Motion to Compel in SEAN ILUMIN ET AL VS. RUSSEL G. LEACH ET AL| Trellis.Law

On June 13, 2019 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Espinoza, Roberto, Ilumin, Sean, Ilumin, Tarika, and Does 1 To 20, Leach, Mary J., Leach, Russel, Leach, Russel G., Liberty Realty Property Management, Lovelace, Charles, Sullivan, Patrick, for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA (SBN 303416)
Ted Broomfield Law
2 1243 Pine Street, #12 ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, California 94109 F I L E D
3
Telephone: (415) 500-2029; Fax: (415) 366-2898 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com
01/08/2020
Clerk of the Court
5 Attorney for the Plaintiffs, BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Sean Ilumin, Tarika Ilumin and Roberto Espinoza, Deputy Clerk
6

7
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
9

10 Sean Ilumin, Tarika Ilumin and Roberto Case No.: CGC-19-576664
11 Espinoza,
DECLARATION OF TED
12 BROOMFIELD COUNSEL TO
PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
13 vs. SULLIVAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL
14 FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
Russell G. Leach, Mary J. Leach, Patrick FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AND
15 Joseph Sullivan, Charles Lovelace and Does 1 REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
to 20, inclusive,
16

17 Defendants. Hearing: Jan. 29, 2020, 9:00 am Dept. 302

18
DECLARATION OF TED BROOMFIELD, COUNSEL TO PLAINTIFFS
19

20 I, TED BROOMFIELD, declare:

21 1. I, Ted Broomfield, am an attorney licensed to practice law in all courts of the State of

22 California.

23 2. I represent Plaintiffs, Sean Ilumin, Tarika Ilumin and Roberto Espinoza. (hereinafter

24 known as “Plaintiffs”).

25 3. The Defendants are Russell G. Leach, Mary J. Leach, Patrick Joseph Sullivan, Charles

26 Lovelace, and Does 1 to 20, inclusive (hereinafter known as “Defendants”).

1
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically and by First Class U.S. Mail on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
1 4. The Defendant Patrick Joseph Sullivan (hereinafter known as “Defendant”) is represented
2 by Peter C. Catalanotti and Michael V. Shepherd of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
3 Dicker LLP (hereinafter known as “Defendant’s Counsel)
4 5. The foregoing is based on personal knowledge.
5 6. This declaration is in support of the foregoing opposition.
6 7. On February 22, 2019, Defendants’ Counsel David Finkelstein sent a letter to Plaintiffs’
7 Counsel Ted Broomfield (hereinafter known as “Plaintiffs’ Counsel”). This letter
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

8 mentioned Defendants’ “…demand mediation,” however, there were no specifics
9 mentioned in the letter to qualify what would be included in any mediation. See Exhibit A
10 for the February 22, 2019 Letter from Defendants’ Counsel David Finkelstein.
11 8. On September 5, 2019, Defendant caused Form Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for
12 Admission, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One to be served on Plaintiffs.
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

13 9. On October 9, 2019, I caused original responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set
14 One, Requests for Admission, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One to be served
15 on Defendant.
16 10. Between the dates of November 5, 2019 and December 5, 2019, Defendant engaged in
17 purported meet-and-confer efforts.
18 11. On November 5, 2019, Defendant’s Counsel sent 3 letters, totaling seventy-eight (78)
19 pages, in a feigned effort to meet and confer on Plaintiffs’ responses to Form
20 Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Admission, Set One, and Demand for Production,
21 Set One. The sheer breadth of content was unreasonable, and substantively, the
22 discussion sought to evade the sheer defectiveness of the original requests [eg. None were
23 bound in time]. See Motion to Compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and
24 Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Admissions for Defendant’s
25 purported meet and confer efforts.
26 12. Defendant has filed motions to compel further responses for Form Interrogatories, Set
27 One, and Requests for Admission, Set One.
28

2
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically and by First Class U.S. Mail on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
1 13. Defendant has not filed a motion to compel further responses for Demand for Production,
2 Set One.
3 14. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff sent a three (3) page letter in response as a reasonable
4 effort to meet and confer. See Exhibit B for the meet and confer efforts by Plaintiffs.
5 15. Plaintiffs provided substantive reasons why original responses were adequate.
6 16. On November 7, 2019, Defendant sent a purported effort to meet and confer, but ignored
7 the substance of Plaintiffs’ position. See Motion to Compel further responses to Form
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

8 Interrogatories and Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Admissions for
9 Defendant’s purported meet and confer efforts
10 17. On November 7, 2019, Plaintiffs sent a second response in an effort to meet and confer.
11 See Exhibit B for the meet and confer efforts by Plaintiffs.
12 18. In that November 7, 2019 meet and confer effort, Plaintiffs explicitly, and only, agreed to
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

13 extend Defendant’s time to make a Motion to Compel until December 13, 2019.
14 19. At no time did Plaintiffs agree to extend Defendant’s time to make a Motion for
15 Sanctions.
16 20. On December 5, 2019, Defendant sent a purported effort to meet and confer. See Motion
17 to Compel further responses to Form Interrogatories and Motion to Compel further
18 responses to Requests for Admissions for Defendant’s purported meet and confer efforts
19 21. On December 6, 2019, Plaintiffs sent a third response in an effort to meet and confer, and
20 I caused First Amended Responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and
21 Requests for Production, Set One to be served on Defendant. See Exhibit B for the meet
22 and confer efforts by Plaintiffs.
23 22. In that December 6, 2019 meet and confer effort, Plaintiffs maintain their position that
24 the responses to Defendant’s Request for Admission are adequate.
25 23. On December 13, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to
26 Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One.
27 24. With respect to the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Request for
28 Admissions, Set One, improper notice appears to be given. The caption states January

3
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically and by First Class U.S. Mail on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
1 29, 2020, 9:00 am in Department 302, while the text states January 21, 2020 9:00 am in
2 Department 302.
3 25. On December 16, 2019, Plaintiffs caused First Amended Responses to Defendant’s
4 Requests for Admission, Set One, and Second Amended Responses to Form
5 Interrogatories, Set One to be served on Defendant not because Plaintiffs felt further
6 amended responses were warranted but to avoid any unnecessary motion work.
7 26. On December 31, 2019, Defendant Sullivan asserted that this Court would hear the
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

8 motion on amended responses and cited an unpublished case as authority for refusing to
9 withdraw the motion. See Exhibit C for the December 31, 2019 correspondence from
10 Defendant Sullivan’s Counsel Michael V. Shepherd.
11 27. On several occasions, Plaintiffs requested that Defendant withdraw the motion.
12 28. As of this filing, Defendant has not withdrawn the motion.
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

13 29. I expect to consume twelve (12) hours preparing this opposition to Defendant’s Motion
14 and for related work for court appearance in support of opposition at a rate of four
15 hundred dollars ($400) an hour for a total of four thousand, eight hundred dollars
16 ($4,800.00). I expect ten (10) hours of paralegal work to be consumed preparing for this
17 opposition to Defendant’s Motion and for related work for court appearance in support of
18 opposition at a rate of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) an hour for a total of one
19 thousand, five hundred dollars ($1,500.00). Other costs associated with the preparation
20 and filing of this opposition to Defendant’s Motion and for related work for court
21 appearance in support of opposition total sixty-four dollars and fifty cents ($64.50).
22

23
ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE PAGE TO DECLARATION BY PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
24 IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOLLOWS
25

4
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically and by First Class U.S. Mail on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
1

3
ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE PAGE TO DECLARATION BY TED BROOMFIELD,
4 COUNSEL TO PLAINTFIFS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT SULLUVAN’S MOTION
5

6
I, TED BROOMFIELD, declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
7
knowledge subject to the penalties of perjury under the laws of California and the United States
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

8
of America.
9

10
1/7/2020 TED BROOMFIELD LAW, P.C.
11

12
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

14 Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA (SBN 303416)
15
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
16 Sean Ilumin, Tarika Ilumin, and Roberto Espinoza
17

5
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically and by First Class U.S. Mail on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS

2 A. February 22, 2019 Letter from Defendants’ Counsel David Finkelstein
3
B. Meet and confer efforts by Plaintiffs
4
C. December 31, 2019 correspondence from Defendant Sullivan’s Counsel Michael V. Shepherd
5

7
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

12
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

LIST OF EXHIBITS
1

7
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

12
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

27
EXHIBIT A
28

Exhibit A
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
1

7
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

12
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

27
EXHIBIT B
28

Exhibit B
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C. – Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA, CVA (303416)
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel. (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com.

TO: Micgael Shepard
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
525 market Street, 17th Floor, SF, CA 94105.
Tel: (415) 625-9245. Email: Michael.Shepard@wilsonelser.com

November 5, 2019

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY

Re: #1 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 11/5/2019

Mr. Shepard:

The purpose of this communication is to respond to your meet & confer letter regarding
Plaintiffs’ responses to your discovery.

SUMMARY

DOCUMENTS: We produced all responsive, non-privileged documents. If you did not receive
the disc, please advise. Wouldn’t you agree that any motion when Responding Party states that all
responsive, non-privileged documents have already been served will not be well-received. RFAs:
Pardon the mis-citation, nevertheless, Responding Party is entitled to state the inability to admit or deny
(Smith, infra), and at law the requests are severely defective. Would you consider crafting new
requests? FROGS. Plaintiffs need more time to consider your letter. Would you accept an extension of
the deadline to make a motion to compel further responses, in exchange for a stipulation for use of a
IDC and discovery referee?

DETAILS

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

I must admit, I am confused by the meet and confer over documents. I included a CD with all
responsive, non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs’ possession in the envelope containing the responses.
Is it possible that you did not see the disc enclosed that contained the documents produced in one
Portable Document File (PDF)?

So, despite the objections, Plaintiffs provided all non-privileged responsive document in its
possession and provided code compliant responses where documents either never existed or have
been lost or destroyed. The documents were sent on a disc in the envelope in which we served
responses.

Please advise if you missed the disc containing all Plaintiff’s documents. If so, I will resend it.If
you require us to print those documents, we can arrange for you to pay us for the costs or printing and
delivery.

Page 1. #1 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 11/5/2019
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C. – Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA, CVA (303416)
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel. (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com.

Other than that, I am afraid that Plaintiffs do not have a single additional document to produce.
I would tell the Court as much.

Hence, wouldn’t you agree that a motion on the documents would not be well-received under
these circumstances (we included a disc with all responsive, non-privileged documents in the service,
and have offered to provide another one if you misplaced the original disc)?

Again, if you did not see that disc, I am happy to send you another one that contains ALL the
responsive and non-privileged documents Plaintiffs possess.

RFAs

In the first instance, I apologize. I made a typographical error when typing my response. I
meant to cite Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220(c), not 2030.220(c).

Nevertheless, with respect to Plaintiffs’ responses for requests for admissions, unfortunately for
you, the Court has no authority to dictate the Responding Party’s response beyond that which is
permitted by statute (admit, deny, state that responding party cannot admit or deny). The statute and
case law specifically allow a party to state that Responding party cannot admit or deny, per Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2033.220(c). Smith v. Circle P. Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 277.

Furthermore, as was stated explicitly in the objections, unfortunately, each request was severely
defective, in that it was not bound by time. The applicable case law is the City of Los Angeles, which
held specifically that by failing to bound a request by time, the request became unduly burdensome.
City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 196 Cal. App. 2d 743, 745.

Additionally, the unbounded nature of the requests make the requests vague and ambiguous.
When did Mr. Sullivan purportedly own the property? When were the Leaches purportedly the owners?
When was said lease signed? Etc.

There are other defects including the various spelling errors, and grammatical errors that are
cited in the objections.

Overall, the requests are so defective for the reasons stated that Responding Party was forced
to respond with the code compliant response that the law entitles them to make under Code of Civil
Procedure section 2033.220(c) – they are unable to admit or deny.

Based on my extensive experience in discovery motion work, with respect to the RFAs, I
sincerely request that you to consider using the IDC and/or Discovery Referee. I do not any motion to
compel further responses to RFAs under these circumstances would be well-taken, and you could
benefit from a neutral third party’s opinion on the matter.

If you care to serve new discovery that are intelligible and properly bounded by time, and
otherwise are not objectionable, Plaintiffs may be better positioned to respond.

Page 2. #1 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 11/5/2019
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C. – Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA, CVA (303416)
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel. (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com.

FROGS

With respect to the background, it is possible that we could provide more information that does
not violate my Clients’ confidentiality. However, I need more time to consider your letter and requests.
Would you accept an extension of the deadline to make a motion to compel further responses, in
exchange for a stipulation for use of a IDC and discovery referee? Please advise.

With respect to the FROG 17, dealing with the RFAs, wouldn’t you agree that based on the code-
compliant responses, and the unbound nature of the requests, Plaintiffs’ position will prevail?

SUMMARY

DOCUMENTS: We produced all responsive, non-privileged documents. If you did not receive
the disc, please advise. Wouldn’t you agree that any motion when Responding Party states that all
responsive, non-privileged documents have already been served will not be well-received. RFAs:
Pardon the mis-citation, nevertheless, Responding Party is entitled to state the inability to admit or deny
(Smith, supra), and at law the requests are severely defective. Would you consider crafting new
requests? FROGS. Plaintiffs need more time to consider your letter. Would you accept an extension of
the deadline to make a motion to compel further responses, in exchange for a stipulation for use of a
IDC and discovery referee?

In general, would you please consider an IDC and discovery referee, in order to avoid a motion?

Please advise.

Sincerely,

/S/

Ted Broomfield
TSB / bd

Page 3. #1 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 11/5/2019
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C. – Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA, CVA (303416)
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel. (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com.

TO: Micgael Shepard
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
525 market Street, 17th Floor, SF, CA 94105.
Tel: (415) 625-9245. Email: Michael.Shepard@wilsonelser.com

November 7, 2019

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY

Re: #2 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 11/7/2019

Mr. Shepard:

The purpose of this communication is to respond to your November 7, 2019 second meet &
confer letter regarding Plaintiffs’ responses to your discovery.

Plaintiffs agree to extend Defendant Sullivan’s time to make a Motion to Compel until December
13, 2019.

Documents. Plaintiffs produced all responsive documents and provided code compliant
responses. The objections have merit. The documents were produced in the order stored in the
ordinary course of business. A privilege log is not required under CCP § 2031.240(c), rather sufficient
information to judge the objection. Plaintiffs provided that.

Plaintiffs reasonably believe this addresses Defendant’s concerns. To the extent it doesn’t, it
isn’t that an indication for the need for an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) and or Discovery
Referee. Would you please reconsider your rejection, in light of ostensible continued dispute?

RFA. Your assertions that Plaintiffs did not make a code compliant response appears to be
based merely on the typographical error referring to CCP § 3030.230(c). Responding parties did make a
reasonable inquiry, and could not admit or deny.

Part of the Reason responding Parties could not admit or deny was the unbounded nature of the
question. You asked Responding Party to admit or deny whether Patrick Sullivan owns the property?
Ownership interest can be secret and uncrecorded. Hence, Responding Party has no idea. You asked
Responding Party to admit whether Patrick Sullivan offered mediation? Yet you did not define
mediation, did not specify when such an offer was purportedly made.

If you insist and that would completely resolve Defendant’s issues with respect to the RFAs,
Plaintiffs can re-serve amended responses with the correct citation.

Again, the severe defects in the requests make Responding Party unable to respond.

Hence, it appears that you agree Responding party CAN state it cannot admit or deny, and are
challenging whether it can was done in good faith.

Page 1. #2 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 11/7/2019
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C. – Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA, CVA (303416)
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel. (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com.

From experience, I think the Court will find Responding Party has done so in good faith. From
experience, I believe that the Court will explain the remedy for failing to admit or deny is sanctions after
Court, and not discovery sanctions. CCP § 2043.420.

Plaintiffs reasonably believe this addresses all of Defendant’s RFA concerns. To the extent it
doesn’t, would you please reconsider Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) and or Discovery Referee,
as a means to resolve the discovery dispute?

FROGS. Plaintiff disagrees.

I expect that this matter resolves all discovery disputes. If not, would you reconsider an IDC and
/ or Discovery Referee in order to resolve the ongoing dispute?

If I do not hear from you, I will assume the matter concluded.

Sincerely,

/S/

Ted Broomfield
TSB / bd

Page 2. #2 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 11/7/2019
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C. – Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA, CVA (303416)
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel. (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com.

TO: Michael Shepard
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
525 market Street, 17th Floor, SF, CA 94105.
Tel: (415) 625-9245. Email: Michael.Shepard@wilsonelser.com

December 6, 2019

SENT VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL

Re: #3 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s written
discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 12/6/2019

Mr. Shepard:

The purpose of this communication is to respond to your third meet & confer letter
regarding Plaintiffs’ responses to your discovery, dated December 5, 2019.

Plaintiffs do not believe Defendant’s and their counsel have been participated in meet &
confer efforts in good faith. Defendant’s counsel has ignored the authority and the analysis
provided in earlier meet and confer efforts by Plaintiffs. The initial meet and confer letter sent
by Defendant’s Counsel was excessively voluminous, filled with frivolous points, and did not
comprise a bona fide meet and confer effort.

It is our position that adequate responses have been produced for Form Interrogatory 9.1
for Plaintiff’s Sean Ilumin and Tarika Ilumin, along with adequate responses for the Requests for
Admission for All Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiff Sean Ilumin clearly details three (3) separate
damages for Form Interrogatory 9.1, while Plaintiff Tarika Ilumin clearly responds “No”.
Requests for Admissions responses were code compliant, if the presence of a typographical error
referencing CCP § 2030.230 (c), and not CCP § 2033.220 (c), is taken into account.

However, in light of Defendants’ unreasonable refusal to engage in an Informal
Discovery Conference (“IDC”) and / or use a Discovery Referee, and in an effort to avoid
unnecessary work related to Defendant’s filing a Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs’ have prepared
amended responses for Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, which are included
with this cover letter.

All Plaintiffs’ maintain their objections on the ground of Privacy and Relevance with
regards to Form Interrogatories 2.3 and 2.4. Given we will not be serving amended responses for
the Requests for Admission Propounded by Defendant Sullivan, amended responses for Form
Interrogatory 17.1 will not be served, and Plaintiffs’ maintain their general objections.

Plaintiffs reasonably believe this addresses Defendant’s concerns. To the extent it does
not, Plaintiffs believe the most expeditious solution would be an IDC and / or engaging a
Discovery Referee. Agreement by Defendants would certainly demonstrate good faith in
resolving any ongoing dispute.

Page 1. #3 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s
written discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 12/6/2019
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C. – Ted Broomfield, Esq., CPA, CVA (303416)
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel. (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com.

If I do not hear from you, I will assume the matter concluded and that all discovery
disputes to be resolved.

Sincerely,

/S/

Ted Broomfield
TSB / bd

Page 2. #3 Meet & confer re – Propounding party’s alleged defects with propounding party’s
written discovery responses. Ilumin et al. v. Leach et al. CGC-19-576664. 12/6/2019
1

7
1243 Pine St., #12, SF, CA 94109. Tel: (415) 500-2029. Email: ted@tedbroomfield.com

12
Ted Broomfield (SBN 303416).

27
EXHIBIT C
28

Exhibit C
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL'S DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION. CGC-19-576664
Served Electronically on 1/7/2020, by Vendor, File & Serve Express, per Court Order.
December 31, 2019 Michael V. Shepherd
415.625.9245 (direct)
Michael.Shepherd@wilsonelser.com

VIA E-MAIL ted@tedbroomfield.com

Ted Broomfield, Esq.
Ted Broomfield Law, P.C.
1243 Pine Street, #12
San Francisco, CA 94109

Re: Ilumin v. Leach, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-19-576664
Our File No. : 20214.00034

Dear Mr. Broomfield:

This letter responds to your letter dated December 20, 2019 regarding Defendant Patrick
Sullivan’s (“Sullivan”) pending motions and the upcoming case management conference.

1. Response to Plaintiffs’ Position Regarding Sullivan’s Pending Discovery Motions

Plaintiffs argue that the extension to file the pending discovery motions did not include an
extension to seek sanctions. However, Plaintiffs did not state when they granted the extension that
the extension did not include a request for mandatory sanctions set out in the statutes that permit a
motion to compel further discovery responses. (See CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2033.290.) Your letter
does not cite any case law or statute to support your argument that a separate extension is required
for discovery sanctions. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ position is not supported by the facts or law.

Plaintiffs next argue that Sullivan’s pending discovery motions are moot because Plaintiffs
served amended responses to Sullivan’s Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories. First,
Plaintiffs Tarika Ilumin and Roberto Espinoza did not serve amended responses to Form
Interrogatory No. 2.8. Plaintiff Tarika Ilumin also did not serve an amended response to Form
Interrogatory No. 9.1. Second, as to the amended responses to Sullivan’s Requests for Admissions
and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, Plaintiffs expressly state that all objections remain the same, and
generally restate the non-code-complaint responses that Plaintiffs lack sufficient information to
respond. Because the amended responses were served after Sullivan filed his pending motions, the
Court will consider and rule on the sufficiency of the amended answers. (See Murie v. Egan
Properties Inc. (Ct. App. 2015) 2015 WL 5766710 [trial court correctly considered and ruled on
the sufficiency of amended responses served after the motions to compel were filed].) Finally,
Plaintiffs’ objections still lack merit and the amended responses are still not code-compliant.

2316263v.1
-2-
Ted Broomfield, Esq.
Ilumin v. Leach, et al.
December 31, 2019

Plaintiffs argue that Sullivan did not meet and confer in good faith. The detailed
correspondence Sullivan sent that separately explained why each of Plaintiffs’ responses needed
to be amended demonstrate Sullivan made a good faith effort to informally resolve the discovery
dispute.

Based on the foregoing, Sullivan does not intend to withdraw the pending discovery
motions.

2. Responses to Plaintiffs’ Positions Regarding the Case Management Conference

Plaintiffs state that they will be requesting a jury trial. However, Plaintiffs’ sole cause of
action is for declaratory judgment. Declaratory judgment is an equitable remedy. There is no right
to jury trial for actions in equity. Therefore, Sullivan is requesting a bench trial.

Sullivan is agreeable to a formal mediation or settlement conference on the condition that
Plaintiffs provide a reasonable demand 60 days prior to any agreed-upon mediation date.

Sullivan anticipates a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. As
discussed above, Sullivan does not intend to withdraw his pending discovery motions.

Sullivan will re-circulate the consent to e-service he emailed in September 2019.

Regarding Plaintiffs’ requests for Sullivan’s mobile telephone carrier. Plaintiffs have not
provided Sullivan with the information needed (as separately discussed in the meet and confer
correspondence related to that issue) to respond to Plaintiffs’ request. As a result, Sullivan’s
position remains the same as that expressed in the meet and confer correspondence concerning the
issue.

3. Responses to Plaintiffs’ Meet and Confer Regarding CRC 3.724

(1) Resolving Discovery Disputes: Sullivan also anticipates further discovery disputes and
the unlikelihood of informal resolution based on the prior conduct of Plaintiffs to date. Sullivan
disagrees that the current discovery disputes with Plaintiffs are resolved.

(2) Anticipated Motions: Sullivan anticipates a motion for summary judgment or summary
adjudication.

(3) Uncontested Facts or Issues: It is uncontested that Defendants Russel Leach and Mary
Leach were the owners and landlord for the subject property, per Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint.
It is uncontested that Plaintiffs’ lease for the subject property was between Plaintiffs and Russel
and Mary Leach, per Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint. It is uncontested that Patrick Sullivan acted
solely as an agent/property manager for the Leaches with respect to Plaintiffs’ tenancy at the
subject property, per Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint.

2316263v.1
-3-
Ted Broomfield, Esq.
Ilumin v. Leach, et al.
December 31, 2019

(4) Contested Facts and Issues: All facts other than those discussed above at this time.
Discovery and investigation are ongoing.

(5) Whether Issues Can be Narrowed or Eliminated: Sullivan believes his pending
Demurrer and Motion to Strike will narrow or eliminate Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit against
Sullivan. Sullivan anticipates that a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication will
also narrow or eliminate Plaintiffs’ claims.

(6) Possibility of Settlement: Sullivan is agreeable to a formal mediation or settlement
conference on the condition that Plaintiffs provide a reasonable demand 60 days prior to any
agreed-upon mediation date.

(7) Unavailability: Paternity Leave: 5/11/2020-6/12/2020; Trial: 4/13/2020, 5/8/2020,
6/5/2020, 6/22/2020, 7/27/2020, 9/15/2020.

(8) Issues Related to e-discovery: Sullivan does not anticipate any issues beyond those
expressed by Plaintiffs in their December 20, 2019 letter at this time. Discovery and investigation
are ongoing.

(9) Other relevant matters: Sullivan believes this letter addresses all relevant matters that
exist at this time.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the foregoing.

Very truly yours,

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

/s/

Michael V. Shepherd

MVS/mvs

2316263v.1

Case Info

Judge

Samuel K. Feng Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 08, 2020

Case Filing Date

June 13, 2019

County

Parties

BROOMFIELD, THEODORE Attorney
BROOMFIELD, THEODORE Attorney for the Appellant
BROOMFIELD, THEODORE Attorney for the Plaintiff
CATALANOTTI, PETER C. Attorney
CATALANOTTI, PETER C. Attorney for the Defendant
DOES 1 TO 20 Respondent
ESPINOZA, ROBERTO Appellant
ESPINOZA, ROBERTO Plaintiff
ILUMIN, SEAN Appellant
ILUMIN, SEAN Plaintiff
ILUMIN, TARIKA Appellant
ILUMIN, TARIKA Plaintiff
LEACH, MARY J. Defendant
LEACH, MARY J. Respondent
LEACH, RUSSEL Defendant
LEACH, RUSSEL Respondent
LEACH, RUSSEL G. Defendant
LEACH, RUSSEL G. Respondent
LIBERTY REALTY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Defendant
LIBERTY REALTY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Respondent
LOVELACE, CHARLES Defendant
LOVELACE, CHARLES Respondent
SULLIVAN, PATRICK Defendant
SULLIVAN, PATRICK Respondent
WEINBERG, JONATHAN D. Attorney
WEINBERG, JONATHAN D. Attorney for the Defendant
Michael Shepherd Attorneys for Defendants
David Finkelstein Attorneys for Defendants
David Weinberg Attorney
Michael Culver Attorney
John Little Attorney
Vincent Shepherd Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Discovery: SEAN ILUMIN ET AL VS. RUSSEL G. LEACH ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties