On May 04, 2005 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ccsf Adult Protective Services,
Dolch, Debra J.,
Ferrero, Jr., Marco,
Ferrero, Natalie,
Ferrero, Nicholas,
Knott, Eva,
Mitchell, Carol,
and
Knott, Eva,
for TRUST (PETITION TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF PURPORTED WILL)
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
cA
San Francisco Superior Courts
information Technotogy Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-14-2006 7:56 am
Case Number: PTR-05-287341
Filing Date: Feb-09-2006 7:55
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01383300
GENERIC PROBATE PLEADING
IN THE MATTER OF IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF CHARLES AC
001P01383300
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oe N A We wWN
eee
RPRRRRBOREBSeREUIADRTER AS
DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG, ESQ.
SBN 25026
2171 Junipero Serra Blvd., Ste. 620
Daly City, CA 94014
Telephone: (650) 755-6622
Facsimile: (650) 755-4312
Attorney for Respondent
EVA KNOTT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS
DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND
WILL DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004
CAROL MITCHELL,
Petitioner,
Vv.
EVA KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiary
under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS
DATED 11/2/04, NICHOLAS FERRERO,
a minor and a will and trust beneficiary
and NATALIE FERRERO, a minor and a
will and trust beneficiary,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No, PTR-05-287341
{Related Case No. PES 05-287457)
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO
OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER TO
MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS, FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND
SANCTIONS
Date: February 17, 2006
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: 612
As set forth in the moving papers herein, Petitioner Carol Mitchell refused to produce
correspondence with persons identified in her previous Responses to Interrogatories, who had
knowledge of any of the facts in this litigation. Objection was made on "work product privilege".
However, after deposition and the request by facsimile the following day (January 11, 2006) for
identification of the documents being withheld, Petitioner’s attorney refused to identify said
documents. Thus, without citing any authority, Petitioner takes the position that they can just
REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY DOCUMENTSome ND WH RR YD BD
NNR ND eee
claim work product privilege without identifying the documents or persons involved, or anything
else, in order that counsel for Respondent may determine the validity of said objections. CCP
§2025.460(d) provides that if Deponent fails to produce a document that is specified in the
Deposition Notice, the party seeking the production may at a later time move for an order
compelling production under CCP §2025.480.
It should also be noted that on October 31, 2005 this court heard Petitioner’s Motion for
an Order Compelling Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum and the court granted said
motion in part and stated "any documents withheld pursuant to a claim for privilege shall be
described with specificity in a privileged log". Apparently, Petitioner now contends the same
ruling should not apply in this instance.
Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, there was an attempt to meet and confer. The first
request was made at the deposition on January 10, 2006 and Petitioner’s counsel requested a
Separate request. This second request was sent by facsimile the following day, with a request for
a response by January 13, 2006 as it was desired that this Motion be heard in conjunction with
the previously filed Motion scheduled for the same date and time. It was obvious from counsel’s
attitude that he was just trying to be evasive and had no intention of producing the documents, If
he truly needed more time, he could have made such request. However, instead of providing the
requested information, Mr. Mitchell simply sent a letter a week later (1/18/06) asking for
authority on the point. Petitioner’s attorney has failed to give any reasonable explanation as to
why the Order of Commissioner Hewlett of October 31, 2005, providing for a privileged log, was
not applicable to this matter.
Dated: February ¥, 2006
2
REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY DOCUMENTS.
Document Filed Date
February 09, 2006
Case Filing Date
May 04, 2005
Category
TRUST (PETITION TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF PURPORTED WILL)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
cA San Francisco Superior Courts information Technotogy Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-14-2006 7:56 am Case Number: PTR-05-287341 Filing Date: Feb-09-2006 7:55 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01383300 GENERIC PROBATE PLEADING IN THE MATTER OF IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF CHARLES AC 001P01383300 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oe N A We wWN eee RPRRRRBOREBSeREUIADRTER AS DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG, ESQ. SBN 25026 2171 Junipero Serra Blvd., Ste. 620 Daly City, CA 94014 Telephone: (650) 755-6622 Facsimile: (650) 755-4312 Attorney for Respondent EVA KNOTT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND WILL DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004 CAROL MITCHELL, Petitioner, Vv. EVA KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiary under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS DATED 11/2/04, NICHOLAS FERRERO, a minor and a will and trust beneficiary and NATALIE FERRERO, a minor and a will and trust beneficiary, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No, PTR-05-287341 {Related Case No. PES 05-287457) RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER TO MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS, FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND SANCTIONS Date: February 17, 2006 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 612 As set forth in the moving papers herein, Petitioner Carol Mitchell refused to produce correspondence with persons identified in her previous Responses to Interrogatories, who had knowledge of any of the facts in this litigation. Objection was made on "work product privilege". However, after deposition and the request by facsimile the following day (January 11, 2006) for identification of the documents being withheld, Petitioner’s attorney refused to identify said documents. Thus, without citing any authority, Petitioner takes the position that they can just REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY DOCUMENTSome ND WH RR YD BD NNR ND eee claim work product privilege without identifying the documents or persons involved, or anything else, in order that counsel for Respondent may determine the validity of said objections. CCP §2025.460(d) provides that if Deponent fails to produce a document that is specified in the Deposition Notice, the party seeking the production may at a later time move for an order compelling production under CCP §2025.480. It should also be noted that on October 31, 2005 this court heard Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Compelling Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum and the court granted said motion in part and stated "any documents withheld pursuant to a claim for privilege shall be described with specificity in a privileged log". Apparently, Petitioner now contends the same ruling should not apply in this instance. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, there was an attempt to meet and confer. The first request was made at the deposition on January 10, 2006 and Petitioner’s counsel requested a Separate request. This second request was sent by facsimile the following day, with a request for a response by January 13, 2006 as it was desired that this Motion be heard in conjunction with the previously filed Motion scheduled for the same date and time. It was obvious from counsel’s attitude that he was just trying to be evasive and had no intention of producing the documents, If he truly needed more time, he could have made such request. However, instead of providing the requested information, Mr. Mitchell simply sent a letter a week later (1/18/06) asking for authority on the point. Petitioner’s attorney has failed to give any reasonable explanation as to why the Order of Commissioner Hewlett of October 31, 2005, providing for a privileged log, was not applicable to this matter. Dated: February ¥, 2006 2 REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY DOCUMENTS.