Party Discovery: IN RE: MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF REVOCABLE TRUST

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Oo ord Aw FF WN

Roy NY YR NK YD moe oe moe eo
BRFERBRRBRARBSBESRVWIAARTEREAS

Selene Ballonoff

2230 Dwight Way, Apt.308 San Francis L
Berkeley, CA 94704 ‘ensce Gotnyy Superior Court

Telephone: 510-549-3709 JAN 25 2022
Pro Per :
CLERK OF THE COURT,

Objector py, ___ ALISON YEE A\
Deputy Clerk

Chi ler ina Coma of Gi Eamcisvo
FIRSTDISTRIGT-COURT OF APPEAL ~

IN RE THE CASE NO. PTR-17-301171

MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF

TRUST SELENE BALLONOFF'S NOTICE

OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION i
OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER
ONE AND REQUEST FOR
MONETARY SANCTIONS A

Date: paar 22027 artes
Time: 4.004 #4.

Department: 4 Quin
Judge: The Honorabie Jesegh M

TO TRUSTEE TOM LUCAS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: NOTICE IS

iP
HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON Ma | 2 , 2022 at A aA m. or as soon

thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 204 of San Francisco Superior

geo Cauit o&

Court, located at 400 McAllister Street in San Francisco, Objector Selene Ballonoff will,
and hereby does, move for an order compelling Trustee Tom Lucas, to serve on her a
response to the Objector’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, which she
served on Trustee Tom Lucas on September 23, 2021, and will further move this court
for an order requiring Trustee Tom Lucas to pay a monetary sanction to Objector. The
motion is made pursuant to CCP 2031.310 on the grounds that Trustee has failed,

without justification, to serve proper responses to these inspection demands.

Selene Ballonoff's Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 1 of 8CoO YN HH PF BN

N N bY et
BRRERRBBRSCSBSVIARBEBDEAS

Notice is additionally given that Objector will request that the Court award monetary
sanctions against Trustee, and in favor of Selene Ballonoff in the sum of $ 1200
pursuant to CCP 2023.010 et. Seq. And CCP 2031.310

The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the declaration of Selene
Ballonoff integrated with the memorandum set forth below, on the records on file with
the Court, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

J. Procedural History

On September 23, 2021, Objector Selene Ballonoff served via first class mail
Request for Production of Documents Set One on Trustee Tom Lucas pursuant to CCP
2031.010 et. seq. (See Attachment A). Written responses were due on or before
October 29, 2021. Fiduciary Tom Lucas served his responses on November 5, 2021.
(See Attachment B). There was no stipulation to continue the deadline for production.
Indeed, there was no request to continue the deadline for production. Responding
Party’s belated production fails to comply with CCP 2031.220, CCP 2031.230 or CCP
2031.240. Multiple meeting and confer attempts have failed to persuade Responding
Party to amend his responses to comply with CCP 2031.220, CCP 2031.230 or CCP
2031.240.

CCP 2031.300 states:

lf a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed
fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (a) The party to
whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any
objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work
product.

In the interests of judicial economy and for the benefit of disabled Trustor whose assets
are dwindling, Objector invites the Court to compel Responding Party to answer,
without objections, all of the demands which were answered after the deadline to
respond had passed on that basis alone, in which case the Court can stop reading

here.

Selene Ballonoffs Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 2 of 8e

oOo Oe DY Dun F&F BW N

On January 20, 2022, Selene met and conferred telephonically with Vincent K.
Yu, attorney for the Fiduciary. At 8:35 p.m. on January 20, 2022, Mr. Yu emailed
Selene a wildly inaccurate “recap” of the meet and confer. (See Attachment C).

On January 21, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., Selene sent Mr. Yu an email that stated in
part: None of the Fiduciary's responses so far comply with or offer to comply
with the CCP 2031.220 requirements to indicate whether the Responding Party

will comply “in whole or in part" or whether "all" documents will be produced.”
(See Attachment D).

On January 22, 2022 at 5:22 p.m. Selene sent Mr. Yu an email (with the
subject line “further meet and confer”) which described the statutory defects in
the document production responses and disputed some of the contentions in
the “Recap” email. (See Attachment E).

At 11:16 p.m. on January 21, 2022 Mr. Yu emailed Selene “Supplemental
Responses to Trust and Conservatorship Demands” which states that it is
“pursuant to our meet and confer phone call from January 20, 2022.” (See
Attachment F). By Mr. Yu's own admission, the Supplemental Responses do
not respond to the two meet and confer emails Selene sent Mr. Yu as many as
ten hours before Mr. Yu emailed Supplemental Responses to Selene. .

On January 22, 2022, Selene emailed Mr. Yu, agreeing that the
Supplemental responses do not respond to the two meet and confer emails she
sent Mr. Yu as many as ten hours before he emailed his Supplemental

Responses, and that as a result, her “further meet and confer” email applies as

Selene Ballonoffs Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 3 of 8Coe NY DH BF WN

vy oN YN nv yoy Boe ee ee
BNRRFRBRBBBRBRSUCSVABDEBHRES

much to the Supplemental Response as it did to the initial responses. (See
Attachment G).

Selene received an email from Mr. Yu about another matter on January
24, 2022 but as of 5:00 p.m. on January 24, 2022 the Fiduciary has failed to
respond to any of Selene’s written meet and confer efforts, instead responding
only to caricatures and outright misrepresentations of what Selene said during

the telephonic meet and confer.

As a result of responding party’s willful refusal to serve full and complete verified
responses to these inspection demands, plaintiff/defendant is unable to proceed with
meaningful discovery, proceed with depositions, or effectively prosecute/defend this

action and prepare for trial.

Il. THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED COMPEL FURTHER WRI RESPONSES
TO THESE INSPECTION DEMANDS

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling, the demanding party may move for an order comp elling further response to
the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP 2031.310(a)

As set forth herein, the Fiduciary’s statement of compliance is incomplete, his

statement of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete and evasive and his

objections are too general and/or without merit.

lll. TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES ARE DEFICIENT AND REQUIRE AN ORDER
COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES

A. Trustee Has Failed To Comply With The Requirements For A Proper Response
To These Inspection Demands.

Selene Ballonoff's Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 4 of 8oem QD nH FW NH

& yoy NN on
RBRRRBRBRAESVESFVTABDBREBHRES

“The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been
directed Shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the
following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any
related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”
(CCP 2031.210(a)”

1. Requirements of Statement of Compliance.

“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the
production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded,
will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the
demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to
which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (CCP 2031.220)

None of the Fiduciary’s responses comply with the requirements of a statement of
compliance in that Responding Party has refused to state whether * * all * * demanded
items in its possession, custody or control will be produced for in response to any of the

Requests.

2. Requirements of Statement of Inability to Comply.

"A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection,
copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry
has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also
specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has
never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never
been, or is no longer, in the possession of the responding party. The statement shall
set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or
believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of
item.” (CCP 2031.230)

None of the Fiduciary’s responses state a valid reason for Responding Party’s inability
to comply with numerous demands and fail to identify persons or organizations which

have or are believed to have possession, custody, or control of these items.

3. Requirements of Objection To Demand or Claim of Privilege.

Selene Ballonoffs Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 5 of 8Co ord DA A PF WN

NY N KY NY NY NN ND KW KN KS Se KF Se KF PF FF Fe SE eS
od A A BKNH fF BO eA DAH BF WN KF SO

“If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing,
or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or
a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or
category.” (CCP 2031.240(a)

“lf the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or
sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following:

(1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored
mormation falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is
eing made.

(2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an
objection is based’on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be
stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work
product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be
expressly asserted.” (CCP 2031.240(b)

“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is
protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for
other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege

J} log.” CCP 2031.240(c)(1)

The discovery statutes require a responding party who objects to the demand for
inspection of a document to identify with particularity the document and set forth clearly
the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection and/or a particular privilege.
Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1189, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d
154 (2d Dist. 2004), citing Hernandez v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 292, 4
Cal. Rotr. 3d 883 (2d Dist. 2003), as modified, (Oct. 23, 2003).

None of the Fiduciary’s responses state valid objections and they al contain overbroad
and general objections to entire categories of documents without a valid reason for his
inability to comply with numerous demands and fails to identify persons or
organizations who have or are believed to have possession, custody, or control of
these items and fails to identify the documents to which responding party asserted
objections based upon privilege and fails to expressly assert the nature of the

privilege(s) claimed.

B. Untimely Responses With Objections—Objections Waived

“Where a party’s responses are untimely, that party waives the right to object to the
subject discovery. Here, the Fiduciary served untimely responses containing numerous
objections, including objections based upon privilege without providing any information
that would allow the other parties to evaluate hi claim of privilege. Belated objections to
discovery demands are not valid unless the defaulting party demonstrates good cause
to grant relief from such default, and the burden is on the defaulting party to seek and
justify relief.” CCP 2031.300

Selene Ballonoffs Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 6 of 8oe NY DA BF WN

The Fiduciary’s responses were untimely and he has neither sought relief from waiver
of objections, nor can relief be justified for the Fiduciary’s willful refusal to comply with
his discovery obligations even after meeting and conferring. The court is requested to
order further, verified responses compliant with CCP 2031.220, CCP 2031.230 and
2031.240, without objections, to the subject inspection demands.

Iv. GOOD C, EXISTS MPELLI IRTHER INSES
As set forth in the Outline of Disputed Issues signed under penalty of perjury by Selene
Ballonoff, the documents sought are material to the Fiduciary’s and the Fiduciary’s

Attorneys’s petitions for allowance of fees.

V. SELENE HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES
ADD! HEREIN

The meet and confer process outlined above is attested to under penalty of perjury
below.

Vi. THIS MOTION IS TIMELY NOTICED
Moving party has noticed the motion within the time limit allowed by the Court.

Vil. MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAI TRUSTEE HIS COU:
RRANTED ‘AILURE TO RE: ND TO LEG! TE DISC ND
FOR NECESSITATING THIS MOTION

Though Selene wants nothing more than to get the documents she needs to prepare
for trial or hearing, the responses to the instant discovery are but the latest installment

in the Fiduciary's pattern of providing statutorily defective responses to discovery.

Vill. CONCLUSION.
For the foregoing reasons, Selene respectfully requests that the Court grant the

Motion to Compel further responses to Demand for Production and Inspection of
Documents, Set One, propounded on September 23, 2021, and issue an order
directing the Fiduciary to serve further responses in compliance with statute and with

this court’s order on or before February 15, 2022.

Selene Ballonoffs Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 7 of 8oOo ON DH FB WN

NY N NY N NY N NR NY DN S| FSF KF PF KF FP EF Se FE SS
od DA UvA &F WH KH DO WI HDH HN F&F YW NHN KF OS

Additionally, Selene respectfully requests monetary sanctions be awarded in the
amount of $1200, against Vincent K. Yu and/or Tom Lucas and in favor of Selene for
willful violation of the discovery statutes and to discourage further abuse of the

discovery process.

| certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those
matters stated on information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be
rue.

Signed:

at Berkeley, California on January 24, 2022

Selene Ballonoff's Motion to Compel Document Production re Second Trust Account Page 8 of 8ATTACHMENT Aoo QIN DH NH fF YN

10

Selene Ballonoff

2230 Dwight Way, Apt.308
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: 510-549-3709

Pro Per
Objector
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

IN RE THE CASE NO. PTR-17-301171

MARILYN SILVERMAN-

BALLONOFF OBJECTOR SELENE
BALLONOFF'S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
OR THINGS
SET ONE

PROPOUNDING PARTY: SELENE BALLONOFF

RESPONDING PARTY: THOMAS A. LUCAS

SET NO.: ONE

TO PETITIONER THOMAS A. LUCAS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Objector
Selene Ballonoff requests that you produce and permit the inspection and copying by
or on behalf of herself of the documents, electronically stored information and/or
tangible things in the categories described below.

PLACE AND TIME OF PRODUCTION:

Production is to be at: Easy Copy, 2930 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, California on
October 29, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. if and only if Responding Party confirms by email and
phone by October 15, 2021 that Responding Party or Responding Party's agent will
produce DOCUMENTS at Easy Copy on October 29, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. If Responding
Party is unable to produce a DOCUMENTS on this date, please contact the

.

Selene Ballonoff's Request for Production of Documents— Set One (Trust) Page 1 of 3=

SK Soe XIA DUA FF WN

Propounding Party before October 15, 2021 to arrange a mutually agreeable time and
date. /

if Responding Party does not confirm by email and phone by October 15, 2021
that Responding Party or Responding Party's agent will produce a DOCUMENTS at
Easy Copy on October 29, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., production must be satisfied by serving
by mail to 2230 Dwight Way #308, Berkeley, CA 94704 copies of the DOCUMENTS to
be produced such that the DOCUMENTS arrive by October 29, 2021. If Responding
Party wishes to produce the documents by email, contact Propounding Party with file
sizes by October 15, 2021 to see if Propounding Party can accept the documents via
email. The DOCUMENTS produced must be accompanied by a written affidavit stating
that they are true and complete copies. If any document is two-sided, a copy of both
front and back is required.

If Responding Party objects to the production of any document on the ground of
attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege or doctrine, the
Responding Party is required to prepare and provide a privilege log that identifies each
document for which the privilege or doctrine is claimed and states: (1) the name(s) of
the writer, sender and/or initiator of each copy of the document; (2) the name of the
recipient, addressee, or party to whom any copy of the document was sent; (3) the date
of each copy of the document, if any, or an estimate of the date; (4) a non-privileged
description of the contents of the document that includes sufficient factual information
for other parties to evaluate the merits of the claim; and (5) a statement of the basis for
the claim of privilege.

Pursuant to CCP 2031.220, for each particular demand, the Responding Party's

document production must be accompanied by a statement:

that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity
demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or
things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control
of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the
production.

Selene Ballonoff's Request for Production of Documents— Set One (Trust) Page 2 of 3oC oN AHA F WN

10

DEFINITION

DOCUMENT means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and
includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats,
photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means of
recording upon any tangible thing and form of communicating or representation,
including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them.
CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS TO BE PRODUCED:

1. Any and all DOCUMENTS related to bonds and/or insurance for Thomas
Lucas, Franchesca Callejo, Sheila Robello, Natalie Lupo, Vincent Yu, Daniel
Conrad, Elisabeth Hanowsky and/or Solan, Park & Robello including but not
limited to advertisements, applications, policies, claims, negotiations, payouts,
inquiries, concerns, communication to and/or from Mr. Lucas, Franchesca
Callejo, Sheila Robello, Natalie Lupo, Vincent Yu, Daniel Conrad, Elisabeth
Hanowsky and/or Solan, Park & Robello and/or anyone acting on their behalf(s).
2. Any and all DOCUMENTS related in any way to funds available for use for the

benefit of Marilyn Silverman-Ballonoff, including but not limited to Franchesca
Callejo’s |OLTA account(s).

3. Any and all DOCUMENTS related in any way to notifying the United States
Postal Service and/or the California Bar Association of changes in Franchesca

Callejo’s address.

4. Any and all DOCUMENTS related in any way to bills related to producing
Marilyn's trust and conservatorship accountings.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 23, 2021

By: bint rihewoth
Seléne Ballonoff

Selene Ballonof's Request for Production of Documents~ Set One (Trust) Page 3 of 3POS-030

"ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
Selene Ballonoff

2230 Dwight Way #308

Berkeley, CA 94704

FOR COURT USE ONLY

‘TELEPHONE NO.: 510-549-3709 FAX NO. (Optional):
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): pro per

ISUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco

STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street

MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZIP CODE:San Francisco 94102

BRANCH NAME.
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: In Re The Marilyn Silverman-Ballonoff Revocable Trust

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

CASE NUMBER:

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL—CIVIL PTR-17-301171

(Do not use this Proof of Service to show service of a Summons and Complaint.)

4. 1am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing
took place.

2. My residence or business address is:
1058 Pomona, Albany, CA 94706

3. On (date): September 23, 2021 1 mailed from (city and state): Albany, California
the following documents (specify):
Objector Selene Ballonoff's Request for Production of Documents or Things Set One (Trust)
SELENE BALLONOFF’S OBJECTION TO SECOND REPORT AND ACCOUNT OF TRUSTEE...

[] The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service by First-Class Mai!—Civil (Documents Served)
(form POS-030(D)).
4. | served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one):
a. depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.
b. [%] placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this
business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is

placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in
a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.

5. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: Franchesca Callejo, Charles Jonas

b. Address of person served:
Callejo: 1831 Solano Ave #7328, Berkeley, CA 94707

Jonas: 172 Marston Ave, San Francisco, CA 94112

The name and address of each person to whom I mailed the documents is listed in the Aitachment to Proof of Service
by First-Class Mail—Civil (Persons Served) (POS-030(P)).

| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foreg; ing is true and corrs
Date: September 23, 2021

Jean Tantra
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM)

(SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM)

em Approved for Opfonal Use PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-@LASS MAIL—CIVIL Gode of Civil Procedure, §§ 1013, 10128
POS-030 (New January 1, 2005] (Proof of Service) ww .countinfo.c2-govATTACHMENT Bna &B Ww N

oOo I Da

10
MW
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Solan, Park!
& Robello

Sheila K. Robello, Esq. (SBN 209300)
Vincent K. Yu, Esq. (SBN 295578)
Solan, Park & Robello

354 Pine St. 7" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 777-3300

Facsimile: (415) 777-3301

Email: law@solanpark.com

Attomeys for Thomas A. Lucas,
Trustee and Conservator

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

IN RE: Case No.: PTR-17-301171

MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF | TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR

REVOCABLE TRUST SELENE BALLONOFF’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR
THINGS, SET TWO

PROPOUNDING PARTY: SELENE BALLONOFF
RESPONDING PARTY: THOMAS A. LUCAS
SET NUMBER: TWO

TRUSTEE THOMAS A. LUCAS (hereinafter “Respondent” or “Responding Party”) hereby
provides the following response to SELENE BALLONOFF’S most recent Request for Production of
Documents or Things. Numerically, Trustee believes this may be Selene Ballonoff’s Second or Third
set of demands — given the history of the numerous instances where Selene Ballonoff propounded and
withdrew and re-propounded discovery, and also how Selene Ballonoff filed for a motion to compel

further on May 15, 2019, and then withdrew in order to frustrate discovery deadlines, the ordering is

TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO
1Co eo YN DH FWP

by MRR KR KR NR BB Bw Be eB ee ew eB Be
A wn kw Nn -§ FG 0 ew TD DH FF Ww NY fF Oo

27

28
Solan, Park!
& Robello

unclear. However, this most current response is to her propounded discovery dated September 23, 2021,
but never served on Respondent’s litigation counsel, which she has titled Objector Selene Ballonoff’s
Request for Production of Documents or Things — Set One.

Each and every request is subject to the general objections set forth below. These objections
form a part of the response to each request and are set forth here to avoid duplication and repetition by
restating them for each request. These general objections may be specifically interposed for the purpose
of clarity in response to a particular request; however, the failure to specifically incorporate any general
objection should not be construed as a waiver of the objection.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Respondent reserves the right to amend, modify, or supplement these responses as
necessary. As they are currently propounded, Respondent may have questions or issues and may
therefore be unable to respond to the requests as written.

2, Respondent objects to each request to the extent it may call for the disclosure of
documents or matters that are protected by any privilege or doctrine, including, but not limited to, the
attorney-client privilege, the attomey work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
doctrine.

3. Respondent objects to each request to the extent that it calls for information that is
protected by any right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, the United States
Constitution or any other applicable statute including but not limited to §1985.3 et seq.

4. Respondent objects to each and every request to the extent that it seeks documents
already in the possession, custody or control of Propounding Party either by reason of such documents
previously having been provided to Propounding Party or by Propounding Party’ having come into
possession of such documents by other means.

5. Respondent objects to the definition of “DOCUMENTS” to the extent that the definition
includes “ELECTRONIC RECORDS” as being unduly burdensome, cumbersome and oppressive.
Respondent will not produce electronic information that requires the translation of data to useable forms,

This would include items such as computer back-up tapes. Respondent will produce such documents at

TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO

227

28
Solan, Park
& Robello

a later time if they are deemed necessary and if, pursuant to CCP §2031.280(e), Propounding Party pay
for the search and translation costs.

6. Respondent objects to each and every request to the extent that it seeks documents or
information that are in the public domain or are in the possession of government agencies or are
otherwise accessible to Propounding Party.

7. Respondent objects to each and every request to the extent that any request duplicates or
overlaps a previous request and thereby calls for the duplicative production of documents covered by a
prior request. Respondent will produce each document only in response to the first requests that
describes the document.

8. Respondent objects to each and every request to the extent the request seeks disclosure of
tax or financial documents or information that are confidential, privileged or protected from disclosure
by law including, but not limited to Respondent or third parties rights to privacy.

9. Discovery is ongoing and continuous, and Respondent responds based upon information
and documents available to him after a reasonably diligent and good faith investigation to the subject
matter of these Requests. Consequently, any information that is provided in response to Propounding
Party shall be provided without prejudice to Respondent’s right to provide further responses.
Respondent reserves the right to amend, modify or supplement these responses, if and when necessary.

Subject to and without waiving these objects Respondent makes the following responses.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Any and all DOCUMENTS related to bonds and/or insurance for Thomas Lucas, Franchesca

Callejo, Sheila Robello, Natalie Lupo, Vincent Yu, Daniel Conrad, Elisabeth Hanowsky and/or Solan,
Park & Robello including but not limited to advertisements, applications, policies, claims, negotiations,
payouts, inquiries, concerns, communication to and/or from Mr. Lucas, Franchesca Callejo, Sheila
Robello, Natalie Lupo, Vincent Yu, Daniel Conrad, Elisabeth Hanowsky and/or Solan, Park & Robello
and/or anyone acting on their behalf(s).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:

Respondent objects to the request to the extent it may call for the disclosure of

TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO
327

28
Solan, Park,
& Robello

documents or matters that are protected by any privilege or doctrine, including, but not limited to, the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
doctrine. Respondent objects that the request to the extent that it calls for information that is protected
by any right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, the United States Constitution or any
other applicable statute including but not limited to §1985.3 ef seg. Respondent also objects to the
extent that the request seeks documents already in the possession, custody or control of Propounding
Party either by reason of such documents previously having been provided to Propounding Party or
Propounding Party having come into possession of such documents by other means. Respondent objects
to this request as it is overbroad as to time and scope, vague and ambiguous as to time and scope and
material requested, unduly burdensome, and also requests completely irrelevant information.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Respondent states Propounding Party
already has been provided Thomas A. Lucas’ umbrella insurance policy multiple times and, over the last}
seven years, has repeatedly asked, and been repeatedly told, Thomas A. Lucas has no other professional
insurance. Respondent has no access to, or authority over, information Propounding Party is demanding
for all people NOT Respondent.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Any and all DOCUMENTS related in any way to funds available for use for the benefit of
Marilyn Silverman-Ballonoff, included but not limited to Franchesca Callejo’s IOLTA account(s).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:

Respondent objects to the request to the extent it may call for the disclosure of
documents or matters that are protected by any privilege or doctrine, including, but not limited to, the
attomey-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
doctrine. Respondent objects that the request to the extent that it calls for information that is protected
by any right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, the United States Constitution or any
other applicable statute including but not limited to §1985.3 ef seq. Respondent also objects to the
extent that the request seeks documents already in the possession, custody or control of Propounding

Party either by reason of such documents previously having been provided to Propounding Party or

TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO

4oe YN A HW RF BW NY

wb NY YY VN N ND ew ae
A A F 8 YN &§ SF © MW AYA A A BW YN SK OC

27

28
Solan, Park!
& Robello

Propounding Party having come into possession of such documents by other means. Respondent objects|
to this request as it is overbroad as to time and scope, vague and ambiguous as to time and scope and
material requested, unduly burdensome, and also requests completely irrelevant information.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Respondent states Propounding Party
already has been provided full accountings related to Marilyn-Silverman Ballonoff’s Trust, inclusive of
funds used for her benefit over the accounting period, and invoice and time sheets for services rendered.
Respondent will not be providing attomey Franchesca Callejo's IOLTA account information as
Respondent is not privy to that information, and neither is Propounding Party.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: :

Any and all DOCUMENTS related in any way to notifying the United States Postal Service

and/or the California Bar Association of changes in Franchesca Callejo’s address.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:

Respondent objects to the request to the extent it may call for the disclosure of

documents or matters that are protected by any privilege or doctrine, including, but not limited to, the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
doctrine. Respondent objects that the request to the extent that it calls for information that is protected
by any right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, the United States Constitution or an
other applicable statute including but not limited to §1985.3 et seq.. Respondent also objects to the
extent that the request seeks documents already in the possession, custody or control of Propounding
Party either by reason of such documents previously having been provided to Propounding Party or
Propounding Party having come into possession of such documents by other means. Respondent objects}
to this request as it is overbroad as to time and scope, vague and ambiguous as to time and scope and
material requested, unduly burdensome, and also requests completely irrelevant information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Respondent states that, upon
information and belief, Propounding Party has been provided proof of attorney Franchesca Callejo’s
address multiple times by way of filed and served proofs of service with the Court, filed and served

accounting petitions, and filed and served change of address forms as far back as June 16, 2021.

TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOF¥’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO
5UEST FOR PROD! ION NO. 4: .
Any and all DOCUMENTS related in any way to bills related to producing Marilyn’s trust and

2
3 ||conservatorship accountings.
4 ||RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:
5 Respondent objects to the request to the extent it may call for the disclosure of
6 ||documents or matters that are protected by any privilege or doctrine, including, but not limited to, the
7 |{attorney-client privilege, the attomey work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
8 ||doctrine. Respondent objects that the request to the extent that it calls fot information that is protected
9 ||by any right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, the United States Constitution or am
10 }/other applicable statute including but not limited to §1985.3 et seg. Respondent also objects to the
11 |/extent that the request seeks documents already in the possession, custody, or control of Propounding
12 ||Party either by reason of such documents previously having been provided to Propounding Party or
13 ||Propounding Party having come into possession of such documents by other means. Respondent objects}
14 ||to this request as it is overbroad as to time and scope, vague and ambiguous as to time and scope and
15 ||material requested, unduly burdensome, and also requests completely irrelevant information.
16 |{Respondent also objects to any request for CONSERVATORSHIP accounting information as
17 ||Propounding Party’s issues within this TRUST matter is regarding the TRUST accounting.
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Respondent states he has no documents
19 |]at present to produce but shall re-evaluate requests should Propounding Party clarify her request.
20
21
22
23 ||Dated: November 4, 2021
“24
25
26
27
28 TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOFY’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
Solan, Park DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO

& Robello 627
28

Solan, Park

& Robello

VERIFICATION

I, Thomas A. Lucas, am the Respondent in this matter. I have read the foregoing TRUSTEE’S,
RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OfF|
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO and know it’s content. The matters stated herein are true to}
my knowledge except to those matters stated on information and belief and as to those matters I believe
them to be true.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing!

is true and correct and if called as a witness I could testify competently there to.

Executed on November 5, 2021 at San Francisco, California.

“~~—-~Thomas A. Lucas ne

TRUSTEE’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTOR SELENE BALLONOFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS, SET TWO

7ATTACHMENT CSOLAN, PARK & ROBELLO
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
354 Pine St., Seventh Floor
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TEL (415) 777-3300 ~ FAX (415) 777-3301

RETIRED: SHEILA K. ROBELLO, JD, LLM
KEVIN M. SOLAN VINCENT K. YU, JD
ARTHUR A, PARK JESSIE J. BURGUENO, JD
January 20, 2022
VIA EMAIL
SELENE BALLONOFF

2230 Dwight Way, #308
Berkeley, CA 94704
EMAIL: selenebnl@gmail.com

Re: BALLONOFF —CONSERVATORSHIP AND TRUST DISCOVERY MEET
AND CONFER IN ADVANCE OF JANUARY 25, 2022 DEADLINE

Dear Ms. Ballonoff:

This letter serves to recap our phone call from the afternoon of January 20, 2022
regarding discussed issues and next steps relating to your Conservatorship and Trust Accounting
discovery demands.

On the outset, I will request that any further communication between us should be
conducted primarily through writing [email, facsimile, or physical mail], as the tone and tenor
you adopted during our 17-minute phone call was rude, borderline threatening, and not
something to which I would willingly subject myself to again unless strictly necessary or
otherwise Ordered by the Court. The level of your shouting and belligerence did not aid in the
meet-and-confer, and any future meet-and-confer attempts will likely benefit from a
predominantly written exchange.

Your persistent demands during the early portion of our call for a one-word “yes or no”
answer to your questions, and then threatening me with allegations of abuse for attempting to
comprehensively discuss your issues and next steps, is counter to the whole spirit of good faith
meet-and-confer. This was neither the first time you have done this, nor the first time I have
tried to navigate your demands for a one-word sound bite. I will also address your accusation,
that the reason why I was not giving a single-word “yes or no” response was because I am an
attorney who charges by the hour, by saying it is patently ridiculous — I cannot know what you
want unless we actually discuss, and a discussion is more than a simple demand for “yes or no”.Regarding your Conservatorship Production Demand:

1. We could not agree on further production. You acknowledged receipt of a physical copy
of the filed accounting as well as an electronic copy of that same accounting. Unless you
can provide authority instructing otherwise, we do not intend on providing a digital copy
of a filing that you can freely copy-paste, search, edit, or otherwise manipulate.

Regarding your Trust Production Demands:

1. Production Request 1:

a.

G

You specified that you wanted insurance policies that my client during the 2020
Trial testified to having in addition to the umbrella policy previously disclosed —
you were not satisfied with his umbrella policy disclosure, and you were not
happy with his repeated assertion that he has no professional insurance policy.
You indicated you wanted more. I asked what more you wanted. You only
insisted that there must be more. I told you that if it turns out the only policies he
has are personal, such as car or home insurance, those are not relevant and would
not be produced

i. I promised to ask my client about his recollection of this testimony and to
supplement as appropriate.

You specified that the reason you want his bond information is to know the
amounts he has had paid out for “all the other abuse and fraud” he committed in
the past.

i. I promised to ask my client about your assumptions and to supplement as
appropriate.

Despite my repeated attempts to explain, you demanded and insisted that my
client, as Conservator and as Trustee, must have personal knowledge and direct
control and access to bond and insurance information related to Franchesca
Callejo, Sheila Robello, Natalie Lupo, Daniel Conrad, Elisabeth Hanowsky,
Solan, Park & Robello, and me. You did not specify the type/kind, only that you
wanted anything and everything.

i. He does not have this information. That information is not relevant and
far beyond the scope of your matter. He will not be producing that
information. You claimed that I never told you this was our position — I
read out the last sentence of our response which you admitted you had not
read.

2. Production Request 2:

a

You insisted that my client has direct access to attorney Franchesca Callejo’s
IOLTA account information and that, because he is a client, he controls his
lawyer, and because he controls his lawyer, he has direct control and access to
everything.i. My client does not have control over Franchesca Callejo’s IOLTA
account.

ii. You insisted that a client has direct control and access over everything
related to their attorney — after several attempts to correct your
misapprehension, I told you that a client has authority over their matter-
file, but a client certainly does not have total control over an attorney eg
personal information, business information, financial information etc.

b. You further repeated unproven allegations that my client stole money and left the
Conservatee without socks or underwear and that the Conservatee soiled herself
in the care facility that has an illegal and non-compliant number of bathrooms.

i. Every accounting filed with the Court has a summary of assets on hand at
the beginning of the accounting period and at the end of the accounting
period. All accountings have been provided to you — please review them.

ii. I appreciate your sensitivity to misappropriated/stolen funds — Please take
this time to return the stolen $343,138.76 which the Court Ordered you to
return to the Conservatee back in October 11, 2016.

3. Production Request 3:

a. You acknowledged being notified of Franchesca Callejo’s change of address via
filed documents, notices, and on the State Bar website.

b. You insist that my client must produce documentary proof regarding what day
Franchesca Callejo requested change of address through the USPS and the State
Bar Website.

i. My client does not have this information. I told you he does not have
access or control over USPS records.

ii, This demand is not relevant to anything pending before the Court and is
moot because the records are clear about Ms. Callejo’s change of address
and you admitted knowing Ms. Callejo’s address via Court filings and
document service.

4. Production Request 4:

a. You confirmed that you were looing for some invoice/billing statement from the
bookkeeper/accountant that prepared the Trust and Conservatorship accounting.
b. Ifa bookkeeping/accounting service was used, it is listed in the accounting.

i. Ifyou are looking for the charged amount for the current accountings
before the Court, it will not have those charge because this accounting’s
charge is paid during the mext accounting period. The charge you see in
the current accounting before the Court is for payment of the last
accounting.

As a final note, before hanging up, you asked that I stipulate to a continuance of your
January 25, 2022 motion to compel deadline. I did not agree to your request. I will take this

3time to point out that I do not believe you ever served us a copy of your December 6, 2021 ADA
request where you first asked the Court for a 24 week continuance. Be that as it may, the Court
in their December 20, 2021 Order gave you until January 25, 2022 to meet-and-confer and file
any motion. I can only surmise that you reached out to me on January 18, 2022 to schedule a last
minute meet-and-confer because you received the Court’s Order denying your second request for
a24 week continuance — my office received that January 13, 2022 Order in the mail the
afternoon of January 18, 2022, shortly after you emailed me for a time to meet-and-confer.

I will confirm that, as promised, I reached out to my client shortly after our 330pm call.
My client will provide a verified supplement to his responses as necessary based on the
substance of our call. We will do this as soon as practicable. Despite your previous allegations
of sabotage and conspiracy, we have never ‘planned’ filings or responses with any goals in mind
other than good faith, diligence, and accuracy.

Very truly yours,
OLAN.P gATTACHMENT DRE: Ballonoff - January 25 Hearing in
PCN-12-295409 and PTR-17-301171

Selene B 
Fri, Jan 21, 1:00 PM (4 days ago)

to Vincent, Sean, Probcontinue204, F

None of the Fiduciary's responses so far comply with or offer to comply with the
CCP 2031.220 requirements to indicate whether the Responding Party will
comply "in whole or in part" or whether “all" documents will be produced.

The Responses were due on October 29, 2021. The Fiduciary produced his
responses on November 5, 2021. There was no agreement to extend the
deadline to respond. There was no request to extend the deadline to respond.
Without an extension the Motion to Compe filing deadline would have been
shortly before Christmas and the hearing would likely have been set after
January 25, 2022.ATTACHMENT Efurther meet and confer
Selene B 
Fri, Jan 21, 5:22 PM (4 days ago)

to Vincent

Thank you for meeting and conferring by phone with me today regarding the
Fourth Conservatorship and Second Trust Document Production.

Unfortunately, your characterization of my tone and demeanor is as inaccurate
as your caricatures, and misrepresentation of my statements.

| will not respond specifically to the non-discovery matters you raise in your
letter purporting to be a summary of our discussion. | dispute the accuracy of
the non-discovery matters you raise in the same letter as your meet and confer.

You agreed to meet and confer with me at 3:30 and directed me to call the
Solan Park & Robello office number to reach you. By the time your assistant put
my call through to you, it was 3:34 and you weren’t ready to discuss the
discovery.

Your responses were due on October 29, 2021. You served your responses on
November 5— after the deadline to respond, without a stipulation (or even a
request) for a continuance. Your objections were made after the deadline to
object had passed. As a result, your objections are categorically not valid.

Moreover, even if your responses had been served in time to be valid, they are
statutorily defective. Code of Civil Procedure 2031.220 requires the Responding
Party to state whether the production “will be allowed either ** in whole or in
part ** and that * * all ** documents.... will be included in the production”
(emphasis added). You are obligated to tell me if you are producing all
responsive documents or not. If you cannot produce particular documents, you
must affirm that you have made “a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry” and
that you cannot produce a “particular item or category” because it never
existed, was destroyed, was lost, misplaced or stolen. (CCP 2031.230). Any
statement that you cannot produce a document or category of documents “shall
set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or
believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or
category of item.” (CCP 2031.230). If you object to the production of a
particular document or category of documents on the basis of privilege or work

6product, your response must: “provide sufficient factual information for other
parties to evaluate the merits of that claim.” None of your responses state
whether you are producing * * all ** responsive documents or not; whether the
Fiduciary has made a diligent search and reasonable inquiry; whether
documents never existed, were destroyed, lost, misplaced or stolen; or provide
sufficient factual information to evaluate a claim of privilege and/or work
product.

Your general objections are not valid. CCP 2031 -240(b)(1) requires you to

“ Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically
stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an
objection is being made.” boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in
California per Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51
Cal.App.4th 1513 and may result in waivers of privilege per Burlington Northern
& Santa Fe Ry Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 408 F.3d 1142, 2005 WL 1175 922 (9th
Cir.2005) [trial