On July 01, 2014 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Abrush, Stephen,
Adams, John,
Aumavae, Tony,
Brandon, Linell,
Buckley, Paula,
Campbell, April,
Campos, Belinda,
Catone, Joseph,
Chaloeicheep, Juthaporn,
Covino, Cameron,
Craig, Raymond,
Dempsy, Jackson,
Deurloo, David,
Duimond, Larry,
Galindo, Paul,
George, David,
Haun, Jennifer,
Henry, Shauna,
Hillard, Mark,
Hoffner, Tamara,
Hooper, Jennifer,
Hylton, Robin,
Jacobs, Dale,
James, Yolanda,
Jerez, Brndon,
Kahwaty, Mark,
Kennedy, Darryl,
Kruithof, Richard,
Lamont, Green,
Mcfadden, Kozera,
Medina-Diaz, Abraham,
Medina-Diaz, Angel,
Medina, Sandra,
Mills, Chris,
Moore, Darryl,
Morris, Jeffrey,
Morris, Lori,
Mosky, Philip,
Olguin, Maria,
Otis, Jackson,
Parise, Nicholas,
Patrick, Dena Marie,
Patrick, William,
Perkins, Clarence,
Reid, Robert,
Reyes, Jennifer,
Rizo, Denise,
Rosales, Ricardo,
Salmassi, Shayan,
Sanders, Ken,
Schmidt, Dennis,
Stewart, John,
Straud, John,
Tedronne, Breston,
Trupiano, Carol,
Tyran, Nancy,
Wennihan, Craig,
Wilder, Barry,
Wilder, David,
Williams, Israel,
Civic Center Hotel Llc,
Thakor, Balwantsinh,
and
Adams, John,
Buckley, Paula,
Campbell, April,
Campos, Belinda,
Catone, Joseph,
Galindo, Paul,
George, David,
Hooper, Jennifer,
Jerez, Brndon,
Mcfadden, Kozera,
Mills, Chris,
Morris, Jeffrey,
Morris, Lori,
Olguin, Maria,
Perkins, Clarence,
Stewart, John,
Wennihan, Craig,
Wilder, Barry,
Balwantsinh, Thakor,
Civic Center Hotel Llc,
Civic Center Hotel, Llc From Case # Cgc-15-544372,
Does 1 To 10 Inclusive,
Does 1 To 10, Inclusive,
Security Title Insurance Co.,
Thakor, Balwantsinh,
U.A. Local 38 Pension Trust Fund,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
oO we ND BOO
ww NY NN NN BS Be we Be Be Be ee ee
QA A fF BN §— Ss © eo WY DA WS WY = So
27
28]
n\5217016788
7
¢galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
docs iso opp to
David P. Wasserman, Esq. (SBN 171923)
WASSERMAN-STERN
2960 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109
Tel: (415) 567-9600; Fax: (415) 567-9696
Email: dwasserman@wassermanstern.com
G. Kelley Reid, Jr., Esq. (SBN 056034)
Michelle M. Gildea, Esq. (SBN 178817)
BORTON PETRINI, LLP
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of Caltfomia,
County of San Frencisco
06/03/2015
Clerk of the Court
BY:MADONNA CARANTO
Deputy Clerk
660 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite B, San Rafael, CA 94903
Tel: (415) 677-0730; Fax: (415) 677-0737
Email: kreid@bortonpetrini.com
Attorneys for Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38
PENSION TRUST FUND
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
PAUL GALINDO; BRANDON JEREZ; JEFFREY
MORRIS; LORI MORRIS; CRAIG WENNIHAN;
CHRIS MILLS; KOZERA MCFADDEN; APRIL
CAMPBELL; PAULA BUCKLEY; JOHN
ADAMS; JENIFER HOOPER; BARRY WILDER;
JOSEPH CATONE; DAVID GEORGE,
CLARENCE PERKINS; MARIA OLGUIN;
BELINDA CAMPOS; GUILLERMO RAMOS;
MARCEL PARIZAL; MIVIN LIBERTUS;
BARBARA WARTHEN; LARRY PETTIT;
TERRI JONES; SHAHYAR MANSOUR;
SANDRA DIAZ; ANGELO MALLAMO;
RODGER WOODARD; MARY TELEB; DANILO
NALUZ; DAVID WEED; SALVADORE
REYNOLDS; BURDETTE GREEN; TAMARA
COLE; ANTHONY COOK; JOHN BROWN;
YOON SENG SAECHAO; MARGARITA
RUDOLPH; ANTHONY TURCO; CHRISTINE
LUNCEFORD; SHAWN BUCKMASTER;
JOSIAH PURDIE; JEROME ALLEN; TROY
TORRES; ROBERT THOMSON; ANGELIQUE
MAYWEATHER; ANTHONY HINSON;
MICHAEL BENNETT; MICHAEL WOOLEY;
NATHANIEL ALLEGER; AND SHANNON
PLESKAC;
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
SECURITY TITLE INSURANCE CO.; CIVIC
CENTER HOTEL, LLC; BALWANSINH
THAKOR; U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION FUND,
AND DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Defendant:
1
Case No. CGC14-540325
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION
TRUST _FUND’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
DATE: June 5, 2015
TIME: 9:30
DEPT: 501
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBw oN
xa aA uw
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ha\5217016788,
7
galindo\pleadi
gs\sep stmt
does iso opp to
Comes now Defendant, U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND and submits the
following separate statement in support of opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel responses to
Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 17:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with Civic
Center Hotel, LLC regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS”
provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a
specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in
violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010.
Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent
search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will
produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 18:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with Security
Title Insurance Co. regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS”
provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a
specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in
violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010.
Mh
2
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS! MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESMW wo oN
wo we ND
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22)
23
24
25
26
27
28
bA5217016788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
oes iso opp to
Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent
search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will
produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 19:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with
Balwantsinh Thakor regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS”
provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a
specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in
violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010.
Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent
search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not
have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as Responding
Party did not make any direct agreements with Balwantsinh Thakor.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party did not make any direct
agreements with Balwantsinh Thakor. Through its Qualified Property Asset Manager, WhiteStar
Advisors, there is a lease agreement with Balwantsinh Thakor. This is the only AGREEMENT involving
Balwantsinh Thakor, and Plaintiffs already have a copy of that lease.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 20:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with Gopal Shah
regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
//1
3
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES10
ie
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22)
23
24
25
26
27
28
h:152170\6788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
docs iso opp to
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS”
provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a
specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in
violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010.
Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent
search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not
have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as Responding
Party did not make any direct agreements with Gopal Shah.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party did not make any direct
agreements with Gopal Shah, and therefore does not have any DOCUMENTS evidencing
AGREEMENTS which do not exist. Plaintiffs’ insistence on requesting items which do not exist is
harassing.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 27:
ALL DOCUMENTS sent to the San Francisco Department of Public Health regarding
pest control treatments performed at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and
October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control as Responding Party did not arrange for pest control services at the
PROPERTY, as the responsibility lies with the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, nor did Responding Party
communicate with the San Francisco Department of Public Health regarding pest control treatments.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have possession,
custody, or control over any documents responsive 7 this request. Plaintiffs’ insistence on demanding
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESeo oN DAD mW FB WN
xo
10}
11
12|
13
14
15
16
17
18
19]
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15217016788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
documents that do not exist is harassing.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 38:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and
the California Department of Industrial Relations regarding the elevator at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL
between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. Responding Party does not correspond
with the California Department of Industrial Relations regarding the elevator at CIVIC CENTER
HOTEL, and therefore Plaintiffs’ continuing demand for DOCUMENTS _ evidencing
CORRESPONDENCE which does not exist is harassing.
REQUEST NO. 39:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Balwantsinh Thakor
regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a
diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party
does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 40:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Civic Center Hotel, LLC
docs iso opp to
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESwo wm IN AM
10
u
12
B
14
15
16
17
18
19
20)
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
hA52170\6788
7
galindo'pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
docs iso opp to
regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a
diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party
does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 41:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Security Title Insurance Co.
regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a
diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party
does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 42:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and the San Francisco Department
of Building Inspection regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is
overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a
diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party
does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESN
oO wm IN DA nN SF WwW
10)
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19}
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\S21706788,
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
docs iso opp to
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 44:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL rent payments that YOU received from Civic
Center Hotel, LLC between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 45:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL rent payments that YOU received from
Balwantsinh Thakor between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control, as BALWANTSINH THAKOR does not pay rent to Responding
Party.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 47:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU
and any third party CONCERNING the PROPERTY between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
///
7
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESvw pw bv
wo ND
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1\5217016788,
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stint
does iso opp to
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47:
Responding Party objects that this request is vague, overbroad, and burdensome. This
request seeks any correspondence with any person regarding the entire property for a time period just
short of four years, and as such fails to satisfy the requirements of C.C.P. § 2030.010, which require a
Propounding Party to identify the documents sought with particularity.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant stands by this objection. Plaintiffs, in their moving papers to this motion,
finally limit the production of CORRESPONDENCE to WhiteStar Advisors, PREI Capital Group, Jay
Garcia, any CONTRACTOR, any government official or representative from the Department of
Building Inspection, Department of Public Health, and Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and
insurance companies; and limit the request temporally to January 1, 2010 to October 28, 2014. While
Defendant appreciates this last meet and confer effort, any responsive documents have already been
produced through Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Wasserman.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 48:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Balwantsinh Thakor
regarding Notices of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building
Inspection between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control, as BALWANTSINH THAKOR was employed by WhiteStar
Advisors, and communications regarding the state of the building and notices of violations would be
directed to WhiteStar, not Responding Party.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Any responsive documents have already been produced to Plaintiffs through Defendant’s
counsel, Mr. Wasserman.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 49:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Civic Center Hotel, LLC
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBow NY
ry na uw
10}
i
12
1B
14]
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b\52170\6788
7
galindotpleadi
ngs\sep stmt
regarding Notices of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building
Inspection between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control, as the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL is managed by WhiteStar Advisors,
and communications regarding the state of the building and notices of violations would be directed to
WhiteStar, not Responding Party.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Any responsive documents have already been produced to Plaintiffs through Defendant’s
counsel, Mr. Wasserman.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 50:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Security Title Insurance Co.
regarding Notices of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building
Inspection between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 51:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Gopal Shah regarding Notices
of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection
between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
docs iso opp to
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES10
re
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25|
26
27
28
5217016788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control, as the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL is managed by WhiteStar Advisors,
and communications regarding the state of the building and notices of violations would be directed to
4]| WhiteStar, not Responding Party.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 52:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE regarding selling the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and as such is
vague, overbroad, and burdensome. Further, the request fails to identify an author or a recipient of
correspondence and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with
C.C.P. § 2030.010.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Plaintiffs, in their moving papers to this motion, finally limit the production of
CORRESPONDENCE to WhiteStar Advisors, PREI Capital Group, Jay Garcia, any CONTRACTOR,
any government official or representative from the Department of Building Inspection, Department of
Public Health, and Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and insurance companies; and limit the
request temporally to January 1, 2010 to October 28, 2014. While Defendant appreciates this last meet
and confer effort, and as is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 53:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and inspectors of the San
Francisco Department of Public Health CONCERNING the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore seeks
documents over an indefinite period of time, making the request vague, overbroad, and harassing.
does iso opp to
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESoO we DO BO DD
10
if
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22]
23
24
25
26
27
28
hAS2170\6788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
docs iso opp to
Responding Party further objects that the subject matter of the requested correspondence is vague and
overbroad and fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with C.C.P. §
2030.010. Responding Party is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of this request.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53:
Responding Party has reviewed its records subject to the meet and confer efforts between
counsel between March 16, 2015 and March 24, 2015. Without waiver and subject to the previously
stated objections, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 54:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and inspectors of the San
Francisco Department of Building Inspection CONCERNING the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore seeks
documents over an indefinite period of time, making the request vague, overbroad, and harassing.
Responding Party further objects that the subject matter of the requested correspondence is vague and
overbroad and fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with C.C.P. §
2030.010. Responding Party is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of this request.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54:
Responding Party has reviewed its records subject to the meet and confer efforts between
counsel between March 16, 2015 and March 24, 2015. Without waiver and subject to the previously
stated objections, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
//1
uy
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBow ON
a nA Ww
10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hA52170\6788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 58:
ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and CONTRACTORS who
performed WORK at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58:
Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore seeks
documents over an indefinite period of time, making the request vague, overbroad, and harassing.
Responding Party further objects that the subject matter of the requested correspondence is vague and
overbroad and fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with C.C-P. §
2030.010. Responding Party is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of this request.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58:
Responding Party has reviewed its records subject to the meet and confer efforts between
counsel between March 16, 2015 and March 24, 2015. Without waiver and subject to the previously
stated objections, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A.. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 59:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL WORK performed on the PROPERTY between
January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 59:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control. 7
docs iso opp to
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBow bv
wv
Oo we IND
28
bs\52170\6788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 64:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL notices, written or oral, that YOU gave to
TENANTS for entry into TENANTS’ rooms at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL from January 1, 2010 to
October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 64:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control as any communication to TENANTS is made by the CIVIC CENTER
HOTEL and its employees, not Responding Party.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 66:
ALL DOCUMENTS exchanged between YOU and CONTRACTORS regarding the
CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66:
Responding Party objects that this request does not identify a specific subject matter and
as such fails to identify the documents requested with particularity in accordance to C.C.P. § 2030.010.
Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a
reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-
privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
/f1
13
docs iso opp to
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESmW woh
ooo OD
10}
i
12
13
14|
15
16|
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'52170\6788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 67:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL agreements that YOU made with
CONTRACTORS regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28,
2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 67:
Responding Party objects that this request does not identify a specific subject matter of
the “agreements” and as such fails to identify the documents requested with particularity in accordance
to C.C.P. § 2030.010. Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a
diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will
produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 68:
ALL DOCUMENTS identifying, by name, phone number, and address, ALL
CONTRACTORS who performed WORK at the PROPERTY between January 1, 2010 and October 28,
2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 68:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive
documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 69:
ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL dates when CONTRACTORS performed WORK
at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
//1
14
docs iso opp to
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESaD WwW PF w WN
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h\52170\6788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 69:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 74:
Copies of ALL written disclosures provided to TENANTS regarding histories of bedbug
infestations in units at the PROPERTY between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014 pursuant to
Section 621 of Article 11A of the San Francisco Health Code.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 74:
Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in
its possession, custody or control as any communication to TENANTS is made by the CIVIC CENTER
HOTEL and its employees, not Responding Party.
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents
responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 75:
ALL DOCUMENTS exchanged between YOU and the San Francisco Fire Department
regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75:
Responding Party objects that this request does not identify a specific subject matter and
as such fails to identify the documents requested with particularity in accordance to C.C.P. § 2030.010.
Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a
reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-
privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
docs iso opp to
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESNoe
a A Ww
oo
10
ul
12
1B
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5217016788
7
galindo\pleadi
ngs\sep stmt
docs iso opp to
REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any
responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced.
Dated: _June 2, 2015
BORTON PETRINI, LLP
By. -
G. KELLE ID, JR., Attorneys for
Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION
TRUST FUND
16
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Preview
oO we ND BOO ww NY NN NN BS Be we Be Be Be ee ee QA A fF BN §— Ss © eo WY DA WS WY = So 27 28] n\5217016788 7 ¢galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt docs iso opp to David P. Wasserman, Esq. (SBN 171923) WASSERMAN-STERN 2960 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel: (415) 567-9600; Fax: (415) 567-9696 Email: dwasserman@wassermanstern.com G. Kelley Reid, Jr., Esq. (SBN 056034) Michelle M. Gildea, Esq. (SBN 178817) BORTON PETRINI, LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of Caltfomia, County of San Frencisco 06/03/2015 Clerk of the Court BY:MADONNA CARANTO Deputy Clerk 660 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite B, San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: (415) 677-0730; Fax: (415) 677-0737 Email: kreid@bortonpetrini.com Attorneys for Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PAUL GALINDO; BRANDON JEREZ; JEFFREY MORRIS; LORI MORRIS; CRAIG WENNIHAN; CHRIS MILLS; KOZERA MCFADDEN; APRIL CAMPBELL; PAULA BUCKLEY; JOHN ADAMS; JENIFER HOOPER; BARRY WILDER; JOSEPH CATONE; DAVID GEORGE, CLARENCE PERKINS; MARIA OLGUIN; BELINDA CAMPOS; GUILLERMO RAMOS; MARCEL PARIZAL; MIVIN LIBERTUS; BARBARA WARTHEN; LARRY PETTIT; TERRI JONES; SHAHYAR MANSOUR; SANDRA DIAZ; ANGELO MALLAMO; RODGER WOODARD; MARY TELEB; DANILO NALUZ; DAVID WEED; SALVADORE REYNOLDS; BURDETTE GREEN; TAMARA COLE; ANTHONY COOK; JOHN BROWN; YOON SENG SAECHAO; MARGARITA RUDOLPH; ANTHONY TURCO; CHRISTINE LUNCEFORD; SHAWN BUCKMASTER; JOSIAH PURDIE; JEROME ALLEN; TROY TORRES; ROBERT THOMSON; ANGELIQUE MAYWEATHER; ANTHONY HINSON; MICHAEL BENNETT; MICHAEL WOOLEY; NATHANIEL ALLEGER; AND SHANNON PLESKAC; Plaintiffs, Vv. SECURITY TITLE INSURANCE CO.; CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, LLC; BALWANSINH THAKOR; U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION FUND, AND DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant: 1 Case No. CGC14-540325 SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST _FUND’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS DATE: June 5, 2015 TIME: 9:30 DEPT: 501 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBw oN xa aA uw 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ha\5217016788, 7 galindo\pleadi gs\sep stmt does iso opp to Comes now Defendant, U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND and submits the following separate statement in support of opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 17: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with Civic Center Hotel, LLC regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS” provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010. Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 18: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with Security Title Insurance Co. regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS” provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010. Mh 2 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS! MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESMW wo oN wo we ND 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28 bA5217016788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt oes iso opp to Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 19: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with Balwantsinh Thakor regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS” provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010. Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as Responding Party did not make any direct agreements with Balwantsinh Thakor. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party did not make any direct agreements with Balwantsinh Thakor. Through its Qualified Property Asset Manager, WhiteStar Advisors, there is a lease agreement with Balwantsinh Thakor. This is the only AGREEMENT involving Balwantsinh Thakor, and Plaintiffs already have a copy of that lease. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 20: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL AGREEMENTS that YOU made with Gopal Shah regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. //1 3 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES10 ie 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28 h:152170\6788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt docs iso opp to RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Responding Party further objects to the definition of “AGREEMENTS” provided by Propounding Party as vague and overbroad as other than oral or written, fails to identify a specific type of agreement and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in violation of C.C.P. § 2030.010. Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as Responding Party did not make any direct agreements with Gopal Shah. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party did not make any direct agreements with Gopal Shah, and therefore does not have any DOCUMENTS evidencing AGREEMENTS which do not exist. Plaintiffs’ insistence on requesting items which do not exist is harassing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 27: ALL DOCUMENTS sent to the San Francisco Department of Public Health regarding pest control treatments performed at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control as Responding Party did not arrange for pest control services at the PROPERTY, as the responsibility lies with the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, nor did Responding Party communicate with the San Francisco Department of Public Health regarding pest control treatments. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have possession, custody, or control over any documents responsive 7 this request. Plaintiffs’ insistence on demanding SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESeo oN DAD mW FB WN xo 10} 11 12| 13 14 15 16 17 18 19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15217016788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt documents that do not exist is harassing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 38: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and the California Department of Industrial Relations regarding the elevator at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. Responding Party does not correspond with the California Department of Industrial Relations regarding the elevator at CIVIC CENTER HOTEL, and therefore Plaintiffs’ continuing demand for DOCUMENTS _ evidencing CORRESPONDENCE which does not exist is harassing. REQUEST NO. 39: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Balwantsinh Thakor regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 40: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Civic Center Hotel, LLC docs iso opp to SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESwo wm IN AM 10 u 12 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20) 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 hA52170\6788 7 galindo'pleadi ngs\sep stmt docs iso opp to regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 41: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Security Title Insurance Co. regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 42: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection regarding the elevator at the PROPERTY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore is overbroad and burdensome. Subject to and without wavier of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESN oO wm IN DA nN SF WwW 10) i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19} 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \S21706788, 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt docs iso opp to REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 44: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL rent payments that YOU received from Civic Center Hotel, LLC between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 45: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL rent payments that YOU received from Balwantsinh Thakor between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as BALWANTSINH THAKOR does not pay rent to Responding Party. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Responding Party does not have documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 47: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and any third party CONCERNING the PROPERTY between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. /// 7 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESvw pw bv wo ND 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1\5217016788, 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stint does iso opp to RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47: Responding Party objects that this request is vague, overbroad, and burdensome. This request seeks any correspondence with any person regarding the entire property for a time period just short of four years, and as such fails to satisfy the requirements of C.C.P. § 2030.010, which require a Propounding Party to identify the documents sought with particularity. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant stands by this objection. Plaintiffs, in their moving papers to this motion, finally limit the production of CORRESPONDENCE to WhiteStar Advisors, PREI Capital Group, Jay Garcia, any CONTRACTOR, any government official or representative from the Department of Building Inspection, Department of Public Health, and Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and insurance companies; and limit the request temporally to January 1, 2010 to October 28, 2014. While Defendant appreciates this last meet and confer effort, any responsive documents have already been produced through Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Wasserman. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 48: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Balwantsinh Thakor regarding Notices of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as BALWANTSINH THAKOR was employed by WhiteStar Advisors, and communications regarding the state of the building and notices of violations would be directed to WhiteStar, not Responding Party. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Any responsive documents have already been produced to Plaintiffs through Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Wasserman. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 49: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Civic Center Hotel, LLC SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBow NY ry na uw 10} i 12 1B 14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b\52170\6788 7 galindotpleadi ngs\sep stmt regarding Notices of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL is managed by WhiteStar Advisors, and communications regarding the state of the building and notices of violations would be directed to WhiteStar, not Responding Party. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Any responsive documents have already been produced to Plaintiffs through Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Wasserman. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 50: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Security Title Insurance Co. regarding Notices of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 51: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and Gopal Shah regarding Notices of Violations at the PROPERTY issued by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to docs iso opp to SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES10 re 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25| 26 27 28 5217016788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control, as the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL is managed by WhiteStar Advisors, and communications regarding the state of the building and notices of violations would be directed to 4]| WhiteStar, not Responding Party. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 52: ALL CORRESPONDENCE regarding selling the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and as such is vague, overbroad, and burdensome. Further, the request fails to identify an author or a recipient of correspondence and as such fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with C.C.P. § 2030.010. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Plaintiffs, in their moving papers to this motion, finally limit the production of CORRESPONDENCE to WhiteStar Advisors, PREI Capital Group, Jay Garcia, any CONTRACTOR, any government official or representative from the Department of Building Inspection, Department of Public Health, and Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and insurance companies; and limit the request temporally to January 1, 2010 to October 28, 2014. While Defendant appreciates this last meet and confer effort, and as is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 53: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and inspectors of the San Francisco Department of Public Health CONCERNING the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore seeks documents over an indefinite period of time, making the request vague, overbroad, and harassing. does iso opp to SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESoO we DO BO DD 10 if 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 hAS2170\6788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt docs iso opp to Responding Party further objects that the subject matter of the requested correspondence is vague and overbroad and fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with C.C.P. § 2030.010. Responding Party is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of this request. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53: Responding Party has reviewed its records subject to the meet and confer efforts between counsel between March 16, 2015 and March 24, 2015. Without waiver and subject to the previously stated objections, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 54: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and inspectors of the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection CONCERNING the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore seeks documents over an indefinite period of time, making the request vague, overbroad, and harassing. Responding Party further objects that the subject matter of the requested correspondence is vague and overbroad and fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with C.C.P. § 2030.010. Responding Party is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of this request. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54: Responding Party has reviewed its records subject to the meet and confer efforts between counsel between March 16, 2015 and March 24, 2015. Without waiver and subject to the previously stated objections, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. //1 uy SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBow ON a nA Ww 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hA52170\6788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 58: ALL CORRESPONDENCE exchanged between YOU and CONTRACTORS who performed WORK at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58: Responding Party objects that this request fails to set temporal limits and therefore seeks documents over an indefinite period of time, making the request vague, overbroad, and harassing. Responding Party further objects that the subject matter of the requested correspondence is vague and overbroad and fails to identify the documents sought with particularity in accordance with C.C-P. § 2030.010. Responding Party is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of this request. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58: Responding Party has reviewed its records subject to the meet and confer efforts between counsel between March 16, 2015 and March 24, 2015. Without waiver and subject to the previously stated objections, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A.. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 59: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL WORK performed on the PROPERTY between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 59: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. 7 docs iso opp to SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESBow bv wv Oo we IND 28 bs\52170\6788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 64: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL notices, written or oral, that YOU gave to TENANTS for entry into TENANTS’ rooms at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL from January 1, 2010 to October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 64: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control as any communication to TENANTS is made by the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL and its employees, not Responding Party. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 66: ALL DOCUMENTS exchanged between YOU and CONTRACTORS regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66: Responding Party objects that this request does not identify a specific subject matter and as such fails to identify the documents requested with particularity in accordance to C.C.P. § 2030.010. Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non- privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. /f1 13 docs iso opp to SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESmW woh ooo OD 10} i 12 13 14| 15 16| 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 '52170\6788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 67: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL agreements that YOU made with CONTRACTORS regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 67: Responding Party objects that this request does not identify a specific subject matter of the “agreements” and as such fails to identify the documents requested with particularity in accordance to C.C.P. § 2030.010. Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 68: ALL DOCUMENTS identifying, by name, phone number, and address, ALL CONTRACTORS who performed WORK at the PROPERTY between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 68: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 69: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing ALL dates when CONTRACTORS performed WORK at the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. //1 14 docs iso opp to SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESaD WwW PF w WN 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h\52170\6788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 69: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 74: Copies of ALL written disclosures provided to TENANTS regarding histories of bedbug infestations in units at the PROPERTY between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014 pursuant to Section 621 of Article 11A of the San Francisco Health Code. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 74: Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party does not have any non-privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control as any communication to TENANTS is made by the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL and its employees, not Responding Party. REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE As is made clear in the above response, Defendant does not have any documents responsive to this request in its possession, custody or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 75: ALL DOCUMENTS exchanged between YOU and the San Francisco Fire Department regarding the CIVIC CENTER HOTEL between January 1, 2010 and October 28, 2014. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75: Responding Party objects that this request does not identify a specific subject matter and as such fails to identify the documents requested with particularity in accordance to C.C.P. § 2030.010. Subject to and without waiver of objection, Responding Party conducted a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to locate the items requested. Responding Party will produce any non- privileged responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. docs iso opp to SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIESNoe a A Ww oo 10 ul 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5217016788 7 galindo\pleadi ngs\sep stmt docs iso opp to REASON THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND has already produced any responsive documents through counsel Mr. Wasserman. There are no further documents to be produced. Dated: _June 2, 2015 BORTON PETRINI, LLP By. - G. KELLE ID, JR., Attorneys for Defendant U.A. LOCAL 38 PENSION TRUST FUND 16 SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO DEFENDANT U.A. LOCAL 38 'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES