Separate Statement of Special Interrogatories In Contention

Response

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.July 19, 2017

© © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O John A. Brockmeier, Esq. State Bar # 244510 BROCKMEIER LAW GROUP, APC 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 425-3431 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS DISCOVERY ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/13/2018 Clerk of the Court BY:DAVID YUEN Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ZACHARY BOOKMAN, an individual, and DARIAN SHIRAZI, an individual Plaintiffs, Vs. FRANK NOLAN, an individual, ANDREW WARREN, an individual, VANGUARD PROPERTIES, and DOES 1 through 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants CASE NO: €GC-17-560266 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES WITH THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES IN CONTENTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FRANK NOLAN, ANDREW WARREN AND VANGUARD PROPERTIES [Filed Concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, and for Sanctions] Hearing Date: January 10, 2018 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. Hearing Location: Department 302 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: The following is the Special Interrogatories, Set One in Issue, the Responding Party’s response and Argument as to why a further response is required in relation to the Motions to Compel Further response and strike objections against Defendants Frank Nolan, Andrew Warren, and Vanguard Properties. A. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES RESPONSES OF DEFENDANTS The following state the Special Interrogatories (“SI) in issue as to each individual Defendant (meaning while they are put in one time, each Defendants responses were the same) in this meet and confer, your client’s response, and why a further response is required. Please note as a preliminary matter that, of 35 SI”s, further response without objection is required as to 4, 6, 7, 8, - 1 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O 9,10,11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16,18, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Many, if not all of the responses have irrelevant objections asserted that do not apply, and are contrary to the response Defendant provided in response to the RFA and RFP filed and served concurrently with these SI's as well as the laws of the State of California Special Interrogatory No. 4: Please state all properties that you have acted as a seller’s agent, whether as a dual agent or otherwise, within a quarter mile of the BOOKMAN PROPERTY from 2010 to the present. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 4: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the privacy rights of third parties and Responding Party afforded by the United States and California Constitutions. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it impermissibly seeks proprietary business information. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not asserted are waived as a matter of law. None of the objections stated by Defendant is on point. There is no privacy issue with detailing parties that you acted as the seller’s agent - information that is publically available by property, but available in bulk only to responding party. See Privacy Objection in relation to the RFA’s for further information. Further, there is simply no reasonable reason why attorney client privilege or work product could possibly be implicated in this question. It is not vague, or ambiguous in any way, and is limited to both a time and space, rendering it neither overbroad, nor burdensome, nor oppressive. Finally, there is no proprietary business information relating to whom responding party represented as an agent. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 4 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. The request as phrased, is overly broad and - 2 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE -- oo © 0 O N oO Og hr w n requires the compilation of a voluminous amount of business records which have no relevance to the issues in this lawsuit. Special Interrogatory No. 6: IDENTIFY all companies YOU own in part or in whole. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 6: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery or admissible evidence at trial. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it violates the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the privacy rights of third parties and Responding Party afforded by the United States and California Constitutions. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it impermissibly seeks proprietary business information. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not asserted are waived as a matter of law. None of the objections stated by Defendant is on point. There is no privacy issue with detailing who owns Vanguard Properties, and it goes to the duties, responsibilities, and legal notice of the responding party in relation to disclosure, rendering such objection moot. See Privacy Objection in relation to the RFA’s for further information. Further, there is simply no reasonable reason why attorney client privilege or work product could possibly be implicated in this question - despite the fact that you asserted this objection twice, clearly indicated the evasive and abusive nature of this objection. It is not vague, or ambiguous in any way, and is limited to both a time and space and person, rendering it neither overbroad, nor burdensome, nor oppressive; indeed, it could be answered. Finally, there is no proprietary business information relating to companies that responding party owns in either whole - 3 = SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O or part. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 6 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. The request as phrased, is overly broad and requires the compilation of a voluminous amount of business records which have no relevance to the issues in this lawsuit. Defendants’ ownership interests, if any, are proprietary and privileged information. Special Interrogatory No. 7, 8,9 and 10: 7. Please state any Affirmative Defense YOU assert against Propounding Parties COMPLAINT (“COMPLAINT shall mean Plaintiff’s operative Complaint). 8. Please provide all FACTS (“FACTS” shall refer to all circumstances, events and evidence pertaining to or touching upon the referenced matter) to support each individual Affirmative Defense provided in response to Special Interrogatory Set One No. 7. 9. Please identify all DOCUMENTS that support cach individual Affirmative Defense provided in response to Special Interrogatory Set One No. 7. 10. Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have knowledge that support each individual Affirmative Defense provided in response to Special Interrogatory Set One No. 7. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 7, 8, 9 and 10: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This interrogatory assumes facts not in evidence. This interrogatory is premature, as the matter is not yet at issue and Responding Party has not yet filed and served an answer. Why a Further Response is Required: Your objections to all of these SI's are wholly without merit, evasive, and clearly discovery abuse. - 4 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O There is nothing privileged re: whether you assert an affirmative defense; it is clearly relevant, and has nothing to do with “facts in evidence”. Further, it does not deal with affirmative defense in an Answer - rather affirmative defenses. Plaintiff do not and actually would be sanctioned if they did wait to ask such questions. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 7. 8, 9, and 10 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. Defendants have not filed an served an answer to the operative complaint and this request is premature. Discovery and investigation is ongoing. Special Interrogatory No. 11, 12, and 13: 11. Please provide all FACTS regarding how any agreement between YOU and Propounding Party was drafted. 12. Please provide all FACTS regarding any agreement between YOU and Propounding party for the sale of the BOOKMAN PROPERTY were agreed to. 13. Please provide the terms of any oral agreement(s) between YOU and plaintiffs. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 11, 12, and 13 Responding party objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “agreement” rendering the interrogatory unintelligible. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving said objections, and as responding party understands the request: not applicable, as no contract was entered into between (Frank Nolan/Andrew Warren/Vanguard Properties) and Plaintiffs. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not asserted have been waived, including any objections for privilege. Those objections asserted are facially without merit, and clearly discovery abuse. For instance, and clarity, allow “agreement” to mean the same thing it means in Black’s Law Dictionary: “A concord of understanding and intention, between two or more parties, with respect to the effect - 5 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O upon their relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or performances. The act of two or more persons, who unite in expressing a mutual and common purpose, with the view of altering their rights and obligations. A coming together of parties in opinion or determination; the union of two or more minds in a thing done or to be done; a mutual assent to do a thing. Com. Dig. “Agreement,” A 1. The consent of two or more persons concurring, the one in parting with, the other in receiving, some property, right, or benefit.” Further, responding party is talking out of the side of its mouth in asserting this is unintelligible and they answering - the objections are clearly evasive and render the response illusory. Responding Party’s represented plaintiffs as their agent - that is an agreement; they were paid by plaintiffs money a percentage - that is an agreement. The objections are without merit and the argument that there was no agreement between the parties is clearly without evidentiary or legal merit based upon the very, very, very limited responses Defendants have provided - despite requesting and receiving extensions allowing them 3 months to provided them. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12. and 13 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. The request incorrectly presumes that Defendants had a contract with Plaintiffs. The only contract Plaintiffs have pleaded, and the only contract Plaintiffs entered into, is with the seller of the Properties. It is long established that real estate agents are not parties to the purchase and sale contract between buyer and seller. (Super 7 Motel Associates v. Wang (1993) 16 Cal. App.4th 541, 545.) Additionally, the Agents Visual Inspection and Disclosure ("AVID") does not create a contract with the seller. (Brasier v. Sparks (1993) 17 Cal. App.4th 1756, 1760.) Special Interrogatory No. 14 and 17: 14. Please provide the names of all persons paid by YOU to work at the BOOKMAN PROPERTY from 2010 to the present. 17. Please provide the names of all persons paid by YOU to work at the SHIRAZI PROPERTY from 2010 to the present - 6 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 14 and 17: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This interrogatory assumes facts not in evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, in that ascertaining the information necessary to respond to the interrogatory, and producing documents in accordance therewith, would require the review and compilation of information from many locations, and incredibly voluminous records and files, thereby involving substantial time of employees of Responding Party and great expense to Responding Party, whereas the information sought to obtained by Propounding Party would be of little to no use or benefit to Propounding Party. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it secks information that is not relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the privacy rights of third parties and Responding Party afforded by the United States and California Constitutions. Subject to and without waiving these objections, all payments made in relation to plaintiffs purchase of the subject property can be found in the closing statements from the title company. Why a Further Response is Required: This entire “response” is discovery abuse. You have asserted the same objections more than once. You have asserted that providing the names of people who works at a property somehow, incredulously, would violate attorney client privilege or work product doctrine - which it clearly would not. You have asserted that this would be burdensome, when, in fact, it would not - as responding party would be required to only look at their records to provide it. The fact - 7 = SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O that this will take some time, cost, or that responding party does not matter, and does not arise to a compilation or a burden for which the court could refuse this. As to the privacy objections, see that section before the RFA’s, as they clearly do not apply. The persons are relevant, they were hired by responding party to go to the property for years, were agents of the responding party for whom their knowledge could and most likely would be found to be legally transferred to their principle - responding party. Further, the answer does not answer but points to a document, which is also improper. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 17 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. Plaintiff has failed to state how identification of the names of all persons paid by Defendants to work at the BOOKMAN PROPERTY or the SHIRAZI PROPERTY from 2010 to the present is relevant to any issue of fact. Special Interrogatory No. 15 and 16: 15. Please provide all FACTS regarding how any agreement between YOU and Darian Shirazi was drafted. 16. Please provide all FACTS regarding how any agreement between YOU and Plaintiff Shirazi for the sale of the SHIRAZI PROPERTY were agreed to. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No.15 and 16: Responding party objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “agreement” rendering the interrogatory unintelligible. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving said objections, and as responding party understands the request: not applicable, as no contract was entered into between (Frank Nolan/Andrew Warren/Vanguard Properties) and Plaintiffs. Why a Further Response is Required: - 8 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O All objections not asserted have been waived, including any objections for privilege. Those objections asserted are facially without merit, and clearly discovery abuse. For instance, and clarity, allow “agreement” to mean the same thing it means in Black’s Law Dictionary: “A concord of understanding and intention, between two or more parties, with respect to the effect upon their relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or performances. The act of two or more persons, who unite in expressing a mutual and common purpose, with the view of altering their rights and obligations. A coming together of parties in opinion or determination; the union of two or more minds in a thing done or to be done; a mutual assent to do a thing. Com. Dig. “Agreement,” A 1. The consent of two or more persons concurring, the one in parting with, the other in receiving, some property, right, or benefit.” Further, responding party is talking out of the side of its mouth in asserting this is unintelligible and they answering - the objections are clearly evasive and render the response illusory. Responding Party’s represented plaintiffs as their agent - that is an agreement; they were paid by plaintiffs money a percentage - that is an agreement. The objections are without merit and the argument that there was no agreement between the parties is clearly without evidentiary or legal merit based upon the very, very, very limited responses Defendants have provided - despite requesting and receiving extensions allowing them 3 months to provided them. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16: Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. The request as phrased, is overly broad and requires the compilation of a voluminous amount of business records which have no relevance to the issues in this lawsuit. Further, The request incorrectly presumes that Defendants had a contract with Plaintiffs. The only contract Plaintiffs have pleaded, and the only contract Plaintiffs entered into, is with the seller of the Properties. It is long established that real estate agents are not parties to the purchase and sale contract between buyer and seller. (Super 7 Motel Associates v. Wang (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 541, 545.) Additionally, the Agents Visual Inspection and Disclosure ("AVID") does not create a contract with the seller. (Brasier v. Sparks (1993) 17 - 9 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O Cal. App.4th 1756, 1760.) Special Interrogatory No. 18 and 19: 18. Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS that you represented as seller’s agent for residential properties within a quarter mile of the PROPERTIES for 5 years before the INCIDENT to the present. 19. Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS that you represented as buyer’s agent for residential properties within a quarter mile of the PROPERTIES for 5 years before the INCIDENT to the present. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 18 and 19: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the privacy rights of third parties and Responding Party afforded by the United States and California Constitutions. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it impermissibly seeks proprietary business information. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not asserted are waived as a matter of law. None of the objections stated by Defendant is on point. There is no privacy issue with detailing parties that you acted as the agent - information that is publically available by property, but available in bulk only to responding party. See Privacy Objection in relation to the RFA’s for further information. Further, there is simply no reasonable reason why attorney client privilege or work product could possibly be implicated in this question. It is not vague, or ambiguous in any way, and is limited to both a time and space, rendering it neither overbroad, nor burdensome, nor oppressive. Finally, there is no proprietary business information relating to whom responding party represented as an agent. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 19 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. Plaintiff has failed to state how - 10 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O identification persons who Defendants may have represented "within a quarter mile of the PROPERTIES for 5 years before the INCIDENT to the present" is relevant to any issue of fact in this case. Further, the identification of these persons constitute an invasion of privacy rights Special Interrogatory No. 20: Please state YOUR all training YOU have relating to what YOU advise your seller clients to disclose in their Seller’s Real Estate Transfer Statement. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 20: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the privacy rights of third parties and Responding Party afforded by the United States and California Constitutions. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it impermissibly secks proprictary business information. This interrogatory assumes facts not in evidence. Subject to all objections above and the Preliminary Statement, Defendant responds as follows: the information to be contained in the Seller’s Transfer Disclosure Statement is codified in California Civil Code section 1102 et seq. Discovery is ongoing, investigation continues. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not made have been waived as a matter of law. That said, these objections include the kitchen sink, and are made in bad faith. The interrogatory asks for training the responding party had regarding the statement. If the answer is “none” then that is the answer - however as provided no responsive answer has been given. Further, the answer that has been given is subject a dozen objections - most asserted twice in the same paragraph - and a “Preliminary Statement” that has not been stated in the response, which is also discovery abuse. None of the objections are persuasive, nor should they have been asserted unless responding party either didn’t speak with their client before responding, or never intended to do so. - 11 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 20 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. The request not only presumes that "training" is been undertaken, but that "training" is necessary. Further, Defendants have responded noting that the completion of the Real Estate Transfer Statement is made pursuant to Civil Code Section 1102 et seq., which codifies a seller’s obligation with regard to a transfer disclosure statement. Special Interrogatory No. 21: Please state how many times you have been retained as an expert in any litigation for the last 10 years. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 21: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. This interrogatory assumes facts not in evidence. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive, in that ascertaining the information necessary to respond to the interrogatory, and producing documents in accordance therewith, would require the review and compilation of information from many locations, and incredibly voluminous records and files, thereby involving substantial time of employees of Responding Party and great expense to Responding Party, whereas the information sought to obtained by Propounding Party would be of little to no use or benefit to Propounding Party. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it invades the privacy rights of third parties and Responding Party afforded by the United States and California - 12 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O Constitutions. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not asserted have been waived as a matter of law - however I am not sure any objections remain, as most have been stated, improperly, and stated twice. Defendant has again failed to respond in any way to this interrogatory or any other seeking similar information with specious objections. This interrogatory goes toward Defendants knowledge, expertise, and whether responding party has ever been an expert. Based upon the response, it appears that responding party has been an expert so many times as to require a “voluminous” response. ‘Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 21 Is Required: Defendants’ objections have not been waived. Moreover, all objections stated are reiterated. Plaintiff has failed to state why a response to this interrogatory is relevant to any issue of fact. . Special Interrogatory No. 28, 29, and 30: 28. Provide the case caption of any lawsuit against Defendant Nolan filed in the last 10 years relating to his providing realtor services to any individual. 29. Provide the case caption of any lawsuit against Defendant Warren filed in the last 10 years relating to his providing realtor services to any individual. 30. Provide the case caption of any lawsuit against YOU filed in the last 10 years relating to YOUR providing realtor services to any individual. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 28, 29, and 30: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information equally available to Plaintiffs. Defendants are not required to perform research of equally available sources in response to discovery. Why a Further Response is Required: - 13 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O All objections not asserted have been waived as a matter of law. Defendant has not answer the SI. Further, the objections are without merit. Vanguard Properties has changed names in the past. Frank Nolan refused to answer FI’s. Andrew Warren refused to confirm whether he had used another name, or where he has lived for the past 10 years or went to school in response to FI’s. This information is not equally available to propounding party in any event, but, based upon the universally frivolous nature of all responses to this discovery - responses that can only be deemed made in bad faith with the clear intent to delay and abuse discovery - the assertion that this is equally available is also without support. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory No. 28. 29. and 30 Is Required: Defendants’ objections have not been waived. Moreover, all objections stated are reiterated. Plaintiff has failed to state why a response to this interrogatory is relevant to any issue of fact. Special Interrogatory No. 32 and 33: 32. State all contentions you have disagreeing with the allegations of paragraph 63 of plaintiffs” COMPLAINT. 33. Please identify all DOCUMENTS that support your response to Special Interrogatory Set One No. 32. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 32 and 33: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it assumes facts not in evidence and is premature, as no responsive pleading has been filed. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not asserted have been waived as a matter of law. Defendant has not answered the SI. All objections are without merit - it does not matter that you have not filed an answer, the SI's seek what you disagree with, and what documents support that. If the answer - 14 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O remains unchanged, we will move to compel further responses and seek all sanctions available under the law. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 32 and 33 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. Defendants have not filed an served an answer to the operative complaint and this request is premature. Discovery and investigation 1s ongoing. Special Interrogatory No. 34 and 35: 34. State all contentions you have disagreeing with the allegations of paragraph 64 of plaintiffs’ COMPLAINT. 35. Please identify all DOCUMENTS that support your response to Special Interrogatory Set One No. 34. Respondent’s Response to Special Interrogatory No. 34 and 35: Objection. Irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, vague and ambiguous, burdensome, oppressive, violates the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it assumes facts not in evidence and is premature, as no responsive pleading has been filed. Why a Further Response is Required: All objections not asserted have been waived as a matter of law. Defendant has not answered the SI. All objections are without merit - it does not matter that you have not filed an answer, the SI's seek what you disagree with, and what documents support that. If the answer remains unchanged, we will move to compel further responses and seck all sanctions available under the law. Why No Further Response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 34 and 35 Is Required: Defendants reiterate the objections stated previously. Defendants have not filed an served an answer to the operative complaint and this request is premature. Discovery and investigation is - 15 -- SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © «© ~N oOo Oo Hh o w nN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ongoing. DATED: November 12, 2018 BROCKMEIER LAW GROUP By: h-" hn A. Brockmeier - 16 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE © © ~N Oo Oo H w N o N T N N N N N N A A s y y s s xX ~N O&O O r bh Ww N s O O o 0 N o 0 s , w NN s O PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 212 Marine Street, Suite 100, Santa Monica, California 90405. On November 13, 2018 I served the foregoing document described as SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES WITH THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE IN CONTENTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS FRANK NOLAN, ANDREW WARREN AND VANGUARD PROPERTIES on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully paid, addressed as stated below: Jennifer Supman Manning & Kass 1 California St., Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94111 /x/ BY MAIL) I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with the postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Monica, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. CCP §101/3(a); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 5(b). / 1 (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, via certified mail -- return receipt requested, to be placed in the United States mail at Santa Monica, California. CCP §1013(a); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 5(b). // (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee whose name and address is listed above. CCP §1011(a),; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 5(b) / / (BY EXPRESS OVERNITE MAIL/FEDERAL EXPRESS) I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for express mail/Federal Express. Under the practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service/Federal Express on that same day with the postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Monica, California, in the ordinary course of business. CCP §1013(c) / x/ (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) In addition to the above service by mail, hand delivery or express mail/Federal Express, I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile transmission. CCP §1016 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 13, 2018, at Santa Monica, California. John A. Brockmeier - 17 - SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE