Preview
26
Edward Swanson, SBN 159859
ed@smllp.law
Britt Evangelist, SBN 260457
britt@smllp.law
SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP
300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 477-3800
Facsimile: (415) 477-9010
Attorneys for Defendant
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Supertor Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/15/2016
Clerk of the Court
BY:MADONNA CARANTO.
Deputy Clerk
SHANE CLARIDGE WHITE, as Executor of the Thomas F. White Estate
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
PATRICK KELLY
The Estate,
v.
SHANE CLARIDGE WHITE, as Executor, of
the Thomas F. White Estate
Defendant.
-1-
Case No.: CGC-13-535823
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE
STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL
ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES SET TWO
W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO
DISCOVERY
Hearing Date: Nov. 30, 2016
Location: Dept. 302
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon Harold E. Kahn
Action Filed: December 2, 2013
Trial Date: July 17, 2017
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
In an effort to facilitate the Court’s review of the Estate’s response to Plaintiff's
arguments to compel, and to be consistent with the format used by the Plaintiff in his separate
statement, the text of the form interrogatories, the Estate’s responses to those form
interrogatories, and the Plaintiff’s arguments to compel additional responses have been single
spaced, while the Estate’s arguments for why further responses should not be compelled are
double spaced.
Form Interrogatory Request 2.12: At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person
have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the
occurrence of the INCIDENT? If so, for each person state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number;
(b) the nature of the disability or condition; and
(c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the
INCIDENT.
Response to Form Interrogatory Request 2.12:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above.
The Estate also objects that the term "you" is not defined in Plaintiff's requests and use of the
term thus renders the request vague and ambiguous.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: The
Estate is not an entity that can suffer a physical, emotion or mental disability. To the extent this
request seeks information about Shane Claridge White, the Estate responds: No.
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and
irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable
and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and
through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220).
Defendants’ Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery
statutes that require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such
thing as a “general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that
effectively render discovery meaningless.
The Estate’s objection to the term “you” as being vague and ambiguous lacks merit since
the term “you” clearly refers to the “responding party” who is definitively identified as Shane
Claridge White at the top of the interrogatories.
-2-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
The time of the INCIDENT or the time during which Plaintiff and Thomas White
(Original Defendant before his death on September 19, 2013, hereinafter “White”) were engaged
in the Citizenship Bonus Contract is the INCIDENT this set of interrogatory refers to.
Defendants’ response is evasive since the Executor Shane White (hereinafter “Shane’’) and his
attorneys surely understand that this interrogatory refers to Plaintiff's and White’s state of mind
at the time they entered into the contract and whether their ability to contract was in any way
compromised by any physical or mental conditions or circumstance. Once again, Defendants’
apparent excuse they do not clear about who the interrogatory refers to is evasive as is their
answer. These are standard form interrogatories that every attorney should be familiar with.
This interrogatory is meant to determine if Defendants intend to claim diminished
capacity to contract. Defendants’ surely know this and their response is evasive and incomplete
since it attempts to limit the response to Shane Claridge White who Defendants reasonably
understand the interrogatory does not refer to. Plaintiff is left wondering if their “No” answer
includes former Defendant Thomas White who was the one who entered into the contract with
Plaintiff at the time of the incident. Plaintiff requests the Court order a proper answer related to
the contracting parties without impermissible objections and qualifications that render any
answer worthless.
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being
evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications.
REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
The Estate is unclear what further information Plaintiff seeks to compel. According to
Plaintiff's argument above, the interrogatory seeks to know whether Shane Claridge White
suffered from an physical, emotion or mental disability. (See above [“the term ‘you’ clearly
refers to the ‘responding party’ who is definitively identified as Shane Claridge White at the top
of the interrogatories”].) The Estate responded, “No.”
Form Interrogatory Request 12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each
individual:
(a) who witness:
the INCIDENT;
(b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;
(c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene;
and
(d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of
the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section
2034).
d the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after
-3-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.1:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows:
(a)-(d):
1) Shane White, who may be contacted through undersigned counsel;
2) Stewart Haverlack, (302) 858-8640;
3) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 906-
3423;
4) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778-8894;
5) Kunacha Chaichumporn, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Sarnchaophorsua,
KhetPhranakorn, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200;6) Michael Bolgatz, 2625
Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384;
7) Nanci Clarence, 899 Ellis St., San Francisco, CA 94109, (415) 749-1800;
8) Kate Dyer, 899 Ellis St., San Francisco, CA 94109, (415) 749-1800;
9) David Connell, Condominios Marina Golf, Paseo de la Marina SIN, Local 3, Marina
Vallarta, Puerto Vallarta, Jal. 48335, +52 (322) 221-2588;
10) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860;
11) Patricia DeLarios, PO Box 330291, San Francisco, CA 94133, (415) 981-9636;
12) Kao Bun Hong, aka, Robert Kao, whose address and phone number is unknown;
13) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-621-
2424;
14) Jose Maria Ortega Ortiz, whose last known address and telephone number are
Marsella 21, Col. Juarez, Mexico, D.F. 06600, (52-55) 5535-1571;
15) Supat Skonchai, whose address and telephone number are known to Plaintiff;
16) Erik Wasson, whose address and telephone number are not known to the Estate;
17) Prak Chan Thul, whose address and telephone number are not known to the Estate.
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete. Generalized response. Combining a-d does not address or
answer the specific interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and
irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable
and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence within their control and
through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220).
Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery statutes that
require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such thing as a
“general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that effectively
render discovery meaningless.
Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete since it neglects to include White’s
friend Calvin Miller who accompanied Plaintiff during daily visits with White at the jail in
Thailand.
-4-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being
evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications.
REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
The Estate is unclear what further information Plaintiff seeks to compel. Plaintiff's
interrogatory requests define “INCIDENT” as the “2005 Bonus Agreement to Acquire 24
Citizenship for Thomas White.” Interrogatory 12.1 and it subparts was not drafted to be used in
a breach of contract case such as this, but instead was intended to be used in personal injury
cases when it asks, for example, for the identity of any witness “who made any statement at the
scene of the INCIDENT.” The Estate attempted to answer this interrogatory to the best of its
ability by providing a list of witnesses it believes has knowledge of the alleged “2005 Bonus
Agreement to Acquire 2"! Citizenship for Thomas White.”
Form Interrogatory Request 12.2:
Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual
concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed;
(b) the date of the interview; and
(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the
interview.
ORIGINAL Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.2:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above.
The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the
attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030;
Caito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information
responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. §
2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work
product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of
"injustice" or “unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows:
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff
performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation
is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a
second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the
Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information
<5.
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-53582326
about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract
existed and responds as follows:
1)
(a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel;
(b) August 3, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
2)
(a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640;
(b) September 2, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
3)
(a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 906-
3423;
(b) August 31, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
4)
(a) Kunacha Chaichumpom, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Samchaophorsua,
Khet Phranakom, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200;
(b) August 18, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
5)
(a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384;
(b) August 8, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
6)
(a) Geofirey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860;
(b) August 22, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
(a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-621-
2424:
(b) August 11, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific
-6-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific
objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiffs
contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make
a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their
control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220).
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being
evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications.
AMENDED Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.2:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above.
The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the
attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030;
Caito v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information
responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. §
2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work
product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of
"injustice" or "unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows:
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff
performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation
is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a
second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the
Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information
about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract
existed and responds as follows:
))
(a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel;
(b) August 3, 2016; various unknown dates in 2015 and 2016
(c) Undersigned counsel; predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact
information is known to Plaintiff).
2)
(a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640;
(b) September 2, 2016; May 2016
(c) Undersigned counsel; predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact
information is known to Plaintiff).
3)
(a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 906-
3423;
(b) August 31, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
-7-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
(a) Kunacha Chaichumpom, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Samchaophorsua,
Khet Phranakom, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200;
(b) August 18, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
5)
(a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384;
(b) August 8, 2016; May 2016
(c) Undersigned counsel; predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact
information is known to Plaintiff).
6)
(a) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860;
(b) August 22, 20 16;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
7)
(a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-621-
2424;
(b) August 11, 2016;
(c) Undersigned counsel.
(a) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778-
8894:
(b) May2016;
(c) Predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to
Plaintiff).
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific
interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific
objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's
contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make
a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their
control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220).
The Estate’s preliminary statement and general objections are not proper responses and
oppose statutory requirements for specificity. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in
discovery and no unqualified right to amend answers without first obtaining Plaintiffs consent
and/or Court approval. Defendants opening disqualifier statements effectively defeat the purpose
of discovery and should be stricken from their answers along with their non-specific objections.
There was no privilege in email communications between White’s attorneys and the 8
-8-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
nonattorney parties listed in the answer since they were 3rd parties who never retained counsel
and there was no expectation of privilege. White and his attorneys’ regular practice was to use
fax to communicate privileged information since both knew that email was not a secure means of
communication.
Additionally, at least some of the information sought that would help evidence the details
within the Citizenship Bonus Contract is contained within emails sent among the 8-listed parties
where neither the sender or receiver were attorneys; or in situations where one was an attorney,
there was no expectation of privilege. This would include White’s Thai attorney since there is no
attorney/client privilege under Thai law so there was no expectation of privilege in those
communications either. White’s death extinguishes privilege in instances where it may have
existed while he was still alive. In any event, this interrogatory does not seek to disclose the
contents of any interviews that may have been privileged but merely seeks disclosure of the fact
that meetings took place involving named parties which is not privileged.
The burden of proof is on Defendants to prove an objection based on privilege and they
have made no attempt to do so as if their mere privilege assertion is all that is necessary.
Therefore, Defendants’ objections based upon privilege are invalid and should be disregarded by
this Court.
Finally, Defendants’ response fails to disclose the requested details concerning numerous
interviews performed by previous counsel and others including White’s investigator Patricia
DeLarios. There is nothing in Defendants’ response that discloses any interviews involving
Calvin Miller who before his death visited White daily at the jail in Thailand together with
Plaintiff. Aside from Plaintiff and White, Miller was a party who had firsthand knowledge that
White put Plaintiff in charge of the project to acquire citizenship in return for a large bonus. Any
past interviews involving Miller after Plaintiff filed his case and before Miller’s death would be
very important evidence in this case. It is inconceivable that Miller would not have been
interviewed long before his death in light of Plaintiff's original complaint being filed in 2009.
Miller also knew White hired Plaintiff since he was present at that meeting when Plaintiff was
hired and was the one White instructed to forward Plaintiff's social security number to White’s
accountants in San Francisco. During that same meeting White also instructed Miller to “Put Pat
on the payroll.”
Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete contrary to Code of Civil Procedure §
2030.220 since it does not fully answer the interrogatory and excludes all the interviews done
after Plaintiff filed his original complaint in 2009 through to the time before the Estate hired new
counsel earlier this year. New counsel may assume everything starts fresh when they took over
but this interrogatory applies to far more than just the interviews that were conducted after May
2016. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being
evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications.
REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
The Estate’s response to this interrogatory is full and complete. As requested, the Estate
-9-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
provided the name of the person interviewed, the identity of the interviewer, the date of the
interview, etc. The Estate’s privilege and work product objections regarding the content of those
interviews — as opposed to the fact the interviews took place — are valid. (Caito v. Superior
Court, 54 Cal.4th 480, 499-500 (2012) [holding “that a witness statement obtained through an
attorney-directed interview is entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product
protection”].)
Form Interrogatory Request 12.3: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR
BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the
INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state:
(a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the
statement was obtained;
(b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the
statement;
(c) the date the statement was obtained; and
(d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original
statement or a copy.
ORIGINAL Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.3:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above.
The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the
attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030;
Caito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information
responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. §
2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work
product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of
"injustice" or "unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows:
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff
performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation
is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a
second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the
Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information
about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract
existed and responds as follows:
1)
(a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel;
(b) Undersigned counsel
(c) August 3, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
-10-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-53582326
(a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) September 2, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
3)
(a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, ( 415) 906-
3423;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 31, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
4)
(a) Kunacha Chaichumporn, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Sarnchaophorsua,
Khet Phranakorn, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 18, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
5)
(a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 8, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
6)
(a) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 22, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
7
(a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-621-
2424;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 11, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
8)
(a) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778-
8894;
(b) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155,
San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 374-8370
(c) May 26, 2016;
-ll-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
(d) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155
San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 3 7 4-83 70; undersigned counsel
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific
interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific
objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's
contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make
a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their
control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220).
The Estate’s preliminary statement and general objections are not proper responses and
oppose statutory requirements for specificity. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in
discovery and no unqualified right to amend answers without first obtaining Court approval.
Defendants opening disqualifier statements effectively defeat the purpose of discovery and
should be stricken from their answers.
Defendants claim attorney/client privilege but fail to include the required privilege log or
any reference to any particular documents and/or sources of such documents. There is no
privilege in email communications between White’s attorneys and the 8 non-attorney parties
listed in the answer since they were 3rd parties who never retained counsel and there was no
expectation of privilege. During the time Plaintiff was employed, White and his attorneys’
regular practice was to use fax to communicate privileged information since both knew that
email was not a secure means of communication. There are sworn statements by Defendants’
agents that have been submitted in Court that detail concerns about privacy issues and the use of
fax as a secure channel.
At least some of the information Plaintiff seeks that would help evidence the details
within the Citizenship Bonus Contract is contained within emails sent between the 8-listed
parties where neither the sender or receiver were attorneys and in situations where one was an
attorney there was no expectation of privilege. This would include White’s Thai attorney
Kunacha Chaichumpom since there is no attorney/client privilege under Thai law so there was no
expectation of privilege in those communications.
White’s death extinguished privilege that may have previously existed while he was still
alive. In any event, this interrogatory does not seek to disclose the contents of any interviews that
may have been privileged but merely seeks disclosure of the facts that meetings took place
involving certain parties which is not privileged.
Defendants’ list of those who took and gave written statements is incomplete and evasive
since it fails to disclose the requested details concerning numerous statements taken by previous
counsel and others including White’s investigator Patricia DeLarios. And there is nothing in
Defendants’ response that discloses any statement from Calvin Miller who is now deceased and
visited White daily at the jail in Thailand at the same time as Plaintiff. No one was closer to the
-12-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
events surrounding Plaintiffs interaction with White than Miller who had firsthand knowledge
that White put Plaintiff in charge of the project to acquire citizenship in return for a large bonus.
Any written statements from Miller would be very important to Plaintiff and it is inconceivable
that a statement would not have been taken from him long before his death in light of Plaintiff's
original complaint being filed in 2009. Miller also knew White hired Plaintiff since he was
present at that meeting and followed through with White’s instructions to forward Plaintiff's
social security number to White’s accountants in San Francisco. During that meeting White also
instructed Miller to “Put Pat on the payroll.”
Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete since it does not fully answer the
interrogatory by including references to many statements taken from others before the Estate
hired new counsel earlier this year.
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being
evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications.
AMENDED Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.3:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above.
The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the
attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030;
Caito v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information
responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. §
2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work
product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of
"injustice" or "unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows:
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff
performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation
is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a
second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the
Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information
about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract
existed and responds as follows:
1)
(a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel;
(b) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to
Plaintiff);
(c) August 3, 2016; various unknown dates in 2015 and 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
2)
(a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640;
(b) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to
Plaintiff);
(c) September 2, 2016; May 2016
-13-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-53582326
3)
5)
7)
8)
(d) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to
Plaintiff);
(a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, ( 415) 906-
3423;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 31, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
(a) Kunacha Chaichumpom, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Samchaophorsua,
Khet Phranakom, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 18, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
(a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384;
(b) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to
Plaintiff);
(c) August 8, 2016; May 2016
(d) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to
Plaintiff.
(a) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860;
(b) Undersigned counsel;
(c) August 22, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
(a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-621-
2424;
(b) Undersigned counsel:
(c) August 11, 2016;
(d) Undersigned counsel.
(a) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778-
8894;
(b) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155,
San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 374-8370; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose
contact information is known to Plaintiff);
(c) May 26, 2016; May 2016
-14-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
(d) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155
San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 374-8370; undersigned counsel; Geoffrey
Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff).
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific
interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific
objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's
contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make
a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their
control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220).
The Estate’s preliminary statement and general objections are not proper responses and
oppose statutory requirements for specificity. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in
discovery and no unqualified right to amend answers without first obtaining Court approval.
Defendants opening disqualifier statements effectively defeat the purpose of discovery and
should be stricken from their answers.
Defendants claim attorney/client privilege but fail to include the required privilege log or
any reference to any particular documents and/or sources of such documents. There is no
privilege in email communications between White’s attorneys and the 8 non-attorney parties
listed in the answer since they were 3rd parties who never retained counsel and there was no
expectation of privilege. During the time Plaintiff was employed, White and his attorneys’
regular practice was to use fax to communicate privileged information since both knew that
email was not a secure means of communication. There are sworn statements by Defendants’
agents that have been submitted in Court that detail concerns about privacy issues and the use of
fax as a secure channel.
At least some of the information Plaintiff seeks that would help evidence the details
within the Citizenship Bonus Contract is contained within emails sent between the 8-listed
parties where neither the sender or receiver were attorneys and in situations where one was an
attorney there was no expectation of privilege. This would include White’s Thai attorney
Kunacha Chaichumpom since there is no attorney/client privilege under Thai law so there was no
expectation of privilege in those communications.
White’s death extinguished privilege that may have previously existed while he was still
alive. In any event, this interrogatory does not seek to disclose the contents of any interviews that
may have been privileged but merely seeks disclosure of the facts that meetings took place
involving certain parties which is not privileged.
Defendants’ list of those who statements were taken from is incomplete and evasive since
it fails to disclose the requested details concerning numerous statements taken by previous
counsel and others including White’s investigator Patricia DeLarios. And there is nothing in
Defendants’ response that discloses any statement from Calvin Miller who is now deceased and
visited White daily at the jail in Thailand at the same time as Plaintiff. No one was closer to the
-15-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-5358231 || events surrounding Plaintiff's interaction with White than Miller who had firsthand knowledge
that White put Plaintiff in charge of the project to acquire citizenship in return for a large bonus.
Any written statements from Miller would be very important to Plaintiff and it is inconceivable
3, || that a statement would not have been taken from him long before his death in light of Plaintiff's
original complaint being filed in 2009. Miller also knew White hired Plaintiff since he was
4 || present at that meeting and followed through with White’s instructions to forward Plaintiff s
social security number to White’s accountants in San Francisco. During that meeting White also
instructed Miller to “Put Pat on the payroll.”
Without obtaining the Court’s authority or a protective order (CCP §§2017.010 &
2017.020), Defendants purport to limit the scope of their answer to the citizenship contract and
based thereon refuse to answer or refuse to fully answer this request.
Cw nN Dw
Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete contrary to Code of Civil Procedure §
2030.220 since it does not fully answer the interrogatory by including references to many
10 ||Statements taken from others before the Estate hired new counsel earlier this year.
1 Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory completely
without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications.
13 || REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
14 The Estate’s response to this interrogatory is full and complete. As requested, the Estate
15 provided the name of the person interviewed, the identity of the interviewer, the date of the
interview, etc. The Estate’s privilege and work product objections regarding the content of those
17
interviews — as opposed to the fact the interviews took place — are valid. (Caito v. Superior
18
19 Court, 54 Cal.4th 480, 499-500 (2012) [holding “that a witness statement obtained through an
20 || attorney-directed interview is entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product
21 || protection”].)
23 || Form Interrogatory Request 12.6: Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the
INCIDENT? If so, state:
24 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the
report;
25 (b) the date and type of report made;
26 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report
was made; and
27 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original
or a copy of the report.
-16-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.6:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows:
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff
performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation
is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a
second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the
Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information
about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate states that no such contract existed and
responds as follows: Not to the best of the Estate's knowledge.
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific
interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific
objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)): Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's
contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make
a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their
control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220).
Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery statutes that
require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such thing as a
“general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that effectively
render discovery meaningless.
This interrogatory asks if any reports were made concerning the INCIDENT by any
person. In response Defendants appear to be arguing two things. First that their response should
only relate to the Citizenship bonus contract and second that no such contract existed. Plaintiff
agrees with their first contention but obviously not with their second.
Whether or not the contract existed should not prevent Defendants from answering
whether any reports were made about the project to obtain citizenship for White. For example, if
their claim is there was no contract then one would assume Defendants would have made some
reports about the citizenship project that evidenced there was no contract since they do not deny
there was a project to acquire citizenship for White and that White was granted Cambodian
citizenship as a result of the project.
Defendants’ answer “Not to the best of the Estate’s knowledge.” is evasive because they
could have easily answered whether reports were made concerning the project to acquire
citizenship. They also could have listed all the people who made the reports. It is inconceivable
that out of all the attorneys working for Defendants on this case, none would have asked any of
the many involved parties listed elsewhere in Defendants’ responses to write down their version
of what happened. Just doesn’t make sense. In addition, Defendants have had more than 6-years
to look into this case which is certainly adequate time to enable a definitive “yes” or “no” to this
request.
-17-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
Plaintiff does not believe new counsel bothered to ask any of the numerous people it
claims were interviewed and especially previous counsel, whether any reports were taken by
anyone with knowledge of the citizenship bonus project. Plaintiff has good reason to believe
numerous reports were made by numerous persons that Defendants do not want Plaintiff or a
jury to see for some rather telling reasons. Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete
contrary to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 since the information necessary to definitively
answer this question was surely available to them when they answered.
Without obtaining the Court’s authority or a protective order (CCP §§2017.010 &
2017.020), Defendants purport to limit the scope of their answer to the citizenship contract and
based thereon refuse to answer or refuse to fully answer this request.
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory completely
without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications.
REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED:
There is nothing evasive about the Estate’s response. The Estate is unclear what further
information Plaintiff seeks to compel. Plaintiff's interrogatory requests define “INCIDENT” as
the “2005 Bonus Agreement to Acquire 2™ Citizenship for Thomas White.” The Estate can only
answer this interrogatory with the information available to it after a reasonably diligent inquiry.
That is what the Estate has done.
Form Interrogatory Request 14.1: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF
contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or
regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, identify
the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or
regulation that was violated.
ORIGINAL Response to Form Interrogatory Request 14.1:
The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above.
The Estate further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information that is already in the
possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff, is as easily obtained by Plaintiff as by the Estate, or is
a matter of public record.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: The
Plaintiff may have violated federal or state criminal laws prohibiting aiding, abetting or
harboring a fugitive or obstruction of justice (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1505, 1512, 1513) and/or laws
prohibiting the promotion of child pornography (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A,
2260).
-18-
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw
26
PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE:
Evasive and Incomplete. Response does not address or answer the specific interrogatory
(CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections.
Plaintiff seeking information from Defendants not available to Plaintiff (CCP §2030.300(a)(3));
Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by
reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP
§2030.220).
Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery statutes that
require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such thing as a
“general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that effectively
render discovery meaningless.
This interrogatory asks whether there is anyone who contends that anyone violated any
statute, ordinance, or regulation and clearly requires a yes or no answer. It does not ask whether
there may be someone within a list of people who may or may not believe someone may have
violated something. Plaintiff notes Defendants failed to list anyone who asserts anyone involved
with the project to acquire citizenship for White committed any crimes.
Defendants’ response fails to answer the interrogatory and instead uses its evasive maybe
answer to bring forth a wealth of unfounded accusations based solely upon unfounded suspicions
that serious crimes may have been committed extending all the way to child pornography. It is
difficult to imagine how child pornography has any relationship to a project to acquire
citizenship for someone but maybe answers tend to have very wide and unrestrained parameters.
Defendants’ response tries to avoid having to answer that after Defendants thoroughly
investigated the matter they have not been able to locate any concrete evidence that any crimes
were committed. If Defendants have not located evidence that White’s Cambodian citizenship
was illegally obtained beyond the level of suspicions after 6-years then they should be able to
definitively answer that they know of no one who has any legal basis to allege crimes were
committed. In the alternative, if they do know of anyone who claims crimes were committed
they had an obligation in their response to name that person along with the alleged crime that
person asserts was committed. Since there response fails to do either, Plaintiff submits
Defendants’ response to this interrogatory that seeks a yes or no answer must be NO. “May
have” is not a permissible response since it defeats the purpose of discovery.
Plaintiff requests the Court order a proper yes or no answer to this interrogatory instead
of Defendants’ uncommitted “may have’ response.
AMENDED Response to Form Interrogatory Request 14.1:
The Est
Preview
26 Edward Swanson, SBN 159859 ed@smllp.law Britt Evangelist, SBN 260457 britt@smllp.law SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 477-3800 Facsimile: (415) 477-9010 Attorneys for Defendant ELECTRONICALLY FILED Supertor Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/15/2016 Clerk of the Court BY:MADONNA CARANTO. Deputy Clerk SHANE CLARIDGE WHITE, as Executor of the Thomas F. White Estate SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION PATRICK KELLY The Estate, v. SHANE CLARIDGE WHITE, as Executor, of the Thomas F. White Estate Defendant. -1- Case No.: CGC-13-535823 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO DISCOVERY Hearing Date: Nov. 30, 2016 Location: Dept. 302 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Hon Harold E. Kahn Action Filed: December 2, 2013 Trial Date: July 17, 2017 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 In an effort to facilitate the Court’s review of the Estate’s response to Plaintiff's arguments to compel, and to be consistent with the format used by the Plaintiff in his separate statement, the text of the form interrogatories, the Estate’s responses to those form interrogatories, and the Plaintiff’s arguments to compel additional responses have been single spaced, while the Estate’s arguments for why further responses should not be compelled are double spaced. Form Interrogatory Request 2.12: At the time of the INCIDENT did you or any other person have any physical, emotional, or mental disability or condition that may have contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT? If so, for each person state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number; (b) the nature of the disability or condition; and (c) the manner in which the disability or condition contributed to the occurrence of the INCIDENT. Response to Form Interrogatory Request 2.12: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above. The Estate also objects that the term "you" is not defined in Plaintiff's requests and use of the term thus renders the request vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: The Estate is not an entity that can suffer a physical, emotion or mental disability. To the extent this request seeks information about Shane Claridge White, the Estate responds: No. PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). Defendants’ Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery statutes that require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that effectively render discovery meaningless. The Estate’s objection to the term “you” as being vague and ambiguous lacks merit since the term “you” clearly refers to the “responding party” who is definitively identified as Shane Claridge White at the top of the interrogatories. -2- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 The time of the INCIDENT or the time during which Plaintiff and Thomas White (Original Defendant before his death on September 19, 2013, hereinafter “White”) were engaged in the Citizenship Bonus Contract is the INCIDENT this set of interrogatory refers to. Defendants’ response is evasive since the Executor Shane White (hereinafter “Shane’’) and his attorneys surely understand that this interrogatory refers to Plaintiff's and White’s state of mind at the time they entered into the contract and whether their ability to contract was in any way compromised by any physical or mental conditions or circumstance. Once again, Defendants’ apparent excuse they do not clear about who the interrogatory refers to is evasive as is their answer. These are standard form interrogatories that every attorney should be familiar with. This interrogatory is meant to determine if Defendants intend to claim diminished capacity to contract. Defendants’ surely know this and their response is evasive and incomplete since it attempts to limit the response to Shane Claridge White who Defendants reasonably understand the interrogatory does not refer to. Plaintiff is left wondering if their “No” answer includes former Defendant Thomas White who was the one who entered into the contract with Plaintiff at the time of the incident. Plaintiff requests the Court order a proper answer related to the contracting parties without impermissible objections and qualifications that render any answer worthless. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications. REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: The Estate is unclear what further information Plaintiff seeks to compel. According to Plaintiff's argument above, the interrogatory seeks to know whether Shane Claridge White suffered from an physical, emotion or mental disability. (See above [“the term ‘you’ clearly refers to the ‘responding party’ who is definitively identified as Shane Claridge White at the top of the interrogatories”].) The Estate responded, “No.” Form Interrogatory Request 12.1: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witness: the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; (c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). d the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after -3- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.1: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: (a)-(d): 1) Shane White, who may be contacted through undersigned counsel; 2) Stewart Haverlack, (302) 858-8640; 3) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 906- 3423; 4) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778-8894; 5) Kunacha Chaichumporn, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Sarnchaophorsua, KhetPhranakorn, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200;6) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384; 7) Nanci Clarence, 899 Ellis St., San Francisco, CA 94109, (415) 749-1800; 8) Kate Dyer, 899 Ellis St., San Francisco, CA 94109, (415) 749-1800; 9) David Connell, Condominios Marina Golf, Paseo de la Marina SIN, Local 3, Marina Vallarta, Puerto Vallarta, Jal. 48335, +52 (322) 221-2588; 10) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860; 11) Patricia DeLarios, PO Box 330291, San Francisco, CA 94133, (415) 981-9636; 12) Kao Bun Hong, aka, Robert Kao, whose address and phone number is unknown; 13) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-621- 2424; 14) Jose Maria Ortega Ortiz, whose last known address and telephone number are Marsella 21, Col. Juarez, Mexico, D.F. 06600, (52-55) 5535-1571; 15) Supat Skonchai, whose address and telephone number are known to Plaintiff; 16) Erik Wasson, whose address and telephone number are not known to the Estate; 17) Prak Chan Thul, whose address and telephone number are not known to the Estate. PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete. Generalized response. Combining a-d does not address or answer the specific interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence within their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery statutes that require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that effectively render discovery meaningless. Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete since it neglects to include White’s friend Calvin Miller who accompanied Plaintiff during daily visits with White at the jail in Thailand. -4- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications. REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: The Estate is unclear what further information Plaintiff seeks to compel. Plaintiff's interrogatory requests define “INCIDENT” as the “2005 Bonus Agreement to Acquire 24 Citizenship for Thomas White.” Interrogatory 12.1 and it subparts was not drafted to be used in a breach of contract case such as this, but instead was intended to be used in personal injury cases when it asks, for example, for the identity of any witness “who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT.” The Estate attempted to answer this interrogatory to the best of its ability by providing a list of witnesses it believes has knowledge of the alleged “2005 Bonus Agreement to Acquire 2"! Citizenship for Thomas White.” Form Interrogatory Request 12.2: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF interviewed any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each individual state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual interviewed; (b) the date of the interview; and (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who conducted the interview. ORIGINAL Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.2: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above. The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030; Caito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of "injustice" or “unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information <5. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-53582326 about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract existed and responds as follows: 1) (a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel; (b) August 3, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. 2) (a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640; (b) September 2, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. 3) (a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 906- 3423; (b) August 31, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. 4) (a) Kunacha Chaichumpom, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Samchaophorsua, Khet Phranakom, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200; (b) August 18, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. 5) (a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384; (b) August 8, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. 6) (a) Geofirey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860; (b) August 22, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. (a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-621- 2424: (b) August 11, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific -6- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiffs contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications. AMENDED Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.2: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above. The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030; Caito v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of "injustice" or "unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract existed and responds as follows: )) (a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel; (b) August 3, 2016; various unknown dates in 2015 and 2016 (c) Undersigned counsel; predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff). 2) (a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640; (b) September 2, 2016; May 2016 (c) Undersigned counsel; predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff). 3) (a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 906- 3423; (b) August 31, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. -7- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 (a) Kunacha Chaichumpom, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Samchaophorsua, Khet Phranakom, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200; (b) August 18, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. 5) (a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384; (b) August 8, 2016; May 2016 (c) Undersigned counsel; predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff). 6) (a) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860; (b) August 22, 20 16; (c) Undersigned counsel. 7) (a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-621- 2424; (b) August 11, 2016; (c) Undersigned counsel. (a) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778- 8894: (b) May2016; (c) Predecessor counsel, Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff). PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). The Estate’s preliminary statement and general objections are not proper responses and oppose statutory requirements for specificity. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in discovery and no unqualified right to amend answers without first obtaining Plaintiffs consent and/or Court approval. Defendants opening disqualifier statements effectively defeat the purpose of discovery and should be stricken from their answers along with their non-specific objections. There was no privilege in email communications between White’s attorneys and the 8 -8- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 nonattorney parties listed in the answer since they were 3rd parties who never retained counsel and there was no expectation of privilege. White and his attorneys’ regular practice was to use fax to communicate privileged information since both knew that email was not a secure means of communication. Additionally, at least some of the information sought that would help evidence the details within the Citizenship Bonus Contract is contained within emails sent among the 8-listed parties where neither the sender or receiver were attorneys; or in situations where one was an attorney, there was no expectation of privilege. This would include White’s Thai attorney since there is no attorney/client privilege under Thai law so there was no expectation of privilege in those communications either. White’s death extinguishes privilege in instances where it may have existed while he was still alive. In any event, this interrogatory does not seek to disclose the contents of any interviews that may have been privileged but merely seeks disclosure of the fact that meetings took place involving named parties which is not privileged. The burden of proof is on Defendants to prove an objection based on privilege and they have made no attempt to do so as if their mere privilege assertion is all that is necessary. Therefore, Defendants’ objections based upon privilege are invalid and should be disregarded by this Court. Finally, Defendants’ response fails to disclose the requested details concerning numerous interviews performed by previous counsel and others including White’s investigator Patricia DeLarios. There is nothing in Defendants’ response that discloses any interviews involving Calvin Miller who before his death visited White daily at the jail in Thailand together with Plaintiff. Aside from Plaintiff and White, Miller was a party who had firsthand knowledge that White put Plaintiff in charge of the project to acquire citizenship in return for a large bonus. Any past interviews involving Miller after Plaintiff filed his case and before Miller’s death would be very important evidence in this case. It is inconceivable that Miller would not have been interviewed long before his death in light of Plaintiff's original complaint being filed in 2009. Miller also knew White hired Plaintiff since he was present at that meeting when Plaintiff was hired and was the one White instructed to forward Plaintiff's social security number to White’s accountants in San Francisco. During that same meeting White also instructed Miller to “Put Pat on the payroll.” Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete contrary to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 since it does not fully answer the interrogatory and excludes all the interviews done after Plaintiff filed his original complaint in 2009 through to the time before the Estate hired new counsel earlier this year. New counsel may assume everything starts fresh when they took over but this interrogatory applies to far more than just the interviews that were conducted after May 2016. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications. REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: The Estate’s response to this interrogatory is full and complete. As requested, the Estate -9- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 provided the name of the person interviewed, the identity of the interviewer, the date of the interview, etc. The Estate’s privilege and work product objections regarding the content of those interviews — as opposed to the fact the interviews took place — are valid. (Caito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480, 499-500 (2012) [holding “that a witness statement obtained through an attorney-directed interview is entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product protection”].) Form Interrogatory Request 12.3: Have YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF obtained a written or recorded statement from any individual concerning the INCIDENT? If so, for each statement state: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual from whom the statement was obtained; (b) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the individual who obtained the statement; (c) the date the statement was obtained; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original statement or a copy. ORIGINAL Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.3: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above. The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030; Caito v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of "injustice" or "unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract existed and responds as follows: 1) (a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel; (b) Undersigned counsel (c) August 3, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. -10- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-53582326 (a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) September 2, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. 3) (a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, ( 415) 906- 3423; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 31, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. 4) (a) Kunacha Chaichumporn, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Sarnchaophorsua, Khet Phranakorn, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 18, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. 5) (a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 8, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. 6) (a) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 22, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. 7 (a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-621- 2424; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 11, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. 8) (a) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778- 8894; (b) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155, San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 374-8370 (c) May 26, 2016; -ll- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 (d) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155 San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 3 7 4-83 70; undersigned counsel PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). The Estate’s preliminary statement and general objections are not proper responses and oppose statutory requirements for specificity. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in discovery and no unqualified right to amend answers without first obtaining Court approval. Defendants opening disqualifier statements effectively defeat the purpose of discovery and should be stricken from their answers. Defendants claim attorney/client privilege but fail to include the required privilege log or any reference to any particular documents and/or sources of such documents. There is no privilege in email communications between White’s attorneys and the 8 non-attorney parties listed in the answer since they were 3rd parties who never retained counsel and there was no expectation of privilege. During the time Plaintiff was employed, White and his attorneys’ regular practice was to use fax to communicate privileged information since both knew that email was not a secure means of communication. There are sworn statements by Defendants’ agents that have been submitted in Court that detail concerns about privacy issues and the use of fax as a secure channel. At least some of the information Plaintiff seeks that would help evidence the details within the Citizenship Bonus Contract is contained within emails sent between the 8-listed parties where neither the sender or receiver were attorneys and in situations where one was an attorney there was no expectation of privilege. This would include White’s Thai attorney Kunacha Chaichumpom since there is no attorney/client privilege under Thai law so there was no expectation of privilege in those communications. White’s death extinguished privilege that may have previously existed while he was still alive. In any event, this interrogatory does not seek to disclose the contents of any interviews that may have been privileged but merely seeks disclosure of the facts that meetings took place involving certain parties which is not privileged. Defendants’ list of those who took and gave written statements is incomplete and evasive since it fails to disclose the requested details concerning numerous statements taken by previous counsel and others including White’s investigator Patricia DeLarios. And there is nothing in Defendants’ response that discloses any statement from Calvin Miller who is now deceased and visited White daily at the jail in Thailand at the same time as Plaintiff. No one was closer to the -12- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 events surrounding Plaintiffs interaction with White than Miller who had firsthand knowledge that White put Plaintiff in charge of the project to acquire citizenship in return for a large bonus. Any written statements from Miller would be very important to Plaintiff and it is inconceivable that a statement would not have been taken from him long before his death in light of Plaintiff's original complaint being filed in 2009. Miller also knew White hired Plaintiff since he was present at that meeting and followed through with White’s instructions to forward Plaintiff's social security number to White’s accountants in San Francisco. During that meeting White also instructed Miller to “Put Pat on the payroll.” Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete since it does not fully answer the interrogatory by including references to many statements taken from others before the Estate hired new counsel earlier this year. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications. AMENDED Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.3: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above. The Estates objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. (C.C.P. § 2018.020; C.C.P. § 2018.030; Caito v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 480 (2012).) Further, to the extent that any information responsive to this request is not entitled to absolute protection pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(a), information responsive to this interrogatory is protected by the qualified work product privilege, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2018.030(b). Plaintiff has not made the showing of "injustice" or "unfair prejudice" sufficient to require disclosure. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate responds by stating that no such contract existed and responds as follows: 1) (a) Shane White, who may be contacted only through undersigned counsel; (b) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff); (c) August 3, 2016; various unknown dates in 2015 and 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. 2) (a) Stewart Haverlack,(302) 858-8640; (b) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff); (c) September 2, 2016; May 2016 -13- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-53582326 3) 5) 7) 8) (d) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff); (a) Stuart Hanlon, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, ( 415) 906- 3423; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 31, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. (a) Kunacha Chaichumpom, 80/2 Trok Sathien, Tanao Road, Kwaeng Samchaophorsua, Khet Phranakom, Bangkok 10200, Thailand, +66 622 0200; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 18, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. (a) Michael Bolgatz, 2625 Alcatraz Ave., #147, Berkeley, CA 94705, (510) 684-6384; (b) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff); (c) August 8, 2016; May 2016 (d) Undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff. (a) Geoffrey Rotwein, 790 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, (415) 397-0860; (b) Undersigned counsel; (c) August 22, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. (a) Dan Anderson, 1390 Market Street, Suite 1004, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-621- 2424; (b) Undersigned counsel: (c) August 11, 2016; (d) Undersigned counsel. (a) Wray Pomeroy, 2371 Via Sonoma, Apt. 8, Palm Springs, CA 92264, (760) 778- 8894; (b) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155, San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 374-8370; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff); (c) May 26, 2016; May 2016 -14- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 (d) Maya Maravilla, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155 San Francisco, California 94111, (415) 374-8370; undersigned counsel; Geoffrey Rotwein (whose contact information is known to Plaintiff). PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). The Estate’s preliminary statement and general objections are not proper responses and oppose statutory requirements for specificity. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in discovery and no unqualified right to amend answers without first obtaining Court approval. Defendants opening disqualifier statements effectively defeat the purpose of discovery and should be stricken from their answers. Defendants claim attorney/client privilege but fail to include the required privilege log or any reference to any particular documents and/or sources of such documents. There is no privilege in email communications between White’s attorneys and the 8 non-attorney parties listed in the answer since they were 3rd parties who never retained counsel and there was no expectation of privilege. During the time Plaintiff was employed, White and his attorneys’ regular practice was to use fax to communicate privileged information since both knew that email was not a secure means of communication. There are sworn statements by Defendants’ agents that have been submitted in Court that detail concerns about privacy issues and the use of fax as a secure channel. At least some of the information Plaintiff seeks that would help evidence the details within the Citizenship Bonus Contract is contained within emails sent between the 8-listed parties where neither the sender or receiver were attorneys and in situations where one was an attorney there was no expectation of privilege. This would include White’s Thai attorney Kunacha Chaichumpom since there is no attorney/client privilege under Thai law so there was no expectation of privilege in those communications. White’s death extinguished privilege that may have previously existed while he was still alive. In any event, this interrogatory does not seek to disclose the contents of any interviews that may have been privileged but merely seeks disclosure of the facts that meetings took place involving certain parties which is not privileged. Defendants’ list of those who statements were taken from is incomplete and evasive since it fails to disclose the requested details concerning numerous statements taken by previous counsel and others including White’s investigator Patricia DeLarios. And there is nothing in Defendants’ response that discloses any statement from Calvin Miller who is now deceased and visited White daily at the jail in Thailand at the same time as Plaintiff. No one was closer to the -15- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-5358231 || events surrounding Plaintiff's interaction with White than Miller who had firsthand knowledge that White put Plaintiff in charge of the project to acquire citizenship in return for a large bonus. Any written statements from Miller would be very important to Plaintiff and it is inconceivable 3, || that a statement would not have been taken from him long before his death in light of Plaintiff's original complaint being filed in 2009. Miller also knew White hired Plaintiff since he was 4 || present at that meeting and followed through with White’s instructions to forward Plaintiff s social security number to White’s accountants in San Francisco. During that meeting White also instructed Miller to “Put Pat on the payroll.” Without obtaining the Court’s authority or a protective order (CCP §§2017.010 & 2017.020), Defendants purport to limit the scope of their answer to the citizenship contract and based thereon refuse to answer or refuse to fully answer this request. Cw nN Dw Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete contrary to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 since it does not fully answer the interrogatory by including references to many 10 ||Statements taken from others before the Estate hired new counsel earlier this year. 1 Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory completely without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications. 13 || REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: 14 The Estate’s response to this interrogatory is full and complete. As requested, the Estate 15 provided the name of the person interviewed, the identity of the interviewer, the date of the interview, etc. The Estate’s privilege and work product objections regarding the content of those 17 interviews — as opposed to the fact the interviews took place — are valid. (Caito v. Superior 18 19 Court, 54 Cal.4th 480, 499-500 (2012) [holding “that a witness statement obtained through an 20 || attorney-directed interview is entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product 21 || protection”].) 23 || Form Interrogatory Request 12.6: Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the INCIDENT? If so, state: 24 (a) the name, title, identification number, and employer of the PERSON who made the report; 25 (b) the date and type of report made; 26 (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the report was made; and 27 (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON who has the original or a copy of the report. -16- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 Response to Form Interrogatory Request 12.6: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges multiple contracts under which Plaintiff performed work for Mr. White. However, the only alleged contract still at issue in this litigation is the purported agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. White under which Plaintiff would obtain a second citizenship for Mr. White and Mr. White would pay Plaintiff $350,000 (hereinafter "the Citizenship Contract"). See, e.g., FAC, ~ 22-25. To the extent this request seeks information about the alleged Citizenship Contract, the Estate states that no such contract existed and responds as follows: Not to the best of the Estate's knowledge. PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete. Boilerplate response does not address or answer the specific interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)): Not objectionable just because answer involves Plaintiff's contention that there was a citizenship bonus contract (§2030.010(b)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery statutes that require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that effectively render discovery meaningless. This interrogatory asks if any reports were made concerning the INCIDENT by any person. In response Defendants appear to be arguing two things. First that their response should only relate to the Citizenship bonus contract and second that no such contract existed. Plaintiff agrees with their first contention but obviously not with their second. Whether or not the contract existed should not prevent Defendants from answering whether any reports were made about the project to obtain citizenship for White. For example, if their claim is there was no contract then one would assume Defendants would have made some reports about the citizenship project that evidenced there was no contract since they do not deny there was a project to acquire citizenship for White and that White was granted Cambodian citizenship as a result of the project. Defendants’ answer “Not to the best of the Estate’s knowledge.” is evasive because they could have easily answered whether reports were made concerning the project to acquire citizenship. They also could have listed all the people who made the reports. It is inconceivable that out of all the attorneys working for Defendants on this case, none would have asked any of the many involved parties listed elsewhere in Defendants’ responses to write down their version of what happened. Just doesn’t make sense. In addition, Defendants have had more than 6-years to look into this case which is certainly adequate time to enable a definitive “yes” or “no” to this request. -17- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 Plaintiff does not believe new counsel bothered to ask any of the numerous people it claims were interviewed and especially previous counsel, whether any reports were taken by anyone with knowledge of the citizenship bonus project. Plaintiff has good reason to believe numerous reports were made by numerous persons that Defendants do not want Plaintiff or a jury to see for some rather telling reasons. Defendants’ response is evasive and incomplete contrary to Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.220 since the information necessary to definitively answer this question was surely available to them when they answered. Without obtaining the Court’s authority or a protective order (CCP §§2017.010 & 2017.020), Defendants purport to limit the scope of their answer to the citizenship contract and based thereon refuse to answer or refuse to fully answer this request. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to answer this interrogatory completely without being evasive and without impermissible objections/qualifications. REASONS FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED: There is nothing evasive about the Estate’s response. The Estate is unclear what further information Plaintiff seeks to compel. Plaintiff's interrogatory requests define “INCIDENT” as the “2005 Bonus Agreement to Acquire 2™ Citizenship for Thomas White.” The Estate can only answer this interrogatory with the information available to it after a reasonably diligent inquiry. That is what the Estate has done. Form Interrogatory Request 14.1: Do YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF contend that any PERSON involved in the INCIDENT violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and that the violation was a legal (proximate) cause of the INCIDENT? If so, identify the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON and the statute, ordinance, or regulation that was violated. ORIGINAL Response to Form Interrogatory Request 14.1: The Estate incorporates its preliminary statement and general objections set forth above. The Estate further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information that is already in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff, is as easily obtained by Plaintiff as by the Estate, or is a matter of public record. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Estate responds as follows: The Plaintiff may have violated federal or state criminal laws prohibiting aiding, abetting or harboring a fugitive or obstruction of justice (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1505, 1512, 1513) and/or laws prohibiting the promotion of child pornography (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260). -18- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO W/AMENDED RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET TWO - CGC13-535823Cw nN Dw 26 PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES WITH RESPONSE: Evasive and Incomplete. Response does not address or answer the specific interrogatory (CCP §§ 2030.210(a)(1) & 2030.300(a)(1)); Invalid and irrelevant nonspecific objections. Plaintiff seeking information from Defendants not available to Plaintiff (CCP §2030.300(a)(3)); Defendants failed to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by reviewing evidence in their control and through inquiry to other natural persons (CCP §2030.220). Preliminary statement and general objections are contrary to discovery statutes that require specificity and should be struck from Defendants’ response. There is no such thing as a “general objection” in discovery nor are general disclaimer statements permitted that effectively render discovery meaningless. This interrogatory asks whether there is anyone who contends that anyone violated any statute, ordinance, or regulation and clearly requires a yes or no answer. It does not ask whether there may be someone within a list of people who may or may not believe someone may have violated something. Plaintiff notes Defendants failed to list anyone who asserts anyone involved with the project to acquire citizenship for White committed any crimes. Defendants’ response fails to answer the interrogatory and instead uses its evasive maybe answer to bring forth a wealth of unfounded accusations based solely upon unfounded suspicions that serious crimes may have been committed extending all the way to child pornography. It is difficult to imagine how child pornography has any relationship to a project to acquire citizenship for someone but maybe answers tend to have very wide and unrestrained parameters. Defendants’ response tries to avoid having to answer that after Defendants thoroughly investigated the matter they have not been able to locate any concrete evidence that any crimes were committed. If Defendants have not located evidence that White’s Cambodian citizenship was illegally obtained beyond the level of suspicions after 6-years then they should be able to definitively answer that they know of no one who has any legal basis to allege crimes were committed. In the alternative, if they do know of anyone who claims crimes were committed they had an obligation in their response to name that person along with the alleged crime that person asserts was committed. Since there response fails to do either, Plaintiff submits Defendants’ response to this interrogatory that seeks a yes or no answer must be NO. “May have” is not a permissible response since it defeats the purpose of discovery. Plaintiff requests the Court order a proper yes or no answer to this interrogatory instead of Defendants’ uncommitted “may have’ response. AMENDED Response to Form Interrogatory Request 14.1: The Est