Preview
MUA
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-08-2005 8:50 am
Case Number: PTR-05-287341
Filing Date: Oct-06-2005 8:48
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01297908
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN THE MATTER OF IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF CHARLES AC
001P01297908
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.a Wn
ow wmuywn wow
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C
SPELLMAN & MITCHELL
Attorneys at Law
Dean M. Spellman, #060042
Robert B. Mitchell, #074795.
1850 Mt. Diablo Bivd., Ste. 670
Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407
Telephone: (925) 938-5880
Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE 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,
vs.
EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiary
under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS
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. .
1. INTRODUCTION
responses to seventeen (17) interrogatories,
Case Number PTR-05-287341
(Related Case No. PES 05-287457)
DISCOVERY
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO
RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES AND
IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS
Date: November 3, 2005
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Dept. No: 612
Filing Date: May 4, 2005
Judge: John Dearman
Trial Date: Not Assigned
Through this motion, petitioner seeks to obtain complete and straightforward
the vast majority of which seek information
regarding Responding Party's activity which is similar to that engaged in by the
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc,wo NO
an uw
Responding Party with the decedent which is the subject of this action.
ll, FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about November 2, 2004, CHARLES ACTIS executed both a Will and
Revocable Living Trust which bequeathed the vast majority of Mr. Actis’ property to
EVA KNOTT, Respondent herein. Approximately twenty (20) days thereafter, the San
Francisco Public Guardian initiated a conservatorship proceeding as to CHARLES
ACTIS under Case No. PCN-04-286737 wherein the Public Guardian sought
appointment of a conservator for Mr. Actis due to its belief that EVA KNOTT was
exercising undue influence upon Mr. Actis.
Thus far, this petitioner has at least been able to discover that within a few
months of knowing Ms. Knott, Charles Actis lent to Ms. Knott the sum of approximately
$130,000.00. San Francisco Adult Protective Services (hereinafter sometimes referred
to as “APS”) came to learn of this loan and began to make inquiry of Mr. Actis and Ms.
Knott as to the circumstances surrounding this loan and the documentation relating
thereto. Petitioner is informed and believes that the documentation for that loan was
prepared incorrectly a number of times and that the San Francisco Adult Protective
Services spent a number of months attempting to obtain Ms. Knott’s cooperation in
properly documenting and perfecting the security for the subject loan. Petitioner was
also informed that Adult Protective Services had a most difficult time dealing with Ms.
Knott and that Ms. Knott was very uncooperative in providing proper documentation for
that foan. It is petitioner’s understanding that this financial transaction, as well as other
observations made by San Francisco Adult Protective Services, led to the initiation of
the herein above referred to conservatorship proceeding.
Following the filing of that conservatorship petition, Dr. Abraham Nievod was
retained by APS in order to conduct an evaluation of Mr. Actis. On January 7, 2005, Dr.
Nievod examined the decedent and thereafter issued a report which was filed, under
seal, with this court on January 25, 2005 (under Case No. PCN-04-286737). In that
seiner OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc.ony naw
€ C
report, Dr. Nievod stated that the decedent was “... extremely vulnerable to being
unduly influenced and being financially exploited by anyone in whom he places his
reliance, trust and confidence — such as [the Respondent herein]" (emphasis added).
Dr. Nievod went on to state that “In my professional opinion, [decedent] is incompetent
to make financial decisions because he is both suffering from specific cognitive deficits
and that are symptomatic of Dementia and, because of these cognitive deficits, he is
unable to resist Undue Influence.” Dr. Nievod concludes that decedent's “... Dementia
has been present for a number of years” and that “...the characteristics of his Dementia
are most consistent with a progressive, deteriorating, dementing process, such as
Alzheimer's Type Dementia”.
On April 26, 2005, CHARLES ACTIS died. However, less than twenty four (24)
hours before his death and while Mr. Actis was literally on his death bed, Eva Knott
presented Mr. Actis with various instruments which required Mr. Actis’ notarized
signature. One of these instruments was a Deed of Reconveyance which not
surprisedly, benefitted Ms. Knott directly. Furthermore, Ms. Knott attempted to hide
such written instrument by failing to produce same when requested under a CCP
2031.010, et seq. document request. Even to this day she and her counsel have
refused to produce documents which should have been earlier produced.
Immediately following Mr. Actis' death, APS contacted Petitioner’s husband and
strongly urged that an autopsy be conducted as to CHARLES ACTIS. APS considered
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Actis' death as questionable and believed that
further investigation was warranted.
Also following the death of Mr. Actis, petitioner learned that respondent herein
was the principal beneficiary of Mr. Actis’ estate and as a result, petitioner initiated this
action seeking to set aside Mr. Actis’ Will and Trust based upon Dr. Nievod’s report that
Mr. Actis was suffering from undue influence and mental incompetency. Shortly after
initiating this action, Respondent EVA KNOTT fited a Petition to Administer the Estate
Surcont OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL.
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc.no e® WN KB
Oo oO ~
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C €
of CHARLES ACTIS and at the initial hearing of that petition, the Honorable John
Dearman removed Respondent both as trustee for the CHARLES ACTIS TRUST and
denied her request to be appointed executrix, and instead, appointed Debra Dolch as
both successor trustee and administratrix.
During the course of this litigation, it was also !earned that a close friend of the
decedent observed that Responding Party intentionally isolated decedent, did not allow
decedent to have unsupervised visits with his friend, controlled the conversation of
decedent, made false negative statements to the decedent regarding decedent's family
members and in general, controlled the decedent and his beliefs as to certain financial
matters. Further, Responding Party told this close friend of decedent that he would
receive money if he would sign a declaration in this action supporting the position of
Responding Party in this matter. This close friend of the decedent understood this to be
a bribe being offered by Responding Party to support her in her efforts to get the
decedent's assets.
I, AUTHORITY
A._Interrogatories
THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES 22 THROUGH 38 BECAUSE RESPONDING
PARTY’S OBJECTIONS TO THOSE PARTICULAR
INTERROGATORIES ARE WITHOUT MERIT. IF THE MOTION IS
GRANTED THE COURT SHOULD ALSO IMPOSE A MONETARY
SANCTION AGAINST RESPONDENT AND HER ATTORNEY BECAUSE
THERE !S NO SHOWING THAT RESPONDENT ACTED WITH
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION OR THAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
MAKE THE IMPOSITION OF THE SANCTIONS UNJUST.
1. Motion to Compe! Further Response to Interrogatories. _If the propounding
party, upon receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that an objection to an
interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order
compelling a further response (CCP §2030.300).
2. Scope of Examination by Written Interrogatories. Any party may obtain
discovery within the scope fixed by Sections 2017.010 through 2017.740 of the Code of
MEMORANOUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL.
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc.Wn ew
wo mrt nu
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C €
Civil Procedure, and subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 2019.010 et seq. of
the Code of Civil Procedure, by propounding to any other party to the action written
interrogatories to be answered under oath (CCP § 2030.010(a)). Unless otherwise
limited by order of the court in accordance with Sections 2016.010 through 2036.050 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the
determination of any motion made in that action if the matter either is itself admissible in
evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence (CCP §§ 2017.010, 2030.010; Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal App
3d 761, 765).
3. Permissible Subject Matter. An interrogatory may relate to whether another
party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a
contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it
involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or
would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of
litigation or in preparation for trial (Code Civ, Proc. § 2030.010).
4. Right To Discovery Liberally Construed. Courts have construed the discovery
Statutes broadly, so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. Greyhound
Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (Clay) (1961) 56 C2d 355, 377-378, 15 CR 90, 100 (decided under
former law); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 C4th 1101, 1108- ‘Our
conclusions in Greyhound apply equally to the new discovery statutes enacted by the
Civil Discovery Act of 1986 which retain the expansive scope of discovery’; see
Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 CA4th 424.
5. Responses Must Be Verified. The interrogatory responses must be signed
under oath by the party to whom the interrogatories are directed. CCP 2030.250(b).
Responding Party apparently wishes to amend her response to interrogatory 38 but as
of the date of the preparation of this motion, she has failed to serve any supplemental
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL.
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc.response containing her revised response.
6._Interrogatories 22 through 38, These seventeen (17) interrogatories seek
circumstantial evidence that may be offered at trial of this matter. As is more particularly
set forth in the accompanying 335 statement, the information sought concerns, in part,
the modus operandi of Responding Party and the establishment of a pattern by which
she obtains property from the elderly, the infirmed and/or the disabled by befriending
and ingratiating herself with them. An undue influence case normally must be
established by circumstantial evidence, namely through inferences. Undue influence
also normally takes place behind closed doors. And it is evidence of cumulative events
that when taken together, support a finding of undue influence. Estate of Graves (1927)
202 C 258. Propounding Party must be afforded the opportunity to establish evidence,
circumstantial or otherwise, that in any way relates to undue influence. These
interrogatories only seek that information.
As to the relevance of the information sought regarding Responding Party 's
attorney, an element relative to undue influence is where the testator's testamentary
documents were prepared by the beneficiary's own attorney. The court views such an
occurrence as a ‘circumstance’ indicating undue influence. See Estate of Beckley,
(1965) 233 CA2d 341, 346-348. Here, the subject interrogatories explore such a
“circumstance”. Responding Party's attorney's declaration representing to the court that
to produce such a list is “burdensome”, clearly indicates that a number of matters do
exist and thus there is clear evidence of the applicability of the Estate of Beckley case.
As to the attorney client privilege raised by Responding Party, interrogatory 36
does not seek to invade confidential communications between Responding Party and
David Friedenberg. The attorney client privilege applies only to confidential
communications between lawyer and client. See California Evidence .Code § 952.
As to Responding Party's objection that the interrogatories are burdensome and
oppressive, it is not enough that the question will require a lot of work to answer. It must
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc.C €
be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression. West
Pico Furn. Co. v. Sup Ct., (1961) 56 C2d 407, 419. The court, in determining whether
the burden is unjust, undertakes a weighing process. It must appear that the amount of
work required to answer the questions is so great, and the utility of the information
sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answers. See
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19, 69 CR 348,
352; and West Pico Furn. Co. v. Sup. Ct,, supra. This Responding Party has offered no
basis whatsoever justifying these objections.
7, Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings. The court
must impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion
to compel further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction action with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust (Code Civ, Proc § 2030.300).
As is set forth in the accompanying declaration of Robert B. Mitchell,
Responding Party's attorney was given every opportunity to provide full and complete
responses to these interrogatories. Yet Responding Party simply continued to assert
these unmeritorious objections without substantively responding to the points set forth
in Propounding Party's counsel's meet and confer letter.
Dated: September 29, 2005.
BERT B. MITC
LL, Attorney for
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
‘SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc.‘Legal Tabs Co, 1-600-322-3022
Recyted 2 Steck «ASB
EXHIBIT A fwn
DEAN M. SPELLMAN, #060042
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670
Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407
Telephone: (925) 938-5880
Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Case Number PTR-05-287341
AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS
DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND WILL PETITIONER'S SPECIAL
DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004 INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO TO
RESPONDENT
CAROL MITCHELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiary
under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS
AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS
DATED 11/2/04, NICHOLAS FERRERO,
a minor and a will and trust beneficiary
and NATALIE FERRERO, a minor anda
will and trust beneficiary,
Respondents.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Petitioner, CAROL MITCHELL
RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent, EVA V. KNOTT
SET NO: TWO
Instructions to the Answering Party
(a) An answer or other appropriate response must be given to each
interrogatory. Failure to respond to these interrogatories properly can be punished by
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENT
1 EXHIBIT “A”QL
C C
sanctions, including contempt proceedings, fine, attorneys fees, and the toss of your
case.
(b) As a general rule, within 30 days after you are served with these
interrogatories, you must serve your responses on the asking party and serve copies of
your responses on all other parties to the action who have appears. See Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030 for details.
(c) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information
reasonably available to you or your agents permits. If an interrogatory cannot be
answered completely, answer it to the extent possible.
(d) !f you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an
interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the information
by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is equally available to
the asking party.
(e) Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to a document, the
document may be attached as an exhibit to the response and referred to in the
response. If the document has more than one page, refer to the page and section
where the answer to the interrogatory can be found.
(f) Whenever an address and telephone number for the same person are
requested in more than one interrogatory, you are required to furnish them in answering
only the first interrogatory asking for that information.
(g) Your answers to these interrogatories must be verified, dated, and signed.
You may wish to use the following form at the end of your answers:
“| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing answers are true and correct.”
Dated:
Signature
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTan a F&F WN Bb
(h) in the event answering party objects to an interrogatory but provides an
answer thereto, please state whether the answer given is a partial answer and a
complete answer is withheld due to the objection or alternatively, the answer given is a
complete answer in spite of the objection.
Definitions
Words in BOLDFACE CAPITALS in these interrogatories are defined as follows:
(a) When this petitioner requests documents to be identified "WITH
PARTICULARITY" such particularity shall include the title of the document, the date of
the document, and the number of pages contained in the document.
(b) DOCUMENT means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and
includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating,
photographing, 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.
INTERROGATORIES
Property Received By Gift
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 22: Please identify each and
every item of property, either real or personal, exceeding a value of $500.00 which you
have received by way of gift within the last ten (10) years, excluding therefrom property
which you received from any of your relatives of the first or second degree.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: As to each item set forth
in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify each donor(s) for each
item of property by stating his/her/its name, their last known residence address, their
last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address and
their last known employment telephone number.
Property Received By Will
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please identify each and
every item of property, either real or personal, which you have received by way of a last
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO, ONE TO RESPONDENTwo OY On oO B® WN FP
Se Pp BP eB
w NY & Oo
re
N NM MN NY NY NN NY FH BP RR
o 2 an & WN FP OP Oo a aA YH
C €
will and testament within the last ten (10) years, excluding therefrom property which you
received from any of your relatives of the first or second degree.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 25: As to each item set forth
in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify each decedent(s) for each
item of property by stating his/her name, his/her last known residence address, his/her
last known residence telephone number, his/her last known employment address and
his/her last known employment telephone number.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to each individual
identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify the probate
action(s) and/or summary probate action(s), by including, but not limited to, the name of
the county in which a probate action was filed, the case number of each such probate
action and the attorney for the administrator/executor of each such probate.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Within the tast ten (10)
years, have you been the recipient of any property from the estate of any decedent
whose estate had a gross value not exceeding $100,000.00, excluding therefrom any
decedent who was your relative of the first or second degree and further excluding
therefrom any testator who you have identified in your answer to Petitioner's Special
Interrogatory No. 25?
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: If your answer to the
preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the decedent by stating
his/her name, his/her last known residence address, his/her last known residence
telephone number, his/her last known employment address, his/her last known
employment telephone number, the name, address and telephone number of the
attorney(s) who were in any way involved with the transfer of estate property of the
decedent and the name, address and telephone number of all known relatives of the
decedent.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO, ONE TO RESPONDENTww N
Property Received Under a Trust
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Please identify each and
every item of property, either real or personal which you have received under any trust
within the last ten (10) years, excluding therefrom property which you received from any
of your relatives of the first or second degree.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: As to each item set forth
in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify the trustor(s) for each item
of property by stating his/her/their/its name, their last known residence address, their
last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and
their last known employment telephone number.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: As to each individual
identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify the name of
each individual who administered and/or assisted in the administration of each such
trust.
Current Beneficiary
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 32; Please identify each and
every person who you reasonably believe has named you as a beneficiary under their
will and/or trust by stating his/her/their name, their last known residence address, their
last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and
their last known employment telephone number and excluding therefrom any of your
relatives of the first or second degree.
Loans
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Please identify by date
and amount, each and every loan under which you borrowed money from an individual
for any amount exceeding $4,900.00, excluding therefrom loans which you received
from any of your relatives of the first or second degree.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: As to each loan identified
FENLUNER Ss SreVIAINeee eA ——
in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify each such lender by
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL, INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENT0 oy Dn HW FB WN
Boe Be ew Be ee te oe
wow owt anu s&s wn PrP Oo
20
C C
Stating his/her/their name, their last known residence address, their last known
residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and their last
known employment telephone number.
David Friedenberg
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Please identify by
including, but not limited to, their name, their last known residence address, their last
known residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and their
last known employment telephone number, each and every person who you referred to
attorney David Friedenberg for legal services.
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Please describe each
and every matter in which you retained and/or consulted with attorney David
Friedenberg in the last ten (10) years. In describing each such matter, please provide
the issue(s) involved and the general nature of the service provided by David
Friedenberg.
Real Property Transfers
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Please itemize each and
every real property transaction recorded within the fast ten (10) years in which you were
named, including, but not limited to, as a transferor, transferee, grantor, grantee,
trustee and/or beneficiary by including, but not limited to, the title of the instrument
recorded, the date of recording, the county of recording and the name, address and
telephone number of any other party to the transaction.
PETITIONER’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTwow © TY DH HO FB WN
mow NWN NN KR KD N BF PYF BP ee BH Pe
oO 2 A fF kb WON BF Oo eH DH HW BF WH HY DO
Miscellaneous
PETITIONER’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Please state the last
known residential address, last known residential telephone number, last known
employment address, and last known employment telephone number of your former
spouse, William Knott.
Dated: July 27, 2005
DEAN M. SRELLMAN, Attorney for
Petitioner, CAROL MITCHELL
DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
|, DEAN M. SPELLMAN, declare:
1. lam presently the attorney of CAROL MITCHELL, petitioner.
2. lam propounding to respondent the attached set of interrogatories.
3. This set of interrogatories will cause the total number of specially
prepared interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed
the number of specially prepared interrogatories permitted by Section 2030(c)(1) of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
4. | have previously propounded a total of 21 interrogatories to this party, of
which 21 interrogatories were not official form interrogatories.
5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of 17 specially prepared
interrogatories.
6. | am familiar with the issues and previous discovery conducted by all
parties in this case.
7. | have personally examined each of the questions, including any subparts,
in this set of interrogatories.
8. This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030(c}(2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure because of the complexity of plaintiff's allegations.
9. None of the questions or subparts in this set of interrogatories is being
propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTthee party, to whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase
in the cost of litigation.
| 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 July 27,
2005.
DEAN M. SPELSMAN, Attomey for Petitioner,
CAROL MITCHELL
PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTwn
on
DEAN M. SPELLMAN, #060042
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670
Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407
Telephone: (925) 938-5880
Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE 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,
vs.
EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiai
under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS’
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.
Case Number PTR-05-287341
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - C.C.P. 1013a, 2015.5
| declare that | am employed in the County of Contra Costa, California. | am over
the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause. My business address is
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4407.
On July 27, 2005, ! served PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
NO. TWO TO RESPONDENT and FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO, ONE on the
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILb WN
C C
hereinafter named person(s) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Walnut Creek,
California, addressed as follows:
DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG
2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, #620
Daly City, CA 94014
| 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 July 27,
2005, at Walnut Creek, California.
CYNTHIA D. GRECO
PROOP OF SERVICE BY MAILLegal Tabs Co, 1-800-222-2022 Recycled 2 Stock #HEXAS-B
EXHIBIT B- f-_
we YN AH & WN
yv meee
RBNRRRRBBRBRBBSSeBARAREH A S
C C
DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG, ESQ.
SBN 25026
2171 Junipero Serra Bivd., 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
TN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS
DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND
WILL DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004
Case No. PTR-05-287341
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - SET
TV
CAROL MITCHELL,
)
)
2
2
)
2
)
wa )
Petitioner, }
v. }
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.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Petitioner CAROL MITCHELL
RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent EVA KNOTT
SET NUMBER: TWO
Respondent EVA KNOTT hereby responds to Petitioner CAROL MITCHELLS Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, as follows: ‘
WwW
1
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES-SET TWO
EXPURIT “Brwo OY A HW FWY N =
Naa a ia a ea il
BNRRRBKRRBSaREIURAEEER AS
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 22:
Respondent objects to said interrogatory as being burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably
calculated to lead to any admissible or discoverable evidence.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23;
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 26;
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 30:
See Response to No. 22 above,
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
See Response to No. 22 above.
2
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES-SET TWO—_
woe NY AH vw RB WN
€ €
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
Respondent objects to said interrogatory as being burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably
calculated to lead to any admissible or discoverable evidence. Respondent also objects on the
grounds of attorney-client privilege.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
See Response to No. 22 above.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 38:
Respondent objects to said interrogatory as being burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably
calculated to lead to any admissible or discoverable evidence. Without waiving said objection,
William Knott has been residing out of state for more than two years and never met Charles
Actis. His last known address was in the State of Tennessee.
Dated: August 24 , 2005
DAVIDY. FRIEDENBERG, ESQ.
Attorney for ReSpondent EVA KN!
3
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES-SET TWOVERIFICATION
I declare that am the Respondent ___ in the above-entitled action; that I have read the
Responses to Spec. Rogs - Set Two
foregoing and knowits contents; and I declare that
the matters stated in the foregoing documentare true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters
which are stated on my information or belief, and as to these matters I believe them to be true,
Executed on August 22, 2005g Daly City , California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
+
is true and correct.
) bya th Loh.
LA
EVA V. KNOTT -PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
The undersigned does hereby declare as follows:
1. Iam a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
within entitled action.
2. Iam employed at and my business address is 2171 Junipero Serra Blvd., Ste. 620,
Daly City, California 94014.
3. On the date below, I placed RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES-
SET TWO ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid in the United States mail at Daly City,
California addressed as follows:
DEAN M. SPELLMAN, ESQ.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4407
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August A 2005 at Daly City, California.
“Lik) Neat
™ PAMELA IJ. MARSHLegal Tabs Co. 1-800-222-3022
Recyded Be Sock # XASB
EXHIBIT C fDEAN M. SPELLMAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1850 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 670
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-4407
(925) 938-5880
Fax (925) 938-5882
E-Mail: SPMILAW@SBCGLOBAL.NET
August 29, 2005
DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG
Attorney at Law
2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, #620
Daly City, CA 94014
VIA FAX (650) 755-4312 - HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
Re: Mitchell v. Knott; Estate of Charles Actis
MEET AND CONFER
Dear Mr. Friedenberg:
Please accept this letter as my meet and confer letter regarding your client's
various responses to petitioner's second set of special interrogatories.
Special interrogatories 22 Through 35 and 37
Your client's objections are not well taken. As to “burdensome” and
“oppressive”, you give no factual basis for these objections. Your client does not
provide any facts as to how much time it would take to provide such information.
As to “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible ... evidence”, the
test for discovery is not admissibility. Rather, the test is whether such information
could possibly lead to admissible evidence. These questions go to the issue of
your client's obtaining of property of others. For instance, if there is a pattern of
your client befriending old and/or handicapped people and ultimately ending up
with their property, that is a fact that may be admissible at trial. Consequently, the
sought information is discoverable.
Special Interrogatories 36
My comments set forth above apply equally to this interrogatory. Your \
client however adds an additional objection of attorney-client privilege. Again, that
objection does not apply since | am not seeking the communication between Ms.
Knott and her counsel. Rather, | am only seeking a general list of the matters on
which she consulted you. As you know, this relates to the issue of undue
influence.
exHiprr “cP.
4 x
DAVID J. FRIEDENBERE.
August 29, 2005
Page 2
Special Interrogatories 38
This interrogatory asks for the last known address of an individual. Your
client’s response gives only the state of the last known address. Your client is
required to provide the full last known address if known.
Itis my hope that you and your client will reevaluate the subject responses and
elect to provide full and complete responses to each of the subject interrogatories. |
would like to avoid the filing of yet another discovery motion.
| would ask that you respond to this letter within seven (7) days. Should you elect
to continue to assert the subject objections, | will file the appropriate motion immediately
so that we may move this matter along.
Sincerely,
DEAN M. SPELLMAN
DMS:mmLegal Tabs Co. 1-800-322-3022 & SORES
EXHIBIT D foCc LAW OFFICES OF C
DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG
2171 JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD
SUITE 620
DALY CITY, CA 94014
Telephone: (650) 755-6622 * — FAX: (650) 755-4312
September 14, 2005
By facsimile and mail
(925) 938-5882
Dean M. Spellman, Esq.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4407
Re: Mitchell v. Knott
Case No. PTR-05-287341
Dear Mr. Spellman:
This is in response to your "Meet and Confer" letter dated August 29, 2005.
I have reviewed your interrogatories and my responses once more, and I am still of the
opinion that the objections and reasons set forth herein are perfectly proper.
Regarding No. 38, the last known business address of William Knott is 701 Hwy. 79,
Dover, Tennessee 37058; telephone: 931-232-7992; residence address: 707 Hwy. 79, Dover, TN
37058. Respondent does not have his current home telephone number.
Very truly you
] uf
David J. Friedenberg
DIF\pm
EXHIBIT steyeLegal Tabs Co, 1-800-322-3002 Recycled 2) Siock BEXASS
EXHIBIT E f-n On &® WN
€ C
SPELLMAN & MITCHELL
Attorneys at Law
Dean M. Spellman, #060042
Robert B. Mitchell, #074795
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670
Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407
Telephone: (925) 938-5880
Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Case Number PTR-05-287341
ORESHSUENDSRSTES Wing (ebted Caen PeS tern
DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004’ DISCOVERY
[Proposed] ORDER TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO
CAROL MITCHELL, RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES AND
Petitioner, IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS
vs. Hearing Date: November ___, 2005
EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficia
under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS
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.
The motion of Petitioner Carol Mitchell for an order compelling respondent Eva
Knott to respond further to interrogatories and imposing monetary sanctions came on
regularly this date for hearing by the court. Petitioner appeared by counsel Robert B.
Mitchell and respondent appeared by counsel David Friedenberg. The court, having
read and considered the supporting and opposing papers and proof having been made
[Proposed] ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT
EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, etc.
EXHIBIT “mS”C C
to the satisfaction of the court that the motion should be granted,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent EVA KNOTT Petitioner's Special
w ne
Interrogatories 22 through 38 by answering separately and specifically each and every
&
such interrogatory in full and without objection thereto.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that EVA KNOTT and her attorney DAVID
FRIEDENBERG pay forthwith to the law offices of Spellman & Mitchell, the sum of
$2,856.30 as reasonable expenses and attorney's fees.
pw oaranay
Dated: November __, 2005
10
The Honorable EVERETT A. HEWLETT, JR.,
11 Commissioner of the San Francisco County
Superior Court
12
13
14
15
[proposed] ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT
EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO
INTERROGATORIES, @t¢-
Preview
MUA San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-08-2005 8:50 am Case Number: PTR-05-287341 Filing Date: Oct-06-2005 8:48 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01297908 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN THE MATTER OF IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF CHARLES AC 001P01297908 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.a Wn ow wmuywn wow 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C SPELLMAN & MITCHELL Attorneys at Law Dean M. Spellman, #060042 Robert B. Mitchell, #074795. 1850 Mt. Diablo Bivd., Ste. 670 Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407 Telephone: (925) 938-5880 Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE 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, vs. EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiary under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS 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. . 1. INTRODUCTION responses to seventeen (17) interrogatories, Case Number PTR-05-287341 (Related Case No. PES 05-287457) DISCOVERY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES AND IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS Date: November 3, 2005 Time: 10:30 a.m. Dept. No: 612 Filing Date: May 4, 2005 Judge: John Dearman Trial Date: Not Assigned Through this motion, petitioner seeks to obtain complete and straightforward the vast majority of which seek information regarding Responding Party's activity which is similar to that engaged in by the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc,wo NO an uw Responding Party with the decedent which is the subject of this action. ll, FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about November 2, 2004, CHARLES ACTIS executed both a Will and Revocable Living Trust which bequeathed the vast majority of Mr. Actis’ property to EVA KNOTT, Respondent herein. Approximately twenty (20) days thereafter, the San Francisco Public Guardian initiated a conservatorship proceeding as to CHARLES ACTIS under Case No. PCN-04-286737 wherein the Public Guardian sought appointment of a conservator for Mr. Actis due to its belief that EVA KNOTT was exercising undue influence upon Mr. Actis. Thus far, this petitioner has at least been able to discover that within a few months of knowing Ms. Knott, Charles Actis lent to Ms. Knott the sum of approximately $130,000.00. San Francisco Adult Protective Services (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “APS”) came to learn of this loan and began to make inquiry of Mr. Actis and Ms. Knott as to the circumstances surrounding this loan and the documentation relating thereto. Petitioner is informed and believes that the documentation for that loan was prepared incorrectly a number of times and that the San Francisco Adult Protective Services spent a number of months attempting to obtain Ms. Knott’s cooperation in properly documenting and perfecting the security for the subject loan. Petitioner was also informed that Adult Protective Services had a most difficult time dealing with Ms. Knott and that Ms. Knott was very uncooperative in providing proper documentation for that foan. It is petitioner’s understanding that this financial transaction, as well as other observations made by San Francisco Adult Protective Services, led to the initiation of the herein above referred to conservatorship proceeding. Following the filing of that conservatorship petition, Dr. Abraham Nievod was retained by APS in order to conduct an evaluation of Mr. Actis. On January 7, 2005, Dr. Nievod examined the decedent and thereafter issued a report which was filed, under seal, with this court on January 25, 2005 (under Case No. PCN-04-286737). In that seiner OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc.ony naw € C report, Dr. Nievod stated that the decedent was “... extremely vulnerable to being unduly influenced and being financially exploited by anyone in whom he places his reliance, trust and confidence — such as [the Respondent herein]" (emphasis added). Dr. Nievod went on to state that “In my professional opinion, [decedent] is incompetent to make financial decisions because he is both suffering from specific cognitive deficits and that are symptomatic of Dementia and, because of these cognitive deficits, he is unable to resist Undue Influence.” Dr. Nievod concludes that decedent's “... Dementia has been present for a number of years” and that “...the characteristics of his Dementia are most consistent with a progressive, deteriorating, dementing process, such as Alzheimer's Type Dementia”. On April 26, 2005, CHARLES ACTIS died. However, less than twenty four (24) hours before his death and while Mr. Actis was literally on his death bed, Eva Knott presented Mr. Actis with various instruments which required Mr. Actis’ notarized signature. One of these instruments was a Deed of Reconveyance which not surprisedly, benefitted Ms. Knott directly. Furthermore, Ms. Knott attempted to hide such written instrument by failing to produce same when requested under a CCP 2031.010, et seq. document request. Even to this day she and her counsel have refused to produce documents which should have been earlier produced. Immediately following Mr. Actis' death, APS contacted Petitioner’s husband and strongly urged that an autopsy be conducted as to CHARLES ACTIS. APS considered the circumstances surrounding Mr. Actis' death as questionable and believed that further investigation was warranted. Also following the death of Mr. Actis, petitioner learned that respondent herein was the principal beneficiary of Mr. Actis’ estate and as a result, petitioner initiated this action seeking to set aside Mr. Actis’ Will and Trust based upon Dr. Nievod’s report that Mr. Actis was suffering from undue influence and mental incompetency. Shortly after initiating this action, Respondent EVA KNOTT fited a Petition to Administer the Estate Surcont OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL. RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc.no e® WN KB Oo oO ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C € of CHARLES ACTIS and at the initial hearing of that petition, the Honorable John Dearman removed Respondent both as trustee for the CHARLES ACTIS TRUST and denied her request to be appointed executrix, and instead, appointed Debra Dolch as both successor trustee and administratrix. During the course of this litigation, it was also !earned that a close friend of the decedent observed that Responding Party intentionally isolated decedent, did not allow decedent to have unsupervised visits with his friend, controlled the conversation of decedent, made false negative statements to the decedent regarding decedent's family members and in general, controlled the decedent and his beliefs as to certain financial matters. Further, Responding Party told this close friend of decedent that he would receive money if he would sign a declaration in this action supporting the position of Responding Party in this matter. This close friend of the decedent understood this to be a bribe being offered by Responding Party to support her in her efforts to get the decedent's assets. I, AUTHORITY A._Interrogatories THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 22 THROUGH 38 BECAUSE RESPONDING PARTY’S OBJECTIONS TO THOSE PARTICULAR INTERROGATORIES ARE WITHOUT MERIT. IF THE MOTION IS GRANTED THE COURT SHOULD ALSO IMPOSE A MONETARY SANCTION AGAINST RESPONDENT AND HER ATTORNEY BECAUSE THERE !S NO SHOWING THAT RESPONDENT ACTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION OR THAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE THE IMPOSITION OF THE SANCTIONS UNJUST. 1. Motion to Compe! Further Response to Interrogatories. _If the propounding party, upon receipt of a response to interrogatories, deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general, that party may move for an order compelling a further response (CCP §2030.300). 2. Scope of Examination by Written Interrogatories. Any party may obtain discovery within the scope fixed by Sections 2017.010 through 2017.740 of the Code of MEMORANOUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL. RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc.Wn ew wo mrt nu 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C € Civil Procedure, and subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 2019.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath (CCP § 2030.010(a)). Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with Sections 2016.010 through 2036.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (CCP §§ 2017.010, 2030.010; Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal App 3d 761, 765). 3. Permissible Subject Matter. An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial (Code Civ, Proc. § 2030.010). 4. Right To Discovery Liberally Construed. Courts have construed the discovery Statutes broadly, so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. Greyhound Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (Clay) (1961) 56 C2d 355, 377-378, 15 CR 90, 100 (decided under former law); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 C4th 1101, 1108- ‘Our conclusions in Greyhound apply equally to the new discovery statutes enacted by the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 which retain the expansive scope of discovery’; see Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 CA4th 424. 5. Responses Must Be Verified. The interrogatory responses must be signed under oath by the party to whom the interrogatories are directed. CCP 2030.250(b). Responding Party apparently wishes to amend her response to interrogatory 38 but as of the date of the preparation of this motion, she has failed to serve any supplemental SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL. RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc.response containing her revised response. 6._Interrogatories 22 through 38, These seventeen (17) interrogatories seek circumstantial evidence that may be offered at trial of this matter. As is more particularly set forth in the accompanying 335 statement, the information sought concerns, in part, the modus operandi of Responding Party and the establishment of a pattern by which she obtains property from the elderly, the infirmed and/or the disabled by befriending and ingratiating herself with them. An undue influence case normally must be established by circumstantial evidence, namely through inferences. Undue influence also normally takes place behind closed doors. And it is evidence of cumulative events that when taken together, support a finding of undue influence. Estate of Graves (1927) 202 C 258. Propounding Party must be afforded the opportunity to establish evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that in any way relates to undue influence. These interrogatories only seek that information. As to the relevance of the information sought regarding Responding Party 's attorney, an element relative to undue influence is where the testator's testamentary documents were prepared by the beneficiary's own attorney. The court views such an occurrence as a ‘circumstance’ indicating undue influence. See Estate of Beckley, (1965) 233 CA2d 341, 346-348. Here, the subject interrogatories explore such a “circumstance”. Responding Party's attorney's declaration representing to the court that to produce such a list is “burdensome”, clearly indicates that a number of matters do exist and thus there is clear evidence of the applicability of the Estate of Beckley case. As to the attorney client privilege raised by Responding Party, interrogatory 36 does not seek to invade confidential communications between Responding Party and David Friedenberg. The attorney client privilege applies only to confidential communications between lawyer and client. See California Evidence .Code § 952. As to Responding Party's objection that the interrogatories are burdensome and oppressive, it is not enough that the question will require a lot of work to answer. It must MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc.C € be shown that the burden of answering is so unjust that it amounts to oppression. West Pico Furn. Co. v. Sup Ct., (1961) 56 C2d 407, 419. The court, in determining whether the burden is unjust, undertakes a weighing process. It must appear that the amount of work required to answer the questions is so great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answers. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1968) 263 CA2d 12, 19, 69 CR 348, 352; and West Pico Furn. Co. v. Sup. Ct,, supra. This Responding Party has offered no basis whatsoever justifying these objections. 7, Court Must Impose Monetary Sanction Absent Specified Findings. The court must impose a monetary sanction under Section 2023.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction action with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust (Code Civ, Proc § 2030.300). As is set forth in the accompanying declaration of Robert B. Mitchell, Responding Party's attorney was given every opportunity to provide full and complete responses to these interrogatories. Yet Responding Party simply continued to assert these unmeritorious objections without substantively responding to the points set forth in Propounding Party's counsel's meet and confer letter. Dated: September 29, 2005. BERT B. MITC LL, Attorney for Petitioner MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN ‘SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc.‘Legal Tabs Co, 1-600-322-3022 Recyted 2 Steck «ASB EXHIBIT A fwn DEAN M. SPELLMAN, #060042 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670 Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407 Telephone: (925) 938-5880 Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Case Number PTR-05-287341 AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND WILL PETITIONER'S SPECIAL DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004 INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO TO RESPONDENT CAROL MITCHELL, Petitioner, vs. EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiary under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS DATED 11/2/04, NICHOLAS FERRERO, a minor and a will and trust beneficiary and NATALIE FERRERO, a minor anda will and trust beneficiary, Respondents. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Petitioner, CAROL MITCHELL RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent, EVA V. KNOTT SET NO: TWO Instructions to the Answering Party (a) An answer or other appropriate response must be given to each interrogatory. Failure to respond to these interrogatories properly can be punished by PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENT 1 EXHIBIT “A”QL C C sanctions, including contempt proceedings, fine, attorneys fees, and the toss of your case. (b) As a general rule, within 30 days after you are served with these interrogatories, you must serve your responses on the asking party and serve copies of your responses on all other parties to the action who have appears. See Code of Civil Procedure section 2030 for details. (c) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to you or your agents permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it to the extent possible. (d) !f you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully answer an interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and good faith effort to get the information by asking other persons or organizations, unless the information is equally available to the asking party. (e) Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to a document, the document may be attached as an exhibit to the response and referred to in the response. If the document has more than one page, refer to the page and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be found. (f) Whenever an address and telephone number for the same person are requested in more than one interrogatory, you are required to furnish them in answering only the first interrogatory asking for that information. (g) Your answers to these interrogatories must be verified, dated, and signed. You may wish to use the following form at the end of your answers: “| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing answers are true and correct.” Dated: Signature PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTan a F&F WN Bb (h) in the event answering party objects to an interrogatory but provides an answer thereto, please state whether the answer given is a partial answer and a complete answer is withheld due to the objection or alternatively, the answer given is a complete answer in spite of the objection. Definitions Words in BOLDFACE CAPITALS in these interrogatories are defined as follows: (a) When this petitioner requests documents to be identified "WITH PARTICULARITY" such particularity shall include the title of the document, the date of the document, and the number of pages contained in the document. (b) DOCUMENT means a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, 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. INTERROGATORIES Property Received By Gift PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 22: Please identify each and every item of property, either real or personal, exceeding a value of $500.00 which you have received by way of gift within the last ten (10) years, excluding therefrom property which you received from any of your relatives of the first or second degree. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: As to each item set forth in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify each donor(s) for each item of property by stating his/her/its name, their last known residence address, their last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address and their last known employment telephone number. Property Received By Will PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please identify each and every item of property, either real or personal, which you have received by way of a last PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO, ONE TO RESPONDENTwo OY On oO B® WN FP Se Pp BP eB w NY & Oo re N NM MN NY NY NN NY FH BP RR o 2 an & WN FP OP Oo a aA YH C € will and testament within the last ten (10) years, excluding therefrom property which you received from any of your relatives of the first or second degree. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 25: As to each item set forth in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify each decedent(s) for each item of property by stating his/her name, his/her last known residence address, his/her last known residence telephone number, his/her last known employment address and his/her last known employment telephone number. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to each individual identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify the probate action(s) and/or summary probate action(s), by including, but not limited to, the name of the county in which a probate action was filed, the case number of each such probate action and the attorney for the administrator/executor of each such probate. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Within the tast ten (10) years, have you been the recipient of any property from the estate of any decedent whose estate had a gross value not exceeding $100,000.00, excluding therefrom any decedent who was your relative of the first or second degree and further excluding therefrom any testator who you have identified in your answer to Petitioner's Special Interrogatory No. 25? PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify the decedent by stating his/her name, his/her last known residence address, his/her last known residence telephone number, his/her last known employment address, his/her last known employment telephone number, the name, address and telephone number of the attorney(s) who were in any way involved with the transfer of estate property of the decedent and the name, address and telephone number of all known relatives of the decedent. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO, ONE TO RESPONDENTww N Property Received Under a Trust PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Please identify each and every item of property, either real or personal which you have received under any trust within the last ten (10) years, excluding therefrom property which you received from any of your relatives of the first or second degree. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30: As to each item set forth in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify the trustor(s) for each item of property by stating his/her/their/its name, their last known residence address, their last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and their last known employment telephone number. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: As to each individual identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify the name of each individual who administered and/or assisted in the administration of each such trust. Current Beneficiary PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 32; Please identify each and every person who you reasonably believe has named you as a beneficiary under their will and/or trust by stating his/her/their name, their last known residence address, their last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and their last known employment telephone number and excluding therefrom any of your relatives of the first or second degree. Loans PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Please identify by date and amount, each and every loan under which you borrowed money from an individual for any amount exceeding $4,900.00, excluding therefrom loans which you received from any of your relatives of the first or second degree. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: As to each loan identified FENLUNER Ss SreVIAINeee eA —— in your answer to the preceding interrogatory, please identify each such lender by PETITIONER'S SPECIAL, INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENT0 oy Dn HW FB WN Boe Be ew Be ee te oe wow owt anu s&s wn PrP Oo 20 C C Stating his/her/their name, their last known residence address, their last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and their last known employment telephone number. David Friedenberg PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Please identify by including, but not limited to, their name, their last known residence address, their last known residence telephone number, their last known employment address, and their last known employment telephone number, each and every person who you referred to attorney David Friedenberg for legal services. PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Please describe each and every matter in which you retained and/or consulted with attorney David Friedenberg in the last ten (10) years. In describing each such matter, please provide the issue(s) involved and the general nature of the service provided by David Friedenberg. Real Property Transfers PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Please itemize each and every real property transaction recorded within the fast ten (10) years in which you were named, including, but not limited to, as a transferor, transferee, grantor, grantee, trustee and/or beneficiary by including, but not limited to, the title of the instrument recorded, the date of recording, the county of recording and the name, address and telephone number of any other party to the transaction. PETITIONER’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTwow © TY DH HO FB WN mow NWN NN KR KD N BF PYF BP ee BH Pe oO 2 A fF kb WON BF Oo eH DH HW BF WH HY DO Miscellaneous PETITIONER’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Please state the last known residential address, last known residential telephone number, last known employment address, and last known employment telephone number of your former spouse, William Knott. Dated: July 27, 2005 DEAN M. SRELLMAN, Attorney for Petitioner, CAROL MITCHELL DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY |, DEAN M. SPELLMAN, declare: 1. lam presently the attorney of CAROL MITCHELL, petitioner. 2. lam propounding to respondent the attached set of interrogatories. 3. This set of interrogatories will cause the total number of specially prepared interrogatories propounded to the party to whom they are directed to exceed the number of specially prepared interrogatories permitted by Section 2030(c)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. | have previously propounded a total of 21 interrogatories to this party, of which 21 interrogatories were not official form interrogatories. 5. This set of interrogatories contains a total of 17 specially prepared interrogatories. 6. | am familiar with the issues and previous discovery conducted by all parties in this case. 7. | have personally examined each of the questions, including any subparts, in this set of interrogatories. 8. This number of questions is warranted under Section 2030(c}(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure because of the complexity of plaintiff's allegations. 9. None of the questions or subparts in this set of interrogatories is being propounded for any improper purpose, such as to harass the party, or the attorney for PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTthee party, to whom it is directed, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. | 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 July 27, 2005. DEAN M. SPELSMAN, Attomey for Petitioner, CAROL MITCHELL PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE TO RESPONDENTwn on DEAN M. SPELLMAN, #060042 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670 Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407 Telephone: (925) 938-5880 Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE 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, vs. EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficiai under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS’ 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. Case Number PTR-05-287341 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - C.C.P. 1013a, 2015.5 | declare that | am employed in the County of Contra Costa, California. | am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause. My business address is 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4407. On July 27, 2005, ! served PETITIONER'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. TWO TO RESPONDENT and FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO, ONE on the PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILb WN C C hereinafter named person(s) by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Walnut Creek, California, addressed as follows: DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG 2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, #620 Daly City, CA 94014 | 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 July 27, 2005, at Walnut Creek, California. CYNTHIA D. GRECO PROOP OF SERVICE BY MAILLegal Tabs Co, 1-800-222-2022 Recycled 2 Stock #HEXAS-B EXHIBIT B- f-_ we YN AH & WN yv meee RBNRRRRBBRBRBBSSeBARAREH A S C C DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG, ESQ. SBN 25026 2171 Junipero Serra Bivd., 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 TN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT OF CHARLES ACTIS DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004, AND WILL DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004 Case No. PTR-05-287341 RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - SET TV CAROL MITCHELL, ) ) 2 2 ) 2 ) wa ) Petitioner, } v. } 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. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Petitioner CAROL MITCHELL RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent EVA KNOTT SET NUMBER: TWO Respondent EVA KNOTT hereby responds to Petitioner CAROL MITCHELLS Special Interrogatories, Set Two, as follows: ‘ WwW 1 RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES-SET TWO EXPURIT “Brwo OY A HW FWY N = Naa a ia a ea il BNRRRBKRRBSaREIURAEEER AS RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 22: Respondent objects to said interrogatory as being burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to any admissible or discoverable evidence. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23; See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 26; See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 30: See Response to No. 22 above, RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34: See Response to No. 22 above. 2 RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES-SET TWO—_ woe NY AH vw RB WN € € RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Respondent objects to said interrogatory as being burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to any admissible or discoverable evidence. Respondent also objects on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 37: See Response to No. 22 above. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO, 38: Respondent objects to said interrogatory as being burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to any admissible or discoverable evidence. Without waiving said objection, William Knott has been residing out of state for more than two years and never met Charles Actis. His last known address was in the State of Tennessee. Dated: August 24 , 2005 DAVIDY. FRIEDENBERG, ESQ. Attorney for ReSpondent EVA KN! 3 RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES-SET TWOVERIFICATION I declare that am the Respondent ___ in the above-entitled action; that I have read the Responses to Spec. Rogs - Set Two foregoing and knowits contents; and I declare that the matters stated in the foregoing documentare true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are stated on my information or belief, and as to these matters I believe them to be true, Executed on August 22, 2005g Daly City , California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing + is true and correct. ) bya th Loh. LA EVA V. KNOTT -PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL The undersigned does hereby declare as follows: 1. Iam a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action. 2. Iam employed at and my business address is 2171 Junipero Serra Blvd., Ste. 620, Daly City, California 94014. 3. On the date below, I placed RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES- SET TWO ina sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid in the United States mail at Daly City, California addressed as follows: DEAN M. SPELLMAN, ESQ. 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4407 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August A 2005 at Daly City, California. “Lik) Neat ™ PAMELA IJ. MARSHLegal Tabs Co. 1-800-222-3022 Recyded Be Sock # XASB EXHIBIT C fDEAN M. SPELLMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 1850 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 670 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-4407 (925) 938-5880 Fax (925) 938-5882 E-Mail: SPMILAW@SBCGLOBAL.NET August 29, 2005 DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG Attorney at Law 2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, #620 Daly City, CA 94014 VIA FAX (650) 755-4312 - HARD COPY TO FOLLOW Re: Mitchell v. Knott; Estate of Charles Actis MEET AND CONFER Dear Mr. Friedenberg: Please accept this letter as my meet and confer letter regarding your client's various responses to petitioner's second set of special interrogatories. Special interrogatories 22 Through 35 and 37 Your client's objections are not well taken. As to “burdensome” and “oppressive”, you give no factual basis for these objections. Your client does not provide any facts as to how much time it would take to provide such information. As to “not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible ... evidence”, the test for discovery is not admissibility. Rather, the test is whether such information could possibly lead to admissible evidence. These questions go to the issue of your client's obtaining of property of others. For instance, if there is a pattern of your client befriending old and/or handicapped people and ultimately ending up with their property, that is a fact that may be admissible at trial. Consequently, the sought information is discoverable. Special Interrogatories 36 My comments set forth above apply equally to this interrogatory. Your \ client however adds an additional objection of attorney-client privilege. Again, that objection does not apply since | am not seeking the communication between Ms. Knott and her counsel. Rather, | am only seeking a general list of the matters on which she consulted you. As you know, this relates to the issue of undue influence. exHiprr “cP. 4 x DAVID J. FRIEDENBERE. August 29, 2005 Page 2 Special Interrogatories 38 This interrogatory asks for the last known address of an individual. Your client’s response gives only the state of the last known address. Your client is required to provide the full last known address if known. Itis my hope that you and your client will reevaluate the subject responses and elect to provide full and complete responses to each of the subject interrogatories. | would like to avoid the filing of yet another discovery motion. | would ask that you respond to this letter within seven (7) days. Should you elect to continue to assert the subject objections, | will file the appropriate motion immediately so that we may move this matter along. Sincerely, DEAN M. SPELLMAN DMS:mmLegal Tabs Co. 1-800-322-3022 & SORES EXHIBIT D foCc LAW OFFICES OF C DAVID J. FRIEDENBERG 2171 JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD SUITE 620 DALY CITY, CA 94014 Telephone: (650) 755-6622 * — FAX: (650) 755-4312 September 14, 2005 By facsimile and mail (925) 938-5882 Dean M. Spellman, Esq. 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4407 Re: Mitchell v. Knott Case No. PTR-05-287341 Dear Mr. Spellman: This is in response to your "Meet and Confer" letter dated August 29, 2005. I have reviewed your interrogatories and my responses once more, and I am still of the opinion that the objections and reasons set forth herein are perfectly proper. Regarding No. 38, the last known business address of William Knott is 701 Hwy. 79, Dover, Tennessee 37058; telephone: 931-232-7992; residence address: 707 Hwy. 79, Dover, TN 37058. Respondent does not have his current home telephone number. Very truly you ] uf David J. Friedenberg DIF\pm EXHIBIT steyeLegal Tabs Co, 1-800-322-3002 Recycled 2) Siock BEXASS EXHIBIT E f-n On &® WN € C SPELLMAN & MITCHELL Attorneys at Law Dean M. Spellman, #060042 Robert B. Mitchell, #074795 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 670 Walnut Creek, California 94596-4407 Telephone: (925) 938-5880 Attorney for CAROL MITCHELL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN RE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Case Number PTR-05-287341 ORESHSUENDSRSTES Wing (ebted Caen PeS tern DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004’ DISCOVERY [Proposed] ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO CAROL MITCHELL, RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES AND Petitioner, IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS vs. Hearing Date: November ___, 2005 EVA V. KNOTT, Trustee and Beneficia under the REVOCABLE LIVING TRUS 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. The motion of Petitioner Carol Mitchell for an order compelling respondent Eva Knott to respond further to interrogatories and imposing monetary sanctions came on regularly this date for hearing by the court. Petitioner appeared by counsel Robert B. Mitchell and respondent appeared by counsel David Friedenberg. The court, having read and considered the supporting and opposing papers and proof having been made [Proposed] ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, etc. EXHIBIT “mS”C C to the satisfaction of the court that the motion should be granted, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent EVA KNOTT Petitioner's Special w ne Interrogatories 22 through 38 by answering separately and specifically each and every & such interrogatory in full and without objection thereto. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that EVA KNOTT and her attorney DAVID FRIEDENBERG pay forthwith to the law offices of Spellman & Mitchell, the sum of $2,856.30 as reasonable expenses and attorney's fees. pw oaranay Dated: November __, 2005 10 The Honorable EVERETT A. HEWLETT, JR., 11 Commissioner of the San Francisco County Superior Court 12 13 14 15 [proposed] ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENT EVA KNOTT TO RESPOND FURTHER TO INTERROGATORIES, @t¢-