of crime associated with the seized gun. Plaintiffs

21 will provide responsive, non-confidential data regarding the crimes associated with guns confiscated

22 and held in their property rooms between 1996 and 1999 to the degree that it is not overly

23 burdensome to do so. In addition, plaintiffs will produce responsive, non-confidential documents

24 that include crime statistics compiled by the Califomia Department of Justice. Defendants are

25 advised that annual crime statistics and their sources are available to them through the Califomia

26 Department of Justice.

27

28

13l.guc -7-



2 lfthe answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the

3 person, subdivision, department, agency or third party responsible for collecting and maintaining

4 such data or statistics and over what period of time such statistics have been collected and

5 maintained.


7 See Response to Special Interrogatory No.7.


9 Do the PLAINTIFFS or any of their subdivisions, departments or agencies collect,

10 maintain or possess data or statistics on arrests made by its law enforcement agencies involving

11 alleged violations of laws relating to firearm sales, ownership and/or possession?


13 Plaintiffs object to the form of this interrogatory pursuant to section 2030(c)(5) of the

14 Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is

15 overly broad and unduly burdensome, as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general obj ection

16 number 7. Plaintiffs further obj ect to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is

17 not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

18 of admissible evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general obj ection number 2.

19 Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the term "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.

20 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

21 lfthe answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the



24 maintained.

25 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

26 See Response to Special Interrogatory No.9.

27

28

13l.guc -8-

PLTF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO BERETTA U.S.A.'s 1ST SET OF SPECIALlNTERROGS



3 maintain or possess data or statistics on criminal complaints filed on behalf of its law enforcement

4 agencies involving alleged violations of laws relating to firearm sales, ownership and/or possession?



7 Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs also object to the phrase "filed on behalf of its law enforcement

8 agencies" as vague and ambiguous. Additionally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the

9 grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. C.C.P. § 2019(b)(2). Plaintiffs further






15 the Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(f)(2), plaintiffs will provide responsive, non-privileged

16 documents in their possession that include statistics compiled by the California Department of

17 Justice. Defendants are advised that annual crime statistics and their sources are available through

18 the California Department of Justice.


20 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the



23 maintained.


25 See Response to Special Interrogatory No. 11.

26

27

28

13l.guc -9-




3 maintain or possess data or statistics on the disposition of criminal cases filed on behalf of its law

4 enforcement agencies involving alleged violations of laws relating to firearms sales, ownership

5 and/or possession?



8 Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs also object to the phrase "filed on behalf of its law enforcement

9 agencies" as vague and ambiguous. Additionally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the

10 grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. C.C.P. § 2019(b)(2). Plaintiffs further






16 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affimlative, please identify the



19 maintained.




23 Do the plaintiffs or any of their subdivisions, departments or agencies collect,

24 maintain or possess data or statistics on convictions for crimes reported to its law enforcement

25 agencies involving alleged violations oflaws relating to firearm sales, ownership and/or possession?

26

27

28

13l.guc -10-

PL TF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO BERETTA U.S.A.' S 1 ST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGS


2 Plaintiffs object to the fonn of this interrogatory pursuant to section 2030(c)(5) of the


4 overly broad and unduly burdensome as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection

5 number 7. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks infonnation that is


7 of admissible evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 2.

8 Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the tenn "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.


10 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affinnative, please identify the



13 maintained.




17 Do the Plaintiffs or any of their subdivisions, departments or agencies collect,

18 maintain or possess data or statistics on criminal sentences imposed for crimes reported to its law

19 enforcement agencies involving alleged violations of laws relating to fireann sales, ownership and/or

20 possession?


22 Plaintiffs object to the fonn of this interrogatory pursuant to section 2030(c)(5) of the

23 Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, plaintiffs obj ect to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is


25 number 7. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks infonnation that is



28 Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition ofthe tenn "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.

-11-131.guc



2 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the



5 maintained.




9 What percentage of Plaintiffs' annual budgets over the preceding ten years has been

10 specifically devoted to law enforcement efforts to enforce and investigate violations of then-existing

11 laws relating to the sale, ownership and possession of fireamls?


13 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not

14 relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

15 admissible evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 2.

16 Additionally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly

17 burdensome as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 7. Finally,

18 plaintiffs object to deferidants' definition ofthe term "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.


20 Do the plaintiffs' law enforcement agencies use, endorse or otherwise rely on

21 demographic profiling in the performance of their enforcement activities?





26 number 7. Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous by its use of the term

27 "demographic profiling." Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks

28 information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to

-12-13l.guc



2 objection number 2. Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the term "plaintiffs" as



5 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, describe the law

6 enforcement activities in which demographic profiling is used, endorsed or otherwise relied upon,

7 the demographic profile created and the period of time in which the demographic profiling was used,

8 endorsed or otherwise relied upon. If demographic profiling is not used, endorsed or otherwise

9 relied on, please explain why.





14 number 7. Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous by its use of the tenn

15 "demographic profiling." Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks

16 information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to


18 objection number 2. Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the term "plaintiffs" as



21 Have the Plaintiffs received complaints from their citizens, citizen groups, political

22 and neighborhood leaders and/or public interest groups which have been in any way critical of law

23 enforcement protection and/or law enforcement response time?


25 Plaintiffs obj ect to the form of this interrogatory pursuant to section 2030( c)( 5) of the



28 number 7. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is

-13-13l.guc




3 Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the term "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.


5 Ifthe answer to the preceding intenogatory is in the affilmative, please describe with

6 specificity the nature of such complaints, the person or entities making the complaints, when the

7 complaints were made and how the plaintiff responded to the complaints.


9 See Response to Special Intenogatory No. 23.


11 Do the Plaintiffs issue licenses to their citizens authorizing them to own, possess

12 and/or cany firearms within its tenitoriallimits?


14 Plaintiffs object to the form of this intenogatory pursuant to section 2030(c)(5) of the

15 Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, plaintiffs object to this intenogatory on the grounds that it is


17 number 7. Plaintiffs further object to this intenogatory on the ground that it seeks information that

18 is not relevant to the subj ect matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

19 discovery of admissible evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number

20 2. Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition of the term "plaintiffs" as vague and

21 ambiguous.


23 section 2030(f)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs respond as follows: While plaintiffs are

24 generally prohibited from requiring licenses to own, purchase, possess or carry firearms, See Pen.

25 Code § 12026(b) and Gov. Code § 53071, plaintiffs may issue permits authorizing the permit holder

26 to carry a concealed weapon upon his ot her person upon meeting the statutory requirements. Pen.

27 Code §§ 12050, et. seq. San Mateo County issues such licenses according to its "Concealed

28 Weapons Permit Issuance and Renewal Procedures." Plaintiffs will provide a copy of this document

-14-13l.guc


1 to defendants.


3 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affimlative, state the reasons why

4 the plaintiffs permit licensed citizens to own, possess and/or carry fireamis and describe the

5 requirements imposed on citizens to own, possess and/or carry firearms.




9 Have the plaintiffs every sponsored, implemented or participated in any firearms

10 safety programs designed to educate and inform their citizenry, including children, on the dangers of

11 fireamls, safe and proper handling of firearms and/or the laws regarding sale, ownership and

12 possession of firearms?



15 Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs also obj ect on the ground that it seeks information regarding

16 Plaintiffs' conduct that is not relevant to the subj ect matter of this litigation nor reasonably

17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs'

18 general objection number 2. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory because it is overly broad

19 and unduly burdensome, as explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 7.

20 Finally, Plaintiffs object to defendants' use of the term "implemented or participated" and

21 "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.

22 Subject to and without waiving any of their general or specific objections, pursuant

23 to the Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(£)(2), plaintiffs respond in the affirmative. The San

24 Mateo Sheriffs Department educates the public on the dangers of shooting firearms on New Year's

25 Eve in their "Silent Night" program. The Sheriffs Department also hands out educational material

26 at public education events and functions. Plaintiffs will provide defendants with copies of these

27 educational materials. In addition, the Coyote Point Range, which is located on County property,

28 sponsors gun safety classes. Due to the thoroughness of these classes and convenient location in the

-15-13l.guc


1 County, the Sheriffs Department does not need to sponsor additional courses. In addition, plaintiffs

2 will continue to supplement this response by producing additional responsive, non-confidential

3 information regarding the various ways that San Mateo county educates the public regarding firearm

4 safety from 1990 to present to the degree such information becomes available.


6 If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please describe the

7 program with specificity, including the name ofthe persons, subdivisions, agencies and/or

8 departments responsible for the program, the manner in which the program was designed and

9 implemented, and the period oftime in which the program existed.




13 Do the plaintiffs collect and maintain statistics relating to firearm suicides that have

14 occurred within their territorial boundaries or aware of third parties who collect and maintain such

15 statistics?


17 Plaintiffs object to the form of this interrogatory pursuant to section 2030(c)(5) ofthe



20 number 7. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is



23 Finally, plaintiffs object to defendants' definition ofthe term "plaintiffs" as vague and ambiguous.


25 section 2030(£)(2) ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs respond in the affirmative. The San

26 Mateo County Coroner has maintained annual statistics for firearm suicides since 1994. Plaintiffs

27 will provide a copy ofthese statistics. In addition, plaintiffs will provide responsive statewide data.

28

-16-131.guc



2 lfthe answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affinnative, identify the person,

3 subdivision, department, agency and/or third party responsible for collecting and maintaining such

4 statistics and over what period of time such statistics have been collected and maintained.




8 State the factual basis on which the plaintiffs allege in paragraph 27 ofthe First

9 Amended Complaint that "[ e ]ach defendant was the agent and employee of each remaining

10 Defendant and was within the scope of such agency and employment in perfonning the acts alleged."


12 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as

13 explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general objection number 7. Plaintiffs further object to this

14 contention interrogatory as premature and presumptively improper since this action is in the

15 preliminary stages of discovery. See In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 337 (N.D.

16 Cal. 1985). Plaintiffs also obj ect to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks expert

17 opinion or testimony. Moreover, defendant has not yet adequately and substantially responded to

18 plaintiffs'discovery. Finally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for

19 infonnation shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

20 doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege or protection.


22 State the factual basis on which plaintiffs allege in paragraph 86 ofthe First Amended

23 Complaint that "a two tier distribution system ... is designed to facilitate handgun acquisition by

24 persons not authorized to use, sell or possess handguns, such as criminals and minors."


26 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as



-17-131.guc

PLTF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO BERETTA U.S.A.'s 1ST SET OF SPECIALlNTERROGS


2 Cal. 1985). Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks expert


4 plaintiffs' discovery. Finally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for




8 State the factual basis on which the plaintiffs allege in paragraph 89 of the First

9 Amended Complaint that each defendant has "market[ ed] their products in such a way that they

10 appeal to minors."








18 plaintiffs' discovery. Finally, plaintiffs obj ect to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for





23 Amended Complaint that each manufacturing defendant "contractually attempt[s] to shift all liability

24 and responsibility for the hann done by their products to the distributors and dealers."





-18-131.g11C


1 preliminary stages of discovery. See In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328,337 (N.D.








9 Amended Complaint that each defendant has "undennine[d] and impede[d]" through "conduct and

10 practices" the "restrictions, prohibitions and public policies set forth" in each of the laws and

11 regulations listed in paragraph 115 ofthe First Amended Complaint.


13 Plaintiffs obj ect to this interrogatory as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as






19 plaintiffs' discovery. Finally, plaintiffs obj ect to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for





24 Amended Complaint that each defendant "overpromote[ d] the purported self defense and home

25 protection benefits of their guns."

26

27

28

131.guc -19-




3 explained in greater detail in plaintiffs' general obj ection number 7. Plaintiffs further obj ect to this










13 Amended Complaint that each defendant's "marketing and promotional practices encourage unsafe

14 storage practices and unsafe use of their products."













27 Amended Complaint that each defendant has "distribute[ d] their handgun without adequate warnings

28 and instructions that infonn users of the risks of guns, including proper storage and the use of

-20-131.guc


1 weapons."






7 Cal. 1985). Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks expeli







14 Amended Complaint that each defendant "falsely and deceptively claimed through advertising and

15 promotion oftheir handguns that the ownership and possession of handguns in the home increases

16 one's security."











27

28

131.guc -21-

PLTF SAN MATEO COUNTY'S RESPONSES TO BERETTA U.S.A.'s 1ST SET OF SPECIAL lNTERROGS



3 Amended Complaint that each defendant's "advertising and promotion activities deceptively convey

4 the message that possession of a handgun ... will increase the personal safety ofthe owner and the

5 owner's household."






11 CaL 1985). Plaintiffs also obj ect to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks expert



14 information shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product




18 Amended Complaint that each defendant has "undennined the 'public policies embodied in ...

19 California Penal Code § 12020.5."









28 information shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

-22-131.guc





4 Amended Complaint that each defendant has "violated or aid[ ed] and abbett[ ed] the violation of the

5 California Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989."


7 Plaintiffs object to this interrogatqry as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as










17 Identify all persons by name, address, date of birth, social security number, phone

18 number and employee who are witnesses at any allegation made against the defendants in this case

19 and who are expected to testify at the trial of this action.




23 interrogatory on the ground that such contention discovery is premature and presumptively improper

24 since this action is in the preliminary stages of discovery. See In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig.,

25 108 F.R.D. 328, 337 (N.D. Cal. 1985). Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent it

26 seeks inforn1ation which would violate an individual's right to privacy and/or any other applicable

27 protection. Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of any

28 infonnation which is shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work

-23-131.guc


1 product doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege or protection. Plaintiffs also object to this

2 interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential information regarding ongoing climina1

3 investigations or information the disclosure of which may jeopardize the public safety or the safety

4 of law enforcement officers. Plaintiffs further obj ect to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks

5 information provided in confidence to a public entity that is protected under Section 1040 of the

6 Evidence Code. Finally, plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the. extent it seeks information

7 concerning juvenile records and/or reports, which is protected and privileged under section 827

8 Welfare & Institutions Code.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Again, plaintiffs reserve their right to update these responses as formal and informal

discovery proceeds in this action.

Dated: November /1, 2000

Louise H. Renne (SBN 36508) San Francisco City Attorney Owen J. Clements (SBN 141805) Chief of Special Litigation D. Cameron Baker (SBN 154432) Deputy City Attorney Ingrid M. Evans (SBN 179094) Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3800 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837

Lloyd W. Pellman (SBN 54295) Los Angeles County Counsel Lawrence Lee Hafetz (SBN 143326) Senior Deputy County Counsel Judy W. Whitehurst (SBN 182855) Deputy County Counsel 500 West Temple Street, Suite 648 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 974-1876 Facsimile: (213) 626-2105

13Lguc

Respectfully submitted,

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

if / /j /J /~ By: Ji//t:",-- (/ ~ / ttL /./~G

I R~ERT J. NELSON! '<

Robert J. Nelson (SBN 132797) Richard M. Franco (SBN 170970) Jennie Lee Anderson (203586) Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000

James K. Hahn (SBN 66073) Los Angeles City Attorney Cannel Sella (SBN 162653) Special Assistant City Attorney Don Kass (SBN 103607) Deputy City Attorney Mark Francis Burton (SBN 127073) Deputy City Attorney 200 N. Main Street, 1600 City Hall East Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 485-4515 Facsimile: (213) 847-3014

-24-


131.guc

Michael J. Dowd (SBN 135628) Jonah Goldstein (SBN 193777) Stephen P. Polapink (SBN 177489) MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH,LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058

Charles E. Dickerson, III (SBN 92590) Inglewood City Attorney One Manchester Blvd., Suite 860 Inglewood, CA 90301 Telephone: (310) 412-5372 Facsimile: (310) 412-8865

John Russo (SBN 129729) Oakland City Attorney Randolph W. Hall (SBN 80142) Deputy City Attorney Joyce M. Hicks (SBN 76772) Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Attorneys One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 238-3601 Facsimile: (510) 238-6500

Richard E. Winnie (SBN 68048) Alameda County Counsel Kristen J. Thorsness (SBN 142181) Deputy County Counsel OFFICE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY COUNSEL 1221 Oak Street, Room 463 Oakland, CA 94612-4296 Telephone: (510) 272-6700 Facsimile: (510) 272-5020

Legrand H. Clegg, II (SBN 56740) Compton City Attorney W.A.M. Al-Haqq (SBN 189683) Deputy City Attorney P.O. Box 5118 205 South Willowbrook Avenue Compton, CA 90220 Telephone: (310) 605-5582 Facsimile: (310) 763-0895

-25-


1 Michael Jenkins (SBN 81997) City Attorney

2 City of West Hollywood 8300 Santa Monica Blvd.

3 West Hollywood, CA 90069-4314 Telephone: (213) 626-8484

4 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078

5 Jonathan D. McCue, Esq. (SBN 128896)

6 Charles McCue, Esq. (SBN 155417) McCUE & McCUE 600 Broadway, Suite 930

7 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-8136

8 Facsimile: (619) 338-0322

9

10 David Kairys LAW OFFICES OF DAVID KAIRYS

11 1719 North Broad Street Philadelphia, P A 19107

12 Telephone: (215) 204-8959

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13l.gUC

Sayre Weaver (SBN 116957) RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation P.o. Box 1059 Brea, CA 92822-1059 Telephone: (714) 990-0901 Facsimile: (714) 990-6230

Richard S. Lewis, Esq. Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Ari Karen, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.c. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-1851

Alan M. Caplan (SBN 49315) Philip Neumark (SBN 43008) BUSHNELL CAPLAN & FIELDING, LLP 221 Pine Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104-2715 Telephone: (415) 217-3000 Facsimile: (415) 217-3820

-26-


Documents

PLAINTIFF MATEO TO BERETTA CORPORATION'S …michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11.13.00_People-v... · 21 People, etc., et al. v. Arcadia ... e.g., People v. Jmnes, 122