Preview
IEICE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-11-2012 10:36 am
Case Number: CGC-11-514980
Filing Date: Sep-11-2012 10:36
Filed by: RONNIE OTERO
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03758098
DECLARATION OF
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON et al VS. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS
001C03758098
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.A BR WN
eo
C. Todd Norris, SBN 181337
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
601 California Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: 415.352.2700
Facsimile: 415.352.2701
E-Mail: todd.norris@bullivant.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED REAL
ESTATE GROUP, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED | Case No.: CGC-11-514980
REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.,
DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS
Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE
REALTY,
Date: September 24, 2012
Defendant. Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 302
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Trial Date: October 9, 2012
I, C. Todd Norris, declare as follows:
1, I am an attorney with Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, counsel of record for
Plaintiffs Jason Everett Thompson and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. I am licensed to practice
law in the Courts of the State of California, and a member in good standing of the California
bar. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called upon, I could and would
competently testify to the matters stated herein.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true copy of my April 12, 2012 email to
defense counsel, Jess Barsotti, offering to clarify over the phone any alleged ambiguities in
plaintiffs’ discovery requests, of which there were none. Never, at any time, did Ms. Barsotti
13867775.1 -1-
DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONattempt to discuss with me by phone or otherwise any alleged ambiguities in plaintiffs’
straightforward discovery requests.
3. Ms. Barsotti contends she attempted to meet and confer about the alleged
ambiguitics in a May 3, 2012 telephone call between counsel, but that plaintiffs” counsel
refused. What actually occurred during that telephone call is that counsel discussed (a) moving
up the mediation date in the Court’s Early Settlement Program to an earlier date to see if the
case could be resolved; (b) what documents needed to be exchanged in order to have a
successful mediation; and (c) extending the dates for motions to compel in the event said
motions were necessary.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of my May 3, 2012 email
to Ms. Barsotti concerning moving the mediation date.
5. During the May 3 telephone call, Ms. Barsotti agreed that extending the time to
move to compel made sense so that the parties could focus on trying to resolve the case.
Attached hercto as Exhibit C is a true copy of my email to Ms. Barsotti seeking to nail down a
date certain for the extensions to move to compel.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of my June 20, 2012
email to Ms. Barsotti requesting a further meet and confer in light of the failed mediation. Ms.
Barsotti never responded or acknowledged this request as was her habit on multiple occasions
prior to this last request.
7. Duc to the egregious miss-statement of facts made in support of this motion, I
became skeptical that the passing of Ms. Barsotti’s father in fact had anything at all to do with
Ms. Barsotti’s failure to contest the court’s tentative ruling on the underlying motion. [ inquired
with Ms. Barsotti (having already offered by condolences on an earlier occasion) as to when her
father had passed away. Ms. Barsotti refused multiple times to provide a date, insisting that the
date was not relevant despite having relied upon this fact as a basis for her motion. Attached
hereto as Exhibit E are true copies of my emails to Ms. Barsotti dated August 31, 2012 and
September 4, 2012.
] declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13867775.1 _2- _
DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION !O DEFENDANT'S,
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONforegoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in San Francisco, California,
COL
on September 11. 2012.
© Todd Ngfris
se
13867775.1 ~3-
DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONEXHIBIT ANorris, Todd
From: Norris, Todd
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:12 PM
To: ‘Jess Barsotti’
Subject: RE: Asimos' Discovery Responses
Jess ~ | suspect the court will take a different view about whether your client has made a gi th attempt to respond
to the discovery or whether your client's willful evasiveness required plaintiff to move to compel. Moreover, the code
does not provide that a party waives its objections “unless the party decides that it doesn’t understand the request.”
The objections are waived, period. You need to withdraw them and make a good faith effort to respond as best your
client can or face sanctions for your failure to follow the clear dictates of the code. The court will decide whether your
client’s effort is sufficient. If you need clarification about particular requests, you may call me to discuss the requests
you are having difficulty with. | have no obligation to write you a letter about clear straightforward requests that your
client never made even the most minimal good faith effort to respond to. Your attempts to waste my time and my
client's money are misguided as Mr. Asimos will be face a hefty attorneys award wher this m: ris over. My offer
for 2 phone cail to discuss any perceived “ambiguities” stands. Hfido ni ive prog responses with all
objections withdrawn as required by the explicit language of the cade, we will move to compel.
Todd Norris
From: Jess Barsotti [mailto:barsottilaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:21 PM
To: Norris, Todd
Subject: Re: Asimos' Discovery Responses
My client has already responded to the discovery propounded as fully as possible given the inartful drafting and
ambiguities present therein. Again, provide specific complaints regarding the responses, or clarification of the
requests when ambiguity is present, and we will be happy to respond. Otherwise, my client obviously will be
unable to respond further.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Norris, ‘odd wrote:
Jess — for the fourth or fifth time now, your client’s refusal to take this case seriously and to provide timely responses to
the discovery resulted in a waiver of all objections under the code. Please confirm that you will immediately serve
supplemental responses without objection to each of the requests and interrogatories. If you wait until a motion is on
file, be advised that we will not withdraw our request for sanctions
Todd Norris
415.352.2720EXHIBIT BNorris, Todd
From: Norris, Todd
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 6:13 PM
To: ‘Jess Barsotti'
Subject: Early Settlement Program
Jess ~ from the rules, it appears we have to make a written application to reschedule. I’m skeptical they will give us an
earlier date, but it’s worth a shot it seems. How about if | request June 8, 15 or 22? | believe they only schedule these
on Fridays.
Todd
C. Todd Norris | Shareholder
y PC | 603 Californie Si, | Sylva +800 | San Brancienn, CA SAIS 722
ivaniEXHIBIT CNorris, Todd
From: Norris, Todd
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:14 PM
To: ‘Jess Barsotti’
Subject: Mutual Extensions of time to Move to Compel
Jess —1 will get a proposed protective order to you next week. In the meantime, can we agree that we are extending
each other’s time to move to compel until August 10, 2012? That is one week following the currently scheduled
mediation. This is a mutual extension that applies to all motions to compel on all discovery served by either side. Of
course, either side may move to compel earlier if deemed necessary. The purpose of the extension is so that we can
hopefully work out discovery disputes without having to file motions.
Please confirm your agreement to the above, as the code requires such extensions to be in writing and for a date
certain.
Thank you,
Todd
C. Todd Norris | Shareholder
Heasser igEXHIBIT DNorris, Tedd
Norris, Todd
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:06 PM
‘parsottilaw@gmail.com
Plaintiffs‘ Motion to Compel
Dear Jess -- as you know, the rules of procedure require the parties to meet and confer prior
to filing a motion to compel.
As you also know, your client failed to serve timely responses to plaintiffs’ discovery,
which waived all of his objections pursuant to the applicable code provision previously cited
by our office.
So far, you have offered no justification for your refusal to serve amended responses without
epjections. Your failure to offer any explanation is a violation of your obligation to meet
and confer.
Please let me know this week whether Mr. Asimos will be serving amended responses without
objections. If he will not, please explain your justification for his refusal, so that we
‘ay add that to our motion.
Regards,
Todd
todd Norris
1 415.352.2720EXHIBIT ENorris, Todd
From: Norris, Todd
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:59 AM
To: ‘Jess Barsotti’
Subject: RE: Motion for Reconsideration
the date of his
1
2 caurt ¢
my oppos
Todd Norris
From: Jess Barsotti [mailto:barsottilaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:29 PM
To: Norris, Todd
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration
Todd,
There are no misrepresentations whatsoever in my motion. My father indeed passed away and | indeed had to
leave town, the date of his passing is not relevant to this discussion. You know as well as I do that we had a
telephone conversation on May 3 wherein I asked you for clarification of the RFA's and which you refused to
make any clarification. You also know that we provided more than 400 pages of responsive documents to the
requests for production. You also know that you never mentioned this supposed issue or problem with the
document production a single time during our meet and confer efforts. My client and I have no problem
answering intelligible RFA's, and I have even attempted to answer the unintelligible ones despite your refusal to
clarify them.
In addition, despite the fact that we had several telephone conversations regarding this case, I received an 11th
hour Notice of Objection to the deposition of Mr. Thompson nearly two weeks after you received the notice in
an obvious attempt to prevent my client from gaining important and relevant information regarding the serious
allegations made against him in your client's complaint.
First, you and your client objected, without any merit, to providing his residence address in response to the form
interrogatories and now before a three day weekend you claim that he lives in Nevada. As you know, my client
is entitled to discovery in this case by September 10 as well.
As for the discovery responses, I have sent you the supplement along with my motion. There is nothing else to
provide other than the statement that we made a diligent scarch for the supposed additional documents that you
claim we didn't give you. I can assure you that there is nothing else to provide. That is the point of my motion.
This entire "dispute" is a fabrication. We have nothing to hide and there is nothing else to provide.
Jessica
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Norris, Todd wrote:
Jess — please consider this notice that I am requesting that you submit to the court under oath a copy of your
father’s obituary or other reliable documentary proof indicating the date of his passing, in addition to my
1request that you provide that date to me immediately. The serious misrepresentations of fact made to the court
in your motion raise questions about whether or not your father’s passing had anything at all to do with your
failure to contest the court’s tentative ruling.
Also, please note that [ am already scheduled for a hearing in Los Angeles on September 24, 2012, so the
hearing date you selected without conferring with me will have to be moved.
Finally, having just received your motion for reconsideration the afternoon before a holiday weekend, you may
expect to hear from me in more detail by Tuesday concerning the court's current order requiring your client to
respond to pending discovery and to pay sanctions (see attached order). Your motion for reconsideration does
not relieve Mr. Asimos of the obligation to comply with that order, particularly given the fact that my client is
entitled to finish discovery for this case by September 10. Should your client fail to timely comply with the
Court’s order, we will move for further sanctions, including terminating sanctions and a default judgment.
Your inability to cite authority relieving you of the obligation to comply with the court’s August 23 order will
serve as a basis for further sanctions for fees incurred in pursuit of your client’s compliance.
Rather than wasting time drafting a frivolous and unfounded motion for reconsideration, you could have
supplemented your client’s long overdue discovery responses. That imprudent choice was made at your client’s
own peril.
Todd
C. Todd Norris | Shareholder
£ 415.352.2720 | 415.352.2701 | 5 ses. Ling
mail.bullivant.com made the following annotations
Please be advised that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail,
including attachments, is not intended to be used by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that
may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.Cm ND nH B®
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Thompson, and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Asimos, dba Drake Realty
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-514980
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco by the law firm of Bullivant
Houser Bailey, PC ("the business"), 601 California Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA
94108. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. On September 11, 2012, I served
the document(s) entitled:
DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
upon the following party(ies):
Jessica R. Barsotti
Eugene Zinovyev
Attorneys at Law
5032 Woodminster Ln.
Oakland, CA 94602
Tel: 510-530-4078
Fax: 510-530-4725
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE
REALTY
oO BY MAIL (CCP § 1013(a)): I am readily familiar with the ordinary practice of the
business with respect to the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing
with the United States Postal Service. I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above-
titled document(s) in an envelope(s) addressed as above, with first class postage thereon
fully prepaid. I sealed the aforesaid envelope(s) and placed it(them) for collection and
mailing by the United States Postal Service in accordance with the ordinary practice of
the business. Correspondence so placed is ordinarily deposited by the business with the
United States Postal Service on the same day.
(1 BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (CCP § 101 3(e), CRC 2.306): I transmitted the
document(s) by facsimile transmission by placing it(them) in a facsimile machine
(telephone number 415-352-2701) and transmitting it(them) to the facsimile machine
telephone number(s) listed above. A transmission report was properly issued by the
transmitting facsimile machine. Each transmission was reported as complete and
without error. A true and correct copy of the transmission report is attached hereto.
ih] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (CCP § 1013(c)): I am readily familiar with the
ordinary practice of the business with respect to the collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing by Express Mail and other carriers providing for overnight
delivery. I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in an
envelope(s) addressed as above, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. I sealed
the aforesaid envelope(s) and placed it(them) for collection and mailing by Express Mail
or other carrier for overnight delivery in accordance with the ordinary practice of the
13867775. -1l-
PROOF OF SERVICEpe
a
YN Dw FB wWN
10
11
12
13
14
16
7
18
19
20
21
n
23
24
25
26
27
28
business. Correspondence so placed is ordinarily deposited by the business with Express
Mail or other carrier on the same day.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON AN ATTORNEY (CCP § 1011(a)): I placed a true
and correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in a sealed envelope(s) addressed
as indicated above. I delivered each of said envelope(s) by hand to a receptionist or a
person authorized to accept same at the address on the envelope, or, if no person was
present, by leaving the envelope in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours
of nine in the morning and five in the afternoon.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON A PARTY (CCP § 1011(b)): I placed a true and
correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as
indicated above. I delivered each of said envelope(s) by hand to a person of not less
than 18 years of age at the address listed on the envelope, between the hours of eight in
the morning and six in the evening.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
September 11, 2012, at San Francisco, California.
Dwary 9). [ode
Daisy I. Bréyles i OU
aoa ek
13867775.1 =2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
IEICE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-11-2012 10:36 am Case Number: CGC-11-514980 Filing Date: Sep-11-2012 10:36 Filed by: RONNIE OTERO Juke Box: 001 Image: 03758098 DECLARATION OF JASON EVERETT THOMPSON et al VS. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS 001C03758098 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.A BR WN eo C. Todd Norris, SBN 181337 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 601 California Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: 415.352.2700 Facsimile: 415.352.2701 E-Mail: todd.norris@bullivant.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED | Case No.: CGC-11-514980 REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC., DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE REALTY, Date: September 24, 2012 Defendant. Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Trial Date: October 9, 2012 I, C. Todd Norris, declare as follows: 1, I am an attorney with Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Jason Everett Thompson and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. I am licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State of California, and a member in good standing of the California bar. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called upon, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true copy of my April 12, 2012 email to defense counsel, Jess Barsotti, offering to clarify over the phone any alleged ambiguities in plaintiffs’ discovery requests, of which there were none. Never, at any time, did Ms. Barsotti 13867775.1 -1- DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONattempt to discuss with me by phone or otherwise any alleged ambiguities in plaintiffs’ straightforward discovery requests. 3. Ms. Barsotti contends she attempted to meet and confer about the alleged ambiguitics in a May 3, 2012 telephone call between counsel, but that plaintiffs” counsel refused. What actually occurred during that telephone call is that counsel discussed (a) moving up the mediation date in the Court’s Early Settlement Program to an earlier date to see if the case could be resolved; (b) what documents needed to be exchanged in order to have a successful mediation; and (c) extending the dates for motions to compel in the event said motions were necessary. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of my May 3, 2012 email to Ms. Barsotti concerning moving the mediation date. 5. During the May 3 telephone call, Ms. Barsotti agreed that extending the time to move to compel made sense so that the parties could focus on trying to resolve the case. Attached hercto as Exhibit C is a true copy of my email to Ms. Barsotti seeking to nail down a date certain for the extensions to move to compel. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of my June 20, 2012 email to Ms. Barsotti requesting a further meet and confer in light of the failed mediation. Ms. Barsotti never responded or acknowledged this request as was her habit on multiple occasions prior to this last request. 7. Duc to the egregious miss-statement of facts made in support of this motion, I became skeptical that the passing of Ms. Barsotti’s father in fact had anything at all to do with Ms. Barsotti’s failure to contest the court’s tentative ruling on the underlying motion. [ inquired with Ms. Barsotti (having already offered by condolences on an earlier occasion) as to when her father had passed away. Ms. Barsotti refused multiple times to provide a date, insisting that the date was not relevant despite having relied upon this fact as a basis for her motion. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true copies of my emails to Ms. Barsotti dated August 31, 2012 and September 4, 2012. ] declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13867775.1 _2- _ DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION !O DEFENDANT'S, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONforegoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in San Francisco, California, COL on September 11. 2012. © Todd Ngfris se 13867775.1 ~3- DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONEXHIBIT ANorris, Todd From: Norris, Todd Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:12 PM To: ‘Jess Barsotti’ Subject: RE: Asimos' Discovery Responses Jess ~ | suspect the court will take a different view about whether your client has made a gi th attempt to respond to the discovery or whether your client's willful evasiveness required plaintiff to move to compel. Moreover, the code does not provide that a party waives its objections “unless the party decides that it doesn’t understand the request.” The objections are waived, period. You need to withdraw them and make a good faith effort to respond as best your client can or face sanctions for your failure to follow the clear dictates of the code. The court will decide whether your client’s effort is sufficient. If you need clarification about particular requests, you may call me to discuss the requests you are having difficulty with. | have no obligation to write you a letter about clear straightforward requests that your client never made even the most minimal good faith effort to respond to. Your attempts to waste my time and my client's money are misguided as Mr. Asimos will be face a hefty attorneys award wher this m: ris over. My offer for 2 phone cail to discuss any perceived “ambiguities” stands. Hfido ni ive prog responses with all objections withdrawn as required by the explicit language of the cade, we will move to compel. Todd Norris From: Jess Barsotti [mailto:barsottilaw@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:21 PM To: Norris, Todd Subject: Re: Asimos' Discovery Responses My client has already responded to the discovery propounded as fully as possible given the inartful drafting and ambiguities present therein. Again, provide specific complaints regarding the responses, or clarification of the requests when ambiguity is present, and we will be happy to respond. Otherwise, my client obviously will be unable to respond further. On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Norris, ‘odd wrote: Jess — for the fourth or fifth time now, your client’s refusal to take this case seriously and to provide timely responses to the discovery resulted in a waiver of all objections under the code. Please confirm that you will immediately serve supplemental responses without objection to each of the requests and interrogatories. If you wait until a motion is on file, be advised that we will not withdraw our request for sanctions Todd Norris 415.352.2720EXHIBIT BNorris, Todd From: Norris, Todd Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 6:13 PM To: ‘Jess Barsotti' Subject: Early Settlement Program Jess ~ from the rules, it appears we have to make a written application to reschedule. I’m skeptical they will give us an earlier date, but it’s worth a shot it seems. How about if | request June 8, 15 or 22? | believe they only schedule these on Fridays. Todd C. Todd Norris | Shareholder y PC | 603 Californie Si, | Sylva +800 | San Brancienn, CA SAIS 722 ivaniEXHIBIT CNorris, Todd From: Norris, Todd Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:14 PM To: ‘Jess Barsotti’ Subject: Mutual Extensions of time to Move to Compel Jess —1 will get a proposed protective order to you next week. In the meantime, can we agree that we are extending each other’s time to move to compel until August 10, 2012? That is one week following the currently scheduled mediation. This is a mutual extension that applies to all motions to compel on all discovery served by either side. Of course, either side may move to compel earlier if deemed necessary. The purpose of the extension is so that we can hopefully work out discovery disputes without having to file motions. Please confirm your agreement to the above, as the code requires such extensions to be in writing and for a date certain. Thank you, Todd C. Todd Norris | Shareholder Heasser igEXHIBIT DNorris, Tedd Norris, Todd Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:06 PM ‘parsottilaw@gmail.com Plaintiffs‘ Motion to Compel Dear Jess -- as you know, the rules of procedure require the parties to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to compel. As you also know, your client failed to serve timely responses to plaintiffs’ discovery, which waived all of his objections pursuant to the applicable code provision previously cited by our office. So far, you have offered no justification for your refusal to serve amended responses without epjections. Your failure to offer any explanation is a violation of your obligation to meet and confer. Please let me know this week whether Mr. Asimos will be serving amended responses without objections. If he will not, please explain your justification for his refusal, so that we ‘ay add that to our motion. Regards, Todd todd Norris 1 415.352.2720EXHIBIT ENorris, Todd From: Norris, Todd Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:59 AM To: ‘Jess Barsotti’ Subject: RE: Motion for Reconsideration the date of his 1 2 caurt ¢ my oppos Todd Norris From: Jess Barsotti [mailto:barsottilaw@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:29 PM To: Norris, Todd Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration Todd, There are no misrepresentations whatsoever in my motion. My father indeed passed away and | indeed had to leave town, the date of his passing is not relevant to this discussion. You know as well as I do that we had a telephone conversation on May 3 wherein I asked you for clarification of the RFA's and which you refused to make any clarification. You also know that we provided more than 400 pages of responsive documents to the requests for production. You also know that you never mentioned this supposed issue or problem with the document production a single time during our meet and confer efforts. My client and I have no problem answering intelligible RFA's, and I have even attempted to answer the unintelligible ones despite your refusal to clarify them. In addition, despite the fact that we had several telephone conversations regarding this case, I received an 11th hour Notice of Objection to the deposition of Mr. Thompson nearly two weeks after you received the notice in an obvious attempt to prevent my client from gaining important and relevant information regarding the serious allegations made against him in your client's complaint. First, you and your client objected, without any merit, to providing his residence address in response to the form interrogatories and now before a three day weekend you claim that he lives in Nevada. As you know, my client is entitled to discovery in this case by September 10 as well. As for the discovery responses, I have sent you the supplement along with my motion. There is nothing else to provide other than the statement that we made a diligent scarch for the supposed additional documents that you claim we didn't give you. I can assure you that there is nothing else to provide. That is the point of my motion. This entire "dispute" is a fabrication. We have nothing to hide and there is nothing else to provide. Jessica On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Norris, Todd wrote: Jess — please consider this notice that I am requesting that you submit to the court under oath a copy of your father’s obituary or other reliable documentary proof indicating the date of his passing, in addition to my 1request that you provide that date to me immediately. The serious misrepresentations of fact made to the court in your motion raise questions about whether or not your father’s passing had anything at all to do with your failure to contest the court’s tentative ruling. Also, please note that [ am already scheduled for a hearing in Los Angeles on September 24, 2012, so the hearing date you selected without conferring with me will have to be moved. Finally, having just received your motion for reconsideration the afternoon before a holiday weekend, you may expect to hear from me in more detail by Tuesday concerning the court's current order requiring your client to respond to pending discovery and to pay sanctions (see attached order). Your motion for reconsideration does not relieve Mr. Asimos of the obligation to comply with that order, particularly given the fact that my client is entitled to finish discovery for this case by September 10. Should your client fail to timely comply with the Court’s order, we will move for further sanctions, including terminating sanctions and a default judgment. Your inability to cite authority relieving you of the obligation to comply with the court’s August 23 order will serve as a basis for further sanctions for fees incurred in pursuit of your client’s compliance. Rather than wasting time drafting a frivolous and unfounded motion for reconsideration, you could have supplemented your client’s long overdue discovery responses. That imprudent choice was made at your client’s own peril. Todd C. Todd Norris | Shareholder £ 415.352.2720 | 415.352.2701 | 5 ses. Ling mail.bullivant.com made the following annotations Please be advised that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended to be used by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.Cm ND nH B® 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Thompson, and Wired Real Estate Group, Inc. v. Asimos, dba Drake Realty San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-514980 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco by the law firm of Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC ("the business"), 601 California Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94108. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. On September 11, 2012, I served the document(s) entitled: DECLARATION OF C. TODD NORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION upon the following party(ies): Jessica R. Barsotti Eugene Zinovyev Attorneys at Law 5032 Woodminster Ln. Oakland, CA 94602 Tel: 510-530-4078 Fax: 510-530-4725 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, dba DRAKE REALTY oO BY MAIL (CCP § 1013(a)): I am readily familiar with the ordinary practice of the business with respect to the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above- titled document(s) in an envelope(s) addressed as above, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. I sealed the aforesaid envelope(s) and placed it(them) for collection and mailing by the United States Postal Service in accordance with the ordinary practice of the business. Correspondence so placed is ordinarily deposited by the business with the United States Postal Service on the same day. (1 BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (CCP § 101 3(e), CRC 2.306): I transmitted the document(s) by facsimile transmission by placing it(them) in a facsimile machine (telephone number 415-352-2701) and transmitting it(them) to the facsimile machine telephone number(s) listed above. A transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. Each transmission was reported as complete and without error. A true and correct copy of the transmission report is attached hereto. ih] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (CCP § 1013(c)): I am readily familiar with the ordinary practice of the business with respect to the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing by Express Mail and other carriers providing for overnight delivery. I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in an envelope(s) addressed as above, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid. I sealed the aforesaid envelope(s) and placed it(them) for collection and mailing by Express Mail or other carrier for overnight delivery in accordance with the ordinary practice of the 13867775. -1l- PROOF OF SERVICEpe a YN Dw FB wWN 10 11 12 13 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 n 23 24 25 26 27 28 business. Correspondence so placed is ordinarily deposited by the business with Express Mail or other carrier on the same day. BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON AN ATTORNEY (CCP § 1011(a)): I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as indicated above. I delivered each of said envelope(s) by hand to a receptionist or a person authorized to accept same at the address on the envelope, or, if no person was present, by leaving the envelope in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the afternoon. BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON A PARTY (CCP § 1011(b)): I placed a true and correct copy(ies) of the above-titled document(s) in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as indicated above. I delivered each of said envelope(s) by hand to a person of not less than 18 years of age at the address listed on the envelope, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 11, 2012, at San Francisco, California. Dwary 9). [ode Daisy I. Bréyles i OU aoa ek 13867775.1 =2- PROOF OF SERVICE