Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376)
SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, LLP
1083 Vine Street, Suite 907
Healdsburg, California 95448
Telephone: (707) 433-0377
Facsimile: (707) 433-0379
Attorneys for Defendants
DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4
JIM NORD SUED AS DOE 5
JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7
BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8
LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9
JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11
MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
RICHARD ABEL, an individual, CASE NO. SCV-263456
DECLARATION OF EDWARD
McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER
REQUIREMENTS AS TO DISCOVERY
MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS
2)
Plaintiff, |
d
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an ; Date: May 25, 2022
)
)
vs.
individual; SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, 2 Time: 3: vo p.m.
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 Dept.:
through 100, inclusive, Trial: October 7, 2022
Defendants. Assigned For All Purposes to the
Honorable Arthur A. Wick
Courtroom 17
I, Edward McCutchan, declare that:
1. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. 1am a
partner with the law offices of Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP, and am one of one of the attorneys|
for DOE Defendants in this action. If called as a witness, I am competent to testify to the
following facts.
2. Irepresent Dale Davis sued as Doe 4, Jim Nord sued as Doe 5, Jacinda Duval
DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS,
AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS
127
28
sued as Doe 7, Bill Hing sued as Doe 8, Lenora Verne Fung sued as Doe 9, Justin Poeng sued as
Doe 11 and Matthew Zdanek sued as Doe 16 by Richard Abel who is representing himself in
propria persona in this action.
3. In the afternoon of May 17, 2022, Richard Abel called me at my office
concerning his two law and motion filings against Dale Davis, a 90-year-old man named as DOE}
4 in this action.
4, The only real issues were that Dale Davis’ objections to this discovery law and
motion proceedings set for May 25, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17 of the Sonoma County
Superior Court, that Richard Abel wanted omitted despite Richard Abel always submits
objections to discovery by my office’s clients on him and wanting payment of monetary
sanctions and nothing more. Richard Abel mentioned that he was not served with Dale Davis’
verifications which I advised him such was not the case and nothing else was discussed between
us, not even Dale Davis’ responses to the first set of document production and first set of special
interrogatories with many objections.
5. On May 17, 2022, I mailed Richard Abel a confirming letter regarding what we
discussed on May 16, 2022 bearing my signature. A true and correct copy of this letter was
placed by me in a United States post box with postage prepaid on May 17, 2022 to Richard
Abel’s last known address. Richard Abel was advised that he should pay Dale Davis the sum of
fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500.00) in monetary sanctions for legal fees in responding to his two
May 25, 2022 discovery motions. A true and correct copy of this May 17, 2022 letter and its
attachments are attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS
AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS
2BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8
LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9
JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11
MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16
DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS
AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS.
3EXHIBIT “A”SUNDERLAND | MCCUTCHAN, LLP
SAN DIEGO HEALDSBURG
1083 VINE STREET STE, 907
HEALDSBURG, CA 95448
PHONE: (707) 433-0377
Ax: (707) 433-0379
May 17, 2022
Richard Abel
707 Hahman Drive, #9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301
Re: Abel v. McCutchan, et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456
MEET AND CONFER LETTER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY AGAINST DALE DAVIS SET FOR MAY 25, 2022
Dear Mr. Abel:
This letter is a follow-up to yesterday’s telephone conversation concerning your two
discovery motions against Sunderland |McCutchan, LLP’s 90-year-old client Dale Davis who
you have known since 2009 from the Liebling v. Goodrich litigation, Sonoma County
Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738.
You stated that Dale Davis did not serve verifications where I reminded you that he did. See
attached four (4) verifications of Dale Davis (February 25, 2022 for document production set
one, February 25, 2022 for form interrogatories set one, April 21, 2022 for form
interrogatories set two, and April 21, 2022 for special interrogatories set one).
You elected to not discuss this issue further. You said that a remaining issue were Dale Davis’
objections to your discovery on him that you wanted removed. I advised you that you
consistently served objections to objections served on you in this action (see your May 11,
2022 responses to Justin Poeng’s second request for admissions on you enclosed). You did not
want to discuss this issue as to your responses to written discovery in this matter, but wanted
discovery responses without objections by Dale Davis. This request by. you lacks merit
particularly since you submit objections to your written discovery responses in this action.
The last issue was that you want Dale Davis to pay you monetary sanctions for your two
discovery motions calendared for May 25, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. in Sonoma County Superior
Court, Courtroom 17, despite not discussing on May 16, 2022 Dale Davis’ objections to your
first request for special interrogatories set one on him and document production set one that he
objected to.
Obviously, Dale Davis’ objections to special interrogatories set one on him and document
production set one are well taken since you never brought them up to me yesterday.
Given this material fact, Dale Davis is willing to have you pay him through Sunderland |
McCutchan, LLP fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500.00) within forth-five days after order afterRichard Abel
Re: Abel v. McCutchan, et al.
May 17, 2022
Page 2 of 2
hearing in this matter which is a substantial discount in what he is seeking in monetary
sanctions in the two motions set for hearing May 25, 2022.
Very truly yours,
SUNDERLAND |
ce: ClientAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr., et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No, SCV-263456
VERIFICATION
I, Dale Davis, am a defendant in the above-referenced matter. I have réad the foregoing
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Number One, and declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: February_AS”_, 2022 Tee Pane
DALE DAVIS
VERINICATIONAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr., et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.. SCV-263456
VERIFICATION
I, Dale Davis, am a defendant in the above-referenced matter. I have read the foregoing
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Number One and declare under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief,
Date: February 25°, 2022 Pel
DALE DAVIS.
‘VERIFICATIONAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr.,.et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456
VERIFICATION
L Dale Davis, am a defendant in the above-teferenced matter. I have read the foregoing
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Number Two and declare under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Date: April Af, 2022 [et Pen
DALE DAVIS.
VERIFICATIONAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr. et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456
VERIFICATION
I, Dale Davis, am a defendant.in the above-referenced matter. I have read the foregoing
Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Number One and declare under penalty. of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Date: April 21, 2022 Deke p eer
DALE DAVIS
VERDICATIONRichard Abel
707 Hahman Drive No. 9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Telephone: (707) 340-3894
Plaintiff, in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
RICHARD ABEL, an individual, Case Number: SCV-263456
Plaintiff; PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
¥ > FOR ADMISSION FROM JUSTIN POENG
, SET TWO (2)
B, EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an
individual, SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN,
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive;
Defendants.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, JUSTIN POENG
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff: RICHARD ABEL
SET NUMBER, TWO (2)
"Plaintiff Richard Abel (hereinafter referred to as “Responding Party”) is engaged in
continuing discovery in this case, Therefore, all responses contained herein are based upon such
information and documents as are presently available and known to Responding Party and
disclose only those contentions which presently occur to him, There are potential witnesses
which have not been deposed, documents which have not been reviewed or obtained, analysis”
which has not been completed, and other discovery and investigation which has not been
finished, Discovery and investigation are continuing, Responding Party therefore provides the
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG
. 4following responses to the Requests for Admission, Set Number two without prejudice to present]
at trial further documentary or oral evidence or analysis not yet obtained of completed.
The responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action, Each
response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections of
competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) which would require the
exclusion of any statement contained herein if the request for admission were asked of, or any
staternent contained herein were made by, a witness present or testifying in court, All such
objections and ground therefore are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial, Except
for facts explicitly admitted herein, no admission of any nature whatsoever is to be implied or
inferred. The fact that any request for admission herein has been responded to should not be
taken as an admission ot concession of the existence of fact set forth or assumed by each request
for admission, nor that such response be construed as given on the basis of present recollection.
The fact that Responding Party has yesponded to part or all of any request for admission
is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by him of all or any part of any
objection to any request for admission, Responding Party reserves his right to supplement any
response herein.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS RESPONSES
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that Exhibit "1" attached hereto is a true and
correct copy of the filed July 28, 2021 "Memorandum" in the United States Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit in BAP No. CC-20-11 86-TLG as to Robert Edward
Zuckerman, a judgment debtor in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738.
Response; . : :
Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of
instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document’ which violates Code of
Civil Procedure Section 2033.060(d),
Responding Party also objects to this request for admission because Responding Party is
not a bankruptcy lawyer and this request seeks admission of a legal matter and/or seeks a legal
conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033 010,
‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party xesponds as follows: Admit}
in part, and deny in part, ‘Admit that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed that the judgment
against Robert Zuckerman is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A); Deny that this copy is
‘exactly the same as the one that was filed.
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG
~ 2REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that the DOE Amendments 6 through 16 that
you filed in this action on December 9, 2021 are barred by CCP section 583.210.
Response:
Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of
instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code of
Civil Procedure Section 2033.060(d).
Responding Party objects to this request because it requires a legal conclusion and
speculation, This matter is the subject of a pending motion to dismiss, and Responding Party
cannot predict how the court will rule on it. Calls for speculation about a future event, This
request is vague as to the form of the question.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: A
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the:
information known or readily obtainable js insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or
deny the matter, Discovery has not been completed and is continuing, “
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION. NO. 15: Admit that you, Richard Abel, filed an opening brief
concerning Robert Zuckerman's appeal in the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the
‘Ninth Circuit in BAP No. CC-20-1 186-TLG.
Response:
Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of
instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code of
Civil Procedure Section 2033.060(4).
_ Responding Party objects to this request as the terms " opening brief", “concerning Robert
Zuackerman's appeal", and "in BAP No, CC-20-1186-TLG" are undefined and therefore vague
and ambiguous as used in this request. ©
‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit!
in part, and Deny in part. Admit that Responding Party filed a brief, Deny that it was an
opening brief, Responding Party was not an appellant.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.16: Admit that Exhibit "2" attached hereto referencing
Gary DeZorzi was created by you, Richard Abel.
Response:
Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of
jngtructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document yiich violates Code of
Civil Procedure Section 2033 .060(4). . .
Responding Party objects to this request as the terms “referencing Gary DeZorzi", and
“was created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit!
in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "oreated" Exhibit "2", Admit that the
document following Exhibit "2" was prepared in part by Sunderland/McCutchan and its
employees, Responding Party, and also by Gary DeZorzi who signed it.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that Exhibit "3" attached hereto referencing
Suku Ferl was created by you, Richard Abel.
Response:
Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG
3instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting docunent which violates Code of
Civil Procedure Section 2033,060(4). .
Responding Party objects to this request as the terms "veferencing Suku Ferl", and "was
created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request.
‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit
in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "created" Exhibit "3", Admit that the
document following Exhibit "3" was prepared in part by Sunderland/MeCutchan and its
employees, Responding Party, and also by Suki Ferl who signed it, ‘
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 8: Admit that Exhibit "4" attached hereto referencing Jack]
J, Miller was created by you, Richard Abel. :
Response:
Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of
instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code of
Civil Proceduré Section 2033,060(4).
Responding Party objects to this request as the terms “referencing Jack J, Miller", and
“was created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit
in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "created" Exhibit "4", Admit that the
document following Exhibit "4" was prepared in part by Sunderland/McCutchan and its
employees, Responding Party, and algo by Jack J, Miller who signed it
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that Exhibit "5" attached hereto referencing
June Liebling was created by you, Richard Abel,
Response:
Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of
instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code'of
Civil Procedure Section 2033,060(4).
Responding Party objects to this request as the terms "veferencing June Liebling", and
“was created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request.
‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit}
in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "created" Exhibit "5", Admit that the
document following Exhibit "S" was prepared in part by Sunderland/McCutchan and its
‘|) employees, Responding Party, attorney Dan Galvin, and also by June Liebling who signed it.
May 11, 2022 ‘ (Ubab Oud
Richard Abel, in pro per
VERIFICATIO
J, Richard Abel, am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing
answers to defendant Justin Poeng's requests for admission, Set No. Two, and know the contents
thereof, I declare under penalty of perjury, ‘under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing answers are true and correct, based on my own personal knowledge. This verification
was executed on May 11, 2022 at Santa Rosa, California.
By; bod. bel Richard Abel
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG
“4POS-030
RITORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nome, Slate Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Richard Abel
707 Haman Drive, No, 9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
rexertione nox(707) 340-3894 FAK NO. optons:
E-MAIL ADORESS (Opilonal:
ATTORNEY FOR Wom): Plaintiff pro per
SUPERIOR GOURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA.
streer aooress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-3
attic aooress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-3
cary ano ze cove:Santa Rosa, CA 95404
aranct nawe:Civil Division - Dept. 17
PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF:A bel
RESPONDENTIDEFENDANT:McCutchan,, Jr. etal.
‘CASE NUMBER:
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL—CIVIL SCV-263456
(Do nat use this Proof of Service fo show service of a Summons and Complaint)
4, Lam over 18 years of age and nota party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing
took place.
2. My residence or business address Is:
1007-B West College Avenue, PMB 532, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
3, On (date):May 12, 2022 | mailed from (city and state): Santa Rosa, California
the following documents (specify):
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
FROM JUSTIN POENG SET TWO (2)
[1 The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail—Civil (Documents Served)
(form POS-030(D)).
4, served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one):
a. C21 depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.
b. [] placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. | am readily famillar 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,
The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a, Name of.person served: SEE BELOW .
b. Address of person served:
B.Edward McCutchan, Jr, Aaron Schultz
Sunderland/ McCutchan, Inc. Galloway, Luchese, Everson & Picchi
1083 Vine Street, PMB 907 2300 Contra Costa Blvd. Ste 350
Healdsburg, -CA 95448 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[Cd the name and address of each person fo wham | mailed the documents [sIsted in the Aitachment to Proof of Service
by First-Class Mall—Ciil (Persons Served) (POS-030(P)).
[declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: May 12, 2022
Henry Crigler_ »
(FYPE OR PRINT NANE OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) GranaTune oF feRsoN’ cofipdenine THIS FORM)
Toon PEooncrsicatonia PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS waic—cfy. V7 Sa of Gt Poca, $5 1019, oi38
POS-030 (New January {, 2008) (Proof of Service) .PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA
Iam employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my present address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg
California 95448.
On May \ thn, I served the foregoing documents described as DECLARATION
OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS AS TO
DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS on the parties by placing a true copy
thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
By Regular U.S. Mail. The documents were placed for collection and mailing following
ordinary business practice for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated above.
By personal service. I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to th¢
addressee(s) as stated above.
By facsimile transmitted from (707) 433-0379. The document transmission was reported ag
complete and without error.
By email or electronic transmission. I caused the document to be sent to the persons at the
email addresses listed below. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission ar
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 7éHealdsburg,
California.
Edward McCutcha
DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS
AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS
4Abel v. McCutchan, et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456
Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel
Richard Abel USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL - ONLY
707 Hahman Drive, #9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301
Tel: (707) 340-3894
E-Mail: pererel@gmail.com
Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland | McCutchan, Inc.; Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP; B.
Edward McCutchan, Jr.
Joseph S. Picchi, Esq. ELECTRONIC MAIL - ONLY
Aaron T. Schultz, Esq.
Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi
A Professional Corporation
2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398
Tel. No. (925) 930-9090
Fax No. (925) 930-9035
E-Mail: aschultz@glattys.com
DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS
AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS.
5
Preview
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, LLP 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907 Healdsburg, California 95448 Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 Attorneys for Defendants DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4 JIM NORD SUED AS DOE 5 JACINDA DUVAL SUED AS DOE 7 BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8 LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9 JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RICHARD ABEL, an individual, CASE NO. SCV-263456 DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS 2) Plaintiff, | d B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an ; Date: May 25, 2022 ) ) vs. individual; SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, 2 Time: 3: vo p.m. LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 Dept.: through 100, inclusive, Trial: October 7, 2022 Defendants. Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable Arthur A. Wick Courtroom 17 I, Edward McCutchan, declare that: 1. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. 1am a partner with the law offices of Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP, and am one of one of the attorneys| for DOE Defendants in this action. If called as a witness, I am competent to testify to the following facts. 2. Irepresent Dale Davis sued as Doe 4, Jim Nord sued as Doe 5, Jacinda Duval DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS, AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS 127 28 sued as Doe 7, Bill Hing sued as Doe 8, Lenora Verne Fung sued as Doe 9, Justin Poeng sued as Doe 11 and Matthew Zdanek sued as Doe 16 by Richard Abel who is representing himself in propria persona in this action. 3. In the afternoon of May 17, 2022, Richard Abel called me at my office concerning his two law and motion filings against Dale Davis, a 90-year-old man named as DOE} 4 in this action. 4, The only real issues were that Dale Davis’ objections to this discovery law and motion proceedings set for May 25, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17 of the Sonoma County Superior Court, that Richard Abel wanted omitted despite Richard Abel always submits objections to discovery by my office’s clients on him and wanting payment of monetary sanctions and nothing more. Richard Abel mentioned that he was not served with Dale Davis’ verifications which I advised him such was not the case and nothing else was discussed between us, not even Dale Davis’ responses to the first set of document production and first set of special interrogatories with many objections. 5. On May 17, 2022, I mailed Richard Abel a confirming letter regarding what we discussed on May 16, 2022 bearing my signature. A true and correct copy of this letter was placed by me in a United States post box with postage prepaid on May 17, 2022 to Richard Abel’s last known address. Richard Abel was advised that he should pay Dale Davis the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500.00) in monetary sanctions for legal fees in responding to his two May 25, 2022 discovery motions. A true and correct copy of this May 17, 2022 letter and its attachments are attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS 2BILL HING SUED AS DOE 8 LENORA VERNE FUNG SUED AS DOE 9 JUSTIN POENG SUED AS DOE 11 MATTHEW ZDANEK SUED AS DOE 16 DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS. 3EXHIBIT “A”SUNDERLAND | MCCUTCHAN, LLP SAN DIEGO HEALDSBURG 1083 VINE STREET STE, 907 HEALDSBURG, CA 95448 PHONE: (707) 433-0377 Ax: (707) 433-0379 May 17, 2022 Richard Abel 707 Hahman Drive, #9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301 Re: Abel v. McCutchan, et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456 MEET AND CONFER LETTER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AGAINST DALE DAVIS SET FOR MAY 25, 2022 Dear Mr. Abel: This letter is a follow-up to yesterday’s telephone conversation concerning your two discovery motions against Sunderland |McCutchan, LLP’s 90-year-old client Dale Davis who you have known since 2009 from the Liebling v. Goodrich litigation, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738. You stated that Dale Davis did not serve verifications where I reminded you that he did. See attached four (4) verifications of Dale Davis (February 25, 2022 for document production set one, February 25, 2022 for form interrogatories set one, April 21, 2022 for form interrogatories set two, and April 21, 2022 for special interrogatories set one). You elected to not discuss this issue further. You said that a remaining issue were Dale Davis’ objections to your discovery on him that you wanted removed. I advised you that you consistently served objections to objections served on you in this action (see your May 11, 2022 responses to Justin Poeng’s second request for admissions on you enclosed). You did not want to discuss this issue as to your responses to written discovery in this matter, but wanted discovery responses without objections by Dale Davis. This request by. you lacks merit particularly since you submit objections to your written discovery responses in this action. The last issue was that you want Dale Davis to pay you monetary sanctions for your two discovery motions calendared for May 25, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. in Sonoma County Superior Court, Courtroom 17, despite not discussing on May 16, 2022 Dale Davis’ objections to your first request for special interrogatories set one on him and document production set one that he objected to. Obviously, Dale Davis’ objections to special interrogatories set one on him and document production set one are well taken since you never brought them up to me yesterday. Given this material fact, Dale Davis is willing to have you pay him through Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500.00) within forth-five days after order afterRichard Abel Re: Abel v. McCutchan, et al. May 17, 2022 Page 2 of 2 hearing in this matter which is a substantial discount in what he is seeking in monetary sanctions in the two motions set for hearing May 25, 2022. Very truly yours, SUNDERLAND | ce: ClientAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr., et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No, SCV-263456 VERIFICATION I, Dale Davis, am a defendant in the above-referenced matter. I have réad the foregoing Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Number One, and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: February_AS”_, 2022 Tee Pane DALE DAVIS VERINICATIONAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr., et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.. SCV-263456 VERIFICATION I, Dale Davis, am a defendant in the above-referenced matter. I have read the foregoing Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Number One and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, Date: February 25°, 2022 Pel DALE DAVIS. ‘VERIFICATIONAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr.,.et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456 VERIFICATION L Dale Davis, am a defendant in the above-teferenced matter. I have read the foregoing Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Number Two and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: April Af, 2022 [et Pen DALE DAVIS. VERIFICATIONAbel v. B. Edward McCutchan, Jr. et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456 VERIFICATION I, Dale Davis, am a defendant.in the above-referenced matter. I have read the foregoing Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Number One and declare under penalty. of perjury under the laws of the State of California that my responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: April 21, 2022 Deke p eer DALE DAVIS VERDICATIONRichard Abel 707 Hahman Drive No. 9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Telephone: (707) 340-3894 Plaintiff, in pro per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RICHARD ABEL, an individual, Case Number: SCV-263456 Plaintiff; PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS ¥ > FOR ADMISSION FROM JUSTIN POENG , SET TWO (2) B, EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an individual, SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, JUSTIN POENG RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff: RICHARD ABEL SET NUMBER, TWO (2) "Plaintiff Richard Abel (hereinafter referred to as “Responding Party”) is engaged in continuing discovery in this case, Therefore, all responses contained herein are based upon such information and documents as are presently available and known to Responding Party and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to him, There are potential witnesses which have not been deposed, documents which have not been reviewed or obtained, analysis” which has not been completed, and other discovery and investigation which has not been finished, Discovery and investigation are continuing, Responding Party therefore provides the RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG . 4following responses to the Requests for Admission, Set Number two without prejudice to present] at trial further documentary or oral evidence or analysis not yet obtained of completed. The responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action, Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections of competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) which would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the request for admission were asked of, or any staternent contained herein were made by, a witness present or testifying in court, All such objections and ground therefore are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial, Except for facts explicitly admitted herein, no admission of any nature whatsoever is to be implied or inferred. The fact that any request for admission herein has been responded to should not be taken as an admission ot concession of the existence of fact set forth or assumed by each request for admission, nor that such response be construed as given on the basis of present recollection. The fact that Responding Party has yesponded to part or all of any request for admission is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by him of all or any part of any objection to any request for admission, Responding Party reserves his right to supplement any response herein. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS RESPONSES REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that Exhibit "1" attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the filed July 28, 2021 "Memorandum" in the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit in BAP No. CC-20-11 86-TLG as to Robert Edward Zuckerman, a judgment debtor in Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-245738. Response; . : : Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document’ which violates Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.060(d), Responding Party also objects to this request for admission because Responding Party is not a bankruptcy lawyer and this request seeks admission of a legal matter and/or seeks a legal conclusion, without reference to any fact, which is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033 010, ‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party xesponds as follows: Admit} in part, and deny in part, ‘Admit that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed that the judgment against Robert Zuckerman is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A); Deny that this copy is ‘exactly the same as the one that was filed. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG ~ 2REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that the DOE Amendments 6 through 16 that you filed in this action on December 9, 2021 are barred by CCP section 583.210. Response: Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.060(d). Responding Party objects to this request because it requires a legal conclusion and speculation, This matter is the subject of a pending motion to dismiss, and Responding Party cannot predict how the court will rule on it. Calls for speculation about a future event, This request is vague as to the form of the question. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: A reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the: information known or readily obtainable js insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny the matter, Discovery has not been completed and is continuing, “ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION. NO. 15: Admit that you, Richard Abel, filed an opening brief concerning Robert Zuckerman's appeal in the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the ‘Ninth Circuit in BAP No. CC-20-1 186-TLG. Response: Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.060(4). _ Responding Party objects to this request as the terms " opening brief", “concerning Robert Zuackerman's appeal", and "in BAP No, CC-20-1186-TLG" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request. © ‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit! in part, and Deny in part. Admit that Responding Party filed a brief, Deny that it was an opening brief, Responding Party was not an appellant. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.16: Admit that Exhibit "2" attached hereto referencing Gary DeZorzi was created by you, Richard Abel. Response: Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of jngtructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document yiich violates Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033 .060(4). . . Responding Party objects to this request as the terms “referencing Gary DeZorzi", and “was created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit! in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "oreated" Exhibit "2", Admit that the document following Exhibit "2" was prepared in part by Sunderland/McCutchan and its employees, Responding Party, and also by Gary DeZorzi who signed it. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that Exhibit "3" attached hereto referencing Suku Ferl was created by you, Richard Abel. Response: Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG 3instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting docunent which violates Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033,060(4). . Responding Party objects to this request as the terms "veferencing Suku Ferl", and "was created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request. ‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "created" Exhibit "3", Admit that the document following Exhibit "3" was prepared in part by Sunderland/MeCutchan and its employees, Responding Party, and also by Suki Ferl who signed it, ‘ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 8: Admit that Exhibit "4" attached hereto referencing Jack] J, Miller was created by you, Richard Abel. : Response: Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code of Civil Proceduré Section 2033,060(4). Responding Party objects to this request as the terms “referencing Jack J, Miller", and “was created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "created" Exhibit "4", Admit that the document following Exhibit "4" was prepared in part by Sunderland/McCutchan and its employees, Responding Party, and algo by Jack J, Miller who signed it REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that Exhibit "5" attached hereto referencing June Liebling was created by you, Richard Abel, Response: Responding Party objects to this request for admission because there is a preface of instructions and definitions at the beginning of the requesting document which violates Code'of Civil Procedure Section 2033,060(4). Responding Party objects to this request as the terms "veferencing June Liebling", and “was created by you" are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous as used in this request. ‘Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Admit} in part, and deny in part. Deny that Responding Party "created" Exhibit "5", Admit that the document following Exhibit "S" was prepared in part by Sunderland/McCutchan and its ‘|) employees, Responding Party, attorney Dan Galvin, and also by June Liebling who signed it. May 11, 2022 ‘ (Ubab Oud Richard Abel, in pro per VERIFICATIO J, Richard Abel, am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing answers to defendant Justin Poeng's requests for admission, Set No. Two, and know the contents thereof, I declare under penalty of perjury, ‘under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing answers are true and correct, based on my own personal knowledge. This verification was executed on May 11, 2022 at Santa Rosa, California. By; bod. bel Richard Abel RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - POENG “4POS-030 RITORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nome, Slate Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Richard Abel 707 Haman Drive, No, 9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 rexertione nox(707) 340-3894 FAK NO. optons: E-MAIL ADORESS (Opilonal: ATTORNEY FOR Wom): Plaintiff pro per SUPERIOR GOURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA. streer aooress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-3 attic aooress:600 Administration Drive, Room 107-3 cary ano ze cove:Santa Rosa, CA 95404 aranct nawe:Civil Division - Dept. 17 PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF:A bel RESPONDENTIDEFENDANT:McCutchan,, Jr. etal. ‘CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL—CIVIL SCV-263456 (Do nat use this Proof of Service fo show service of a Summons and Complaint) 4, Lam over 18 years of age and nota party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place. 2. My residence or business address Is: 1007-B West College Avenue, PMB 532, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 3, On (date):May 12, 2022 | mailed from (city and state): Santa Rosa, California the following documents (specify): PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION FROM JUSTIN POENG SET TWO (2) [1 The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mail—Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-030(D)). 4, served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one): a. C21 depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. b. [] placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. | am readily famillar 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, The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a, Name of.person served: SEE BELOW . b. Address of person served: B.Edward McCutchan, Jr, Aaron Schultz Sunderland/ McCutchan, Inc. Galloway, Luchese, Everson & Picchi 1083 Vine Street, PMB 907 2300 Contra Costa Blvd. Ste 350 Healdsburg, -CA 95448 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 [Cd the name and address of each person fo wham | mailed the documents [sIsted in the Aitachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mall—Ciil (Persons Served) (POS-030(P)). [declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: May 12, 2022 Henry Crigler_ » (FYPE OR PRINT NANE OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) GranaTune oF feRsoN’ cofipdenine THIS FORM) Toon PEooncrsicatonia PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS waic—cfy. V7 Sa of Gt Poca, $5 1019, oi38 POS-030 (New January {, 2008) (Proof of Service) .PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA Iam employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my present address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg California 95448. On May \ thn, I served the foregoing documents described as DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS on the parties by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST By Regular U.S. Mail. The documents were placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practice for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated above. By personal service. I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to th¢ addressee(s) as stated above. By facsimile transmitted from (707) 433-0379. The document transmission was reported ag complete and without error. By email or electronic transmission. I caused the document to be sent to the persons at the email addresses listed below. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission ar electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 7éHealdsburg, California. Edward McCutcha DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS 4Abel v. McCutchan, et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456 Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel Richard Abel USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL - ONLY 707 Hahman Drive, #9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301 Tel: (707) 340-3894 E-Mail: pererel@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland | McCutchan, Inc.; Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP; B. Edward McCutchan, Jr. Joseph S. Picchi, Esq. ELECTRONIC MAIL - ONLY Aaron T. Schultz, Esq. Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi A Professional Corporation 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398 Tel. No. (925) 930-9090 Fax No. (925) 930-9035 E-Mail: aschultz@glattys.com DECLARATION OF EDWARD McCUTCHAN RE MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS AS TO DISCOVERY MOTIONS AGAINST DALE DAVIS. 5