Freuding 2

1 FARYAN ANDREW AFIFI (SBN 167344)
LONDON AHDERS (SBN 223057)
2 LAW OFFICES OF FARYAN ANDREW AFIFI
1925 Century Park E, Suite 2350
3 Los Angeles, CA 90067
4 Tel: (310) 407-3000
5 Attorney For Plaintiffs,
901 ORAL DESIGNS CORP.; MICHEL MAGNE,
6 an individual; INGE MAGNE, an individual.
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
12 901 ORAL DESIGNS CORP., a California ) CASE NO. SC 105430

Corporation, INGE MAGNE, an individual; )
13 MICHEL MAGNE, an individual; )
) PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT,

14 ) FREUDING USA'S FORM
Plaintiff, ) INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE
15 )
vs. )
16 )
)
17 )
FRElJDING USA, a California Corporation; )

18 LOTHAR MOHR, an individual; and DOES)
1-20, )
19 )
Defendants. )
20 )
21 -------------)
22
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, FREUDING USA (hereinafter "Defendant" or
23
"FREUDING" or "Propounding Party")
24
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, 901 ORAL DESIGNS CORP. (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or
25
"Responding Party")
26
SET NUMBER: ONE
27
28
-1
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM
INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE
1 Plaintiff, 901 ORAL DESIGNS CORP. (hereinafter "Responding Party") hereby responds to
2 the Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by Defendant, FREUDING USA, as follows:
5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
7 These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. The responses provided
8 herein relate exclusively to the issues and transactions raised in this lawsuit and no other issues or
9 transactions. Each response is subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to,
10 objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality and admissibility) which would require the
11 exclusion of any document or any statement contained herein if the requests were asked, or if any
12 statement contained therein was made by, a witness present and testifying in court. All objections
13 and grounds therefore are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
14 Responding Party has not fully completed an investigation of the facts relating to this case
15 and has not fully completed preparation for trial which is continuous and ongoing at this time. All of
16 these responses are based only upon such information and documents presently available to and
17 specifically known to Responding Party. Accordingly, Responding Party hereby reserves the right to
18 modify and/or supplement orally or in writing, these responses with such pertinent documents and/or
19 information as may be subsequently discovered, without prejudicing its right to introduce at trial
20 evidence relating to such subsequently discovered documents and/or information. Nothing in these
21 responses shall limit or waive Responding Party's rights to provide additional responses or offer
22 additional evidence at the time of any hearing or trial of this action or to provide information not yet
23 obtained by or known to Responding Party. Moreover, the following responses are subject to
24 correction for inadvertent errors or omissions, if any such errors or omissions should be found to
25 exist.
26 Responding Party reserves the right to introduce at trial any and all documents heretofore or
27 hereafter produced by the parties in this action or by any third party that support or tend to support
28 the contentions of Responding Party at trial or in support of or in opposition to any motion in this
-2
case.
2 No admissions of any nature whatsoever are implied or should be inferred. The fact that any
3
Request herein has been responded to should not be taken as an admission or as an acceptance of the
4
existence of any facts set forth or assumed by such a Request. Neither should it be construed as an
5
admission that such information is relevant to the subject matter of this litigation or constitutes
6
7 admissible evidence.
8 The Form Interrogatories are vague and ambiguous in their use of the word "INCIDENT"
9 which is inadequately defined, and in the context of this case is overbroad, vague and
10 ambiguous. Further, the referenced paragraph in the FAC does not allege the failure to
11 deliver furniture. Accordingly, the interrogatories are vague and ambiguous. Responding
12 party assumes that of the various claims and wrongdoings alleged by Plaintiffs, the word
13 INCIDENT only means the meeting between defendants and Plaintiffs as alleged in
14 Paragraph 14 of the FAC .
15 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
16 In addition to the Preliminary Statement, Responding Party makes various general
17 objections applicable to each and every interrogatory. These objections are incorporated by reference
18 into each and every specific response set forth below, and none of which is waived by any response
19 provided in any interrogatory.

20 1. These responses represent Responding Party's reasonable efforts to provide the
21 information within Responding Party's current knowledge and based upon information in
22 Responding Party's possession, custody or control.

23 2. These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party's right to introduce
24 evidence of subsequently discovered facts, documents or writings at trial. Responding Party reserves
25 its right to introduce evidence of subsequently discovered facts, to alter or amend its responses set
26 forth herein, and otherwise to assert factual and legal contentions as additional facts are ascertained,
27 analyses are made, and legal research is completed. By this reservation, Responding Party does not
28
-3
in any way assume a continuing responsibility to update its responses. Responding Party objects to
2 each request to the extent it may seek to impose any such continuing duty.
3 3. Responding Party objects to the entire Set of Interrogatories to the extent that it
4 contains a preface, instructions and/or carry-over definitions in violation of Code of Civil Procedure
5 Objection, the request violates CCP §2030.060(d) and (e) in that it is not full and complete in and of
6 itself or uses improperly identified tenns. Objection, compound, vague, ambiguous, overbroad and
7 uncertain. Objection, the request violates CCP §2030.060 in that documents whose genuineness are
8 questioned are not attached as required.
9 4. Responding Party objects to the entire Interrogatories to the extent that Propounding
10 Party requests infonnation or documents protected by any privilege, including the attorney-client
11 privilege, marital privilege, or work product doctrine, and Responding Party and its counsel hereby
12 assert such privileges.
13 5. Any responses contained herein are disclosed for the purpose of this litigation only.
14 The infonnation contained in each provided response is subject to all appropriate objections
15 (including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety
16 and admissibility) which require exclusion of any such infonnation. All such objections and grounds
17 are reserved and may be interposed at trial.
18 6. Responding Party will make reasonable efforts to respond to each interrogatory to the
19 extent that no objection is made, as Responding Party understands and interprets it. Ifpropounding
20 party subsequently asserts any interpretation of any discovery which differs from that of Responding
21 Party, Responding Party reserves the right to supplement its objections and responses.
22 7. Objection, the interrogatories are compound, conjunctive and disjunctive, and
23 oppressive and burdensome.
24 8. Objection, the requested infonnation violates the work product privilege.
25 9. Objection, oppressive and burdensome to the extent the discovery seeks infonnation
26 previously disclosed in discovery thus far, and is an abuse of discovery, or is equally available to
27 propounding party, or concerns infonnation more readily in propounding party's possession.
28
-4
10. Objection, the discovery is cumulatively propounded on three different parties in one
2 set, thus violating the discovery rules and the provisions of the code of civil procedure with respect
3 to the designation of parties and the caption. Consequently, each interrogatory is compound and
4 overbroad and not capable of a meaningful response.
5 11. Objection, the definitions are improper and overbroad and vague, and further fail to
6 properly define terms, and are further burdened by the wrongful designation of several parties as the
7 responding party.
8 12. Objection, the interrogatories include terms that are not properly defined, and as such
9 cause them to be overbroad, vague ambiguous, compound, conjunctive and disjunctive, and
10 oppressive.
11 13. Objection, the number of interrogatories is excessive and not warranted as provided
12 by CCP §2030.030 and CCP §2030.040. Responding Party takes issue with the statements in the
13 accompanying declaration justifying the excessive number of interrogatories.
14 14. Objection, the responses to many interrogatories are found in writings which are
15 being produced or identified in the accompanying discovery responses, and as such Responding
16 Party asserts its rights to make such reference pursuant to CCP §2030.230 in lieu of the time and
17 expense of responding to each such interrogatory.
18 15. Objection, many of the interrogatories are cumulative and redundant, and as such
19 oppressive and burdensome. Some responses to certain interrogatories may also be responsive to
20 other interrogatories and responding party rejects and objects to having to duplicate the work of
21 identifying such responses and stating them time and again to other interrogatories.
22
23 RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
24 Response to Form Interrogatory Number 3.1
25 (a) 901 ORAL DESIGNS CORP.
26 (b) No.
27 (c) California.
28 (d) 4052 Del Rey Avenue, Unit 108, Marina Del Rey, California 90292.
-5
(e) Yes.
3
Response to Form Interrogatory Number 3.2
4
No.
6
7
No.
9
10
No.
11
12
13
No.
14
15
16
No.
17
18
19
No.
20
21
22
No, to Plaintiff's present knowledge, although investigations is underway.
23
24
Response to Form Interrogatory 8.1
25
Obj ection, the word INCIDENT is non-sensical in the context of this interrogatory Yes.
26
27
28
-6
1 Objection, the word INCIDENT is non-sensical in the context of this interrogatory. Without
2 waiving, Discovery is ongoing, and this amount has not been finalized yet since the
3 repercussions of the problems with opening the office on time have not completely revealed
4 themselves. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff estimates the damages to be approximately $30,000
5 per month.

9 waiving, Yes.
10 (a) As a result of Defendant's breach of contract and refusal to return Plaintiffs' $70,000
11 down payment, Plaintiffs were unable to open their laboratory in September 2009, as planned. As a
12 result, during the time period in which Plaintiffs had no laboratory, they were forced to tum down
13 invitations to speak and/or present at multiple local and international events and seminars. As a
14 result of turning down these speaking events, not only have Plaintiffs lost prospective clients at said
15 events, but have lost future recurring invitations to these specific events, thus losing said connections
16 and future prospective clients. In addition, Plaintiffs were forced to tum down clients during this
17 time period, thus, losing past, present and future business from said clients.
18 (b) The amount of future income lost is presently unknown. Discovery is continuing.
19 (c) Plaintiffs were unable to open the laboratory until January 2010.
20 (d) Since the source of all damages are not yet known, the method of calculating such future
21 damages can not be fully ascertained at this time.
22
23

26 waiving, Yes. As a result of Defendant's breach of contract and refusal to return Plaintiffs' $70,000
27 downpayment, Plaintiffs were unable to open their laboratory until January of 2010. As a result of
28 this delay, Plaintiffs' have suffered additional damages including, but not limited to, the following:
-7
(1)
2 (a) Loss of income from existing clients/existing business.
3 (b) September 2009 - January 2010 and ongoing.
4 (c) Amount not yet fully ascertained, but damages of approximately $30,000 per
5 month;
6 (d) Discovery is ongoing, and this information is being ascertained since not all
7 damages and sources of damages have been determined.
8 (2)
9 (a) Loss of income from future clients/business.
10 (b) September 2009 - unknown.
12 month;
14 damages and sources of damages have been detem1ined.
15 (3)
16 (a) Negative impact and damage to Plaintiffs' business reputation for
17 professionalism, reliability and state of art laboratory work, which has further
18 impacted Plaintiffs' business and ability to obtain clients.
19 (b) September 2009 - unknown.
21 month;
23 damages and sources of damages have been determined.
24
25
28 waiving. Discovery is ongoing, but documents presently known include the lease agreement with the
-8
current landlord, all correspondence exchanged with defendants, the check paid to defendants, the
2
agreements entered into for the replacement furniture, and financial records evidencing the lost
3
income. All such documents are in the possession of responding party.
5
6
Objection, the word INCIDENT is non-sensical in the context of this interrogatory. Without
7
waiving Plaintiffs, INGE MAGNE and MICHEL MAGNE. Defendant LOTHAR MOHR.
8
Peripherally, Peter Freuding, Germany who was not in attendance at the meeting described as the
9
INCIDENT, but has likely heard the statements made at that meeting.
10
11
12
Objection, the word INCIDENT is non-sensica1 in the context of this interrogatory. Without
13
waiving, Yes.
14
(a) Peter Freuding.
15
(b) July 2009.
16
(c) lnge Magne, 4052 Del Rey Avenue, Unit 108, Marina Del Rey, California 90292.
17
18
19
20
waiving, No.
21
22
23
24
waiving, No.
25
26
27
28
waiving, Yes. Discovery is ongoing. The Civil Code as well as the Penal Code have provisions
-9
1 against defrauding individuals. Plaintiffs have not completed their investigation of this matter to
2 ascertain the exact code sections at this time. There may be others, Discovery is ongoing.
4 Response to Form Interroeatory Number 50.1
5 (a) All correspondence between the parties, the presentations exchanged, the preliminary
6 drawings of Freuding Germany, the deposit payment by Plaintiffs. All documents in
7 the possession of both parties in this case. Discovery is ongoing, and as other
8 documents are obtained, they can be further identified.
9 (b) The entire agreement was oral, supported by the various documents identified in (a)
10 above.
11 (c) Same as a above.
12 (d) Unclear what modification is meant in the context of the allegations in this complaint,
13 other than defendants' failure to perform, and misrepresentations about the timing of
14 delivery.
15 (e) Unclear what modification is meant in the context of the allegations in this complaint,
17 delivery.
18 (f) Unclear what modification is meant in the context of the allegations in this complaint,
20 delivery.
21
22 Response to Form Interroeatory Number 50.2

23 Yes, Defendants breached the agreement. Defendants failed to manufacture and produce the
24 furniture to Plaintiffs in a timely manner pursuant to the parties' agreement and the $70,000 down
25 payment was never returned. The dates were ongoing in the summer of2009, specifically, from May
26 2009 through approximately July and August, 2009.
27
28 Response to Form Interroeatory 50.3

-10
" ,.
No.
2
3
4
No.
5
6
7
No.
8
9
Response to Form Interrogatory 50.6
10
No.
11
12
DATED: March 19,2010 Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF FARYAN ANDREW AFIFI
13
14
15
or Plaintiff
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to the within actIOn. My business address is 1925 Century Park East, Suite
5 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On March 19,2010, I caused to be served the
6 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
7 on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressea as follows:
8
Mr. Mark Kalisch, Esq. Attorney for defendants MOHR and
9 Kalisch Rufus-Isaacs LLP. FREUDING USA
9606 Santa Monica Blvd.
10 Penthouse Suite
Beverly Hills, California 90210
11 Facsimile No. (310) 859-7743
12
( X) (MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the
13 United States Mail at Los Angeles, California. Under that practice It would be deposited with
the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles,
14 California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served.
service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
15 after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16 () (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the

interested parties at the above addresses.
17
() (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such envelope to be delivered to a courier
\8 service for delivery the next business day to the address indicated.
19
() (BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL) I caused such document to be transmitted by facsimile
20 to the attention of the above named person(s) at the above facsimile numbers, received the
attached confirmation of sending, and mailed a copy by first class mail thereon fully prepaid in
21 the United States mail at Los Angeles, California.
22 ( ) (BY MESSENGER) By entrusting such envelope to a professional messenger service
to effect personal service and delivery.
23
( X ) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
24 that the above is true and correct.
25 () (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
court at whose direction the service was made.
26
Executed au March 19, 2010~
27
28
VERIFICATION
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING

USA'S FORM INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE and know its contents.
4
CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH
5
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own
6 knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe them to be true.
7
~ I am an #l_OFFICER, or #2__ a PARTNER or #3_ _ (other) a --;-;;;-----;------,,-_----:-_.
8 of, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its
behalf, and I make this verification for that reason.
9
_ _ I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing
10 document are true.
11 ---.2L The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those
matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be
12 true.
13 I am one of the attorneys for a party to this

- action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices,
14 and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and
believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.
15
Executed on March _ , 2010 at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury
16
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12

Freuding 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freuding 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 FARYAN ANDREW AFIFI (SBN 167344)

LONDON AHDERS (SBN 223057)

2 LAW OFFICES OF FARYAN ANDREW AFIFI

1925 Century Park E, Suite 2350

3 Los Angeles, CA 90067

4 Tel: (310) 407-3000

5 Attorney For Plaintiffs,

901 ORAL DESIGNS CORP.; MICHEL MAGNE,

6 an individual; INGE MAGNE, an individual.

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12 901 ORAL DESIGNS CORP., a California ) CASE NO. SC 105430

) PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT,

FRElJDING USA, a California Corporation; )

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

19 provided in any interrogatory.

22 Responding Party's possession, custody or control.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

8 questioned are not attached as required.

12 assert such privileges.

17 are reserved and may be interposed at trial.

22 7. Objection, the interrogatories are compound, conjunctive and disjunctive, and

23 oppressive and burdensome.

24 8. Objection, the requested infonnation violates the work product privilege.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

4 overbroad and not capable of a meaningful response.

13 accompanying declaration justifying the excessive number of interrogatories.

17 expense of responding to each such interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

4 themselves. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff estimates the damages to be approximately $30,000

7 Response to Form Interrogatory Number 8.8

21 damages can not be fully ascertained at this time.

24 Response to Form Interrogatory Number 9.1

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

2 (a) Loss of income from existing clients/existing business.

3 (b) September 2009 - January 2010 and ongoing.

7 damages and sources of damages have been determined.

9 (a) Loss of income from future clients/business.

10 (b) September 2009 - unknown.

14 damages and sources of damages have been detem1ined.

16 (a) Negative impact and damage to Plaintiffs' business reputation for

18 impacted Plaintiffs' business and ability to obtain clients.

19 (b) September 2009 - unknown.

23 damages and sources of damages have been determined.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, FREUDING USA'S FORM

INTERROGATORIES - SET ONE

4 Response to Form Interroeatory Number 50.1

6 drawings of Freuding Germany, the deposit payment by Plaintiffs. All documents in

8 documents are obtained, they can be further identified.

11 (c) Same as a above.

22 Response to Form Interroeatory Number 50.2

26 2009 through approximately July and August, 2009.