Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO Entered by:
Civil Department - Non-Limited
TITLE 0F CASE:
Edward Funez vs. Fire Insurance Exchange
Case Number:
LAW AND
'
MOTION MINUTE ORDER 19CECGOZ755
Hearing Date: December 8, 2021 Hearing Type: Motion -Admissions Deemed Admitted
Department: 403 Judge: Kristi Culver Kapetan
Court Clerk: Estela Alvarado Reporter: Not Reported
Appearing Parties:
Plaintiff:No Appearances Defendant: No Appearances
Counsel: Counsel:
[ ]
Off Calendar
[
]Continuedto [ ]Setfor _ at _ Dept._ for _
[ ]
Submitted on points and authorities with/without argument. [ ]
Matter isargued and submitted.
[ ]
Upon filing of points and authorities.
[
]Motion is granted [‘] inpart and denied'in part. [
]Motion isdenied [
]with/without prejudice.
[ ]Taken under advisement
[X] No Ofal Argument requested; per Local Rule 2.2.6 & CRC 3.1308(a)(1).
[X] Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Three, and request for
monetary sanctions is DENIED.
[X] Tentative ruling becomes the order_of the court. See attached copy of the Tentative Ruling.
[X] Pursuant to CRC 3.1312(a) 5nd CCP section 1019.5(a), no further order is necessary. The minute order
adopting the tentative ruling serves as the order of the court.
[X] Service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
[ ]
Judgment debtor__ sworn and examined.
[ ]
Judgment debtor_ failed to appear.
Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ __
JUDGMENT:
‘
‘\
[ ]Money damages [ ]Default [ ]Other _ entered in the amountof:
Principal $_ |nterest$_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $_ Total $_
[
]Claim of exemption [ ]granted [
]denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_ per
FURTHER, COURT ORDERS:
[ ]Monies held by levying officerto be [
]releasedtojudgmentcreditor. [
]returnedtojudgmentdebtor.
[ ]$__ to be released tojudgment creditor and balance returned tojudgment debtor.
[ ]Levying Officer County of ,notified. [ ]Writto issue
-
[ ]
Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ]
Restitution of Premises
I ] Other_
CV-14b R03-18
r-_
Il__.I_A__.
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER
(35)
Tentative Ruling
Re: Funez v. Fire Insurance Exchange et al.
Superior Court Case No. 19CECGO2755
y
Hearing Date: December8,2021 (Depf.403)
Motion: Plainfiff's Motion ’ro Compel Fur’rher Responses ’ro Request for
Admissions, Se’r Three
Tentative Ruling:
To deny plaintiff's mo’rion ’ro compel further responses f0 request for admissions, se’r
Three, 0nd request for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290.)
Explanation;
On November 30, 2020, plaintiff propounded on defendant Fire Insurance
Exchange (“FIE") o Request for Admissions, Set Three (“RFAs”), containing 59 requests.
(Declaration of Nicholas J. Peterson, 1]2.) On January 4, 2021 , FIE served only objection
responses To each of The 59 requesfs. (Id.,'fl 3, 0nd Ex. A.) On February 16, 2021 ,plaintiff
requested c pre—Triol discovery conference on, among o’rherThings, oll of The 59 requests
of The RFAs. On February 22, 2021 , The cour’r issued on order ’rhof plaintiff may proceed
wiTh a motion To compel fur’rher responses To The RFAs.
,
On July 9, 2021, FIE served amended responses ’roThe RFAs. (Id.,1] H, 0nd Ex. C.)
On August 20, 2021, plaintiff met and conferred wi’rh FIE regarding ’rhe amended
responses. (Id., 1]12.) Plaintiff now seeks ’ro compel fun‘her responses To The RFAs, Gs ’ro
Requests Nos. 2—1 31, 37—44, 46, 49-54, 56—57, 0nd 59 (collectively The ”Dispu’re").
Each of ’rhe 59 requests pertained To seeking admissions or denials of The
genuineness of various documents. (Ibid.) The RFAs'were noT attached to The present
mofion, but the responses appear To hove copied ’rhe language of each request. (E.g.,
Peferson Dec|., 1| 3 and Ex. A thereto.) Each of The requests of The Dispute hove The some
general question, To admit ’rhe genuineness of on ofioched document. (E.g., Plaintiff's
Separate S’ro’remen’r, Reques’r No. 2.) The initial response To each of The requests of ’rhe
Dispufe is identical, as follows:
Responding Pcn‘y objects To This request cs i1 isunnecessary 0nd Therefore
meon’r only To vex, harass, and otherwise annoy Responding PorTy.
Responding Por’ry fur’rher objects Tho’r These documents are pcn‘en’rly
irrelevant 0nd ore no’r reasonably calculated f0 lead To The discovery of
admissible evidence in This cos'e. Responding Por’ry further objects That
I
The court notes that plaintiff's Notice of Motion identifies Request Nos. 1—3, while The argument
identifies Request Nos. 2—13. The coun‘ proceeds on what was presented in the concurrently filed
separate statement.
15
These documents con’rdin information Tho’r is confidential 0nd is ’rhe private
information of Third por’ries who ore no’r related To ’rhe insfon’r lawsuit.
/_
(E.g., id., Request No. 2.)
In sum, FIE raises objections on Three grounds: relevance, undue burden, 0nd
confidential information. The amended response To each of ’rhe requests of The Dispute
ore olso idenficol, as follows:
Defendon’r objects To This request os ’rhe documents ’rhct’r ore The subject of
This requesf ore pofem‘ly irrelevant ’rothe claims 0nd defenses herein 0nd
ore no’r reasonably calculated To leod To The discovery of admissible
evidence 0nd ore Thus unduly burdensome 0nd harassing. Defendant
further objects To This request ’roThe ex’ren’r Tho’r said documents contain
information That is confidential, proprietary, private, privileged, cmd/or
otherwise profec’red from disclosure. Defendant objects fun‘her To This
request to The extent Tho? Ploin’riffs request to odmi’r The "genuineness" of
said documem‘s calls upon Defendant ’ro odmi’r anything oTher Than
whether they ore on exact copy of whd’r They purport ’ro be, particularly Gs
’ro ’rhe ou’rhenficofion or admissibility Thereof. Defendanf objects further To
This request cs Plainfiff's request To admit The "gen‘uineness" of said
documents is vogue and ambiguous in 0nd of i’rself.Defendant objects
furTher to This request as i’rrequires Defendant ’ro examine each document
cmd compare every detail in i’rexoc’rly wi’rh documents Tho’r moy hove
been produced or moin’roined elsewhere, making The request unduly
burdensome 0nd harassing 0nd also no’r full0nd complete in and of i’rself.
since responding ’ro The reques’r necessarily requires reference ’ro o’rher
I
'
sources.
Wi’rhou’r waiving soid objections, 0nd subject Therefo, Defendant responds
as follows: Af’rer having mode o reasonable inquiry concerning ’rhe mofier
in This request, Defendant sfo’res ’rhcn‘ The documents Tho’r ore ’rhe subject ofk
’rhisrequest ore no’r, ond/or do no’r appear To be, documen’rs fho’r were
generated or produced by This Defendant in cmy confex’r. Therefore, ’rhe
information known To, or readily obtainable by, Defendant is insufficient ’ro
enable Defendant To odmh‘ The mofier set forth in This request.
In sum, on amended response, FIE raises fhé some Three objec’rions, and provides
o response Tho’r offer reasonable inquiry, FIE locks information known, or readily
obtainable, To ’ro
i’r
admit or deny?
Plaintiff argues That ’rhe above answers given in The amended responses ore
evasive 0nd incomplete, 0nd Tho’r The objections ore without merit3 Because The original
2
The court finds The additional objections as to vagueness 0nd ombigui’ry cs untimely. (See Coy
v. Sup. Cf. of Contra Cosfa County (1962) 58 Col.2d 210, 21 6—21 7.)
3 The court notes tho? plaintiff foiled to request a pretrial discovery conference on The amended
responses pursuant 10 Local Rule 2.1 .1 7.However, the court notes The hisiory of The porfies
appearing before the coun‘ on The issues raised in The present mofion, 0nd proceeds.
16
RFAs were n01 included in ifs entirety with the mo’rion, The coun‘ locks The obili’ry ’ro
evoluo’re either.
There ore no means by which This court con evaluate whether FlE's answers ore
evasive or incomplete in order To determine whether furTher responses ore warranted.
Plainfiff relies on ’rhe deposifion of Jon Grobowski. Grobowski Testified Tho? he adjusts Mid—
CenTury, Foremost, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Fire Insurance Exchange claims.
(Peterson Decl., 1] 13 and Ex. D.) Plaintiff concludes that FIE does hove information known
or readily obtainable To if To admi’r or deny The genuineness of The documents identified
in the requests of ’rhe Dispute, and Therefore FIE's answers in The amended responses ore
evasive, which Grobowski verified Gs True 0nd correct.
Grobowski's Testimony is presented in The abstract, 0nd establishes no
connections ’ro The requests of The Dispute. The Testimony That Grobowski adjusts claims
for various en’ri’riesdoes no’r by itself establish any evosiveness or incompleteness in FIE's
task, for example, To ”odmi’r The genuineness of The documents Bo’res—s’romped FARMR
000136—000205, ofioched cs Exhibit B.” (E.g., Plaintiff‘s Seporo’re Statement, Request No.
2; see also Peterson Decl., 1] 13, 0nd Ex. D.) I’r
is uncleorfo ’rhe court what ’rhe contents of
Exhibit B are in relation To Grobowski‘s ’res’rimony, 0nd why Grobowski's verification on
behalf of FIE is evasive or incomplete.
Neither ore There ony means by which This court con evoluo’re whether ’rhe
objections of relevance, undue burden, or confidentiality hove merif for The some reason.
For example, The cour’r isunable To determine whether ’rhe requests of The Dispufe ore
subject ’ro o confidentiality privilege wifhouf The contents underlying The requests of
Dispute. Though plaintiff wished To no’r overwhelm ’rhe court with over o Thousand pages
of exhibits, offering To submi’r ’rhe exhibits Upon request of the cour’r, i1 is ’rhe moving por’ry's
obligation to ’rimely file moving 0nd supporting papers. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, subd.
(b).) The motion To compel fur'rher responses is denied. The request for sonc’rions Thereon
isdenied.
Pursuant To California Rules of Cour’r, rule 3.1312(0), 0nd Code of Civil Procedure
section 1019.5, subdivision (o), no further wri’rTen order is necessary. The minute order
adopting This fen’ro’rive ruling will serve as The order of The cour’r 0nd service by The clerk
will constitute no’rice of The order.
Tentative
Issued By:
Ruling
KCK L7<7
(Judge’ s initials)
/% ‘
on ’2 / g
(Dofé) //
2/
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO FOR COURTUSE ONLY
Civil Department, Central Division
_
1130 "O“ Street
Fresno, California 93724-0002
(559) 457-2000
TITLE 0F CASE:
Edward Funez vs. Fire Insurance Exchange
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING Cfisgégléfifiss
|certify that|am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the:
[Minute Order and Tentative Ruling, dated 12/8/21]
was placed ina sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below
following our ordinary business practice. Iam readily familiar with this court‘s practice for collectingand 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 with postage fully prepaid.
Place of mailing:
On Date:
Fresno, California
1209/2021
93724-0002
Clerk, by W2 '
E.
g 2g
Alcarado
.Deputy
J. Edward Kerley Alexi P Antoniou -
Kerley Schaffer LLP ~
Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP
1939 Harrison St.,Suite 900 7108 N. Fresno St., Suite 250
OakIand, CA 94612 Fresno, CA 93720
Michelle R Ferber John R. Brydon
Ferber Law, P.C. Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP
2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 385 ‘
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Ramon, CA 94583 San Francisco, CA 941 04
D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached
TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO Entered by: Civil Department - Non-Limited TITLE 0F CASE: Edward Funez vs. Fire Insurance Exchange Case Number: LAW AND ' MOTION MINUTE ORDER 19CECGOZ755 Hearing Date: December 8, 2021 Hearing Type: Motion -Admissions Deemed Admitted Department: 403 Judge: Kristi Culver Kapetan Court Clerk: Estela Alvarado Reporter: Not Reported Appearing Parties: Plaintiff:No Appearances Defendant: No Appearances Counsel: Counsel: [ ] Off Calendar [ ]Continuedto [ ]Setfor _ at _ Dept._ for _ [ ] Submitted on points and authorities with/without argument. [ ] Matter isargued and submitted. [ ] Upon filing of points and authorities. [ ]Motion is granted [‘] inpart and denied'in part. [ ]Motion isdenied [ ]with/without prejudice. [ ]Taken under advisement [X] No Ofal Argument requested; per Local Rule 2.2.6 & CRC 3.1308(a)(1). [X] Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Three, and request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. [X] Tentative ruling becomes the order_of the court. See attached copy of the Tentative Ruling. [X] Pursuant to CRC 3.1312(a) 5nd CCP section 1019.5(a), no further order is necessary. The minute order adopting the tentative ruling serves as the order of the court. [X] Service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. [ ] Judgment debtor__ sworn and examined. [ ] Judgment debtor_ failed to appear. Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ __ JUDGMENT: ‘ ‘\ [ ]Money damages [ ]Default [ ]Other _ entered in the amountof: Principal $_ |nterest$_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $_ Total $_ [ ]Claim of exemption [ ]granted [ ]denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_ per FURTHER, COURT ORDERS: [ ]Monies held by levying officerto be [ ]releasedtojudgmentcreditor. [ ]returnedtojudgmentdebtor. [ ]$__ to be released tojudgment creditor and balance returned tojudgment debtor. [ ]Levying Officer County of ,notified. [ ]Writto issue - [ ] Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ] Restitution of Premises I ] Other_ CV-14b R03-18 r-_ Il__.I_A__. LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER (35) Tentative Ruling Re: Funez v. Fire Insurance Exchange et al. Superior Court Case No. 19CECGO2755 y Hearing Date: December8,2021 (Depf.403) Motion: Plainfiff's Motion ’ro Compel Fur’rher Responses ’ro Request for Admissions, Se’r Three Tentative Ruling: To deny plaintiff's mo’rion ’ro compel further responses f0 request for admissions, se’r Three, 0nd request for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290.) Explanation; On November 30, 2020, plaintiff propounded on defendant Fire Insurance Exchange (“FIE") o Request for Admissions, Set Three (“RFAs”), containing 59 requests. (Declaration of Nicholas J. Peterson, 1]2.) On January 4, 2021 , FIE served only objection responses To each of The 59 requesfs. (Id.,'fl 3, 0nd Ex. A.) On February 16, 2021 ,plaintiff requested c pre—Triol discovery conference on, among o’rherThings, oll of The 59 requests of The RFAs. On February 22, 2021 , The cour’r issued on order ’rhof plaintiff may proceed wiTh a motion To compel fur’rher responses To The RFAs. , On July 9, 2021, FIE served amended responses ’roThe RFAs. (Id.,1] H, 0nd Ex. C.) On August 20, 2021, plaintiff met and conferred wi’rh FIE regarding ’rhe amended responses. (Id., 1]12.) Plaintiff now seeks ’ro compel fun‘her responses To The RFAs, Gs ’ro Requests Nos. 2—1 31, 37—44, 46, 49-54, 56—57, 0nd 59 (collectively The ”Dispu’re"). Each of ’rhe 59 requests pertained To seeking admissions or denials of The genuineness of various documents. (Ibid.) The RFAs'were noT attached to The present mofion, but the responses appear To hove copied ’rhe language of each request. (E.g., Peferson Dec|., 1| 3 and Ex. A thereto.) Each of The requests of The Dispute hove The some general question, To admit ’rhe genuineness of on ofioched document. (E.g., Plaintiff's Separate S’ro’remen’r, Reques’r No. 2.) The initial response To each of The requests of ’rhe Dispufe is identical, as follows: Responding Pcn‘y objects To This request cs i1 isunnecessary 0nd Therefore meon’r only To vex, harass, and otherwise annoy Responding PorTy. Responding Por’ry fur’rher objects Tho’r These documents are pcn‘en’rly irrelevant 0nd ore no’r reasonably calculated f0 lead To The discovery of admissible evidence in This cos'e. Responding Por’ry further objects That I The court notes that plaintiff's Notice of Motion identifies Request Nos. 1—3, while The argument identifies Request Nos. 2—13. The coun‘ proceeds on what was presented in the concurrently filed separate statement. 15 These documents con’rdin information Tho’r is confidential 0nd is ’rhe private information of Third por’ries who ore no’r related To ’rhe insfon’r lawsuit. /_ (E.g., id., Request No. 2.) In sum, FIE raises objections on Three grounds: relevance, undue burden, 0nd confidential information. The amended response To each of ’rhe requests of The Dispute ore olso idenficol, as follows: Defendon’r objects To This request os ’rhe documents ’rhct’r ore The subject of This requesf ore pofem‘ly irrelevant ’rothe claims 0nd defenses herein 0nd ore no’r reasonably calculated To leod To The discovery of admissible evidence 0nd ore Thus unduly burdensome 0nd harassing. Defendant further objects To This request ’roThe ex’ren’r Tho’r said documents contain information That is confidential, proprietary, private, privileged, cmd/or otherwise profec’red from disclosure. Defendant objects fun‘her To This request to The extent Tho? Ploin’riffs request to odmi’r The "genuineness" of said documem‘s calls upon Defendant ’ro odmi’r anything oTher Than whether they ore on exact copy of whd’r They purport ’ro be, particularly Gs ’ro ’rhe ou’rhenficofion or admissibility Thereof. Defendanf objects further To This request cs Plainfiff's request To admit The "gen‘uineness" of said documents is vogue and ambiguous in 0nd of i’rself.Defendant objects furTher to This request as i’rrequires Defendant ’ro examine each document cmd compare every detail in i’rexoc’rly wi’rh documents Tho’r moy hove been produced or moin’roined elsewhere, making The request unduly burdensome 0nd harassing 0nd also no’r full0nd complete in and of i’rself. since responding ’ro The reques’r necessarily requires reference ’ro o’rher I ' sources. Wi’rhou’r waiving soid objections, 0nd subject Therefo, Defendant responds as follows: Af’rer having mode o reasonable inquiry concerning ’rhe mofier in This request, Defendant sfo’res ’rhcn‘ The documents Tho’r ore ’rhe subject ofk ’rhisrequest ore no’r, ond/or do no’r appear To be, documen’rs fho’r were generated or produced by This Defendant in cmy confex’r. Therefore, ’rhe information known To, or readily obtainable by, Defendant is insufficient ’ro enable Defendant To odmh‘ The mofier set forth in This request. In sum, on amended response, FIE raises fhé some Three objec’rions, and provides o response Tho’r offer reasonable inquiry, FIE locks information known, or readily obtainable, To ’ro i’r admit or deny? Plaintiff argues That ’rhe above answers given in The amended responses ore evasive 0nd incomplete, 0nd Tho’r The objections ore without merit3 Because The original 2 The court finds The additional objections as to vagueness 0nd ombigui’ry cs untimely. (See Coy v. Sup. Cf. of Contra Cosfa County (1962) 58 Col.2d 210, 21 6—21 7.) 3 The court notes tho? plaintiff foiled to request a pretrial discovery conference on The amended responses pursuant 10 Local Rule 2.1 .1 7.However, the court notes The hisiory of The porfies appearing before the coun‘ on The issues raised in The present mofion, 0nd proceeds. 16 RFAs were n01 included in ifs entirety with the mo’rion, The coun‘ locks The obili’ry ’ro evoluo’re either. There ore no means by which This court con evaluate whether FlE's answers ore evasive or incomplete in order To determine whether furTher responses ore warranted. Plainfiff relies on ’rhe deposifion of Jon Grobowski. Grobowski Testified Tho? he adjusts Mid— CenTury, Foremost, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Fire Insurance Exchange claims. (Peterson Decl., 1] 13 and Ex. D.) Plaintiff concludes that FIE does hove information known or readily obtainable To if To admi’r or deny The genuineness of The documents identified in the requests of ’rhe Dispute, and Therefore FIE's answers in The amended responses ore evasive, which Grobowski verified Gs True 0nd correct. Grobowski's Testimony is presented in The abstract, 0nd establishes no connections ’ro The requests of The Dispute. The Testimony That Grobowski adjusts claims for various en’ri’riesdoes no’r by itself establish any evosiveness or incompleteness in FIE's task, for example, To ”odmi’r The genuineness of The documents Bo’res—s’romped FARMR 000136—000205, ofioched cs Exhibit B.” (E.g., Plaintiff‘s Seporo’re Statement, Request No. 2; see also Peterson Decl., 1] 13, 0nd Ex. D.) I’r is uncleorfo ’rhe court what ’rhe contents of Exhibit B are in relation To Grobowski‘s ’res’rimony, 0nd why Grobowski's verification on behalf of FIE is evasive or incomplete. Neither ore There ony means by which This court con evoluo’re whether ’rhe objections of relevance, undue burden, or confidentiality hove merif for The some reason. For example, The cour’r isunable To determine whether ’rhe requests of The Dispufe ore subject ’ro o confidentiality privilege wifhouf The contents underlying The requests of Dispute. Though plaintiff wished To no’r overwhelm ’rhe court with over o Thousand pages of exhibits, offering To submi’r ’rhe exhibits Upon request of the cour’r, i1 is ’rhe moving por’ry's obligation to ’rimely file moving 0nd supporting papers. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, subd. (b).) The motion To compel fur'rher responses is denied. The request for sonc’rions Thereon isdenied. Pursuant To California Rules of Cour’r, rule 3.1312(0), 0nd Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (o), no further wri’rTen order is necessary. The minute order adopting This fen’ro’rive ruling will serve as The order of The cour’r 0nd service by The clerk will constitute no’rice of The order. Tentative Issued By: Ruling KCK L7<7 (Judge’ s initials) /% ‘ on ’2 / g (Dofé) // 2/ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO FOR COURTUSE ONLY Civil Department, Central Division _ 1130 "O“ Street Fresno, California 93724-0002 (559) 457-2000 TITLE 0F CASE: Edward Funez vs. Fire Insurance Exchange CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING Cfisgégléfifiss |certify that|am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the: [Minute Order and Tentative Ruling, dated 12/8/21] was placed ina sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. Iam readily familiar with this court‘s practice for collectingand 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 with postage fully prepaid. Place of mailing: On Date: Fresno, California 1209/2021 93724-0002 Clerk, by W2 ' E. g 2g Alcarado .Deputy J. Edward Kerley Alexi P Antoniou - Kerley Schaffer LLP ~ Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP 1939 Harrison St.,Suite 900 7108 N. Fresno St., Suite 250 OakIand, CA 94612 Fresno, CA 93720 Michelle R Ferber John R. Brydon Ferber Law, P.C. Demler Armstrong & Rowland, LLP 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 385 ‘ 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Ramon, CA 94583 San Francisco, CA 941 04 D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING