Robert Fiesler vs. Kcr Market Place, LLC

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.September 18, 2017

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Shella Sadovnik, SBN 267551 SADOVNIK LEGAL P.C. (shella@sadovniklegal.com) 33 Trinity Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (347) 815-2936 Attorneys for Defendant KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC and KEVIN MONAHAN ELECTROMICALLY FILED Superior Court of Califarnia, County of Orange 07/24/2018 at 07:33:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED CIVIL ROBERT FIESLER, an individual, Plaintiff, V. KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; KEVIN MONAHAN, an individual; and DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants. KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Cross-Complainant, V. ROBERT FIESLER, an individual; and ROES 1 THROUGH 10, Cross-Defendants. Case Number: 30-2017-00944131 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO ROBERT FIESLER’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KEVIN MONAHAN; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Assigned for all Purposes to: Hon. Geoffrey T. Glass Dept.: C31 Date: August 6, 2018 Time: 1:30pm Sadovnik Legal P.C. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities I. BACKGROUND In taking a look at Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Robert Fiesler’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), the undisputed written Merger Agreement between the parties and the two hundred and forty-seven (247) discovery requests (not inclusive of subparts), it is apparent that Plaintiffs strategy in this case is to file a frivolous lawsuit and then increase costs for Defendants until they capitulate to a settlement. Without getting into the merits of the case, there are three important facts to note regarding discovery: 1. Plaintiff’s FAC is a Judicial Council Form complaint with 5 additional paragraphs that each repeat the exact same factual allegations. (Declaration of Shella Sadovnik (“Sadovnik Decl.”) q 3). 2. Defendants’ original cross-complaint was filed after Plaintiff propounded discovery—so Plaintiff cannot argue that his discovery was intended to encompass any cross allegations. (Sadovnik Decl. § 4). 3. Defendants have timely served Responses, Amended Responses and Second Amended Responses to all 247 discovery requests and have drafted numerous meet-and-confer emails and letters. (Sadovnik Decl. § 5) — thereby complying with all of their discovery obligations unlike Defendants who failed to produce documents until after Defendants filed a Motion to Compel. The harassing and duplicative amount of discovery for what could not possibly be simpler allegations in the FAC combined with Defendants’ counsel’s timely and diligent efforts to provide additional responses, makes these six (6) motions to compel further evidence of Plaintiff’s strategy. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument regarding “delay and continued obfuscation” is belied by simple facts. First, Defendants’ counsel was retained in March and the first meet-and-confer occurred March 29, 2018. Inclusive of the time to file this motion, the parties have only been negotiating the 247 requests for three (3) months — and this is after responses and documents were Sadovnik Legal P.C. 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 produced within 30 days of receipt of discovery requests. Therefore, the “six months” delay alleged by Plaintiff is a gross exaggeration of what transpired between the parties. Second, Defendants’ counsel has replied (almost always within 24 hours) to every single one of Plaintiff’s counsel’s emails regarding discovery and meet-and-confers and it is not surprising that amending responses, #wice, to 247 requests took some time. (Sadovnik Decl. q 5). Third, Defendants’ counsel has spent those same 20 hours meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel, and has spent at least four times as many hours responding to emails and drafting Amended responses. (Sadovnik Decl. § 6). Unlike Plaintiffs counsel, Defendants’ counsel does not work on contingency, so these costs were borne directly by Defendants — making it even harder to believe that Defendants desired merely to waste time and incur fees. (Sadovnik Decl. 7). Lastly, to correct the record, Plaintiff’s counsel has now repeated the same falsehoods multiple times throughout several motions. Defendants’ counsel’s response to meet-and-confers has not been simply that Plaintiff “should depose Defendants if they wanted responsive information.” After many detailed meet-and-confer emails and letters and subsequently providing Amended Responses, when Plaintiff’s counsel still found disagreement as to what further information Plaintiff sought from an interrogatory response, Defendants’ counsel suggested that this additional information could be better gathered through a deposition. The way Plaintiff’s counsel describes it, it appears that rather than engage in discovery discussions, Defendants’ counsel simply just stated that Plaintiff should seek the information through deposition. (Sadovnik Decl. 999 8.) This is a complete misrepresentation of what transpired and is both unethical and unprofessional. II. ARGUMENT a. Defendants’ Objections Are Not “Boilerplate” As an initial matter, all of the correspondence between the parties, including the attached meet-and-confer letters not included by Plaintiff but attached to the Sadovnik Declaration herein, evidence one clear fact: Plaintiff’s counsel would make vague complaints about Defendants’ Sadovnik Legal P.C. 3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 objections to Special Interrogatories and it would take many back and forth emails and letters to clarify what exactly was problematic. Just to cite one example, even as late as May 29, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet-and- confer email looked as follows: No. 9.1: The objections are improper and the information provided consists solely of conclusions, rather than facts. Nos. 12.2 — 12.3: The objections to these interrogatories are improper and must be withdrawn. There is no explanation as to what is “improper” or “incomplete” about the objection. Plaintiff’s counsel only offered explanations after many back and forth emails and phone calls. Moreover, where Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly states that the responses are “conclusory” or incomplete, she offers no information. Further, Defendants provided responses to every single Form Interrogatory Response Plaintiff alleges contains a “boilerplate” objection. No “boilerplate” objection is left simply as such without an actual response. Lastly, the purpose of the objections was to preserve them, as they are waived if not asserted. For example, Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 requests: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) Who witnessed the INCIDENT of the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) Who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) Who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) Who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034) Sadovnik Legal P.C. 4 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 There is no definition of “INCIDENT”, nor is this a personal injury action where the “INCIDENT” could somehow be inferred. Clearly this request without further definition is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. The same objections can be applied to Nos. 4.1,4.2, 9.1, 9.2 and 12.2. Most importantly, however, Defendants responded to each and every form interrogatory despite the objections. Therefore, Plaintiff still obtained the responsive information while keeping in balance Defendants’ right to preserve their objections — which would be waived if not made. b. Defendants’ Responses Are Complete and Responsive Plaintiff alleges that the facts provided, for example in Form Interrogatory Responses to Nos. 15.1 and 171. Consist largely of conclusions or have no relationship or relevance to the defense or denial at issue. Plaintiff’s counsel falsely states the only witnesses Defendants identified are Defendant Monahan and Plaintiff. This is incorrect. Defendants identified several other witnesses such as Chris Batchelder and Kevin Ryan, Steven Nash and Sarah Downs providing phone numbers and addresses, where available, for all of these witnesses (see Amended Responses Nos. 12.1 and 15.1). If Plaintiff believes certain witnesses should have been identified but were not, this should be the subject of deposition testimony. Defendants stand by their responses and Motions to Compel are not vehicles for impeaching a responsive party or disagreeing with the substance of a response. Based on the very simple and few allegations, this is a very factually limited case. As such, there are only 265 pages of documents produced thus far. Where Defendants do identify documents as “books and records of purchase and payroll”, it is apparent from the 265 pages which ones are books and records of a corporation and which ones are emails. This response is entirely sufficient to point Plaintiff in the direction of which document corresponds to the Response. c. Plaintiff’s Alleged Attempts At Meet and Confers Were Always Met with Good Faith, Timely Responses Despite the Lack of Clarity As described above, and can be seen from Plaintiff’s counsel’s vague emails, Defendants properly questioned, conferred and discussed each of the over 100 responses with which Sadovnik Legal P.C. 5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s counsel has disagreement. Moreover, Defendant’s counsel timely responded to each lengthy email to further investigate the source of the issues and then provided Amended and Second Amended Responses where necessary — totaling over 100 additional responses beyond the 247 already produced. Defendants also produced hundreds of pages of documents as far back as January 2018 in addition to the 247 responses produced in January 2018. Plaintiff’s counsel’s “20 hours of meeting and conferring” similarly cost Defendants 20 hours of attorneys’ fees that could easily have been avoided if Plaintiff's counsel’s emails were not vague. Plaintiff’s counsel is required to state why each objection was “boilerplate” or not “code compliant.” It took many emails to get to a point of clarity that could have been avoided if Plaintiff’s counsel had been more diligent and specific. d. The Court Should Sanction Plaintiff for Their Harassing Discovery and Motion Practice Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants have acted in bad faith is absurd considering Plaintiff’s failure to produce any documents whatsoever for over six months, until Defendants were forced to file a Motion to Compel. Regardless, Plaintiff can only honestly make this claim if Defendants hadn’t responded to discovery requests and had avoided meet-and-confers to resolve the issues. Or, if Plaintiff’s discovery requests did not number in the several hundreds for a five-sentence complaint. But none of those are true. Defendants served timely responses to all requests and documents in January 2018, within 30 days of service of requests. Defendants then engaged in active, direct, and timely meet-and-confer clarification which resulted in Amended Responses, Second Amended Responses and further documents (to be produced July 30, 2018 before the hearing on this Motion). Moreover, this was done for duplicative, harassing and overly broad discovery and completed within 4 months after new counsel was retained. As described above, discovery shall be restricted if “[t]he discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2019(b)(1) (emphasis added); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Ct., (1997) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1101, 1110. Sadovnik Legal P.C. 6 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moreover, Plaintiff’s conduct with regard to this discovery and these motions is itself sanctionable. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(d) mandates that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction... against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes... a motion to compel a further response..., unless it finds that one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification...” Furthermore, § 2023.010 defines “making” a non-meritorious motion to compel an abuse of the discovery process. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h). In addition, a failure to reasonably meet and confer prior to filing a motion is in itself an abuse of the discovery process “notwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion. Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(1), 2023.020. Given all of the above, it is clear that the motion should be denied and that motions have been brought only for the purposes of harassment and to increase the cost of litigation. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts in this regard were not intended to reasonably attempt to resolve the issues informally but were instead intended to increase the burden of discovery and litigation in what should be a simple business dispute. The FAC is, in essence, one simple paragraph of a breached oral promise (alleged identically as both fraud and breach of contract). Requiring two hundred and forty-seven (247) discovery responses, 50% of which are duplicative of a Defendant that could never have acted in an individual capacity, is the very definition of burdensome and unreasonable. Therefore, this Court should deny any award of sanctions against Defendants and, in addition, sanction The Law Office of Rick Augustini, Rick Augustini and Plaintiff himself for abuse of the discovery process. Defense counsel has spent 5.5 hours in opposing this motion and therefore requests sanctions in the amount of $1669.90 pursuant to Code of Civ. Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2030.300. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Motion to Compel be denied in its entirety. Dated: July 24, 2018 SADOVNIK LEGAL P.C. Sadovnik Legal P.C. 7 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By: /s/Shella Sadovnik SHELLA SADOVNIK Attorneys for Defendants KCR Market Place, LLC and Kevin Monahan Sadovnik Legal P.C. 8 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SHELLA SADOVNIK I, Shella Sadovnik, hereby declare: 1. I am the managing attorney of Sadovnik Legal P.C., counsel of record for Defendants Kevin Monahan and KCR Market Place, LLC and Cross-Complainant KCR Market Place, LLC (“KCR?”) in this action. I am admitted to practice law in all state and federal courts in California. If called as a witness, I could and would testify to the truth of the matters stated herein. 2. A true and correct copy of the additional meet-and-confer letters I sent to Plaintiff’s counsel, that were not included in Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. The Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is a Judicial Council Form with five additional paragraphs that each repeat the same exact factual allegations. A true and correct copy of the FAC is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 4. Plaintiff served his discovery on December 18, 2018 but the Defendants’ initial Cross-Complaint was not filed until January 12, 2018. 5. Defendants have timely served Responses, Amended Responses and Second Amended Responses to all 247 discovery requests, have produced hundreds of pages of documents and have drafted numerous meet-and-confer emails and letters. 6. I have spent at least 20 hours meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel, and has spent at least four times as many hours responding to emails and drafting Amended responses. 7. I do not work on contingency, so these discovery costs were borne directly by my clients — making it even harder to believe that my clients desired merely to waste time and incur fees. 8. After many detailed meet-and-confer emails and letters and subsequently providing Amended Responses, when Plaintiff’s counsel still found disagreement as to what further information Plaintiff sought from an interrogatory response, I suggested that this additional information could be better gathered through a deposition. The way Plaintiff’s counsel describes it, it appears that rather than engage in discovery discussions, I simply just stated that Plaintiff should seek the information through deposition. This is a complete misrepresentation of what transpired and is both unethical and unprofessional. Sadovnik Legal P.C. 9 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. I have repeatedly extended the time for the parties to file Motions to Compel. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 are the Amended Responses to Requests for Admission which are not part of these Motions to Compel, but which illustrate that Defendants deny that they ever had to transfer liabilities into KCR’s name and out of Plaintiff’s name. See Response No. 8 (KCR) and Response No. 4 (Monahan), specifically. 11. I have spent 5.5 hours in opposing this motion. I have been practicing law since 2009 and am informed that my rate of $300.00 per hour is reasonable and customary for an attorney with similar skills and experience in Orange County. I will also incur e-filing fees of $19.90 for a total in fees and costs of $1669.90. Therefore, I request sanctions in the amount of $1669.90 pursuant to Code of Civ. Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2030.300. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on July 24, 2018 at Los Angeles, California. By: /s/Shella Sadovnik SHELLA SADOVNIK Sadovnik Legal P.C. 10 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Iam over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My address is 33 Trinity, Irvine, CA 92612. On July 24, 2018, I served the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO ROBERT FIESLER’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT KEVIN MONAHAN on the interested parties in this action referenced in the attached service list by placing ( ) the original (X) true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: 0) BY MAIL I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (x) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE By transmitting the document(s) listed above from my email to the e-mail address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the attached service list. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. See California Rules of Court, rule 2060. (X) STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (X) EXECUTED on July 24, 2018 at Los Angeles, California. /s/Shella Sadovnik Shella SADOVNIK Sadovnik Legal P.C. 11 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Rick Augustini LAW OFFICE OF RICK AUGUSTINI 20 Pacifica, Suite 255 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-9789 rick.augustini@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Robert Fiesler Sadovnik Legal P.C. 12 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel FROGs (Monahan) Case No.: 30-2017-0944131 EXHIBIT 1 SADOVNIK LEGAL P.C. 33 Trinity Irvine, CA 92612 347-815-2936 shella@sadovniklegal.com April 30, 2018 VIA EMAIL Rick Augustini Tracy Anielski Law Office of Rick Augustini 20 Pacifica, Suite 255 Irvine, CA 92618 Re: Fiesler v. KCR Market Place, LLC, et al. - 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC Dear Tracy and Rick: This letter is in response to your email, dated April 25, 2018, clarifying our March 29, 2018 telephonic meet and confer where we discussed some of your objections to Defendants KCR Market Place, LLC and Kevin Monahan’s (“Defendants”) discovery responses. Your objections and description of deficiencies in your email is insufficient for us to provide supplemental responses. Below, please see my list seeking clarification of your objections/deficiencies as you stated them in the April 25, 2018 email. I am happy to provide supplemental responses, where necessary, once I have a clear picture of what you believe is missing and why. Iam also happy to extend our mutually agreed upon time to file our respective motions to compel (by a few days, or a week, or as necessary) as we work to resolve this. To remind you, on our end, we have timely provided responses and documents but are still waiting on your responsive documents since January 2018. Please let me know by May 4, 2018 when we will be receiving these. 1. Requests for Production of Documents KCR: You fail to state in what way Requests Nos. 5, 8, 9, 17, 18 and 19 fail to comply with CCP 2031.230, as all of them state: “A diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the documents demanded and the documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party because the documents do not exist.” If you believe this is not adequate per CCP 2031.230, please cite to authority and explain as to how this statement fails to comply. Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 1 Ltr. 4/30/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC Further, you have not stated by the objections to Nos. 12, 24, 26 and 30 need to be withdrawn. If you require responsive documents, please state you basis (and legal authority) why these documents must be produced. Monahan: You fail to state how Nos. 3,4, 5,6, 8,9, 15, 17, 18, 19, 28, 29 fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 when those clearly state: “A diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the documents demanded and the documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party because the documents do not exist.” If you believe this is not adequate per CCP 2031.230, please cite to authority and explain as to how this statement fails to comply. Further, you have not stated why the objections to Nos. 12, 24, 26 and 30-43 need to be withdrawn. If you require responsive documents, please state you basis and legal authority why these documents must be produced. Lastly, many of your objections were solely to the objections in the responses, not to the substance of the responses themselves, as you have not cited why you believe documents do, in fact, exist, where we stated they do not. Nor do I understand why you address deficiencies in objections where you have no problem with the documents actually produced. Eliminating this kind of needless back and forth will help focus both sides to provide the best supplemental responses. 2. Requests for Admission KCR: You have given no explanation why each and every objection has “no merit” and “all objections need to be withdrawn.” Just as one out of many examples, you have not explained why the following objection to RFA No. 1 is inappropriate: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. The objection is followed by a code compliant admission/denial. Similarly, you have not explained why Nos. 4-11, 16, 21 and 24-28 are “nonresponsive” as they clearly state a denial. Monahan: You have given no explanation why each and every objection has “no merit” and “all objections need to be withdrawn.” Just as one out of many examples, you have not explained why the following objection to RFA No. 1 is inappropriate: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. The objection is followed by a code compliant admission/denial. Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 2 Ltr. 4/30/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC Similarly, for Nos. 18-22, you have not stated why the objections themselves need to be withdrawn. 3. Form Interrogatories KCR: 9.1: you have not stated what is improper about the objection, especially when a complete response (to which you have not objected) follows. 9.2: you have not stated what is insufficient about this response. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3: you have not stated what is improper about these objections. 15.1: you have not stated what is improper about the objections. Monahan: 2.6,2.7,2.11, 9.2: you fail to state what is incomplete or insufficient about the response. 9.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 15.1: you fail to state have is improper about the objections 4. Special Interrogatories KCR: 2, 3: you fail to state what is improper about the objections, and, if further response is warranted, what is the basis for requiring a further response. 5: see above 6, 7, 14, 15: you fail to state what is improper about the objections and in 7, why it is “incomplete and conclusionary.” 16, 20, 31: you fail to state why the objections are improper and must be withdrawn. Monahan: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: you fail to state why the objections are improper, and, where appropriate, why the response is incomplete. Generally, where you state that a response is insufficient for “among other things” (see Sp. Int. KCR No. 16, Sp. Int. Monahan No. 10), this is too indefinite. If there is a reason the response is insufficient beyond what you list after “among other things”, you need to state that. Otherwise, Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 3 Ltr. 4/30/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC our supplemental responses, if any, will be limited only to what you state after “among other things.” I am available via telephone any time tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday afternoon if you would like to discuss further. I look forward to resolving the above issues with you. Sincerely, Shell Sadovndl Shella Sadovnik, Esq. Sadovnik Legal P.C. Attorneys for Defendants KCR Market Place, LLC and Kevin Monahan Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 4 Ltr. 4/30/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC SADOVNIK LEGAL P.C. 33 Trinity Irvine, CA 92612 347-815-2936 shella@sadovniklegal.com May 2, 2018 VIA EMAIL Rick Augustini Tracy Anielski Law Office of Rick Augustini 20 Pacifica, Suite 255 Irvine, CA 92618 Re: Fiesler v. KCR Market Place, LLC, etal -30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC Dear Tracy and Rick: This letter is in further response to your email, dated April 25, 2018 and in response to your email dated May 2, 2018. My April 30, 2018 letter addressed how your April 25, 2018 letter failed to properly explain deficiencies in Defendants’ discovery responses in a way that would allow me to provide supplemental discovery responses. This letter further makes clear that you have failed to sufficiently explain why the discovery responses that were actually provided were somehow deficient. While it is true that we have extended our mutual time to file motions to compel several times, you did not provide me with even a workable explanation of deficiencies in Defendants’ discovery until April 25, 2018. Lastly, you propounded 96 RFPDs, 68 RFAs, 44 Form Interrogatories and 62 Special Interrogatories. I have actively engaged with you to work through these to provide supplemental responses where those are necessary but this is no small task considering the lack of clarity as to what the deficiencies are. 1 am happy to discuss on Friday how to proceed to complete this quickly and efficiently to avoid motion practice. 1. Requests for Production of Documents KCR: You are not entitled to a response to Request for Production numbers 12, 24, 26, and 31-43. The requests would require going through every single document of KCR’s which would consist of hundreds of hours of work. Some of the documents you requested are already in your client's possession. The burden, expense, and intrusiveness of the requests outweigh the likelihood that Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 1 Ltr. 5/2/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-0094413 1-CU-BC-CJC the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a). In addition, as the requests seek private information which is only discoverable if it is directly relevant to the litigation. Binder, supra, 196 Cal App.3d at p. 900, 242 CalRptr. 231. You have failed to present any reason why the information sought is directly relevant to the litigation. Thus, you have no right to any of the documents you are seeking. You are not entitled to a response to Request for Production number 30. The request seeks private information which is only discoverable if it is directly relevant to the litigation. Binder, supra, 196 Cal. App.3d at p. 900, 242 CalRptr. 231. You have failed to present any reason why the information sought is directly relevant to the litigation. Thus, you have no right to the documents you are seeking. Monahan: You are not entitled to a response to Request for Production numbers 12, 24, 26, and 31-43. The requests would require going through every single document of KCR’s which would consist of hundreds of hours of work. Some of the documents you requested are already in your client's possession. The burden, expense, and intrusiveness of the requests outweigh the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a). In addition, as the requests seek private information which is only discoverable if it is directly relevant to the litigation. Binder, supra, 196 Cal App.3d at p. 900, 242 CalRptr. 231. You have failed to present any reason why the information sought is directly relevant to the litigation. Thus, you have no right to any of the documents you are seeking. You are not entitled to a response to Request for Production number 30. The request seeks private information which is only discoverable if it is directly relevant to the litigation. Binder, supra, 196 Cal. App.3d at p. 900, 242 CalRptr. 231. You have failed to present any reason why the information sought is directly relevant to the litigation. Thus, you have no right to the documents you are seeking. 2. Requests for Admission KCR: You are not entitled to a response to requests for admission 30-34. Requests for admission 30-34 all seek legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. Chung v. Bookspan, Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 17, 2013, No. B236479, 2013 WL 178211, at *10. In addition, to the extent that the requests can be construed as seeking proper information, the information sought does not come close to seeking information relevant to this litigation. Monahan: You are not entitled to a response to requests for admission 18-22. Requests for admission 18-22 all seek legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. Chung v. Bookspan, Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 17, 2013, No. B236479, 2013 WL 178211, at *10. In addition, to the extent that the Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 2 Ltr. 5/2/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-0094413 1-CU-BC-CIC requests can be construed as seeking proper information, the information sought does not come close to seeking information relevant to this litigation. 3. Form Interrogatories KCR: 3.6 - We will clarify how long the fictitious name was used. 9.1 - The answer is not simply conclusions. It gives the amount of damages. The question is also confusing in that it does not properly define Incident making answering the amount of damages involved in the “Incident” impossible. What other information would you like in specific? 9.2 - What is your basis for claimng CCP 2030.230 does not apply? We have provided you documents with the information sought. You are asking for us to summarize those documents and there is no reason that it would be more burdensome on you than us to look at those documents and summarize them. 12.1 - Your response is nonsensical. We obviously do not have to provide information that we do not have. In addition, we have identified the people we reasonably know are witnesses today. However, as discovery continues it may become apparent that there are other relevant witnesses at which point we will identify those individuals. That said, we will provide Mr. Batchelder’s phone number and address to the extent we have that information. 12.2-12.3 - First, we have provided you answers to these interrogatories so it seems like your demand that we withdraw our objections is nothing other than a means to drive up litigation costs. However, if you think our objections are so wrong please provide the exact reason why the objections are incorrect with citations to authority that supports your position. 15.1 - Other than your objection that the people who did the work need to be identified, we have provided you with the necessary details to respond to this interrogatory. If you feel otherwise, please list each and every fact that you think was not provided that needs to be provided and provide citations to specific law that shows that the specific details you think were not provided are necessary. We will provide, to the extent that we have it, the names and contact information for the people who did the work. 17.1 - We have provided detailed responses to each request for admission. If you think any was improper, list which one was improper, what specifically was improper for each request, and citations to appropriate law to support your position. 50.1 - You are very well aware of the written agreement that your client entered into and that governs the relationship between the parties. It has been attached to every pleading and produced in discovery. Further, contrary to your contention, the response does not “appear to admit that there was a written confirmation of an oral agreement.” It states that Plamtiff alleges Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 3 Ltr. 5/2/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-0094413 1-CU-BC-CIC this to be so, not the Defendants. That said, if you insist, we will once again produce the very same agreement we have repeatedly produced in the pleadings context and in discovery. Monahan: 2.6, 2.7, 2.10, 2.11 - To the extent the information is available, we will provide an update to this formation. 9.1 - The answer is not simply conclusory. It gives the amount of damages. The question is also confusing in that it does not properly define Incident. What other information would you like in specific? 9.2 - What is your basis for claimmg CCP 2030.230 does not apply? We have provided you documents with the information sought. You are asking for us to summarize those documents and there is no reason that it would be more burdensome on you than us to look at those documents and summarize them. 12.1 - Your response is nonsensical Defendants responded with all the witnesses they have knowledge of today. Otherwise, Defendants obviously do not have to provide information that they do not have. However, as discovery continues it may become apparent that there are other relevant witnesses at which point we will identify those individuals. That said, to the extent Defendants are in possession of Mr. Batchelder’s phone number, we will provide it. 12.2-12.3 - First, we have provided you answers to these interrogatories so it seems like your demand that we withdraw our objections is nothing other than a means to drive up litigation costs. However, if you think our objections are so wrong please provide the exact reason why the objections are incorrect with citations to authority that supports your position. 15.1 - Other than your objection that the people who did the work need to be identified, we have provided you with the necessary details to respond to this interrogatory. If you feel otherwise, please list each and every fact that you think was not provided that needs to be provided and provide citations to specific law that shows that the specific details you think were not provided are necessary. We will provide, to the extent that we have it, the names and contact information for the people who did the work. 17.1 - We have provided detailed responses to each request for admission. If you think any was improper, list which one was improper, what specifically was improper for each request, and citations to appropriate law to support your position. 50.1 - You are very well aware of the written agreement that your client entered into and that governs the relationship between the parties. It has been attached to every pleading and produced in discovery. Further, contrary to your contention, the response does not “appear to admit that there was a written confirmation of an oral agreement.” It states that Plaintiff alleges this to be so, not the Defendants. That said, if you insist, we will once again produce the very same agreement we have repeatedly produced in the pleadings context and in discovery. Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 4 Ltr. 5/2/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-0094413 1-CU-BC-CIC 4. Special Interrogatories KCR: Special Interrogatory No. 1 - I will ask my client if there are any other contracts. Otherwise, the response is proper. I see nothing in CCP 2030.230 that requires listing bates numbers. Special Interrogatory No. 2 - To the extent the information is known and available, 1 will update the response naming the individuals. With respect to responses to numbers 3, 4 though the questions are impermissibly broad, to the extent that the information is known, I will ask my client to provide it. Special Interrogatory No. 5 - The response provided is adequate. The burden, expense, and intrusiveness of the request outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that you do not already have. Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a). As such, no further response is necessary. Special Interrogatory No. 6 - To the extent the information is known and available the name and contact information of the manager will be provided. Special Interrogatory No. 7 - We have provided the information we have at this time. You have the actual business records to review what the expenses of the company were. Special Interrogatory No. 8, 9, and 13 have adequately been responded to. What other information do you need to find the documents? It is clear that you know which documents are being referred and your objections are harassing and seek to raise the cost of litigating this case. Special Interrogatory No. 14 - Your statement that the response is conclusory is without merit. The response specifically lists many things that my client did. In addition, your subpart requesting money spent and the names of individuals is in violation of CCP 2030.060(f) as being subparts. You are essentially attempting to circumvent the rules around the maximum number of special interrogatories. Special Interrogatory No. 15 - The response provided is accurate and correct. Your objection is without merit. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Special Interrogatory No. 16 - It is unclear why you think the response is incorrect. The information has been provided. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Special Interrogatory No. 18 - Though I appreciate your suggestion as to how you would have answered the interrogatory, the information provided is correct and the interrogatory has been properly responded to. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 5 Ltr. 5/2/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-0094413 1-CU-BC-CIC Special Interrogatory No. 19 - We have provided you with the information sought about the accounting books and records. You are, once agam, trying to circumvent the limits on the number of special interrogatories by asking several subparts in violation of CCP 2030.060(f). Special Interrogatory No. 20 - It is unclear why you think the objection is improper. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. The information was provided to answer the interrogatory. Special Interrogatory No. 23 through 30 - you are not entitled to this information. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Special Interrogatory No. 31 - It is clear on its face that your request is overbroad. The burden, expense, and intrusiveness of the request outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that you do not already have. Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a). It is also clear that the interrogatory violates CCP 2031.030(c)(1). If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Monahan: Special Interrogatory No. 1 - Your demand that the objection be withdrawn fails to provide any explanation and is therefore harassing. Special Interrogatory No. 2 - Mr. Monahan is answering these interrogatories in his individual capacity and thus has provided an adequate answer. Special Interrogatory No. 3 - Mr. Monahan is answering these interrogatories in his individual capacity and thus has provided an adequate answer. In addition, please state why you think the response is not proper pursuant to CCP 2030.230. Special Interrogatory No. 4 - The communications have been identified. You are demanding information about subparts to the question. This is in violation of CCP 2030.060(f). If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Special Interrogatory No. 5 - It is unclear why you think the objection is improper. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. The information was provided to answer the interrogatory. Special Interrogatory No. 6 - Mr. Monahan is answering these interrogatories in his individual capacity and thus has provided an adequate answer. Special Interrogatory No. 7 - Your objection is without merit. How is giving a detailed list of what the revenue was sent on considered a “conclusion”. Please provide me with a case that specifically discusses and supports your position. Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 6 Ltr. 5/2/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-0094413 1-CU-BC-CIC Special Interrogatory No. 8 - See what I wrote about 6 above. Special Interrogatory No. 9 - The response provided is accurate and correct. Your objection is without merit. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Special Interrogatory No. 10 - It is unclear why you think the response is incorrect. The information has been provided. If you believe your objection to have merit, please provide me with the law on which you base your theory on. Special Interrogatory No. 11 - See what I wrote about 6 above. Special Interrogatory No. 12 - See what I wrote about 6 above. Special Interrogatory No. 13, 14, 15 - What basis do you have to claim the objections are improper? Please provide me with cases that specifically discuss facts similar to our case. Per your email, I am available via telephone any time on Friday to discuss further. I look forward to resolving the above issues with you. Sincerely, Shel Sadovndl Shella Sadovnik, Esq. Sadovnik Legal P.C. Attorneys for Defendants KCR Market Place, LLC and Kevin Monahan Sadovnik Legal, P.C. 7 Ltr. 5/2/2018 re: Supp. Discovery OC Case No.: 30-2017-0094413 1-CU-BC-CIC EXHIBIT 2 PLD-C-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address) Rick Augustini (Bar No. 160934) LAW OFFICE OF RICK AUGUSTINI 20 Pacifica, Suite 255 Irvine, CA 92618 TELEPHONE NO: (949) 387-9789 FAX NO. (Optional): E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): rick.augustinif@gmail.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff Robert Fiesler SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange sTREET ADDRESS: 700 Civic Center Drive West MAILING ADDRESS CITY AND zip cope: Santa Ana, CA 92701 BRANCH Name: Central Justice Center PLAINTIFF: Robert Fiesler, an individual DEFENDANT: gcR Market Place. LLC. a Florida limited liability company: Kevin Monahan, an individual; and DOES 1 TO 10 CONTRACT [1 comPLAINT AMENDED COMPLAINT (Number): FIRST [1cross-cOMPLAINT [| AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT (Number): FOR COURT USE ONLY Jurisdiction (check all that apply): [_] ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE Amount demanded [__] does not exceed $10,000 [1 exceeds $10,000 but does not exceed $25,000 ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000) [J ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint or cross-complaint [Ifrom limited to unlimited [J from unlimited to limited CASE NUMBER: 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CIC 1. Plaintiff* (name or names): Robert Fiesler alleges causes of action against defendant* (name or names): KCR Market Place, LLC and Does 1-10 2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: E| GHT (8) 3. a. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult [1] except plaintiff (name): (1) [Ja corporation qualified to do business in California (2) [Jan unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [other (specify): b. [Plaintiff (name): a. [__]has complied with the fictitious business name laws and is doing business under the fictitious name (specify): b. [has complied with all licensing requirements as a licensed (specify): c. [1 Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3c. 4. a. Each defendant named above is a natural person except defendant (name): KCR Market Place [except defendant (name): (1) [Ja business organization, form unknown (1) [1 a business organization, form unknown (2) [Ja corporation (2) [J a corporation (3) [Jan unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [__] an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) [J a public entity (describe): (4) [_] a public entity (describe): ©) other (specify): limited liability company (5) [_] other (specify): "If this form is used as a cross-complaint, plaintiff means cross-complainant and defendant means cross-defendant Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California COMPLAINT—Contract PLD-C-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007) Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12 PLD-C-001 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER Fiesler v. KCR Market Place, LLC, et al. 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CIC 4. (Continued) b. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff. (1) [] Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): were the agents or employees of the named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment. 2) Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1-10 are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff. ¢. [1] Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 4c. d. [_] Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): 5. [] Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. [| has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. [] is excused from complying because (specify): 6. [_] This action is subjectto [J Civil Code section 1812.10 [_] Civil Code section 2984.4. 7. This court is the proper court because 2 a defendant entered into the contract here. . [] a defendant lived here when the contract was entered into. . [] adefendant lives here now. . [1] the contract was to be performed here. . [] a defendant is a corporation or unincorporated association and its principal place of business is here. [] real property that is the subject of this action is located here. . [J other (specify): jul QQ «~ 0® a 0 OT 8. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached): Breach of Contract Common Counts Other (specify): Fraud 9. [] Other allegations: 10. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for a. damages of: $200,000.00 b. interest on the damages (1 according to proof (2) [] at the rate of (specify): percent per year from (date): C. attorney's fees MW] of: $ (2) [7] accordingto proof. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW d. [_] other (specify): 11: The paragraphs of this pleading alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragsarh numbers): 110 Date: December 11,2017 Rick Augustini Bb (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGRATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) (If you wish to verify this pleading, affix a verification.) PLD-C-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007] COMPLAINT—Contract Page 2 of 2 PLD-C-001(1) SHORT TITLE: Fiesler v. KCR Market Place, LLC, et al. CASE NUMBER 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC First CAUSE OF ACTION—Breach of Contract (number) ATTACHMENT TO Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) BC-1. Plaintiff (name): Robert Fiesler alleges that on or about (date): September 25, 2015 [1 other (specify): agreement was made between (name parties to agreement): KCR Market Place, LLC and Does 1-10 CL] A copy of the agreement is attached as Exhibit A, or The essential terms of the agreement a [| written oral BC-2. On or about (dates): November 1, 2015 defendant breached the agreement by (specify): [1 cross- Complaint are stated in Attachment BC-1 [| are as follows (specify): the acts specified in Attachment BC-2 [1] the following acts BC-3. Plaintiff has performed all obligations to defendant except those obligations plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing. BC-4. Plaintiff suffered damages legally (proximately) caused by defendant's breach of the agreement [1 as stated in Attachment BC-4 $200,000.00 plus prejudgment interest at the legal rate. BC-5. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees by an agreement or a statute [1 of as follows (specify): according to proof. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW BC-6. Other: At or about the time Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the oral agreement, Defendants confirmed many of its terms in writing. Fangs Apirayi Yor Options) Unis CAUSE OF ACTION—Breach of Contract Judicial Council of California PLD-C-001(1) [Rev. January 1, 2007] Page 3 Page 10of 1 Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12 www.courtinfo.ca.gov PLD-C-001(2) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: Fiesler v. KCR Market Place LLC. et al. 30-2017-00944131 Second CAUSE OF ACTION—Common Counts (number) ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [| Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) CC-1. Plaintiff (name): Robert Fiesler alleges that defendant (name): KCR Market Place, LLC and Does 1-10 became indebted to plaintiff ~~ [__] other (name): a. [| within the last four years (1) [] on an open book account for money due. (2) [] because an account was stated in writing by and between plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed that defendant was indebted to plaintiff. b. within the last twoyears [| four years (1 for money had and received by defendant for the use and benefit of plaintiff. (2) [] forwork, labor, services and materials rendered at the special instance and request of defendant and for which defendant promised to pay plaintiff. the sum of $ 200,000.00 [1] the reasonable value. (3) [] for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered to defendant and for which defendant promised to pay plaintiff [] thesumof$ [] the reasonable value. (4) [1 for money lent by plaintiff to defendant at defendant's request. (5) [] for money paid, laid out, and expended to or for defendant at defendant's special instance and request. ®) [_] other (specify): CC-2.$ 200,000.00 . which is the reasonable value, is due and unpaid despite plaintiffs demand, plus prejudgment interest according to proof [| at the rate of percent per year from (date): according to proof CC-3. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees by an agreement or a statute [] of$ accordingto proof. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW CC-4. [| Other: Page 4 Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Optional Use CAUSE OF ACTION Common Counts Code of Civil Procedure, § 42512 Judicial Council of California www.courtinfo.ca. gov PLD-C-001(2) [Rev. January 1, 2009] PLD-C-001(3) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER Fiesler v. KCR Market Place, LLC, et al. 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CIJC Third CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud (number) ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [__] Cross-Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) FR- 1. Plaintiff (name): Robert Fiesler alleges that defendant (name): KCR Market Place, LLC, Kevin Monahan and Does 1-10 on or about (date): September 25, 2015 defrauded plaintiff as follows: FR-2. Intentional or Negligent Misrepresentation a. Defendant made representations of material fact as stated in Attachment FR-2.a [| as follows: b. These representations were in fact false. The truth was as stated in Attachment FR-2b [| as follows: c. When defendant made the representations, defendant knew they were false, or [1 defendant had no reasonable ground for believing the representations were true. d. Defendant made the representations with the intent to defraud and induce plaintiff to act as described in item FIR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff did not know the representations were false and believed they were true. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the truth of the representations. FR-3. [__] Concealment a. Defendant concealed or suppressed material facts [1 as stated in Attachment FR-3.a [1 as follows: b. Defendant concealed or suppressed material facts [1 defendant was bound to disclose. = by telling plaintiff other facts to mislead plaintiff and prevent plaintiff from discovering the concealed or suppressed facts. c. Defendant concealed or suppressed these facts with the intent to defraud and induce plaintiff to act as described in item IFIR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff was unaware of the concealed or suppressed facts and would not have taken the action if plaintiff had known the facts. Page 5 Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12 Judicial Council of California CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud www.courtinfo.ca.gov PLD-C-001(3) [Rev. January 1, 2007] PLD-C-001(3) SHORT TITLE: REN Fiesler v. KCR Market Place, LLC, et al. 30-2017-00944131-CU-BC-CJC Third CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud (number) FR-4. Promise Without Intent to Perform a. Defendant made a promise about a material matter without any intention of performing it as stated in Attachment FR-4.a [| as follows: b. Defendant's promise without any intention of performance was made with the intent to defraud and induce plaintiff to rely upon it and to act as described in item FR-5. At the time plaintiff acted, plaintiff was unaware of defendant's intention not to perform the promise. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the promise. FR-5. In justifiable reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff was induced to act [| as stated in Attachment FR-5 as follows: Among other things, Plaintiff gave up control of the operations and revenues of the business known as Sublime Vapor, agreed to a deferred payment plan, entered into a right of first refusal agreement, and otherwise performed his obligations under the above-referenced oral contract. FR-6. Because of plaintiffs reliance upon defendant's conduct, plaintiff has been damaged [| as stated in Attachment FR- 6 as follows: $200,000.00. FIR -7. Other: Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants acted with the intent to deceive and defraud him and intended to subject him to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights, thereby entitling him to an award of punitive damages according to proof at trial, as evidenced by, among other things, the facts that Defendants failed to make any payments, failed to pay all of the expenses of the business, failed to transfer all of the tax and rent liabilities into their names and left Plaintiff to deal with significant lease and tax liabilities. Page 6 Page 2of 2 PLD-C-001(3) [Rev. January 1, 2007 CAUSE OF ACTION—Fraud Attachment BC-1 Defendant KCR Marketplace (“KCR™), by and through its manager, Defendant Kevin Monahan (“Monahan”), and Plaintiff orally agreed that: 1; v o w = o KCR would acquire 65% of the business owned by Plaintiff known as Sublime Vapor; KCR would fully convert the business to a Premier Vapor & Lounge retail outlet; KCR would pay all of the expenses of the business; KCR would transfer all of the tax and rent liabilities into its name: KCR would use its extensive experience in the vapor business to maximize the profits of the business: Plaintiff would relinquish operational control of the business to KCR: KCR would pay 35% of the net profits of the business to Plaintiff each month until Plaintiff had received $200,000; and Once Plaintiff had received $200,000, he would sign over the remaining 35% of the business to KCR. Attachment BC-2 On information and belief, KCR breached its oral agreement by, among other things: c a r i b a e a wn Failing to fully convert the business to a Premier Vapor & Lounge retail outlet; Failing to pay all of the expenses of the business; Failing transfer all of the tax and rent liabilities into its name; Failing to use its extensive experience in the vapor business to maximize the profits of the business; and Failing to make any payments (or account) to Plaintiff as required. To the contrary, KCR accepted the benefits of the agreement, including converting all of the revenues of the business. ultimately closed it and left Plaintiff to deal with significant lease and tax liabilities. Attachment FR-2.a Monahan represented, individually and on behalf of KCR in his capacity as its manager, that: B 0 9 Defendants would fully convert business owned by Plaintiff known as Sublime Vapor to a Premier Vapor & Lounge retail outlet; Defendants would cause KCR to pay all of the expenses of the business; Defendants would transfer all of the tax and rent liabilities into KCR’s name; Defendants would use their extensive experience in the vapor business to maximize the profits of the business; and Defendants would cause KCR to pay 35% of the net profits of the business to Plaintiff each month until Plaintiff had received $200,000. Attachment FR-2.b On information and belief, Defendants never intended to do any of the things represented in Attachment FR-2.a. On information and belief, Defendants at all times intended to assume control of the business without: I; Fully converting it into a Premier Vapor & Lounge retail outlet; 2 Paying all of the expenses of the business; 3: Transferring all of the tax and rent liabilities into KCR’s name; and/or 4. Paying any money to Plaintiff, including without limitation 35% of the net profits of the business to Plaintiff each month until Plaintiff had received $200,000. To the contrary, Defendants converted all of the revenues of the business, ultimately closed itand left Plaintiff to deal with significant lease and tax liabilities. Attachment FR-4.a Monahan promised, individually and on behalf of KCR in his capacity as its manager, that: 1. ea Defendants would fully convert business owned by Plaintiff known as Sublime Vapor to a Premier Vapor & Lounge retail outlet; Defendants would cause KCR to pay all of the expenses of the business: Defendants would transfer all of the tax and rent liabilities into KCR’s name; Defendants would use their extensive experience in the vapor business to maximize the profits of the business; and Defendants would cause KCR to pay 35% of the net profits of the business to Plaintiff each month until Plaintiff had received $200,000. EXHIBIT 3 © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Shella Sadovnik SADOVNIK LEGAL P.C. SBN: 267551 (shella@sadovniklegal.com) 33 Trinity Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (347) 815-2936 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC and Defendant KEVIN MONAHAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE —- CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED CIVIL ROBERT FIESLER, an individual, Case Number: 30-2017-00944131 Plaintiff, AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; KEVIN MONAHAN, an individual; and Does 1 — 10, inclusive, Defendants PROPOUNDING PARTY: ROBERT FIESLER RESPONDING PARTY: KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC. SET NUMBER: ONE 1 1 1 -1- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC breached the ORAL AGREEMENT. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence, as Plaintiff did not establish whether the parties entered into ORAL AGREEMENT. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it denies any ORAL AGREEMENT alleged by Plaintiff ever existed. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC breached the ORAL AGREEMENT by failing to fully convert the BUSINESS to a Premier Vapor & Lounge retail outlet. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence, as Plaintiff did not establish whether the parties entered into ORAL AGREEMENT. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it denies any ORAL AGREEMENT alleged by Plaintiff ever existed. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: 5 AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC breached the ORAL AGREEMENT by failing to pay all of the expenses of the BUSINESS. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that this request contains multiple subparts. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence, as Plaintiff did not establish whether the parties entered into ORAL AGREEMENT. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it denies any ORAL AGREEMENT alleged by Plaintiff ever existed. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC breached the ORAL AGREEMENT by failing to would transfer all of the tax and rent liabilities of the BUSINESS into its name. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence, as Plaintiff did not establish whether the parties entered into ORAL AGREEMENT. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that this request contains multiple subparts. _3- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it denies any ORAL AGREEMENT alleged by Plaintiff ever existed. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC breached the ORAL AGREEMENT by failing to use its extensive experience in the vapor business to maximize the profits of the BUSINESS. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that this request contains multiple subparts. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence, as Plaintiff did not establish whether the parties entered into ORAL AGREEMENT. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it denies any ORAL AGREEMENT alleged by Plaintiff ever existed. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC breached the ORAL AGREEMENT by failing to pay 35% of the net profits of the BUSINESS to Robert Fiesler each month until he had received $200,000. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. _4- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence, as Plaintiff did not establish whether the parties entered into ORAL AGREEMENT. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it denies any ORAL AGREEMENT alleged by Plaintiff ever existed. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that Robert Fiesler has been damaged as a result of KCR Marketplace LLC’s breach of the ORAL AGREEMENT. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence, as Plaintiff did not establish whether the parties entered into ORAL AGREEMENT. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it denies any ORAL AGREEMENT alleged by Plaintiff ever existed. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that an authorized agent of KCR Marketplace, LLC made each of the REPRESENTATIONS to Robert Fiesler. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to -5- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any REPRESENTATION were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that each of the REPRESENTATIONS was false when made. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that REPRESENTATIONS were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that KCR Marketplace LLC knew each of the REPRESENTATIONS was false when made. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. 5 - AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that REPRESENTATIONS were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that KCR Marketplace LLC made each of the REPRESENTATIONS with the intent to defraud Robert Fiesler. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that REPRESENTATIONS were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that Robert Fiesler reasonably relied to his detriment on each of the REPRESENTATIONS. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. -7- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that REPRESENTATIONS were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that Robert Fiesler has been damaged as a result of his reliance on the REPRESENTATIONS. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that REPRESENTATIONS were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that an authorized agent of KCR Marketplace, LLC made each of the PROMISES to Robert Fiesler without any intent to perform. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. -8- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any PROMISES were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that an authorized agent of KCR Marketplace, LLC made each of the PROMISES to Robert Fiesler with the intent to defraud Robert Fiesler and induce him to rely thereon. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any PROMISES were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that KCR Marketplace LLC knew each of the PROMISES was false when made. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to -9.- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any PROMISES were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that Robert Fiesler was unaware of KCR Marketplace, LLC’s intention not to perform and reasonably relied to his detriment on each of the PROMISES. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any PROMISES were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that Robert Fiesler has been damaged as a result of his reliance on the PROMISES. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to -10- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any PROMISES were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that Kevin Monahan has been the alter ego of KCR Marketplace, LLC at all times since its formation. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC has been inadequately capitalized at all times since its formation. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. S11 - AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that there has at all times been unity of interest and ownership interest and ownership between Kevin Monahan and KCR Marketplace, LLC that any separateness between them has ceased to exist. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that Kevin Monahan controlled, dominated, managed and operated KCR Marketplace, LLC to the point that any separateness between them has ceased to exist. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: -12- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Admit that the failure to find Kevin Monahan to be the alter ego of KCR Marketplace, LLC would work a fraud and injustice on Robert Fiesler. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny DATED: May 18, 2018 SADOVNIK LEGAL P.C. BY: /s/Shella Sadovnik Shella Sadovnik Attorneys for KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC and KEVIN MONAHAN -13- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 33 Trinity, Irvine, CA 92612. On July 17, 2018, I served the foregoing document described as: KCR’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S RFAs on the interested parties in this action referenced in the attached service list by placing ( ) the original (X) true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: (x) BY MAIL I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. () BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE By transmitting the document(s) listed above from my email to the e-mail address(es) of the person(s) set forth on the attached service list. The transmission was reported as complete and without error. See California Rules of Court, rule 2060. (X) STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (X) EXECUTED on July 17,2018 at Los Angeles, California. /s/Shella Sadovnik SHELLA SADOVNIK -14- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O SERVICE LIST Rick Augustini LAW OFFICE OF RICK AUGUSTINI 20 Pacifica, Suite 255 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-9789 rick.augustini@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Robert Fiesler -15- AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = No No No No No No No No No — — — — — — — — — p— co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Thomas F. Nowland (SBN 236824) Daniel A. Brodnax (SBN 266822) Sean B. Janzen (SBN 293426) Sarah K. Simon (SBN 299408) LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS F. NOWLAND 20241 SW Birch Street, Suite 203 Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone: (949) 221-0005 Facsimile: (949) 221-0003 Attorneys for Defendants KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC and KEVIN MONAHAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE —- CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED CIVIL ROBERT FIESLER, an individual, Case Number: 30-2017-00944131 Plaintiff, RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; KEVIN MONAHAN, an individual; and Does 1 — 10, inclusive, Defendants PROPOUNDING PARTY: ROBERT FIESLER RESPONDING PARTY: KEVIN MONAHAN SET NUMBER: ONE 1 1 1 -1- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that you entered into the ORAL AGREEMENT on behalf of KCR Marketplace, LLC. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Robert Fiesler is entitled to entry of judgment against you on the third cause of action for fraud (intentional misrepresentation) alleged in the first amended complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that the admission seeks to shift the burden of proof; Plaintiff is to prove that he is allegedly entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant rather than Defendant disproving it. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that Plaintiff seeks admissions based on multiple elements of his cause of action. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that you do not have any affirmative defenses to the third cause of action for fraud (intentional misrepresentation) alleged in the first amended complaint. 5 RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that the admission seeks to shift the burden of proof; Plaintiff is to prove that he is allegedly entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant rather than Defendant disproving it. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that Plaintiff seeks admissions based on multiple elements of his cause of action. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that you made each of the REPRESENTATIONS to Robert Fiesler. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that representations were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that each of the REPRESENTATIONS was false when made. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. _3- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that representations were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that you knew each of the REPRESENTATIONS was false when made. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that representations were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that you made each of the REPRESENTATIONS with the intent to defraud Robert Fiesler. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. _4- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that representations were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that Robert Fiesler reasonably relied to his detriment on each of the REPRESENTATIONS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that representations were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Robert Fiesler has been damaged as a result of his reliance on the REPRESENTATIONS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. -5- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, REPRESENTATIONS, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that representations were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Robert Fiesler is entitled to entry of judgment against you on the third cause of action for fraud (false promise) alleged in the first amended complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that the admission seeks to shift the burden of proof; Plaintiff is to prove that he is allegedly entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant rather than Defendant disproving it. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that Plaintiff seeks admissions based on multiple elements of his cause of action. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that you do not have any affirmative defenses to the third cause of action for fraud (false promise) alleged in the first amended complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. 5 - RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that the admission seeks to shift the burden of proof; Plaintiff is to prove that he is allegedly entitled to entry of judgment against Defendant rather than Defendant disproving it. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that Plaintiff seeks admissions based on multiple elements of his cause of action. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that you made each of the PROMISES to Robert Fiesler without any intent to perform. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any promises were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that you made each of the PROMISES to Robert Fiesler with the intent to defraud Robert Fiesler and induce him to rely thereon. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. -7- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any promises were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that you knew each of the PROMISES was false when made. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any promises were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that Robert Fiesler was unaware of your intention not to perform and reasonably relied to his detriment on each of the PROMISES. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. -8- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any promises were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that Robert Fiesler has been damaged as a result of his reliance on the PROMISES. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f) due to the fact that the responses based on the term, PROMISES, as defined, calls for multiple responses. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes facts not established or in evidence. Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny that any promises were made. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you acted with the intent to deceive and defraud Robert Fiesler and intended to subject him to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights, thereby entitling him to an award of punitive damages. 1 1 -9.- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is compound and conjunctive in violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.060(f). Notwithstanding these objections, and without waiving them, responding party answers as follows: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you have been the alter ego of KCR Marketplace, LLC at all times since its formation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it requests facts that are protected by responding party’s constitutionally protected right of privacy. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that KCR Marketplace, LLC has been inadequately capitalized at all times since its formation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. -10- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it requests facts that are protected by responding party’s constitutionally protected right of privacy. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that there has at all times been unity of interest and ownership interest and ownership between you and KCR Marketplace, LLC that any separateness between them has ceased to exist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it requests facts that are protected by responding party’s constitutionally protected right of privacy. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that you controlled, dominated, managed and operated KCR Marketplace, LLC to the point that any separateness between them has ceased to exist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it requests facts that are protected by responding party’s constitutionally protected right of privacy. S11 - RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE L A W O F F I C E S T H O M A S F. N O W L A N D 2 0 2 4 1 S W B I R C H S T R E E T S U I T E 2 0 3 N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 (9 49 ) 22 1- 00 05 T E L E P H O N E : © 0 9 O N nn BA W N = N N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m p m e m e m co J a nm RA W I N D = D O O N N N R E W I N D = O Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that the failure to find you to be the alter ego of KCR Marketplace, LLC would work a fraud and injustice on Robert Fiesler. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Objection: Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence due to the fact that it seeks admissions outside of the scope of Plaintiff’s complaint or any allegations therein. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it requests facts that are protected by responding party’s constitutionally protected right of privacy. Objection: Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion. DATED: January 19, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS F. NOWLAND BY: Thomas F. Nowland, Esq. Daniel A. Brodnax, Esq. Sean B. Janzen, Esq. Attorneys for KCR MARKET PLACE, LLC and KEVIN MONAHAN -12- RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE