Motion_to_compel__further_responses_to_production_of_documentsMotionCal. Super. - 4th Dist.August 21, 201930-2019-010 © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = N N N N N N N N ND = E e e m e a e a CO NI A N nm kA W I N D = DO VO N N N R E W I N D = O Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/03/2020 01:04:00 PM. 22000-CU-BT-NJ C - ROA #48 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Brook Israel, Deputy Clerk. LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place Glenn A. Murphy (SBN: 255994) 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 Attorneys for Plaintiff Terry Holliday SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE TERRY HOLLIDAY, Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to: Hon. John C. Gastelum, Dept. C11 v PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $2,441.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. AND ITS COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF GLENN A. MURPHY IN SUPPORT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., et al., Defendant. Date: September 22, 2020 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: C11 [Reservation 1.D. 73310260] Complaint Filed: 8/21/2019 Trial Date: None 1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O NOTICE OF MOTION TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 22, 2020 at 2:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department C11 of the above-entitled Court, Plaintiff Terry Holliday will move this Court for an order compelling Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 on the following grounds that Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. had no justification for refusing to provide Code-compliant responses in accordance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280. Plaintiff will further move this Court for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. and its attorneys of record, Daniel Goodkin and Michael Shakouri, in the amount of $2,441.00. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d), (e) and (f), 2023.030(a) and 2031.310(h) on the grounds that Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. and its counsel acted without substantial justification by refusing to provide Code-compliant responses in accordance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 in response to Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer. This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the appended Declaration of Glenn Murphy, the C.R.C. Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement filed concurrently herewith, the pleadings and records on file in this action, and upon such other and further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion. Ala | Dated: June 3, 2020 By: Huply Glenn A. Murphy 7 LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IL. INTRODUCTION Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. has forced Plaintiff to file this motion by refusing to provide Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents. As discussed below, Defendant and its attorneys have a history of obstructing discovery, including ignoring telephone calls and letters from Plaintiff’s counsel. A “central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act is that discovery “be essentially self- executing.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434.) Here, that is not happening. Defendant and its attorneys have repeatedly required Plaintiff to engage in extensive efforts to get documents and answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production. Further, even after Plaintiff’s repeated efforts to get Code-compliant responses without the need for a motion, Defendant failed to provide Code-compliant responses in accordance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a). Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court order Defendant to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s production demands in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.210 ef seq. within 10 days. Further, monetary sanctions should be awarded in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $2,441.00. (Murphy Decl., 9 34.) II. BACKGROUND A. FACTS RELATING TO THIS CASE On August 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. alleging violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”), Civil Code § 1786, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally violated the ICRAA by obtaining investigative consumer reports about her as part of her application for an apartment home without giving Plaintiff a copy of the reports 3 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O or otherwise complying with the ICRAA. Investigative consumer reports contain highly confidential information on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living. (Connor v. First Student, Inc (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1026, 1033.) Penalties under the ICRAA include $10,000 per violation, plus attorney fees, costs and punitive damages. (Civ. Code, § 1786.50(a)-(b).) B. FACTS RELATING TO THIS DISCOVERY DISPUTE On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff propounded her First Set of Demands for Production of Documents to Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. (Declaration of Glenn A. Murphy, § 2 (“Murphy Decl.”’) and Ex. 1.) On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant’s attorneys Michael Shakouri and Daniel Goodkin confirming that Plaintiff had not received Defendant’s responses to this discovery. (Murphy Decl., 4 3.) Plaintiff requested that Defendant serve verified responses, without objections, and produce documents without forcing Plaintiff to file a motion. (/d.) In response, on December 12, Plaintiff received an email from Mr. Shakouri with Defendant’s “Objections and Responses” to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents that were served by mail on December 12 and consisted of boilerplate objections and refusals to answer and produce documents. (Murphy Decl., 4 4 and Ex. 2.) On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff called Mr. Shakouri and conducted a telephonic meet and confer, and Defendant then served “Supplemental Objections and Responses” to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production and produced 22 pages of documents. (Murphy Decl., 9 5 and Ex. 3.) There was no privilege log, however, even though documents were withheld based on claims of privilege. On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email to Shakouri and Goodkin regarding Defendant’s failure to serve a verification with a signature for Defendant’s Supplemental Responses. And a few days later (on December 30) Plaintiff sent a second meet and confer email to Defendant regarding the problems with its Supplemental Responses. (Murphy Decl., 9 6 and Ex. 4.) But once again, there was no response. (/d.) 4 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O On January 6, 2020, this Court held an initial Case Management Conference in the related case Griffith v. Related and directed the parties to meet and confer in person to try and resolve discovery disputes. (Murphy Decl., § 7.) On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff emailed Shakouri and Goodkin to confirm that they had not responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence. Mr. Shakouri immediately respond that he was “willing, ready, and available to meet and confer at our office,” and insisted that “any meet and confer should take place at our office.” (Murphy Decl., q 8.) On January 13, 2020 Plaintiff sent an email suggesting that the attorneys meet at a location “between our two offices.” (Murphy Decl., § 9 and Ex. 5.) On January 14, 2020, Mr. Shakouri responded stating “We are amendable to meeting in-between our offices.” (Murphy Decl., 9 10.) On January 17, 2020, however, when Plaintiff telephoned Mr. Shakouri to arrange a location to meet, Shakouri would not agree to meet and confer in person and insisted that the parties meet and confer by telephone on January 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Murphy Decl., § 11.) On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff called Mr. Shakouri to confer, but he claimed to have “just returned from court” and insisted Plaintiff call him back at 3:30 p.m. because he needed time to prepare. (Murphy Decl., 9 12.) Plaintiff then called back that afternoon and conferred with Mr. Shakouri, but he again had to go and insisted that the meet and confer continue the next day (January 22), which it did. (/d.) Thereafter, on February 11, 2020, Defendant produced 297 pages of documents and served “Supplemental Objections and Responses” to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production, which failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a). (Murphy Decl., q 13 and Ex. 6.) Also, again, there was no privilege log even though documents were likely being withheld. On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Shakouri and Goodkin regarding the problems with the Defendant’s “Supplemental Objections and Responses.” Plaintiff explained that Defendant “failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a),” requiring that documents produced be identified with the specific request 3 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O number to which they respond, and that “plaintiff specifically discussed this defect with you during the telephonic meet and confers in January 2020.” (Murphy Decl., 4 14 and Ex. 7.) Plaintiff requested that Defendant “provide Code compliant responses to this discovery by February 21, 2020.” (/d.) On February 18, 2020, the parties appeared for a continued Case Management Conference in the related case of Griffith v. Related and Plaintiff informed this Court of the problems getting the Defendant to produce documents and Code-compliant responses. Mr. Shakouri then told this Court that Plaintiff's counsel would only agree to meet and confer in person if defense counsel drove to Plaintiftf’s counsel’s office in Westlake Village. (Murphy Decl., 4 15 and Ex. 8.) This was a mendacious fabrication. Previously, the Court had ordered the parties to meet and confer in person and Plaintiff’s counsel tried to do so, but Mr. Shakouri refused and insisted they meet and confer by telephone. (/d.) On February 22, 2020, Plaintiff sent Messrs. Shakouri and Goodkin another letter to request that Defendant provide “Code-compliant responses” by February 28, 2020. (Murphy Decl., 4 16 and Ex. 9.) As usual, however, there was no response from defense counsel. (/d.) On February 26 and February 27, 2020, Plaintiff called and left voicemail messages for Mr. Shakouri to meet and confer, and then conferred by telephone with Mr. Shakouri on February 28, 2020. (Murphy Decl., § 17.) Mr. Shakouri, however, would not agree that Defendant would supplement its responses, insisting that he needed to first speak with the Defendant, but agreed to a 30-day extension for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel, and promised that he would “inform” Plaintiff by March 3, 2020 if Defendant would supplement its responses. (/d.) On March 5, 2020, Mr. Shakouri told Plaintiff that he was not able to speak with the Defendant so he could still not agree to supplement the Defendant’s responses, but said he had a call scheduled with the Defendant for the next day. (Murphy Decl., 4 18.) On March 6, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email stating “with regard to supplemental responses, the call with the client was pushed to Monday.” (Murphy Decl., 9 19.) However, 6 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O on Monday, March 9, Mr. Shakouri did not inform Plaintiff of whether Defendant would supplement its responses. (Id.) On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Messrs. Shakouri and Goodkin confirming that Defendant had not agreed to supplement its responses to Plaintiff’s production demands. (Murphy Decl., § 20.) On March 12, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email claiming that he was engaged in trial, but refused to identify the case. (Murphy Decl., § 21.) On March 16, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email requesting “an extension of two weeks on all pending matters” because someone in his office building had COVID-19. (Murphy Decl., 22.) On March 25 and March 26, 2020, Plaintiff had telephone conference with Shakouri and Goodkin, but they still refused to agree that Defendant would supplement its responses because they supposedly needed to first “talk to the client.” (Murphy Decl., q 23.) On March 30, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Shakouri and Goodkin again to confirm that Defendant had still not agreed to supplement its responses. (Murphy Decl., 4 24.) On March 31, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email confirming that he was talking with his client. (Murphy Decl., 9 25.) On April 7, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email stating “We will provide supplemental responses to the RFP, to abide by the discovery statute” and requested an extension “due to COVID-19.” (Murphy Decl., 26.) On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff called and left a voicemail message to meet and confer on the Defendant’s failure to supplement its responses. (Murphy Decl., 27.) As usual, there was no response from defense counsel. (/d.) On April 16,2020, Mr. Shakouri wrote that he was “working” on the Defendants supplemental responses and requested an extension to April 24, 2020 to provide the responses. (Murphy Decl., § 28.) On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff called Mr. Shakouri to confirm that he was sending Defendant’s supplement responses, and Mr. Shakouri stated that he was waiting on the 7 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = N N N N N N N N ND = E e e m e a e a CO NI A N nm kA W I N D = DO VO N N N R E W I N D = O verification from the client, that he would send the supplemental responses shortly, and asked for an extension to May 1, 2020. (Murphy Decl., § 29.) On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Messrs. Shakouri and Goodkin to confirm that Plaintiff will be filing a motion to compel if Defendant fails to serve Supplemental Responses by May 1, 2020. (Murphy Decl., § 30.) In response, Mr. Shakouri wrote demanding another extension to June 15, 2020 “due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Stay-At-Home Orders.” However, this made no sense other than as a further delay tactic. Mr. Shakouri and his law firm continue to actively litigate other cases, but to further obstruct discovery in this case claim they cannot do anything for at least another 1 2 months. (/d.) On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff wrote confirming that she was filing a motion to compel unless Defendant agreed to extend the 45-day limit for a motion and agreed to supplement its responses. (Murphy Decl., § 31.) Mr. Shakouri then agreed to a 30-day extension for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel, which Plaintiff confirmed in a letter on May 15, 2020. (Murphy Decl., 4 32 and Ex. 10.) Further, on May 12 Mr. Shakouri wrote “[w]e intend on responding to your discovery by end of this week, or early next week.” (/d.) As usual, however, there was nothing. On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff confirmed that Defendant had again not supplemented its responses. (Murphy Decl., § 33.) Mr. Shakouri then wrote wanting an extension to June 15, 2020. (Id.) III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO FURTHER RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2031.210 to 2031.280 set specific requirements for responding to an inspection demand, which Defendant refuses to comply with in responding to each Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents. Section 2031.280 requires that “[a]Jny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand . . . shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280(a), emphasis 8 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O added.) This normally takes the form of documents that are Bates-stamped, indexed, or organized sequentially according to the specific discovery requests. Defendant, however, refuses to comply with this requirement. Plaintiff explained to Defendant what is required under the Code so that all counsel may be able to clearly and quickly ascertain which documents pertain to which discovery requests. With appropriate indexing and reference to the corresponding inspection demand number, document productions become much easier to sort and refer to in depositions and at trial. But Defendant refuses to do as required by section 2031.280(a). As discussed above, Plaintiff made repeated attempts for over 3 months (from February 2020 to mid-May 2020) to get Defendant to comply with the requirements of section 2031.280. But even after extensive meet and confer efforts, Defendant refused to provide Code-compliant responses. IV. DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY MONETARY SANCTIONS Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(h).) Alternatively, the Court may impose sanctions for Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process. Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010 states in relevant part: Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to the following: (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(d), (e) & (f), emphasis added.) In turn, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 explains: 9 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = N N N N N N N N ND = E e e m e a e a CO NI A N nm kA W I N D = DO VO N N N R E W I N D = O To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . the court. . . may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a), emphasis added.) In this case, Defendant and its counsel misused the discovery process in all of these ways, and in others as well. Some of the things Defendant did, or failed to do, that warrant the imposition of sanctions, including the following: 1. Defendant had no justification for refusing to provide verified Code- compliant responses to each Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents in accordance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.210 et seq. 2. The boilerplate objections asserted by Defendant were clearly inappropriate, and are the type of “nuisance objections” that have been condemned by our appellate courts. (See, e.g., Standon, 225 Cal. App. 3d at p. 901.) California courts do not hesitate to impose sanctions (particularly monetary sanctions) for the assertion of such boilerplate “nuisance” objections. (Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App.4th. 1513, 1516.) Defendant’s objections served no purpose other than to interfere with Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain proper discovery. 4. Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs efforts to meet and confer to get Code- compliant responses were intended to obstruct and delay. California courts have deemed this sanctionable. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 481, 491.) 10 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O 5. The infirmities in Defendant’s responses were brought to Defendant’s attention in meet and confer correspondence and telephone conferences. In spite of this, Defendant still failed to supplement the responses or otherwise cure the deficiencies. Based on this, Defendant had no justification, much less “substantial justification,” for the inadequate responses that it proffered, and its refusal to provide Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s production demands. Thus, the Court should award sanctions, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. and its counsel, Shakouri and Goodkin, in the amount of $2,441.00. (Murphy Decl., § 34.) V. CONCLUSION Defendant should be ordered to provide Code-compliant verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Demands for Production of Documents within 10 days. Moreover, Defendant and its counsel should be ordered to pay Plaintiff monetary sanctions of $2,441.00. (Murphy Decl., § 34.) Dated: June 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted, Glenn A. Murph LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff Terry Holliday 11 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O DECLARATION OF GLENN A. MURPHY I, Glenn A. Murphy, hereby declare: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and am the attorney of record for Plaintiff Terry Holliday. This declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents to Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. The facts set forth herein are true of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so under oath. 2. On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff propounded her First Set of Demands for Production of Documents to Defendant Related Management Company, L.P., a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant’s attorneys Michael Shakouri and Daniel Goodkin confirming that Plaintiff had not received Defendant’s responses to this discovery. Plaintiff requested that Defendant serve verified responses, without objections, and produce documents without forcing Plaintiff to file a motion. 4, In response, on December 12, Plaintiff received an email from Mr. Shakouri with Defendant’s “Objections and Responses” to Plaintiff's First Set of Demands for Production of Documents that were served by mail on December 12 and consisted of boilerplate objections and refusals to answer and produce documents. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s responses are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 5. On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff called Mr. Shakouri and conducted a telephonic meet and confer, and Defendant then served “Supplemental Objections and Responses” to Plaintift’s First Set of Demands for Production and produced 22 pages of documents, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. There was no privilege log, however, even though documents were withheld based on claims of privilege. 12 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O 6. On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email to Shakouri and Goodkin regarding Defendant’s failure to serve a verification with a signature for Defendant’s Supplemental Responses. And a few days later (on December 30) Plaintiff sent a second meet and confer email to Defendant regarding the problems with its Supplemental Responses, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. But once again, there was no response. 7. On January 6, 2020, this Court held an initial Case Management Conference in the related case of Griffith v. Related and directed the parties to meet and confer in person to try and resolve discovery disputes. 8. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff emailed Shakouri and Goodkin to confirm that they had not responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer correspondence. Mr. Shakouri immediately respond that he was “willing, ready, and available to meet and confer at our office,” and insisted that “any meet and confer should take place at our office.” 9, On January 13, 2020 Plaintiff sent an email suggesting that the attorneys meet at a location “between our two offices,” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 10. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Shakouri responded stating “We are amendable to meeting in-between our offices.” 11. On January 17,2020, however, when Plaintiff telephoned Mr. Shakouri to arrange a location to meet, Shakouri would not agree to meet and confer in person and insisted that the parties meet and confer by telephone on January 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. 12. On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff called Mr. Shakouri to confer, but he claimed to have “just returned from court” and insisted Plaintiff call him back at 3:30 p.m. because he needed time to prepare. Plaintiff then called back that afternoon and conferred with Mr. Shakouri, but he again had to go and insisted that the meet and confer continue the next day (January 22), which it did. 13. Thereafter, on February 11, 2020, Defendant produced 297 pages of documents and served “Supplemental Objections and Responses” to Plaintiff's First Set of Demands for 13 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O Production, which failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280(a), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Also, again, there was no privilege log even though documents were likely being withheld. 14. On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Shakouri and Goodkin regarding the problems with the Defendant’s “Supplemental Objections and Responses.” Plaintiff explained that Defendant “failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a),” requiring that documents produced be identified with the specific request number to which they respond, and that “plaintiff specifically discussed this defect with you during the telephonic meet and confers in January 2020.” A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Plaintiff requested that Defendant “provide Code compliant responses to this discovery by February 21, 2020.” 15. On February 18, 2020, the parties appeared for a continued Case Management Conference in the related case of Griffith v. Related and Plaintiff informed this Court of the problems getting the Defendant to produce documents and Code-compliant responses. Mr. Shakouri then told this Court that Plaintiff’s counsel would only agree to meet and confer in person if defense counsel drove to Plaintiffs counsel’s office in Westlake Village. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. This was a mendacious fabrication. Previously, the Court had ordered the parties to meet and confer in person and Plaintiff’s counsel tried to do so, but Mr. Shakouri refused and insisted they meet and confer by telephone. 16. On February 22, 2020, Plaintiff sent Messrs. Shakouri and Goodkin another letter to request that Defendant provide “Code-compliant responses” by February 28, 2020, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. As usual, however, there was no response from defense counsel. 17. On February 26 and February 27, 2020, Plaintiff called and left voicemail messages for Mr. Shakouri to meet and confer, and then conferred by telephone with Mr. Shakouri on February 28, 2020. Mr. Shakouri, however, would not agree that Defendant would supplement its responses, insisting that he needed to first speak with the Defendant, but 14 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O agreed to a 30-day extension for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel, and promised that he would “inform” Plaintiff by March 3, 2020 if Defendant would supplement its responses. 18. On March 5, 2020, Mr. Shakouri told Plaintiff that he was not able to speak with the Defendant so he could still not agree to supplement the Defendant’s responses, but said he had a call scheduled with the Defendant for the next day. 19. On March 6, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email stating “with regard to supplemental responses, the call with the client was pushed to Monday.” However, on Monday, March 9, Mr. Shakouri did not inform Plaintiff of whether Defendant would supplement its responses. 20. On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Messrs. Shakouri and Goodkin confirming that Defendant had not agreed to supplement its responses to Plaintiffs production demands. 21. On March 12, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email claiming that he was engaged in trial, but refused to identify the case. 22. On March 16, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email requesting “an extension of two weeks on all pending matters” because someone in his office building had COVID-19. 23. On March 25 and March 26, 2020, Plaintiff had telephone conference with Shakouri and Goodkin, but they still refused to agree that Defendant would supplement its responses because they supposedly needed to first “talk to the client.” 24. On March 30, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Shakouri and Goodkin again to confirm that Defendant had still not agreed to supplement its responses. 25. On March 31, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email confirming that he was talking with his client. 26. On April 7, 2020, Mr. Shakouri sent an email stating “We will provide supplemental responses to the RFP, to abide by the discovery statute” and requested an extension “due to COVID-19. 15 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O 27. On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff called and left a voicemail message to meet and confer on the Defendant’s failure to supplement its responses. As usual, there was no response from defense counsel. 28. On April 16, 2020, Mr. Shakouri wrote that he was “working” on the Defendant’s supplemental responses and requested an extension to April 24, 2020 to provide the responses. 29. On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff called Mr. Shakouri to confirm that he was sending Defendant’s supplement responses, and Mr. Shakouri stated that he was waiting on the verification from the client, that he would send the supplemental responses shortly, and asked for an extension to May 1, 2020. 30. On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff wrote to Messrs. Shakouri and Goodkin to confirm that Plaintiff will be filing a motion to compel if Defendant fails to serve Supplemental Responses by May 1, 2020. In response, Mr. Shakouri wrote demanding another extension to June 15, 2020 “due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Stay-At-Home Orders.” However, this made no sense other than as a further delay tactic. Mr. Shakouri and his law firm continue to actively litigate other cases, but to further obstruct discovery in this case claim they cannot do anything for at least another 1 2 months. 31. On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff wrote confirming that she was filing a motion to compel unless Defendant agreed to extend the 45-day limit for a motion and agreed to supplement its responses. 32. Mr. Shakouri then agreed to a 30-day extension for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel, which Plaintiff confirmed in a letter on May 15, 2020. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Further, on May 12 Mr. Shakouri wrote “|w]e intend on responding to your discovery by end of this week, or early next week.” As usual, however, there was nothing. 33. On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff confirmed that Defendant had again not supplemented its responses. Mr. Shakouri then wrote wanting an extension to June 15, 2020. 16 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = ND N N N N N N N m E e e e e e ee e e e e e s 0 9 A N LL BA W I N D R O O N N W D = O 34. Based on Defendant’s refusal to serve Code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents, and Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri’s failure to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute, Plaintiff has incurred over $2,441.00 in attorney fees and costs in connection with this motion. I have spent over 1.5 hours drafting this motion and the concurrently filed separate statement and proposed order. I anticipate spending at least 1.0 hour reviewing Defendant’s opposition and drafting Plaintiff’s reply brief, and at least 1.0 hour preparing for and appearing at the hearing on this motion. I am a graduate of Cornell University and the University of Wisconsin Law School, where I was a Managing Editor of the Wisconsin Law Review. My practice focuses primarily on civil litigations and appeals, and I am responsible for published appellate opinions, including Flowers v. Prasad (2015) 238 Cal. App.4th 930 and Messmer v. Yasmeh (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1118. My normally hourly billing rate is $650 per hour. As such, Plaintiff requests attorney fees in the amount of $2,275.00 (3.5 hrs. x $650/hr.), plus $60 for the motion filing fee, $12 for electronic filing costs and $94 for CourtCall costs, for a total of $2,441.00 against Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. and its attorneys Michael Shakouri and Daniel Goodkin. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 3, 2020. Albi | fiogly Glenn A. MurpHy 17 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P. © 0 J O N nn Kh WwW N D = N N N N N N NN NN N M e m e m e m e m e m e m e m co J O N n A W I N D = O OVO O N Y N N N W D = Oo LITIGATION & ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place Glenn A. Murphy (SBN: 255994) 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 Attorneys for Plaintiff Terry Holliday SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TERRY HOLLIDAY, ) Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC ) Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF TERRY HOLLIDAY’S V. ) FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR ) PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY,) RELATED MANAGEMENT LP. etal, ) COMPANY, L.P. ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff TERRY HOLLIDAY RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. (“RMC”) SET NO.: One Pursuant to the provisions of the California Code of Civ. Procedure, Plaintiff hereby requests Defendant answer the following Demands for Production of Documents and Tangible Things pursuant to California law, and produce the following documents, electronic files or documents ; 1-1 © 0 J O N nn Kh WwW N D = N N N N N N NN NN N M e m e m e m e m e m e m e m co J O N n A W I N D = O OVO O N Y N N N W D = Oo and tangible things in its custody or under its control, along with the original file folders where the documents or tangible things were filed, for inspection and photocopying on December 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., at the Litigation & Advocacy Group located at 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200, Westlake Village, California 91361. I. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 1. YOU(R) refers to Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. and its non- attorney agents, investigators, representatives and any person acting on its behalf. 2. DOCUMENT(S) means any writing, original, or duplicate as defined by Cal. Evidence Code §§ 250, 255 and 260, and is intended to include photographs, videos or writings of any kind including, inter alia, copies, drafts, originals, faxes, e-mails, notes, electronic files and computer records. De If any DOCUMENT is withheld under a claim of privilege or other protection, so as to aid the Court and the parties in determining the validity of the claim of privilege or other protection, please provide the following information with respect to any such DOCUMENT: (a) the identity of the person(s) who prepared the DOCUMENT, who signed it, and over whose name it was sent or issued; (b) the identity of the person(s) to whom the DOCUMENT was directed; (c) the nature and substance of the DOCUMENT with sufficient particularity to enable the Court and parties to identify the DOCUMENT; (d) the date of the DOCUMENT; (e) the identity of the person(s) who has custody, control or possession of the DOCUMENT and each copy thereof; (f) the identity of each person to whom copies of the DOCUMENT were furnished; (g) the number of pages; (h) the basis on which any privilege or other protection is claimed; and (i) whether any non- privileged or non-protected matter is included in the DOCUMENT. 4. Whenever YOU object to a particular Request, or portion thereof, YOU must produce all DOCUMENTS called for which are not subject to that objection. Similarly, whenever a DOCUMENT is not produced in full, please state with particularity the reason or reasons it is not being produced in full, and describe, to the best of YOUR knowledge, information and belief, those portions of the DOCUMENT which are not being produced. 5 1-2 © 0 J O N nn Kh WwW N D = N N N N N N NN NN N M e m e m e m e m e m e m e m co J O N n A W I N D = O OVO O N Y N N N W D = Oo 5. Please produce DOCUMENTS in such a manner as will facilitate their identification with the particular demand or category of demands to which they are responsive. 6. The phrase “RELATING TO” is a preface used to many of the following requests for documents. The point of each request is to require the production or inspection of any documents relating to the subject of each particular request. As such, the phrase RELATE TO OR CONCERN means relating to, concerning, touching upon, referring to, constituting, dealing with, in support of, or otherwise relevant to the particular subject matter of the particular request. 7. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed both conjunctively and disjunctively, and each shall include the other wherever such dual construction will serve to bring within the scope of the request any DOCUMENTS which would otherwise not be brought within its scope. II. DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All DOCUMENTS in the tenant file for Terry Holliday. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All DOCUMENTS that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONERN Terry Holliday’s Application for Occupancy to the Luxaira Apartments. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All County Criminal Search Reports that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All Multistate Criminal Search Reports that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All criminal background DOCUMENTS that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. © 0 J O N nn Kh WwW N D = N N N N N N NN NN N M e m e m e m e m e m e m e m co J O N n A W I N D = O OVO O N Y N N N W D = Oo REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) Reports that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All Tenant Performance Profile reports that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All rental payment history reports that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All Social Security Number Trace DOCUMENTS that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All investigative consumer report DOCUMENTS that YOU obtained that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday (As used herein, the term investigative consumer report shall have the same meaning as in Civil Code § 1786.2(c), namely “a consumer report in which information on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through any means.”). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All policies of insurance in effect through which Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. was, is or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages and claims in this case. Glenn A. Murphy LITIGATION & ADVOCACY GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff 4 1-4 Dated: November 7, 2019 © 0 J O N nn Kh WwW N D = N N N N N N NN NN N M e m e m e m e m e m e m e m co J O N n A W I N D = O OVO O N Y N N N W D = Oo PROOF OF SERVICE At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200, Westlake Village, California 91361. On the date stated below, I served the following documents: PLAINTIFF TERRY HOLLIDAY’S FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. I served the documents on the persons at the address as follows: Daniel L. Goodkin Attorney for Defendant Related Management Goodkin Law Group Company, L.P. 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com The documents were served by the following means: [ ] (By PERSONAL SERVICE) I personally caused the documents to be delivered to the persons at the addresses listed above. For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence or business with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. [X] (By ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address listed above. 1 did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [ ] (By OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. [X] (By U.S. MAIL) I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct. Dated: 11/7/2019 Alan]. /) Glenn A. Murphff ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Daniel L. Goodkin, Esq. (SBN 131347) Email: dgoodkin@ goodkinlaw.com Michael A. Shakouri, Esq. (SBN 272698) Email: mshakouri @ goodkinlaw.com GOODKIN LAW GROUP, APC 1800 Century Park East, 10" Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-3322 Facsimile: (310) 943-1589 Attorneys for Defendant, Related Management Company, L.P. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE—NORTH JUSTICE CENTER TERRY HOLLIDAY CASE NO. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC [Assigned to the Hon. Craig Griffin Dept. N5] Plaintiff, DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S vs. SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF L.P., and DOES 1 through 20, DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff TERRY HOLLIDAY RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. SET NO.: ONE Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.010, ef seq., Defendant RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. (“Responding Party”) hereby its supplemental objections (the “Objections”) and responses (the “Responses”) to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “Requests”) propounded upon it by Plaintiff TERRY HOLLIDAY (the “Propounding Party”) as follows: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All DOCUMENTS in the tenant file for Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Responding Party incorporates the above general objections as set forth in full herein. 10133.005 1 = DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant nor likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it misstates the facts. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is cumulative. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is private and confidential. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “tenant file” is vague and ambiguous. Responding Party will produce responsive documents, upon the parties meeting and conferring regarding the vague and ambiguous request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday’s Application for Occupancy to the Luxaria Apartments. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or other privileges held by Responding Party, or any person acting on his behalf or third parties. Notwithstanding and without waiver of Responding Party’s foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents within its possession or custody after a reasonably diligent search, to the extent such documents exist. Discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding Party reserves, the right to supplement this response at a later time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All County Criminal Search Reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or other privileges held by Responding Party, or any person acting on his behalf or third parties. 10133.005 2 2-2 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notwithstanding and without waiver of Responding Party’s foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents within its possession or custody after a reasonably diligent search, to the extent such documents exist. Discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding Party reserves, the right to supplement this response at a later time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All Multistate Criminal Search Reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or other privileges held by Responding Party, or any person acting on his behalf or third parties. Notwithstanding and without waiver of Responding Party’s foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents within its possession or custody after a reasonably diligent search, to the extent such documents exist. Discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding Party reserves, the right to supplement this response at a later time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All criminal background DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday.. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or other privileges held by Responding Party, or any person acting on his behalf or third parties. Notwithstanding and without waiver of Responding Party’s foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents within its possession or custody after a reasonably diligent search, to the extent such documents exist. 10133.005 3 2-3 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding Party reserves, the right to supplement this response at a later time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) Reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or other privileges held by Responding Party, or any person acting on his behalf or third parties. Notwithstanding and without waiver of Responding Party’s foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party has no documents responsive to this request. Discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding Party reserves, the right to supplement this response at a later time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All Tenant Performance Profile reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Responding Party incorporates the above general objections as set forth in full herein. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant nor likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it misstates the facts. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is cumulative. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is private and confidential. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “Tenant Performance Profile” is vague and ambiguous. Responding Party will produce responsive documents, upon the parties meeting and conferring regarding the vague and ambiguous request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 10133.005 4 2-4 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All rental payment history reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Responding Party incorporates the above general objections as set forth in full herein. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant nor likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it misstates the facts. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is cumulative. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is private and confidential. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All Social Security Number Trace DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or other privileges held by Responding Party, or any person acting on his behalf or third parties. Notwithstanding and without waiver of Responding Party’s foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents within its possession or custody after a reasonably diligent search, to the extent such documents exist. Discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding Party reserves, the right to supplement this response at a later time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All investigative consumer report DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or 10133.005 5 2-5 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 other privileges held by Responding Party, or any person acting on his behalf or third parties. Notwithstanding and without waiver of Responding Party’s foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce all non-privileged, responsive documents within its possession or custody after a reasonably diligent search, to the extent such documents exist. Discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding Party reserves, the right to supplement this response at a later time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All policies of insurance in effect through which Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. was, is or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages and claims in this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Responding Party incorporates the above general objections as set forth in full herein. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant nor likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is burdensome and oppressive. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it misstates the facts. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is cumulative. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it seeks information that is private and confidential. Sharon Lucas is not a Plaintiff in this Action, and the Request for Production of Document seeks documents related to a third party. 10133.005 6 2-6 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: December 20, 2019 GOODKIN LAW GROUP, APC 10133.005 By: /s/ Michael A. Shakouri Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Attorneys for Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. , 2-7 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE and know its contents. a I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. X I am a duly authorized representative for RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., aNew York limited partnership, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. X I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. X The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. O I am one of the attorneys for RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., a New York limited partnership, a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. Executed on December 20, 2019, at Long Beach, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Joseph Kross [s/ Joseph Kross Signature 2-8 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [ have read the foregoing DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE and know its contents. O I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. X I am a duly authorized representative for RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., a New York limited partnership, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. X Iam informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. X The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. O I am one of the attorneys for RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., a New York limited partnership, a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. [am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. Executed on December 20, 2019, at Long Beach, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Ah Joseph Kross i lila Signature 2-9 LITIGATION & ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 December 27, 2019 BY E-MAIL Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com Re: Holliday v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC Dear Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri: Plaintiff is writing in a reasonable and good faith effort to meet and confer with you about defendant Related Management Company, L. P.’s failure to verify its Supplemental Responses to plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents, plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories, and plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission. Instead of providing a signed verification for defendant’s responses, you instead submitted a type written signature for the individual verifying the responses, which is not a proper verification for the responses as is required under the Civil Discovery Act. Defendant must provide a verification with an actual signature of the individual verifying its responses to each set of the above-referenced discovery, or plaintiff will be forced to file a motion to compel verified responses and will request monetary sanctions for the fees and costs associated with the motion. However, this will not be necessary if defendant will comply with its discovery obligations by providing verified responses with an actual signature for the individual that is verifying the responses. To avoid the necessity to involve the Court in this dispute, plaintiff is requesting that you immediately confirm that defendant will be providing verifications for the responses, with an actual signature for the declarant that is verifying the responses, on or before January 3, 2020. Very truly yours, Glenn A. Murphy, Esq. LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 December 30, 2019 BY E-MAIL Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com Re: Holliday v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC Dear Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri: Plaintiff is writing to meet and confer with you about defendant Related Management Company, L. P.’s responses to plaintiff’s First Set of Demands for Production of Documents, and plaintiff’s anticipated motion to compel the removal of objections and further responses. Please note that plaintiff previously wrote to you on December 27, 2019 regarding the fact that defendant failed to verify its responses by not including a verification with a signature, and requested that you immediately confirm that you would be providing plaintiff with a signed verification. As of writing this letter, however, you have not confirmed that you will be providing a signed verification. Accordingly, plaintiff is again requesting that you immediately confirm that you will be provide plaintiff with verifications containing an actual signature for whoever is verifying the defendant’s responses. As for deficiencies in the defendant’s responses, misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: “(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery . . . (f) Making an evasive response to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010 (e)(f).) Furthermore, section 2031.240 provides, “if the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made . . . (c)(1) if the objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including if 4-1 Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri December 30, 2019 Page 2 necessary, a privilege log.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240(b)(1) and (c)(1).) Lastly, section 2031.030 provides that “each demand shall be separately set forth, identified by number or letter, and shall do the following: (1) Designate the documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information to be inspected, copied, tested, or sampled either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.”(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030(c)(1).) However, the defendant has not complied with these requirements and plaintiff is, therefore, requesting that the defendant supplement its responses by removing its boilerplate nuisance objections and providing Code compliant responses. And if any documents are withheld defendant is required to provide a privilege log so that plaintiff can challenge the basis for defendant refusing to produce any responsive items. As for demand for production number 1, defendant has interposed frivolous objections and refused to produce any documents. Defendant begins by interposing frivolous objections that this request is “not relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence” and is “burdensome and oppressive.” This demand, however, is certainly relevant and it is neither burdensome nor oppressive for the defendant to respond to it; this demand only asked defendant to produce all the documents that it has in its tenant file, if any, for the plaintiff. This demand does not “misstate[] the facts” and it is not” harassing,” “cumulative,” and does not seek information as to anything that is “private and confidential” or “financially privileged and protected from disclosure.” These objections interposed by defendant are frivolous, boilerplate nuisance objections that warrant the imposition of sanctions under Standon v. Superior Court if a motion to compel is necessary. Similarly, defendant’s claim that the term “tenant file” is vague and ambiguous makes no sense. This is a term commonly used in your client’s profession. The tenant file is simply a file containing all of the documents on a tenant. Accordingly, plaintiff is requesting that defendant produce all of the documents that it has on the plaintiff in what is commonly referred to as the “tenant file” and provide a Code compliant supplemental response, including producing a privilege log to the extent any responsive items are being withheld. Regarding demand for production number 2, defendant objects and appears to be withholding documents based on privilege claims, but has not produced a privilege log. Defendant must either produce a privilege log or remove any objections and claims of producing only “nonprivileged” documents. If there are any responsive documents that the defendant is withholding based on a claim of privilege, the defendant must produce a privilege log. Next, defendant states that it will produce responsive documents within its possession or custody after a reasonable search, to the extent the documents exist, but ignores the Code 4-2 Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri December 30, 2019 Page 3 requirement of identifying whoever may have responsive documents if they are not in the possession, custody, or control of the defendant. Further, although defendant has produced documents to plaintiff, the defendant needs to identify in its responses to each production demand what documents are being produced. This is typically done by identify the Bates numbering placed on the documents. Next, defendant makes the superfluous statement that “discovery and investigations are ongoing and continuing. Responding party reserves the right to supplement these responses at a later time.” The only reason for the defendant to make this statement is to make the response evasive. The Code contains specific provisions regarding supplementing responses in discovery and there is no legal basis to support defendant making any such statements as it has at the end of its response. Regarding demand for production numbers 3, 4, and 5, the defendant’s response to these demands are identical to its response to demand number 2. Accordingly, please see the discussion above as it is equally applicable here because the defendant had simply cut and pasted its response from number 2. Regarding demand for production number 6, defendant claims that it has no documents responsive to this request, but this is not a Code compliant response. Defendant must state whether it has no responsive documents because no documents have ever existed, or because the documents have been lost, misplaced, destroyed, or are in the possession, custody, or control of someone else, in which case it must identify and provide contact information for whoever is believed to be in possession, custody, or control of the responsive items. As for the defendant’s objections, and the remainder of its response, please see the discussion above regarding the response demand for production number 2 as it is equally applicable here. Again, the defendant has simply cut and pasted the identical objections that it used in its responses to each of the previous production demands. As discussed above, defendant has not provided a privilege log and to the extent any documents are being withheld based on a claim of privilege it must do so immediately. Regarding demand for production number 7, which asked for all tenant profile reports on the plaintiff, defendant interposes the same boilerplate, nuisance objections to this interrogatory as it has the previous interrogatories. Accordingly, please see the discussion above regarding the objections to production demand number 1 as it is equally applicable here. As for defendant’s objection that the term tenant performance profile is vague and ambiguous and that it will only produce documents after the parties meet and confer regarding the vague and ambiguous objection, there is nothing vague or ambiguous about this term. Investigative consumer reporting agencies provide reports called by various 4-3 Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri December 30, 2019 Page 4 names, including tenant performance profile reports. Defendant should, therefore, supplement this response to provide a Code compliant response, and remove its frivolous objections, or a motion to compel will be filed. Regarding demand for production number 8, defendant has interposed frivolous objections and refused to answer the question and produce documents. Defendant starts by interposing frivolous objections that this demand is “not relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence” and is “burdensome and oppressive.” This demand, however, is certainly relevant and it is neither burdensome nor oppressive for the defendant to respond to it. Plaintiff only asked defendant to produce all rental payment history reports that it has relating to the plaintiff. This demand does not “misstate[] the facts” and it is not “harassing,” “cumulative,” and does not seek information as to anything that is “private and confidential.” These objections are frivolous, boilerplate nuisance objections that warrant the imposition of sanctions under Standon v. Superior Court if a motion to compel is necessary. Defendant must immediately produce all responsive documents and provide a Code compliant response or a motion to compel the removal of objections and a further response will be filed. Regarding demand for production numbers 9 and 10, which asked for all Social Security number trace documents and investigative consumer reports about the plaintiff, respectively, please see the discussion above regarding the defendant’s responses to production demand numbers 1 and 7, as it is equally applicable here. These production demands are not seeking privileged documents, but to the extent defendant is refusing to produce documents based on claims of privilege it must provide a privilege log. Moreover, the defendant must also identify any documents that are not within its possession, custody, or control following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry so that plaintiff can get the documents from whoever has the documents, assuming of course that there are documents other than what the defendant has in its possession, custody, or control. Regarding demand for production number 11, Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.210 states: “A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage. A party may also obtain discovery as to whether that insurance carrier is disputing the agreement's coverage of the claim involved in the action, but not as to the nature and substance of that dispute. Information concerning the insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial.” Accordingly, plaintiff is requesting that defendant provide a Code compliant supplemental response and produce all insurance polies responsive to this production demand. 4-4 Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri December 30, 2019 Page 5 If necessary, plaintiff can meet and confer with you further regarding the deficiencies in the defendant’s responses to this discovery, including the failure to provide a signed verification, to the extent you have any other issues that you would like to discuss that plaintiff has not already addressed in correspondence. However, to the extent you would like to meet and confer on any of the issues raised herein, plaintiff is demanding that we do so on or before January 6, 2020. Otherwise, plaintiff is requesting that defendant provide verified supplemental responses to this discovery, and produce all responsive documents, on or before January 8, 2020. Also, please ensure that plaintiff receives these responses by the close of business on January 8 or we will assume that you are refusing to supplement the responses, and will proceed with a motion to compel the removal of objections, verified supplemental responses and production of all responsive items. Very truly yours, Hund Glenn A. Murphy, Esq. 4-5 LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 January 13, 2020 BY E-MAIL Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com Re: Holliday v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC Dear Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri: Plaintiff is in receipt of your email on January 9, 2020, and has the following observations. First, plaintiff has sent you meet and confer letters regarding the problems with defendant’s responses to written discovery from plaintiff, but you have not responded to plaintiff’s letters nor agreed to supplement or amend the defendant’s responses. In a reasonable and good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes about defendant’s failure to provide full and complete responses to production demands, interrogatories and requests for admission, plaintiff wrote to you about the deficiencies in the defendant’s responses. However, you have not responded to plaintiff’s meet and confer letters. If you do not respond to plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer it is not possible for plaintiff to meet and confer with you. Next, it is neither reasonable nor a good faith effort to meet and confer for you to demand that plaintiff’s counsel come to your office to meet and confer because plaintiff’s counsel appeared telephonically for a hearing in a different case. Your statement that you “sent an email the night before the case management conference stating that we could meet and confer on all matters after the hearing” is meaningless. Sending an email “the night before” a hearing is gamesmanship, as you know that plaintiff will not receive your email prior to the time when you are requesting that the parties meet and confer. Further, the court allows counsel to appear telephonically and there is no reason for plaintiff’s counsel to drive to Orange County for a simple hearing when he can appear telephonically. In short, plaintiff has sent you detailed correspondence that are more than sufficient for you to understand the issues that plaintiff is attempting to meet and confer about, which will be presented in motions to compel if necessary. Although the court in a related case suggested that the attorneys meet and confer in person to try and resolve discovery disputes, it is not possible to meet and confer with you in person if you continue to refuse to come to this office or agree to Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri January 13, 2020 Page 2 meet plaintiff’s counsel at a location between our two offices. The undersigned previously wrote to you suggesting that the parties consider meeting at a location in Calabasas, which is between our two offices, but you have ignored that suggestion. Nevertheless, refusing to meet and confer with the undersigned in person does not prohibit plaintiff from proceeding with motions to compel. Plaintiff has made a reasonable and good faith effort to meet and confer with you by sending you letters about the deficiencies in the defendant’s responses, but you have refused to respond to those correspondence and have given no indication that defendant will supplement its responses. Accordingly, plaintiff will need to proceed with motions to compel and will request monetary sanctions based on your refusal to meet and confer to try and resolve these discovery disputes without the need for motions. Very truly yours, Hand. Glenn A. Murphy, Esq. ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Daniel L. Goodkin, Esq. (SBN 131347) Email: dgoodkin@ goodkinlaw.com Michael A. Shakouri, Esq. (SBN 272698) Email: mshakouri @ goodkinlaw.com GOODKIN LAW GROUP, APC 1800 Century Park East, 10" Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-3322 Facsimile: (310) 943-1589 Attorneys for Defendant, Related Management Company, L.P. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE—NORTH JUSTICE CENTER TERRY HOLLIDAY CASE NO. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC [Assigned to the Hon. John C. Gastelum Dept. C11] Plaintiff, DEFENDANT RELATED vs. MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S L.P., and DOES 1 through 20, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff TERRY HOLLIDAY RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. SET NO.: ONE Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.010, ef seq., Defendant RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. (“Responding Party”) hereby its supplemental objections (the “Objections”) and responses (the “Responses”) to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One (the “Requests”) propounded upon it by Plaintiff TERRY HOLLIDAY (the “Propounding Party”) as follows: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All DOCUMENTS in the tenant file for Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Responding Party responds as follows: 10133.005 1 6-1 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The production demanded in Request No. 1 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday’s Application for Occupancy to the Luxaria Apartments. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Responding Party responds as follows: The production demanded in Request No. 2 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All County Criminal Search Reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Responding Party responds as follows: The production demanded in Request No. 3 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All Multistate Criminal Search Reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Responding Party responds as follows: The production demanded in Request No. 4 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All criminal background DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday.. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Responding Party responds as follows: The production demanded in Request No. 5 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 10133.005 2 6-2 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) Reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Responding Party responds as follows: The responding party is unable to comply with Request No. 6 because no such documents exist. A diligent search and a reasonably inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this demand. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All Tenant Performance Profile reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Responding Party responds as follows: The responding party is unable to comply with Request No. 7 because no such documents exist. A diligent search and a reasonably inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this demand. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All rental payment history reports that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Responding Party responds as follows: The production demanded in Request No. 8 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All Social Security Number Trace DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Responding Party responds as follows: The responding party is unable to comply with Request No. 9 because no such documents exist. A diligent search and a reasonably inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this demand. 10133.005 3 6-3 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All investigative consumer report DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO OR CONCERN Terry Holliday. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Responding Party responds as follows: The production demanded in Request No. 10 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All policies of insurance in effect through which Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. was, is or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages and claims in this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Responding Party responds as follows: The production demanded in Request No. 11 will be allowed in whole. The documents requested are in possession of the Defendant and will be included in this production. DATED: February 7, 2020 GOODKIN LAW GROUP, APC By: /s/ Michael A. Shakouri Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Attorneys for Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. 10133.005 4 6-4 DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE YERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE and know its contents. O I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. X I am a duly authorized representative for RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., a New York limited partnership, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. X Iam informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. X The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. O [ am one of the attorneys for RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., a New York limited partnership, a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. 1am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. Executed on February 7, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Joseph Kross Signatur 6-5 LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 February 14, 2020 BY E-MAIL Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com Re: Holliday v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC Dear Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri: Plaintiff is in receipt of defendant’s supplemental responses to plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents, dated February 11, 2020, and is writing can meet and confer with you about the defendant’s failure to provide Code compliant responses. First, defendant has failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a), which states that “Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” This may take the form of documents that are Bates-stamped, indexed, or organized sequentially according to the specific discovery requests. Next, as you may recall, plaintiff specifically discussed this defect with you during the telephonic meet and confers in January 2020. It was explained to you at that time that this is required under the Code and is often done for the benefit of both parties, so that all counsel may be able to clearly and quickly ascertain which documents pertaining to which discovery requests. With appropriate indexing and reference to the corresponding inspection demand number, voluminous document productions become much easier to sort and refer to in depositions and at trial. Next, plaintiff also requested in meeting and conferring with you about the defects in the defendant’s responses to production demands that plaintiff is requesting an electronic copy of all of the documents. Indeed, plaintiff stated this in her discovery requests to the defendant. However, defendant neither provided electronic copies of responsive 7-1 Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri February 14, 2020 Page 2 documents in its responses or in its supplemental responses even though plaintiff specifically attempted to meet and confer with you on this issue. In closing, plaintiff is requesting that defendant provide Code compliant responses to this discovery by February 21, 2020, and produce electronic copies of documents by that date. If the defendant is refusing to do so, based on your position during the meet and confer that the Code only requires that the defendant produce the documents as kept in the usual course of business, please confirm that immediately and plaintiff will proceed with a motion to compel. The Code is very clear in stating what is required and the defendant must comply with the Code or plaintiff will file a motion to compel and seek monetary sanctions for the fees and costs associated with the motion. Very truly yours, Alu Ly Glenn A. Murphy, Esq. 7-2 LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 February 18, 2020 BY E-MAIL Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com Re: Griffith v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01091978-CU-BT-CIC Dear Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri: Plaintiff is writing following the case management conference this afternoon where you misrepresented several matters to the court, including that the undersigned would only agree to meet and confer with you in person if you traveled to this office in Westlake Village. As the undersigned informed the court, plaintiff actually wrote to you proposing that the parties meet and confer at a location between our two offices. On January 13, 2020, plaintiff wrote “suggesting that the parties consider meeting at a location in Calabasas, which is between our two offices.” Accordingly, why did you tell the court that plaintiff’s counsel would only meet and confer with you in person, as the court directed the parties to do at the previous case management conference, if you came to this office when in fact plaintiff’s counsel was willing to meet and confer with you at a location between our two offices? Next, it is odd that you brought this matter up to the court, especially in light of the fact that you are the one that refused to meet with plaintiff’s counsel in person, and decided that the defendant would supplement its responses after meeting and conferring telephonically on January 21 and 22, 2020. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, willing to meet and confer with you in person to try and resolve discovery disputes, but cannot do so if you refuse to at least meet half way between offices. As for your misrepresentations to the court that plaintiff’s counsel would only have settlement discussions with someone that had complete authority to settle the case, again 8-1 Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri February 18, 2020 Page 2 it is odd that you brought this matter up by misrepresenting the facts to the court. Although plaintiff is willing to engage in good faith settlement negotiations with someone that has authority to settle the case, as an associate, Mr. Shakouri, you have no authority to negotiate a settlement. Why would plaintiff’s counsel have settlement negotiations with you when you do not have authority? Very truly yours, Yn. Glenn A. Murphy, Esq. LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 February 22, 2020 BY E-MAIL Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com Re: Holliday v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC Dear Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri: Plaintiff is writing to confirm that you have not responded to plaintiff's February 14, 2020, meet and confer letter regarding defendant’s supplemental responses to plaintiffs First Set of Request for Production of Documents, and defendant’s failure to provide Code-compliant responses. As plaintiff has explained to before, the defendant is required to produce documents not just in its “possession, but rather in its “possession, custody or control.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.) Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) requires that “[a]lny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand . . . shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” This may take the form of documents that are Bates-stamped, indexed, or organized sequentially according to the specific discovery requests. As you may recall, plaintiff specifically discussed these problems with the defendant’s responses with you during the telephonic meet and confer on January 22, 2020. It was explained to you at that time what is required under the Code so that all counsel may be able to clearly and quickly ascertain which documents pertaining to which discovery requests. With appropriate indexing and reference to the corresponding inspection demand number, voluminous document productions become much easier to sort and refer to in depositions and at trial. 9-1 Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri February 22, 2020 Page 2 Next, plaintiff requested electronic copies of responsive documents and files (e.g., documents from CoreLogic). However, defendant neither provided electronic copies in its responses or in its supplemental responses even though plaintiff specifically attempted to meet and confer with you on this issue in January 2020. Please provide further, verified, Code-compliant responses to plaintiff's First Set of Request for Production of Documents by February 28, 2020. Further, please understand that if defendant fails to provide further responses that are both Code-compliant and fully responsive to production demands, plaintiffs shall have no alternative but to seek the court’s intervention to compel further responses, and will seek monetary sanctions from defendant for the fees and costs associated with the motion. Very truly yours, Hand Glenn A. Murphy, Esq. 9-2 LITIGATION ADVOCACY GROUP at Westlake Park Place 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 Tel. (310) 743-6438 May 15, 2020 BY E-MAIL Daniel L. Goodkin Michael A. Shakouri Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com Re: Griffith v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01091978-CU-BT-CJC Holliday v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01092000-CU-BT-NJC Lucas v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01092010-CU-BT-CJC Nava v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01096579-CU-BT-CJC Elmy v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01105181-CU-BT-CJC Adams v. Related Case No. 30-2019-01106271-CU-BT-CJC Dear Messrs. Goodkin and Shakouri: Plaintiffs are writing to confirm that you have agreed to a 30-day extension of time for the plaintiffs to file motions to compel regarding defendant Related Management Company, L.P.’s responses/supplemental responses to plaintiffs’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admission and production demands in the above-referenced cases. Based the 30-day extension, the deadline for plaintiffs to file motions to compel is now June 15, 2020. Very truly yours, i Livy Glenn A. Murphy, Esq. 10 © 0 J A Wn hb WwW ND = N N N N N N N N ND = E e e m e a e a CO NI A N nm kA W I N D = DO VO N N N R E W I N D = O PROOF OF SERVICE At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200, Westlake Village, California 91361. On the date stated below, I served the following documents: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $2,441.00 AGAINST DEFENDANT RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. AND ITS COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF GLENN A. MURPHY IN SUPPORT I served the documents on the persons at the address as follows: Daniel L. Goodkin Attorneys for Defendant Related Michael A. Shakouri Management Company, L.P. Goodkin Law Group 1800 Century Park East, 10" Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: dgoodkin@goodkinlaw.com mshakouri@goodkinlaw.com The documents were served by the following means: [X] (By ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification address listed above. 1 did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [ ] (By OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. [ ] (By U.S. MAIL) I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this office’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct. Dated: 6/3/2020 Alan | Glenn A. MurpHy/ 18 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PRODUCTION DEMANDS FROM DEFENDANT RELATED MANAHEMENT COMPANY, L.P.
