Preview
MIATA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-10-2012 11:47 am
Case Number: CGC-11-514980
Filing Date: Aug-10-2012 11:46
| Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03720466
DECLARATION OF
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON et al VS. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS
001003720466
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
LtLAW OFFICES OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI
1 || Jessica Barsotti, Esq., SBN 209557
5032 Woodminster Lane ¥ Ek
2 || Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Superior Court of Califbrnia
510.530.4078 C vy of San Francisco:
3 || 510.530.4725 (FAX) / AUG 10 2012
4
Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, we ER OF TH E COURT
5 || Dean Gregory Asimos, dba Drake Realty . Deputy Cale —
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 || JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and
WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
Case No.: CGC-11-514980
ATTORNEY JESSICA R. BARSOTTI’S
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
12 Plaintiffs,
Date: August 23, 2012
REALTY Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Defendant.
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE
)
)
13 vs. )
15 Time: 9:00am.
is | DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE) Dept.: 302
)
)
)
19 |) REALTY }
20 Cross-Complainant, }
21 |Ivs, }
22 || JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and )
WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.)
23 ||and DOES 1 through 50. }
24 Cross-Defendants. }
25 J
)
26 )
)
27
DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI
Thompson, et al v. Asimos
Opposition to motion to compel 110
aT
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, JESSICA R. BARSOTTI, declare as follows:
1.
10.
11.
12.
DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI
Thompson, et al v. Asimos
Opposition to motion to compel 2
1am a licensed attorney in the State of California and counsel for Defendant in
the above-captioned matter.
I make this declaration from personal knowledge and if called to testify to the
matters herein I could do so competently.
On April 4, 2012 I received an email from C. Todd Norris, counsel for Plaintiffs
in this matter regarding discovery requests propounded by his client.
Norris stated in this email that discovery responses were overdue.
The master calendar in my office indicated that the responses were not due until
the next day, April 5, 2012, to which Norris responded that my assertion was
incorrect because the discovery request had been hand delivered.
Upon reviewing the proof of service I determined that Norris was correct in his
assertion, and that my office had mistakenly calendared the delivery by mail,
extending the due date until April 5, 2012.
Upon realizing this mistake I requested a reasonable extension of time to deliver
the responses on April 9. 2012, which Norris denied with no justification.
That same date, April 4, 2012 I faxed a copy of the responses to the requests for
admission to Norris as those were the only responses that were ready for delivery.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the email
correspondence referred to above in paragraphs 3-8.
On April 10, 2012 I mailed the remaining responses requested to Norris, including
objections.
Upon receiving the responses, Norris demanded that I amend the responses to
withdraw all objections due to my office’s calendaring mistake and his refusal to
agree to a reasonable extension of time.
I refused to withdraw all objections on the basis that the untimeliness of the
responses was a result of mistake by my office and on the basis that Norris had no
reasonable basis for refusing to allow a short extension of time.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. In addition, many of my objections were due to ambiguities present in the
requests. My attempts both in writing and in telephone conversations with Norris
to obtain clarity on the questions and what further information was requested were|
in vain. Norris flatly refused to provide any clarity or to even discuss which
responses were inadequate making it impossible for my client to respond further.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of my efforts to meet and
confer with Norris regarding his claim of insufficient responses.
14, Defendant, in an attempt to resolve the issues presented by this motion, has
amended responses to the Requests for Admission, Set one. A true and correct
copy of the proposed amended responses is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
15. [have spent a total of 2 hours preparing this opposition to Plaintiffs motion to
compel further discovery responses, and billed my client at $295.00 per hour for
such preparation and request that Norris and his client be sanctioned in the
amount of $500.00 for bringing this frivolous motion.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on August 9,.2012 at Oakland, California!
DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI
Thompson, et al vy. Asimos
Opposition to motion to compel 3Exhibit 1Gmail - Asimos' Discovery Reggonses Page 1 of 7
Jess Barsotti< qnuneshiemenpepeiionemt,
Asimos' Discovery Responses
13 messages
Norris, Todd< deseeheme@uenrraraaer Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM
To: Jess Barsotti
Jess — according to my calendar, your clients’ verified responses to plaintiffs’ discovery are now past due.
Please let me know the status. Thank you.
C. Todd Norris | Shareholder
Bullivant Houser Bailey PC | 601 California St. | Suite 1800 | San Francisco, CA 94108-2823
T 415.352.2720 | F 415.352.2701 | Bio | Email | Website [Linkedin
Seattle . Vancouver . Portland . San Francisco . Las Vegas
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.
Jess Barsotti< quits > Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:46 PM
To: "Norris, Todd" < Tein’ pecieiemegs>
Todd,
According to my calendar they are due tomorrow. | have not gotten all responsive documents as of yet and
ask for the courtesy of an extension of time until Monday April 9 to provide such responses. Please let me
know if this is acceptable to you.
Jessica
{Quoted text hidden]
ica R. Barsotti
Law Office of Jessica R. Barsotti
5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94620
te] 510-530-4078
fax 510-530-4725
Jess Barsotti< easabiiamGpgrrereeme > Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=eec96354al &view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Gmail - Asimos' Discovery wo e Page 2 of 7
To: "Norris, Todd”
| do have the requests for admissions responses which | will fax to you today.
[Quoted text hidden}
Norris, Todd<
To: Jess Barsotti Iieomiennibaanay
Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Jess, your office was served by hand on February 29. Accordingly, they are past due and all objections are
waived. Please provide the responses immediately or we will move to compel.
Furthermore, you have never articulated a reason why your client continues to refuse to instruct Mr.
Gutierrez to release the funds from the parties’ Astound commission. It is clear your client continues to
act in bad faith in this matter. We intend to seek all appropriate remedies, including attorneys fees,
which Mr. Thompson is clearly entitled to under the parties’ agreement. In addition, | am looking into a
basis for punitive damages with respect to Mr. Asimos’ refusal to issue appropriate instructions to Mr.
Gutierrez. If they are not available under the current claims asserted in the complaint, we will amend to
add an appropriate claim.
Todd
C. Todd Norris | Shareholder
Bullivant Houser Bailey PC | 601 California St. | Suite 1800 | San Francisco, CA 94108-2823
T 415.352.2720 | F 415.352.2701 | Bio | Email | Website [Linkedin
Seattle . Vancouver . Portland . San Francisco . Las Vegas.
From: Jess Barsotti [mailto seensessienntngemniinnmas |
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:46 PM
To: Norris, Todd
Subject: Re: Asimos' Discovery Responses
{Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden}
Jess Barsotti< srRetina@eneteman Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:04 PM
To: "Norris, Todd"
To: Jess Barsotti
Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Jess —| just received the responses to requests for admissions. Please consider this a meet and confer
effort in order to avoid a motion to compel. Asimos’ responses to the Requests For Admission are
inadequate for two reasons: First, all objections are waived because they were not timely completed and
served. C.C.P. Sec, 2033.80. Second, Asimos has not verified the responses. C.C.P. Sec. 2033.240, If we
do not receive corrected responses without any objections within ten days, we will move to compel.
C. Todd Norris | Shareholder
Bullivant Houser Bailey PC | 601 California St. | Suite 1800 | San Francisco, CA 94108-2823
T 415.352.2720 | F 415.352.2701 | Bio | Email | Website |LinkedIn
Seattle . Vancouver . Portland . San Francisco . Las Vegas
From: Jess Barsotti [mailto: amnbisdanasdanapnentiamemed)
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:50 PM
To: Norris, Todd
Subject: Re: Asimos' Discovery Responses
| do have the requests for admissions responses which | will fax to you today.
[Quoted text hidden}
[Quoted text hidden]
Norris, Todd< Todd.Norris@bullivant.com> Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM
To: Jess Barsotti
Jess,
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=eec96354a1 & view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Gmail - Asimos' Discovery oe Page 4 of 7
You have told me from day one that your client would issue appropriate instructions, so your email below
is just another disguised refusal to comply. It will be clear to any mediator or Judge which of the parties
has been unreasonable here, and which party is liable for the other party’s attorneys fees. | need a date
certain by which you will instruct Mr. Guttierrez to distribute the funds to Mr. Thompson. Otherwise,
your email below is yet another empty promise. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is now entitled to significant
interest and attorneys fees associated with the Astound commission. How do you intend to address
that?
Todd Norris
T 415.352.2720
From: Jess Barsotti [mailto xaammmmiiaianaeervet Coe?
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:05 PM
{Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden}
{Quoted text hidden]
Norris, Todd< (mahinig@piniemeennay> Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM
To: Jess Barsotti
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
T 415.352.2720
From: Jess Barsotti [mailt
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:14 PM
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden}
{Quoted text hidden}
Jess Barsotti< (RUUiim@yrneere Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM
To: "Norris, Todd"
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.
{Quoted text hidden}
Norris, Todd < Todd.Norris@bullivant.com> Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM
To: Jess Barsotti
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=eec963 54al &view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Gmail - Asimos' Discovery we a Page 7 of 7
Jess — | suspect the court will take a different view about whether your client has made a good faith
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 fee
award when this matter is over. My offer for a phone call to discuss any perceived “ambiguities” stands.
If | do not receive properly amended responses with all objections withdrawn as required by the explicit
language of the code, we will move to compel.
Todd Norris
T 415.352.2720
From: Jess Barsotti [mailto:barsottilaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:21 PM
{Quoted text hidden}
[Quoted text hidden]
{Quoted text hidden}
i=2.&ik=ee096354al &view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Exhibit 310
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE LAW OFFICE OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI
Jessica R. Barsotti Esq. / SBN 209557
5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602
510.530.4078
510.530.4725 / FAX
Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Complainant,
Dean Gregory Asimos, dba Drake Realty
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and
WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE
REALTY
DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE
REALTY
Cross-Complainant,
vs.
JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and
WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
and DOES 1 through 50.
Cross-Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant. :
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: CGC-11-514980
DEFENDANT DEAN GREGORY
ASIMOS’S [PROPOSED] AMENDED
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION, SET ONE
DEFENDANT’S AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE,
110
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Jason Everett Thompson
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant DEAN GREGORY
ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE REALTY
SET NUMBER: One (1)
Comes now Defendant and Cross-Complainant Dean Asimos and amends the following resposes to
Request for Admissions as follows:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Objection, compound, vague and ambiguous. Notwithstanding
Responding Party lacks the information to admit or deny the request and has conducted a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter and the information known or readily available is insufficient to enable
the responding party to admit the request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased, and as to the
meaning of “agreed” and “Thompson’s bank account”. Responding party admits that Thompson paid
commissions to Asimos from a bank account, but responding party lacks information regarding whose
bank account was used to make the payments.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased, and as to the
meaning of “first learned of the idea to use”. Responding party admits that he first heard the name
“Wired Real Estate” from Thompson.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Objection, vague and ambiguous as to time, and on that basis,
responding party lacks information to admit or deny the request and has conducted a reasonable inquiry
concerning the matter and the information known or readily available is insufficient to enable the
responding party to admit the request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Objection, compound, vague and ambiguous as to “the
agreement” and as phrased. Responding party asserts that the language of all of the agreements between|
the Propounding party and Responding party speak for themselves.
2
DEFENDANT’S AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Objection, compound, vague and ambiguous as to the
agreement referenced and as phrased. If the Propounding party is referring to the Independent
Contractor Agreement between Asimos and Thompson dated January 1, 2009, Denied.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Objection, compound, conjunctive, and vague and ambiguous
as to the agreements referenced and as to the definition of “defendants”. If the propounding party is
referring to Thompson and Wired Real Estate Group as “defendants”, though they are the plaintiffs in
this action, and if the propounding party is referring to the independent contractor agreements between
Asimos and Thompson dated June 4, 2008 and January 1, 2009, denied.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased and as to the
meaning of the term “refused”. Responding party admits that he registered and maintained a dba in the
name of Wire Real Estate Group in San Mateo County as the real estate broker of record for Wired Real
Estate.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased. Responding
party admits that he registered and maintained a dba in the name of Wire Real Estate Group as the real
estate broker of record for Wired Real Estate Group as required by the Department of Real Estate.
Date:
Jessica Barsotti, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, DEAN G.
ASIMOS dba Drake Realty
3
DEFENDANT’S AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
Preview
MIATA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Aug-10-2012 11:47 am Case Number: CGC-11-514980 Filing Date: Aug-10-2012 11:46 | Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN Juke Box: 001 Image: 03720466 DECLARATION OF JASON EVERETT THOMPSON et al VS. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS 001003720466 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. LtLAW OFFICES OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI 1 || Jessica Barsotti, Esq., SBN 209557 5032 Woodminster Lane ¥ Ek 2 || Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Superior Court of Califbrnia 510.530.4078 C vy of San Francisco: 3 || 510.530.4725 (FAX) / AUG 10 2012 4 Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, we ER OF TH E COURT 5 || Dean Gregory Asimos, dba Drake Realty . Deputy Cale — SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 || JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Case No.: CGC-11-514980 ATTORNEY JESSICA R. BARSOTTI’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 12 Plaintiffs, Date: August 23, 2012 REALTY Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn Defendant. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE ) ) 13 vs. ) 15 Time: 9:00am. is | DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE) Dept.: 302 ) ) ) 19 |) REALTY } 20 Cross-Complainant, } 21 |Ivs, } 22 || JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and ) WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.) 23 ||and DOES 1 through 50. } 24 Cross-Defendants. } 25 J ) 26 ) ) 27 DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI Thompson, et al v. Asimos Opposition to motion to compel 110 aT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, JESSICA R. BARSOTTI, declare as follows: 1. 10. 11. 12. DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI Thompson, et al v. Asimos Opposition to motion to compel 2 1am a licensed attorney in the State of California and counsel for Defendant in the above-captioned matter. I make this declaration from personal knowledge and if called to testify to the matters herein I could do so competently. On April 4, 2012 I received an email from C. Todd Norris, counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter regarding discovery requests propounded by his client. Norris stated in this email that discovery responses were overdue. The master calendar in my office indicated that the responses were not due until the next day, April 5, 2012, to which Norris responded that my assertion was incorrect because the discovery request had been hand delivered. Upon reviewing the proof of service I determined that Norris was correct in his assertion, and that my office had mistakenly calendared the delivery by mail, extending the due date until April 5, 2012. Upon realizing this mistake I requested a reasonable extension of time to deliver the responses on April 9. 2012, which Norris denied with no justification. That same date, April 4, 2012 I faxed a copy of the responses to the requests for admission to Norris as those were the only responses that were ready for delivery. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the email correspondence referred to above in paragraphs 3-8. On April 10, 2012 I mailed the remaining responses requested to Norris, including objections. Upon receiving the responses, Norris demanded that I amend the responses to withdraw all objections due to my office’s calendaring mistake and his refusal to agree to a reasonable extension of time. I refused to withdraw all objections on the basis that the untimeliness of the responses was a result of mistake by my office and on the basis that Norris had no reasonable basis for refusing to allow a short extension of time.19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. In addition, many of my objections were due to ambiguities present in the requests. My attempts both in writing and in telephone conversations with Norris to obtain clarity on the questions and what further information was requested were| in vain. Norris flatly refused to provide any clarity or to even discuss which responses were inadequate making it impossible for my client to respond further. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of my efforts to meet and confer with Norris regarding his claim of insufficient responses. 14, Defendant, in an attempt to resolve the issues presented by this motion, has amended responses to the Requests for Admission, Set one. A true and correct copy of the proposed amended responses is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 15. [have spent a total of 2 hours preparing this opposition to Plaintiffs motion to compel further discovery responses, and billed my client at $295.00 per hour for such preparation and request that Norris and his client be sanctioned in the amount of $500.00 for bringing this frivolous motion. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on August 9,.2012 at Oakland, California! DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI Thompson, et al vy. Asimos Opposition to motion to compel 3Exhibit 1Gmail - Asimos' Discovery Reggonses Page 1 of 7 Jess Barsotti< qnuneshiemenpepeiionemt, Asimos' Discovery Responses 13 messages Norris, Todd< deseeheme@uenrraraaer Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM To: Jess Barsotti Jess — according to my calendar, your clients’ verified responses to plaintiffs’ discovery are now past due. Please let me know the status. Thank you. C. Todd Norris | Shareholder Bullivant Houser Bailey PC | 601 California St. | Suite 1800 | San Francisco, CA 94108-2823 T 415.352.2720 | F 415.352.2701 | Bio | Email | Website [Linkedin Seattle . Vancouver . Portland . San Francisco . Las Vegas 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. Jess Barsotti< quits > Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:46 PM To: "Norris, Todd" < Tein’ pecieiemegs> Todd, According to my calendar they are due tomorrow. | have not gotten all responsive documents as of yet and ask for the courtesy of an extension of time until Monday April 9 to provide such responses. Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. Jessica {Quoted text hidden] ica R. Barsotti Law Office of Jessica R. Barsotti 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94620 te] 510-530-4078 fax 510-530-4725 Jess Barsotti< easabiiamGpgrrereeme > Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=eec96354al &view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Gmail - Asimos' Discovery wo e Page 2 of 7 To: "Norris, Todd” | do have the requests for admissions responses which | will fax to you today. [Quoted text hidden} Norris, Todd< To: Jess Barsotti Iieomiennibaanay Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:51 PM Jess, your office was served by hand on February 29. Accordingly, they are past due and all objections are waived. Please provide the responses immediately or we will move to compel. Furthermore, you have never articulated a reason why your client continues to refuse to instruct Mr. Gutierrez to release the funds from the parties’ Astound commission. It is clear your client continues to act in bad faith in this matter. We intend to seek all appropriate remedies, including attorneys fees, which Mr. Thompson is clearly entitled to under the parties’ agreement. In addition, | am looking into a basis for punitive damages with respect to Mr. Asimos’ refusal to issue appropriate instructions to Mr. Gutierrez. If they are not available under the current claims asserted in the complaint, we will amend to add an appropriate claim. Todd C. Todd Norris | Shareholder Bullivant Houser Bailey PC | 601 California St. | Suite 1800 | San Francisco, CA 94108-2823 T 415.352.2720 | F 415.352.2701 | Bio | Email | Website [Linkedin Seattle . Vancouver . Portland . San Francisco . Las Vegas. From: Jess Barsotti [mailto seensessienntngemniinnmas | Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:46 PM To: Norris, Todd Subject: Re: Asimos' Discovery Responses {Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden} Jess Barsotti< srRetina@eneteman Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:04 PM To: "Norris, Todd" To: Jess Barsotti Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM Jess —| just received the responses to requests for admissions. Please consider this a meet and confer effort in order to avoid a motion to compel. Asimos’ responses to the Requests For Admission are inadequate for two reasons: First, all objections are waived because they were not timely completed and served. C.C.P. Sec, 2033.80. Second, Asimos has not verified the responses. C.C.P. Sec. 2033.240, If we do not receive corrected responses without any objections within ten days, we will move to compel. C. Todd Norris | Shareholder Bullivant Houser Bailey PC | 601 California St. | Suite 1800 | San Francisco, CA 94108-2823 T 415.352.2720 | F 415.352.2701 | Bio | Email | Website |LinkedIn Seattle . Vancouver . Portland . San Francisco . Las Vegas From: Jess Barsotti [mailto: amnbisdanasdanapnentiamemed) Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:50 PM To: Norris, Todd Subject: Re: Asimos' Discovery Responses | do have the requests for admissions responses which | will fax to you today. [Quoted text hidden} [Quoted text hidden] Norris, Todd< Todd.Norris@bullivant.com> Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM To: Jess Barsotti Jess, https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=eec96354a1 & view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Gmail - Asimos' Discovery oe Page 4 of 7 You have told me from day one that your client would issue appropriate instructions, so your email below is just another disguised refusal to comply. It will be clear to any mediator or Judge which of the parties has been unreasonable here, and which party is liable for the other party’s attorneys fees. | need a date certain by which you will instruct Mr. Guttierrez to distribute the funds to Mr. Thompson. Otherwise, your email below is yet another empty promise. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is now entitled to significant interest and attorneys fees associated with the Astound commission. How do you intend to address that? Todd Norris T 415.352.2720 From: Jess Barsotti [mailto xaammmmiiaianaeervet Coe? Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:05 PM {Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden} {Quoted text hidden] Norris, Todd< (mahinig@piniemeennay> Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM To: Jess Barsotti 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 T 415.352.2720 From: Jess Barsotti [mailt Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:14 PM [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden} {Quoted text hidden} Jess Barsotti< (RUUiim@yrneere Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM To: "Norris, Todd" 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. {Quoted text hidden} Norris, Todd < Todd.Norris@bullivant.com> Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM To: Jess Barsotti https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=eec963 54al &view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Gmail - Asimos' Discovery we a Page 7 of 7 Jess — | suspect the court will take a different view about whether your client has made a good faith 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 fee award when this matter is over. My offer for a phone call to discuss any perceived “ambiguities” stands. If | do not receive properly amended responses with all objections withdrawn as required by the explicit language of the code, we will move to compel. Todd Norris T 415.352.2720 From: Jess Barsotti [mailto:barsottilaw@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:21 PM {Quoted text hidden} [Quoted text hidden] {Quoted text hidden} i=2.&ik=ee096354al &view=pt&q=Todd.Norris%40bullivan... 8/7/2012Exhibit 310 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE LAW OFFICE OF JESSICA R. BARSOTTI Jessica R. Barsotti Esq. / SBN 209557 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602 510.530.4078 510.530.4725 / FAX Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Dean Gregory Asimos, dba Drake Realty SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, vs. DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE REALTY DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE REALTY Cross-Complainant, vs. JASON EVERETT THOMPSON and WIRED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 through 50. Cross-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. : ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CGC-11-514980 DEFENDANT DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS’S [PROPOSED] AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE DEFENDANT’S AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, 110 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Jason Everett Thompson RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant DEAN GREGORY ASIMOS, DBA DRAKE REALTY SET NUMBER: One (1) Comes now Defendant and Cross-Complainant Dean Asimos and amends the following resposes to Request for Admissions as follows: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Objection, compound, vague and ambiguous. Notwithstanding Responding Party lacks the information to admit or deny the request and has conducted a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter and the information known or readily available is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit the request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased, and as to the meaning of “agreed” and “Thompson’s bank account”. Responding party admits that Thompson paid commissions to Asimos from a bank account, but responding party lacks information regarding whose bank account was used to make the payments. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased, and as to the meaning of “first learned of the idea to use”. Responding party admits that he first heard the name “Wired Real Estate” from Thompson. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Objection, vague and ambiguous as to time, and on that basis, responding party lacks information to admit or deny the request and has conducted a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter and the information known or readily available is insufficient to enable the responding party to admit the request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Objection, compound, vague and ambiguous as to “the agreement” and as phrased. Responding party asserts that the language of all of the agreements between| the Propounding party and Responding party speak for themselves. 2 DEFENDANT’S AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Objection, compound, vague and ambiguous as to the agreement referenced and as phrased. If the Propounding party is referring to the Independent Contractor Agreement between Asimos and Thompson dated January 1, 2009, Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Objection, compound, conjunctive, and vague and ambiguous as to the agreements referenced and as to the definition of “defendants”. If the propounding party is referring to Thompson and Wired Real Estate Group as “defendants”, though they are the plaintiffs in this action, and if the propounding party is referring to the independent contractor agreements between Asimos and Thompson dated June 4, 2008 and January 1, 2009, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased and as to the meaning of the term “refused”. Responding party admits that he registered and maintained a dba in the name of Wire Real Estate Group in San Mateo County as the real estate broker of record for Wired Real Estate. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Objection, vague and ambiguous as phrased. Responding party admits that he registered and maintained a dba in the name of Wire Real Estate Group as the real estate broker of record for Wired Real Estate Group as required by the Department of Real Estate. Date: Jessica Barsotti, Esq. Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, DEAN G. ASIMOS dba Drake Realty 3 DEFENDANT’S AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE