DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.January 30, 2020Phillip G. Vermont, SBN 132035 RANDICK O'DEA TOOLIATOS VERMONT & SARGKNT, LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, California 94588 Telephone: (925) 460-3700 Facsimile: (925) 460-0969 Email: nvermontMrandicklaw.corn Attorneys for Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 First Point Oalunead LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. MiaSole, a California corporation, MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 25, Defendants. Case No.: 20CV362450 DECLARATION OF PHILLIP G. VERMONT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ASSETS, AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO ASSET INTERROGATORIES AND A REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT, MIASOLE HI-TECH CORP. UNLAWFUL DETAINER Date: Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: Action Filed: January 30„2020 Entry of Judgment: August 19, 2020 24 25 27 28 1, Phillip G. Vermont, declare as follows: 1. 1 am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, partner at the law firm of Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sargent, LLP, and attorney for plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter, "Plaintiff'. DECLARATION OF PHILLIP G. VERMONT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; CASE NO.: 20CV362450 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/15/2021 10:43 AM Reviewed By: A. Rodriguez Case #20CV362450 Envelope: 7472670 20CV362450 Santa Clara - Civil 2. I know the following facts according to my own true personal knowledge and if called upon, could and would competently testify thereto. 3. This declaration is being submitted in support of the Plaintiff s motion for an order to compel further responses to a Request for Production of Documents (Assets), and further answers to Asset Interrogatories, and a request for monetary sanctions against MiaSole Hi-Tech Corporation, a California corporation. 4. The Unlawful Detainer Complaint in this matter was filed on January 30, 2020. 5. On or about August 19, 2020, judgment was entered against Defendant for the sum of $ 1,936,758.70. In addition, since then, Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum of Costs 10 (unopposed) in the amount of $4,578.69, as well as obtaining a motion for award of attorney fees in the sum of $25,860.50. 12 6. To act upon said judgment and to commence collection, on or about 13 14 15 August 5, 2021, Plaintiff propounded to Defendant, Request for Production of Documents (Assets), Set One, and Asset Interrogatories, Set One. The discovery requests were propounded to learn the financial status and condition of the Defendant, and to aid in the collection of the 16 17 18 19 judgment. 7. Attached and incorporated by reference are true and accurate copies of the Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, (Exhibit "A") and Asset Interrogatories, Set One (Exhibit "B"), as well as the response of the Defendant to each. 20 8. On September 17, 2021, I received the Defendant's responses to each set of 21 22 discovery. They contained solely a single objection to each category of document and each asset interrogatory, as follows: 23 24 "Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 25 26 9. After receipt of the responses, I contacted Gary Sullivan, attorney of record for the Defendant, by email and by telephone on September 21, 2021. Attached hereto and 27 28 incorporated by reference as Exhibit "C" are true and accurate copies of the emails I sent him in 2 DECLARATION OF PHILLIP G. VERMONT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; CASE NO.: 20CV362450 530768.4* I September and October, to meet and confer regarding the responses. In our conversation, 2 Mr. Sullivan requested that the Plaintiff agree to a protective order for the asset information. In 3 the same conversation, I requested that Mr. Sullivan provide an extension of time to file any 4 motions to compel further responses to the asset discovery. Since that conversation, I have 5 emailed Mr. Sullivan to agree to a protective order, but I have yet to receive any response to my 6 extension request, nor have I received the actual, substantive responses. In addition, 7 Mr. Sullivan has not indicated to me unequivocally that he will provide on behalf of his client the 8 asset information requested. 9 10. Plaintiffbases its request for the imposition of sanctions in the amount of 10 $2,227.50 for the legal fees and costs incurred in preparing and appearing in Court on this 11 matter. As counsel for the Plaintiff, I have spent in excess of 3.6 hours meeting and conferring 12 with Defendant's counsel and drafting, reviewing and revising this motion. I estimate I will 13 spend an additional 1 Yz hours appearing at the hearing to argue this motion before the Court, 14 including preparation of a reply brief. My billing rate is $425.00 per hour. Therefore, Plaintiff 15 will incur at least $2,167.50 in attorney fees due to this motion. In addition, Plaintiffhas 16 incurred a filing fee of $60.00 to file this motion (total $2,227.50). 17 11. Conservatively, the total billable time spent by the Plaintiff in bringing this 18 motion is at least $ 1,530.00, not including any time or expense for preparing a reply brief or 19 attending the hearing. 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing 21 is true and correct. 22 Date: October 14, 2021 23 24 25 RA VE By EA T LIATOS E; li;„f pd6dd(J/ 46 I. 27 28 DECLARATION OF PHILLIP G. VERMONT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES; CASE NO.: 20CV362450 d)0768 dodd EXHIBIT AHI I Phillip G, Vermont, SBN 132035~ICE O'DKA TOOLIATOS 2 VERMONT dik SARGENT LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, California 94588 Telephone: (925) 460-3700 Facsimile: (925) 460-0969 Attorneys for Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC a Delaware limited liability company, 6 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA. CLARA First Point Oalanead LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 MiaSole, a California corporation, MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., a California corporation, and DOES I to 25, 16 Defendants. 17 Case No.: 20CV3 62450 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - ASSETS [C.C.P. I'I708.030] 18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC, a Delaware limited liability 19 company 20 RESPONDING PARTY; 21 SET NUMBER: 22 Defendant, MiaSole Hi-Tech Coip., a California corporation ONE (I) 23 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure P08.030, Plaintiff above named requests 24 that Defendant MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., a California corporation, produce the items described 25 below no later than 35 days fiom the date of this Request for Production ofDOCUMENTS at the 26 law firm of Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sargent, LLP, 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225, 27 Pleasanton, California 94588. 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - ASSETS ddlddd ddm 1 DEFINITIONS 2 1. All references to "DEFENDANT," "YOU" and "YOUR" refers to MiaSole Hi- 3 Tech Corp., a California corporation. 4 2. "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" includes any and all written or graphic 5 matter and all copies containing additional matter however produced or reproduced of every kind 6 and description in the actual or constructive possession, custody, care or control ofeach 7 addressee of this request as defined in Evidence Code section 250, including any accounts, 8 correspondence, written reports, letters, books, telegrams, memorandum, drawings, notes, tape 9 recordings, photographs, electronic mail, electronically stored data„ facsimiles, or any other 10 written or graphic material or communication however denominated, and every other means of 11 recording upon any tangible thing and form of communication including pictures, sounds or 12 symbols or any combination thereof. 13 Documents To Be Produced 14 l. Any and all DOCUMENTS reflecting financial statements (profit did loss 15 statements) for MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. between the period of January I, 2016, and current day. 16 2. Any and all DOCUMENTS, contracts, agreements, joint ventures, addenda, 17 memoranda, correspondence or other writings of any nature whatsoever reflecting any and all 18 current projects, jobs or services wherein MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. receives any income. 19 3. Any and all DOCUMENTS, bank statements including, but not limited to, 20 checking and savings account statements of any nature whatsoever reflecting or evidencing any 21 and all monetary assets ofMiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. between January 1, 2016, and present day, 22 4. All of the Federal and State tax returns for MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp, commencing 23 for tax year 2016 to present day. 24 5. Any and all DOCUMENTS, invoices, claims, contracts or other writings of any 25 nature whatsoever including, but not limited to, account ledgers, refiecting or evidencing any and 26 all monies or account receivables due to MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. commencing with January 1, 27 2016, to present day. 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - ASSETS d2I$49.dddd 1 6, Any and all DOCUMENTS reflecting or evidencing any and.all jobs or projects 2 fiom which MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. expects to receive compensation in the future. 3 7. Any and all DOCUMENTS, pink slips, photographs, inventories, lists, estimates 4 or other writings of any nature whatsoever reflecting or evidencing any and all collectibles and 5 personal property owned by MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp, valued over $ 1,000.00. 6 8. Any and all DOCUMENTS, deeds of trust, correspondence, contracts, ownership 7 agreements, joint ventures or other writings reflecting or evidencing any and all real property 8 owned by MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp.. 9 9. Any and all DOCUMENTS reflecting any outstanding loans ofMiaSole Hi-Tech 10 Corp. as of current date. 11 10. Any and all outstanding judgments against MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. as of current 12 date. 13 11. Any and all DOCUMENTS, lists, contracts, correspondence, memoranda, 14 invoices or other writings of any nature whatsoever reflecting or evidencing any and all projects 15 for compensation currently in progress or anticipated in the next five years for MiaSole Hi-Tech 16 Corp.. 17 12. Any and all balance sheets ofMiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. or any of its companies, 18 partnerships, subsidiaries, or corporations, as of current date. 19 13. Any and all judgments in favor of MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp, 20 14. A list of all inventory and assets ofMiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. as of current date. 21 15. A list of all patents, copyrights and trademarks or other intellectual property VE 22 owned by MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. as of the curr 23 Date: August 5 2021 RA 24 THOS 25 By: 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - ASSETS S21849.docN PROOF OF SERVICE I, Crystal Nelson, declare: 2 I am employed in Alameda County, State of California, am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225, Pleasanton, California 94588. I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection 4 and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and/or other overnight delivery. Under overnight delivery practice, all mailings are deposited in an authorized area for pick-up by an authorized express service courier the same day it is collected and processed in the ordinary course ofbusiness, On the date set forth below, I served the within: 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - ASSETS 7 on the patties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, and each envelope addressed as follows: Gary Sullivan, Esq. 1565 The Alameda, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95126 Email; uwsullivaniaw(RemaiLcom 11 Attorneyfor Defendnnt MioSole Hi-Tech Corp. 12 16 (By U.S. Mail) I caused each such envelope to be served by depositing same, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business at Pleasanton, California. (By Facsimile) The above-referenced document(s) was transmitted by facsimile transmission to the number(s) shown and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. I caused the transmitting facsimile machine to issue properly a transmission report, a copy of which is attached to this Declaration. [ ] (By Overnight Delivery) I caused each such envelope to be served by depositing same in an authorized area for pick-up by an authorized express service courier (UPS Overnight) 18 the same day it is collected and processed in the ordinary course of business . 19 (By Personal Service) I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the persons named above, 20 [X j (By Electronic Service) The above-referenced document was served by electronically 21 mailing a true and conect copy through Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sargent LLP's electronic mail systetn, to the email addresses set forth as listed above, and in 22 accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(b). 23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration 24 was executed on August 5, 2021, at Pleasanton, California. 25 26 27 Crystal Nelson 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 521849.doer GARY W. SULLIVAN - SBN: 103162 1565 The Alameda, Suite 100 San Jose, California 95126 Telephone: (408) 971 1340 Facsimile: (408) 971 0478 Email: awsullivanlaw(RmnaiLcom Attorney for Defendant MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp, SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 FIRST POINT OAKMEAD, LLC, a Delaware Limited liability company Plaintiff, MiaSole, a California corporation, MiaSole Hi- Tech Corp., a California corporation, and DOES I to 25 Defendants ) Case No.: 20CV362450 ) ) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ) OF DOCUMENTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: 19 P laintitf, First Point Oakmead, LLC, a Delaware limited liability Company 20 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, MiaSole Hl-Tech Corp., a California corporation SET NUMBER: one (I) 23 1. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 24 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 25 2. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 3. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 27 lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 28 4. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 3 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4 6. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 5 lead to the discove&y of admissible evidence. 8 7. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is itvelevant and not likely to 7 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 8. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is inelevant and not likely to 9 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 9. Defendant objects to the mquest on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 11 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 10. 'Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is inelevant and not likely to 14 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 15 I l. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is imelevant and not likely to 18 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 17 12. Defendant objects to the request on the gmunds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 18 lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 19 13, Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 21 l4. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 23 15. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is 24 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 25 in'elevant and not likely to 28 27 28 Dated: Seotember 16. 2021 GAJA'. SULLIVAN, Attorney for Defendant MiaSoie Hi-Tech Corp. PROOF OF SERVICE I, dec[pre that I am employed in fhe County of Santa Chra, California. I amover the age of eighteen years and not a paify to fhe within cause; iny business address is 1565 The Alameda, Suite f00, San Jose, Ca[ifomih 85f26. 5 On september .17, 2021,[served fhe attached: Responses to Request for Production of Documents-Assets, 6 Set One 7 In said cause by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as 8 follows: f0 Phillip G. Vermont, Esq. Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sarqent„ LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, CA 94588 f2 jx| (BY MAIL) I placed each such sealed envelope, with postage fhereonfii[ly prepaidf3 for first-class mai[, for coi[ection and mailing at San Jose, California, following ordinaiy f4 business pracfices [ am readily fainiliar with fhe practice of Banj W. Sullivan for processing of correspondence, said practibe being fhaf in fhe ordinaiy course of f5 business, correspondence is deposited in the Uni[ed States Posfal Service the same day as if is placed.for processing f6 (BY PERSONAL MAIL) I caused each such envelope to be del[verei[by hand fo fhe addressee(s) nofed above 'l8 ) (BY FACSIMILE) I caused fhe said document to be transmiltsd by Facsimile fg macMne touche number indicated afterfhe address(es) noted above. ( ) (BY EMAIL) I caused said document fo be delivered by emai[ this date fo the offices . offhe addressee(s) 22 ( j (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight de[[ve[y carrier with dellveiy fees provided for addressed to the person(s) on 23 whom it is to be senred. 24 I dechte under penally ofperjury under the laws ofthe Stafe of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on september 17, 202@San Jose, California. 26 28 8 YW. SULLIVAN EXHIBIT BHI I Phillip G. Vermont, SBN 132035 RANDICK O'DEA TOOLIATOS 2 VERMONT 8d SARGENTd LLP 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, California 94588 Telephone: (925) 460-3700 4 Facsimile; (925) 460-0969 Attorneys for Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC a Delaware limited liability company, 6 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA First Point Oskmead LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs 14 MiaSole, a California corporation, MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., a California corporation, and DOES I to 25, 16 Case No.. 20CV362450 ASSET INTERROGATORIES [C.C.P. $ I'I2030,708,010(A),708.020(A)] UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 17 Defendants. 18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC, a Delaware limited liability 19 company 20 RESPOND1NG PARTY: 21 SET NUMBER: 22 Defendant, MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., a California corporation ONE (1) 23 Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead LLC, a Delaware, limited liability company, in accordance 24 with Section 2030.010, et seq„of the California Code of Civil Procedme hereby serves on 25 Defendant, MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., the following specially prepared asset interrogatories. 26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 27 Section 2030.260, a written response to each separate interrogatory and subscribed under oath, is 28 ASSET INTERROGATORIES 521B7d (do a)ddrx 1 required within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this request. 2 You are requested to answer these interrogatories fully and in writing, under oath, Your 3 answers must include all information concerning the matter inquired about which is available to 4 you, your attorneys and investigators and other agents for you and your attorneys. If any 5 interrogatory cannot be answered fully, please answer to the extent possible, specify the reasons 6 for your inability to answer the remainder and state the information or knowledge which you do 7 have regarding the unanswered portion. DEFINITIONS 9 1. All references to "DEFENDANT," "YOU" and "YOUR" refers to MiaSole Hi- 10 Tech Corp., a California corporation. 11 2. "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" includes any and all written or graphic 12 matter and all copies containing additional matter however produced or reproduced of every kind 13 and description in the actual or constructive possession, custody, care or control of each 14 addressee of this request as defined in Evidence Code section 250, including any accounts, 15 correspondence, written reports, letters, books, telegrams, memorandum, drawings, notes, tape 16 recordings, photographs, electronic mail, electronically stored data, facsimiles, or any other 17 written or graphic material or communication however denominated, and every other means of 18 recording upon any tangible thing and form of communication including pictures, sounds or 19 symbols or any combination thereof. 20 ASSET INTERROGATORIES 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 22 Do you currently own any interest of any nature in any real property'? 23 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 24 If so, state the address, parcel number and fair market value of each interest you own in 25 any parcel of real propeity. 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 27 Since August 1, 2019, have you conveyed, transferred, encumbered or in any other way 28 ASSET INTERROGATORIES 621276(662)6 1 &hsposed of any real property you owned prior to August I, 2019? 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 4; 3 Ifyour answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state the 4 address, parcel number and date of encumbrance or transfer of each such parcel ofreal property. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 6 As to each parcel of real property you have transferred, conveyed, encumbered, or 7 otherwise disposed of since August 1, 2019, please state the fair market value of each such parcel 8 ofproperty at time of transfer, 9 INTERROGATORY NO, 6: 10 For each such parcel ofproperty you transferred, conveyed, encumbered or othe+vise 11 disposed of since August 1, 2019, state the consideration you received upon transfer, conveyance 12 or encumbrance. 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 14 Do you currently own any personal property with a value in excess of$ 1,000.00? 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 16 If your answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please describe with 17 particularity each such item ofpersonal property, and its fair market value. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 19 Are you currently a Plaintiff in any lawsuit? 20 INTERROGATORY NO, 10: 21 Ifyour answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state the nature 22 of said lawsuit, including the Case Number, name of the case, and the state and county in which 23 it is pending. 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 25 Do you cunently have any bank accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts, 26 and/or certificates of deposit, with deposits in excess of $ 1,000.00? 27 28 ASSET INTERROGATORIES 52 I 87d (Ode.docx 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 2 If your answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state the name, 3 address and telephone number ofeach such financial institution and the account number ofeach 4 said account, as well as the current balance. 5 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 6 Do you currently own any interest of any type in any business entity, including, but not 7 limited to, a general partnership, limited partnership or corporation? 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 9 If your answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state the precise 10 natme of your ownership interest, as well as the name, address and telephone number of each 11 such business entity in which you have an ownership interest. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: 13 Please set forth all income you have received on a yearly basis Irom any source from 14 January 1, 2019, to present day. 15 INTERROGATORY NO, 16: 16 As to each source of income set forth in the preceding Interrogatory answer, please set 17 forth the name, address and telephone number of each income source. 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: 19 Do you currently own any intellectual property including, but not limited to, patents, 20 trademarks, or copyrights7 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: 22 If your answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please state precisely 23 each patent, trademark and/or copyright you own, by identifying the patent, copyright or 24 trademark number, and the type of intellectual property you own. 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 19: 26 Do you own any subsidiaries, whether corporations or limited liability companies7 27 ASSET INTERROGATORIES 52187d (M2).doox 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 20i 2 If so, please state the name, address and telephone number of each such subsidiary or 3 limited liability company. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 21: 5 Do you have any outstanding judgments against you? 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 22: 7 If your answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please provide the 8 name of each case, the amount of the judgment, the date it was entered and how much is 9 currently owed for each judgment. 10 INTERROGATORY NO, 23: 11 How many employees or independent agents do you currently havey 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: 13 Please state the name and address of each officer or rhrector of MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. 14 INTERROGA.TORY NO. 25: 15 For each bank account, checking account, savings account, or other depository ofmonies 16 on behalfof MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp., please state the name of each banking institution, wherein 17 such an account is located, the account number and the address and telephone number of each 18 financial institution, as well as the balance as of the date of your responses to these 19 intenogatories. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: 21 Please list by vendor, name and address each account receivable owed to MiaSole Hi- 22 Tech Corp., in excess of $ 1,000.00, and the date that each sum was due to MiaSole Hi-Tech 23 Corp. 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 27: 25 Please state the current assets of MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. in excess of $ 10,000.00, 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 28: 27 28 Please state the current address and telephone number of MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. ASSET INTERROGATORIES 5 2 IS76 (002)s*c 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 29: 2 Please state and describe the current inventory of MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 30: 4 Please describe precisely each and every owner or shareholder of MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. 5 by name, address and telephone number. 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 31: 7 Please state the relationship between MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. and Hanergy Holdings 8 America, LLC and Hanergy Holding Group, Ltd. 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 32: 10 Please state the name, address and telephone number ofyour ChiefFinancial Officer. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 33: 12 Please state the name, address and telephone number ofyour Chief Executive Officer or 13 President. 14 15 Date: August+, 2021 16 17 6TOOLIATOS &GENT„LLP 18 VJiillip Ii. '$ermont 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ASSET INTERROGATORIES 626876 (602) 6 666 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Crystal Nelson, declare; I am employed in Alameda County, State of California, am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 225, Pleasanton, California 94588. I atn readily familiar with the business practice for collection 4 and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and/or other overnight delivery. Under overnight delivery practice, all mailings are deposited in an authorized area for pick-up by an authorized express service courier the same day it is collected and processed in the ordinary course of business. On the date set forth below, I served the within: 6 ASSET INTERROGATORIES 7 on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, and each envelope addressed as follows; Gary Sullivan, Esq. 1565 The Alameda, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95126 Email: awsullivanlawSzmaiLcom 11 Attorneyfor Defendant Miasole Hi-Tech Corp. 12 13 14 15 16 [g (By U.S. Mail) I caused each such envelope to be served by depositing same, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States Postal Service in the ordinary course of business at Pleasanton, California. (By Facsimile) The above-referenced document(s) was transmitted by facsimile transmission to the number(s) shown and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. I caused the transmitting facsimile machine to issue properly a transmission report, a copy of which is attached to this Declaration. [ ] (By Overnight Delivery) I caused each such envelope to be served by depositing same in an authorized area for pick-up by an authorized express service courier (UPS Overnight) 18 the same day it is collected and processed in the ordinary course ofbusiness . (By Personal Service) I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the persons named above. 20 [X ] (By Electronic Service) The above-referenced document was served by electronically 21 mailing a true and correct copy through Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sargent LLP's electronic mail system, to the email addresses set forth as listed above, and in 22 accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(b). 23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration 24 was executed on August 5, 2021, at Pleasanton, California, 25 26 27 Crystal Nelson 28 PROOF OF SERVICE naai.dD * GARY W. SULLIVAN - SBN: 103 162 1565 The Alameda, Suite 100 San Jose, California 95126 Telephone: (408) 971 1340 Facsimile: (408) 971 0478 Email: swsullivanlaw&mnaibcom Attorney for Defendant MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp. SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 FIRST POINT OAKMEAD, LLC, a Delaware Limited liability company Plaintiff vs. MiaSole, a California corporation, MiaSole Hi- Tech Corp„a California cotporation, and DOES 1 to 25 Defendants ) Case Nou 20CV362450 ) ) RESPONSE TO ASSET INTERROGATORIES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, First Point Oakmead, LLC, a Delaware limited liability Company RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Miagole Hi-Tech Corp., a California corporation 21 22 SET NUMBER: one (I) 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Defendant objects to the request on the gmunds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Defendant objeots to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not lilcely to 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. 6. Defendant objects to the request on the lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. 7. Defendant objects to the request on the lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. 8. Defendant objects to the request on the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 9. Defendant objects to the request on the !ead to the discovery of admissible evidence. grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to grounds that the information is iivelevant and not likely to grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 13 14 15 10. 'Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is inelevant and not likely to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. 11. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 16 lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. 17 12. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the infoimation is irrelevant and not likely to 18 lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 13. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. 15. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the infoimation is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 16. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 17. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 28 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 18. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovmy of admissible evidence. 19. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 3 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4 20. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 5 lead to the discovety of admissible evidence. 8 21. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 7 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 22, Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 9 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 23. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 11 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 13 24. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 15 25. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irmlevant and not likely to 18 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 17 26. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is im:levant and not tilcely to 18 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 27. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is inelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 23 29. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information 24 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 25 30. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to is irrelevant and not likely to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 31. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 28 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 32. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 33. Defendant objects to the request on the grounds that the information is irrelevant and not likely to 3 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4 Dated: September 16, 2021 GARY'. SULLIVAN, Attorney for Defendant MiaSole Hi-Tech Corp 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, declare that f am employed in ihe County of Santa Clara, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to fhe within cause; my business addmoo fs '%66 The Alameda, suite f00, san Jose, cafifoinia 96f26. 4 6 On september 3:7, 20.21, lsenredtheaffached Responses to Asset Interrogatories 6 Set One 7 ln said cause by placing a true copy fhereofenclosed In a sealed envefope atfdressed as 8 follows: 'IO Phillip G. Vermont, Esg. Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sargent„ LLP 5000 Eopyard Road, Suite 225 Pleasanton, CR 94588 f2 fxj (BY MAIL) I placed each such sealed envelope, with poshge thereon folly prepaid for first-class mail, for col[ection and mailing at San Jose, California, fofiovfog otdinaty q4 business pracgces. I am readily familiar with fhe practice of Gary W. Sulifvan for processing of correspondence, said practrce being that in fhe ordfoa6 course ci f6 business, correspondence is deposited h fhe United Shhs Poshl SeNicefbe same day as ii is pfacedfor processing f6 t ) (BY PERSONAL MAIL) I caused each such envefope to be delfvereiiby hand to fhe addressee(s) noted above 58 ) (BY FACBIMIL'E) I caused fhe said document fo be transmitted by Facsimile fg machine touche number indicafed aiterfhe address(es) noted above, t ] (BY EMAIL) I caused said document fo be delivered by email this date fo the offices . Of 'fhe addressee(s). 22 t ) (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) [ caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight delfvety carrier with delivery fees provided for addressed to the person(s) on 23 whom it is to be served. i declare under penally ofperiury underthe laws offhe Btafe of California fiat fhe foregoing Is frue and correcf, and that this declaration was execuhd on september 17 ~ 202@San Jose, Cahfornta. 26 27 ePKYlhf.SULLIVAN EXHIBIT CHI I Phillip Vermont From: Sent: To: Cci Subject: Gary Sullivan &gwsullivanlaw@gmail.corn& Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:29 AM Phillip Vermont gwsuilivanlaw@gmail.corn RE: Stephens v Mia Sole Phillip Please note my correct email as awsullivanlaw@amaibcom. Your previous emails left out "law" and an attorney in Boston gets it and just forwarded it to me. Gary From: Greg Sullivan [mailto:gwsullivanLRgmaihcom] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:29 AM To: Gary W. Sullivan, Attorney at Law &gwsullivanlawLSgmaihcom& Subject: Fwd: Stephens v Mia Sole ----- Forwarded message ----- From: Phillip Vermont &PVermontSrandickjaw.corn& Date: Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 1 1:51 AM Subject: Stephens v Mia Sole To: awsullivan@umaikcom &vwsujlivan@amaij.corn& Counsel: This email will follow up our conversation of moments ago regarding this matter. The asset discovery is specifically allowed under CCP 708.010 to 708.030. 1 understand you will get back to me this week to let me know if the defendant will answer the discovery as required by code. This is the meet and confer required before we file a Motion to Compel. Thank you. Phillip G. Vermont Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sargent 5000 Hopyard Rd., Suite 225 Pleasanton, Ca. 94588 (925)460-3700; (FGX) (925)460-0969 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.QA www.avast.corn hil . e ont ‘ andi ’ ooli e ont t opyar d., ui l t , a. ; Fax) - hi ail vast t are.g AvaSt ww.avas com Phillip Vermont From: Sent: To: Subject: Phillip Vermont Monday, September 27, 2021 9:12 AM 'Gary Sullivan'E: Stephens v Mia Sole Any word yet? My client wants me to file the Motion to Compel asap. So if I do not hear by Wednesday that the full responses will be provided, i have no option but to prepare it and file it. This is another meet and confer communication. Thanks. Phillip From: Gary Sullivan &gwsullivanlawogmail.corn& Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 7:SS AM To: Phillip Vermont &PVermont@randicklaw.corn& Cc: gwsullivanlawogmail.corn Subject: RE: Stephens v Mia Sole Not yet. From: Phillip Vermont [mailto:PVermont@randicklaw.corn] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 7:53 AM To: Gary Sullivan &awsullivanlawPemaikcom& Subject: RE: Stephens v Mia Sole Thanks. I will note it. Do you have any response to my meet and confer? Will the asset discovery be answered? Thanks again. Phillip G. Vermont Randick O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont & Sargent 5000 Hopyard Rd., Suite 225 Pleasanton, Ca. 94588 (925)460-3700; (Fax) (925)460-0969 From: Gary Sullivan &ewsullivanlaw@emaikcom& Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:29 AM To: Phillip Vermont &PVermont@randicklaw.corn& Cc: ewsullivanlaw@emaikcom Subject: RE: Stephens v Mia Sole Phillip Please note my correct email as ewsullivanlawPRmaikcom. Your previous emails left out "law" and an attorney in Boston gets it and just forwarded it to me. Gary From: Greg Sullivan [mailto:ewsullivan@emaikcomj Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:29 AM To: Gary W. Sullivan, Attorney at Law &ewsullivanlawPemaikcom& Subject: Fwd: Stephens v Mia Sole - - - - - Forwarded message - - --- From: Phillip Vermont &PVermont@randickjaw.corn& Date: Tue, Sep 21,2021, 11:51 AM Subject: Stephens v Mia Sole To: awsujjivan mnaij.corn &awsujlivantkamaij.corn& Counsel: This email will follow up our conversation of moments ago regarding this matter. The asset discovery is specifically allowed under CCP 708.010 to 708.030. I understand you will get back to me this week to let me know if the defendant will answer the discovery as required by code. This is the meet and confer required before we file a Motion to Compel. Thank you. Phillip G. Vermont Randiek O'Dea Tooliatos Vermont 6'c Sargent 5000 Hopyard Rd., Suite 225 Pleasanton, Ca. 94588 (925)460-3700; (FGX) (925)460-0969 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.corn hil . e ont andic ’ ooli e ont & t opyar d., ui l t , a. ; Fax) -0 hi ail vast t are. ww.avas com Phillip Vermont From: Sent: To: Subject: Phillip Vermont Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:20 AM 'Gary Sullivan'E: MiaSole As we just discussed I am asking for an extension in both cases to file a Motion to Compel. Please let me know. I will now contact Irvine re the protective order request. Thanks. Phillip From: Gary Sullivan &gwsullivanlawggmail.corn& Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 7:13 AM To: Phillip Vermont &PVermontgrandicklaw.corn& Cc: gwsullivanlaw@gmail.corn Subject: MiaSole Phillip Can you give me a call anytime before 8:30am. I have an MSC by Zoom starting at 9:00am Gary W, Sullivan Attorney at Law 1565 The Alameda, Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 971-1340 (408) 313-2050 cell This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.Q vast www.avast.corn