Preview
o Oo N Oa RF BW ND
NN NY YN NY NY DN @B AB @ Ba oa oa 2a a a oa
on Oo aA FF WN |= FG oOo AON OD HG RF YW DY = OO
Matthew K. Wisinski (SBN 195535)
Joyce E. Clifford (SBN 197654)
Katelyn M. Knight (SBN 264573) ELECTRONICALLY
MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 550 _ et
San Francisco, California 94111 County of sun Pierectecs!
Telephone: (415) 524-4300
Facsimile: (415) 391-2058 eter Coeaee
E-Mail: — mwisinski@murchisonlaw.com BY:WILLIAM TRUPEK
jclifford@murchisonlaw.com Deny Sen
kknight@murchisonlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants ANGELO WILSON
and CARRIE WILSON in her capacity as
Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PHILLIP GARCIA, CASE NO. CGC-14-538560
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD
IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
vs. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY
CARRIE WILSON, in her capacity as
trustee of THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST, Date: November 9, 2015
SHAUN MARKHAM, ERIKA MARKHAM, Time: 9:00 a.m.
and ANGELO WILSON, and DOES 1-20, Dept.: 501
Defendants. Action Filed: April 10, 2014
Trial Date: None Set
|, Joyce E. Clifford, declare and state:
| am an attorney-at-law licensed to practice in the State of California and | am an
associate with Murchison & Cumming LLP, counsel of record herein for CARRIE WILSON i
her capacity as Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST. | am one of the attorneys at our
firm responsible for handling the defense of this matter on behalf of CARRIE WILSON in her
capacity as Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST, and, on this basis, and upon such
other bases set forth below, | have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this
1
DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERYoo OB NO OO F BW NY A
NN NY NY NY NY NYY HN B BSB a Bw Ba a a Bw Bn a
on OW oO FF WH |= OG Ob ABN DBD oH RF HO DY =
Declaration, except where stated on information and belief, and could and would
competently testify to them under oath if called as a witness.
1. | contacted Plaintiffs counsel Benny Martin to inform him that Ms. Wilson
would require some accommodations for her deposition due to her advanced age and
deteriorating health and provided a letter from her doctor. A true and correct copy of that
letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Multiple discussions with Plaintiff's counsel regarding
the deposition followed.
2. On September 15, 2015, | wrote an e-mail to Mr. Martin indicating that Ms.
Wilson's health had taken a turn for the worse and she would not be able to respond to
outstanding discovery at that time. | also stated that 1 would contact Ms. Wilson's family to
obtain more information regarding her health. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is
attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mr. Martin responded on September 16, 2015 indicating that
he expected all discovery obligations to be timely met and suggesting that the Trust be
passed on to a new Trustee. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
3. | responded the same day with the additional information that Ms. Wilson had
a recent fall resulting in a hip injury and would be undergoing surgery at the end of the
month for a detached retina. As a consequence, Ms. Wilson was on pain medication and
not in a condition to respond to discovery. | noted that there were outstanding discovery
requests due on September 24, 2015 and asked an extension of at least one month to
respond in light of Ms. Wilson's health situation. | previously granted Plaintiff multiple
extensions to provide discovery responses totaling approximately two months. | also
reiterated that Ms. Wilson would absolutely respond to discovery and appear for deposition,
but that more time was needed. A true and correct copy of my e-mail is attached hereto as
Exhibit D. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the note provided by
Ms. Wilson's doctor indicating that she had just had cataracts surgery and her vision was
very poor due to a detached retina.
2
DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY=
oclOoUlUlUOWUN CUOOUMOUCUCUMARDCUCUAOUDN
4. Mr. Martin indicated that he would provide an extension for the discovery only
if | would accept service on behalf of the other named Defendants Shawn and Erika
Markham, provide Ms. Wilson's home address, and agree to provide verified responses to
all discovery by October 24, 2015. A true and correct copy of Mr. Martin's e-mail is attached
hereto as Exhibit F. This is not the first time that Mr. Martin has asked me to accept service
on behalf of the remaining defendants. | responded that | could not agree to those terms
and so would be serving objections to the discovery. A true and correct copy of my e-mail is
attached hereto as Exhibit G.
5. Responses to the discovery containing Ms. Wilson's objections were served
on September 22, 2015. Mr. Martin sent an e-mail on October 1, 2015 asking for further
information regarding Ms. Wilson's health and arguing, among other things, that | should be
able to provide some of the information requested without Ms. Wilson's input and demanded!
further unverified responses by October 12". A true and correct copy of that e-mail is
attached hereto as Exhibit H. | responded the same day that Ms. Wilson had surgery the
prior week and that further discovery responses would be provided as soon as she
recovered, but that | could not provide a firm date. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is
attached hereto as Exhibit I.
6. On October 14, 2015, Mr. Martin indicated that he would be filing a motion to
compel that day if he did not receive further discovery responses. | responded that | was
working on supplemental responses and should be able to provide them by the end of the
following week. Mr. Martin asked if it would be possible to provide them sooner, stating that
he needed the discovery to support his opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Adjudication, which was due November 16". | noted that the case is still not at issue and
there is no need for the urgency. | suggested that the parties respective Motions for
Summary Adjudication be continued to January or February, which would provide more
time. Mr. Martin declined and indicated that he would file the motion to compel and would
simply take it off calendar if compliant responses were subsequently provided. A true and
correct copy of our e-mail exchange is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
3
DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERYoo N DO oO RF WYO NY =
Ry RMN NN NH NY NR BB @ eB ow on ws 8 es
aN OO HF FF WH SFA OFC Oo DN DOD HO RB WH HY & SO
7, On October 27, 2015, | served unverified supplemental responses to Plaintiff's
first set of discovery. A true and correct copy of the supplemental responses is attached
hereto as Exhibit K. | sent a copy of the supplemental responses and verifications to Ms.
Wilson by U.S. mail as she does not have an e-mail account or fax machine. | understand
that Ms. Wilson had surgery just three weeks ago and is still recovering. She is only
reachable through family caring for her. Once the responses are received, she will need to
have family members read them to her and assuming there are no changes, the
verifications will be returned by U.S. mail. Given that Ms. Wilson is still recovering from her
two eye surgeries and hip injury, and given her advantaged age and overall health, |
anticipate that she will need at least 30 more days to fully review the responses and provide
verifications.
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 27th day of October, 2015, at San Francisco, California.
4
COMPEL DISCOVERY06/25/2815 17:02 4788271973 BROWN FAMILY PRACTIC PAGE 62/82
Brown Family Practice, LLC
Crystal L. Brown MD
701 BLUE BIRD BLVD
Fort Valley, GA 31030-5085
(478) 827-1971
Jun 25, 2015
Patient information:
CARRIE WILSON
227 APPLING DR
Roberta, GA 31078
DOB: 08/25/1931
To whom it may concern:
This letter is concerning CARRIE WILSON. She has been my patient
2006, | have seen her numerous times and am familiar with her
medical history and the current state of her health. She is eight four
years old. She has a history of osteoarthritis, degenerative disc
disease, and osteoporosis. Her mobility difficulties have increased
with her age. She has pain in the hips, ankles, and feet worse with
weightbearing, In addition, she has degenerative disc disease in the
thoracic-lumbar spine which makes it difficult for her to stand erect.
She will have difficulty standing for long distances, walking for
prolonged distances, climbing stairs, and prolonged sitting. She is at
risk for falling.
It is not advisable for Mrs. Wilson to travel long distances, nor is it
advisable for her to be required to sit for an extended period of time.
It is not advisable for her to travel from her home in Georgia to
California, as the walking and sitting that would be required is painful
and difficulty for her,
Sincerely,
Poe
Ap Eeee eeGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &view...
{ °j
es mii Benny Martin
Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee
Joyce Clifford Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:45 AM
To: Benny Martin
Mr. Martin,
1 do not know about the Dublin/Lizella question. When | asked Ms. Wilson for a conveniet place for the
deposition, she told be Dublin. | do not know why. Perhaps she has family members there who could
help her, | don't know.
{ have also spoken with Ms. Wilson's family recently about responding to the outstanding discovery. | am
told that she has taken a turn for the worse and is not able to respond to discovery at this time. | will
endeavor to obtain more information regarding her health.
Joyce Clifford
Joyce Clifford CE
M U RCHI SON Atiomey at Law
jelifford@murchisoniaw.com
411-624-4300 Phone,
415.391.2088 Fax
275 Battery Street Suite 550
San Francisco
CA 94111
View my vCard
www.murchisonlaw.com
1 of 24 10/15/15 10:21 AMee FYHIBITCGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428&view...
lof?
i mi i i Benny Martin
Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee
Benny Martin Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:24 AM
To: Joyce Clifford
Joyce: Thank you for letting me know about the Dublin/Lizella issue. | will located the deposition in Dublin.
Regarding discovery, and Ms. Wllson's health, please keeping in mind that we are suing the trust, not Ms.
Wilson. If the Wilsons insist on keeping Ms. Wllson as a trustee through her health difficulties, there is not
much anyone can do.
It is now September 2015, 18 months after this case was filed. We had to serve by publication because no
one would accept service. Then, you actually required my client to spend thousands of dollars completing
service by publication instead of filing your demurer, which you did anyways weeks later.
What | am getting at is this: | expect all discovery obligations to be timely met. If Ms. Wilson is unable to fulfill
her trustee duties, then | respectfully suggest finding a new trustee.
Law Offices of Benny Martin
195 41st Street
P.O. Box 11120
Oakland, CA 94611
Phone: 510.227 4406
knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient
intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential
attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission
is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail and destroy the original
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden)
[Quoted text hidden}
[Quoted text hidden}
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden}
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden}
1O/LS/15 12:45 PMGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428&view...
Gm
Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee
Benny Martin
Joyce Clifford Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:58 PM
To: Benny Martin
Mr, Martin,
Ms. Wilson is the only one left who has any knowledge of the trust. There does not appear to be any
other possible trustee,
Ms. Wilson has a detached Retina and will be undergoing surgery at the end of this month. | will get a
note from her doctor concerning her condition. She will not be able to attend a deposition until after such
time as her vision has recovered. In addition, she recently fell and has a hip injury. | believe she is taking
pain medication and iis not in any condition to respond to discovery at this time.
tam asking for the same courtesy | provided to you in responding to discovery. There are outstanding
discovery requests that are due on September 24, 2015. | would ask for a least a month in order to
respond. | know that | gave you something like two or three months to respond to discovery.
We willl respond to discovery and we will produce Ms. Wilson for her deposition, but we will need more
time.
Joyce Clifford
| of 26 1O/IS/1S 12:51 PM8 EXHIBITEJ. GREGORY JONES, M.D., P.
oo
J. Gregory Jones, M.D. * David W, Boone, D.O insets) MD.
4856 First Street « Macon, Georgia 31201——
HOURS
PHONE
RY APPOINTMENT
ATB-14 161280.
me
Addvess,.
Bo fy, leila pad catmonet Set
" _ bhag n Sin
L eee ylrfecdeg, 2 Sle fe S pow 7
hunt clefectort:
KD abs.
Coy “fn AN old re
Cuts ee bow be
Generic substitution permitied Sb
A oy Ad.
shentd wot A an\00,
— ot Wey fYgho.3os
NonRefll Refills -bethontexGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/2ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &vie
Lof2
~~
C 3 i w { ; Benny Martin
Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee
Benny Martin Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:31 PM
To: Joyce Clifford
Joyce:
\'m really sorry to hear about Ms. Wilson’s fall, and her health problems. That sounds terrible. It sounds like
she is ok though, and my client and | hope for a quick recovery.
Its been 18 months since this action crossed your desk. We have no trial date. This is because Defendants
have not all been served. Once | got an order for publication for the Trust, even then, you required us to incur
thousands of dollars in actually publishing the summons and complaint in two jurisdictions. Delay, apparently,
was OK with you then.
Now that its your turn to respond to discovery is here, delay is OK? I'm sure you see why this contradiction
gives me pause in evaluating your extension request.
So | offer you this: | will grant you a one-month extension on the Trust's outstanding discovery responses if
under the following conditions:
1) You immediately provide Ms. Wilson's home address so that | can arrange the closest possible deposition
center.
2) You respond to all outstanding discovery together, no later than October 24, 2105, with verification and
responsive documents, without boilerplate objections.
3) You accept served of process on behalf of the non-appearing Defendants, Erika Markham and Shawn
Markham.
This offer expired September 18, 2015 at 4:00 p.m.
Law Offices of Benny Martin
195 41st Street
P.O. Box 11120
Oakland, CA 94611
Phone: 510.227 4406
knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com
Confidentiality Notice
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient
intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential
attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission
is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail and destroy the original
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
1O/TS/15 12:58 PMrvice of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &view...
Gmail - Notice of
Gm i
Benny Martin
Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee
Joyce Clifford Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:36 PM
To: Benny Martin
Well, of course, you know I cannot agree to your conditions. So, since | will not be able to provide
verifications or documents at this time, | will provide objections.
Joyce Clifford
Joyce Clifford OD
MU RCH ISON Attomey at Law
jeliford@murchisonlaw.com
415-524-4300 Phone
415.391.2088 Fax
275 Battery Street Suite 550
San Francisco
casa
View my yar
www.murchisonlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to Murchison & Cumming LLP which Is confidential and/or
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information is strictly
prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication by error, please delete it from your computer and notify us immediately.
From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:31 PM
To: Joyce Clifford
Subject: Re: Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee
Joyce
lof 2h 10/15/15 1:00 PMGmail - Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/2ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &view...
poe
A ba 4 | i Benny Martin
Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses
Benny Martin Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:55 PM
To: "Joyce E. Clifford"
Joyce:
| hope this email finds you well.
This is my meet and confer effort in the hope that we can avoid more discovery law and motion practice in this
case.
Responses to First Set for Form Interrogatories; Responses to Requests for Admission; Responses
to First Set of Special Interrogatories; Responses to Request for Production of Documents
Of the 15 document requests, only objection were provided in responses, and not a single document was
produced. Of the 35 Special Interrogatories, only objection were provided in responses. Of the 30 Admission
Requests, only objection were provided in responses. Of the first set of form interrogatories, only objection
were provided in responses.
In addition to the boilerplate objections (vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, privilege, work produce, privacy,
harassment), you have also objected that due to a “detached retina" the Trustee of the Wilson Family Trust,
an 85 year old woman, is unable to respond to discovery at this time. While the boilerplate objections are
unspecific and all entirely baseless, thus precluding a meaningful response herein, | have six (5) responses to
the health-based objection.
First, you have represented Carrie Wilson in her capacity as trustee of the Wilson Family Trust for
approximately sixteen (16) months now. As early as July 22, 2014, you represented to the Court in
Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Angelo Wilson's demurrer: “Defense counsel
represents all defendants with respect to this action." Despite this length of representation, if you believe you
have no obligation to respond to discovery at this time due Ms. Wilson's recent and very unfortunate health
issue, you'll have to persuade the Court. For me, | cannot understand how a reputable insurance defense firm
such as Murchison & Cummings would not investigate claims and speak to clients when there are no
"coverage issues" getting in the way.
Second, Carrie Wilson is aware of this action against her, which was confirmed by Angelo Wilson in his
August 2014 deposition. She has had plenty of time to transmit information and documents relevant to this
action during the past year. The only reason discovery was propounded in the summer of 2015 and not the
summer of 2014 was because Ms. Wilson was avoiding service of process, and Mr. Garcia had to serve via
publication.
Third, lawyers and parties respond to discovery together. Written discovery pertaining to legal matters in the
case are responded to by lawyers. Rifkind v. Sup.Ct. (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App. 4th 1255, 1259. Indeed the
vast majority of propounded written discovery requires legal responses, for which your client's input would be
unneeded, i.e., ostensible agency authority; employee status; legal ownership of real property.
1of3 10/15/15 1:02 PMGmail - Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery ... hitps://mail google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ca02e2cd Wk view...
The defense lawyers have information regarding insurance policies, witnesses interviewed, statements
obtained, inspections performed, surveillance conducted, violation of any law or ordinance, claims to
administrative or governmental agencies, other claims or actions filed, trust documents, and legal defenses
relating to breach of contract. All of these subject matters require lawyers, not clients. If and when
consultation with a client is needed to respond to the written discovery, there are 3 other defendants you
represent in this action without health problems: Angelo Wilson Shaun Markham, Erika Markham.
Fourth, the subject area of many of the propounded interrogatories can be responded to upon a reasonable
investigation outside Ms. Wilson, i.e. that Michael Raifsnider was hired to initiate the unlawful detainer action;
that Angelo Wilson collected Ms. Garcia's rent checks and deposited them into Ms. Wilson's bank account;
that Davis Realty was hired; that Angelo Wilson was reimbursed and/or paid for his property manager duties;
that Mr. Garcia's checks were not deposited into Ms. Wilson's account at the conclusion of the UD action, etc.
Defendant's burden to conduct a reasonable investigation is outlined clearly in C.C.P. § 2030.220:
“If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that
party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to
other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to plaintiffs"
The plain language of C.C.P. § 2030.220 indicates that you must do more than throw up your hands and give
up Ms. Wilson's discovery obligations merely because she is injured.
Fifth, you have provided no documentation of the severity of the injury, or the medication she is on, or when
the onset of the injury was. Was she injured between the time discovery was served, and objections were
served? To me, Ms. Wilson's advanced age creates a reason to compel responses to discovery, not further
delay them. There is even grounds to set this matter for trial preference. C.C.P. § 36(a) and (e). When was
she injured, and what areas of her life are affected? Does she have assistance? If so, with what?
Sixth, if Ms. Wilson is so injured, and is unable to carryout her trustee duties, shouldn't a new trustee be
appointed? We are suing the trustee as property owner--we do not care who the trustee is.
Joyce, | really do not want to make this anymore difficult of Ms. Wilson than is absolutely necessary. | have
empathy for her pain and injuries, but you have indicated you will be filing a dispositive motion under CCP
437c in the next week or so. How can | oppose that motion if you refuse to respond to any discovery, or
produce your client for a deposition?
You have until October 12, 2015 to provided further responses with responsive documents. Verifications can
wait. I'll move to compel on October 13.
Law Offices of Benny Martin
195 41st Street
P.O. Box 11120
Oakland, CA 94611
Phone: 510.227.4406
knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient
intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential
attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
2of 3 10/15/15 1:02 PMKi k=caN2e2cd28& view...
Gmail - Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery .. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?uis
Gm
Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses
Benny Martin
Joyce Clifford Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM
To: Benny Martin
Me. Martin,
Ms. Wilson just had surgery last week. As soon as she recovers, we will provide responses to the
discovery. | do not have a firm date as to when that will occur.
Joyce Clifford
Joyce Clifford CH
MURCHISON eestor
jolifford@murchisoniaw.com
419-524-4300 Phone
415.391.2058 Fax
275 Battery Street Suite 550
San Francisco
cA 94111
View my Card
www.murchisoniaw.com
CONFI
NTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to Murchison & Cumming LLP which is confidential and/or
legally privileged. The information is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. if you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information Is strictly
prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication by error, please delete it from your computer and notify us immediately.
From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Joyce Clifford
Subject: Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses
lof 2 10/15/15 1:02 PMOn Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Joyce Clifford
wrote:
Since, there is no real urgency regarding the case, it is, after all, not at issue. It would
be far easier to move the dates for the Motions for Summary Adjudications to be heard
to January or February. We could agree to have the hearing dates of both of our
Motions moved to the middle or end of January.
Joyce Clifford
Joyce Clifford
Attorney at Law
MURCHISON jclifford@murchisonlaw.com
415-524-4300 Phone
415.391.2058 Fax
attery Street Suite 550
Francisco
CA 94111
View my vCard
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to
Murchison & Cumming LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please delete it
from your computer and notify us immediately.
From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gqmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 12:44 PM
To: Joyce Clifford
Subject: Re: Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses
Joyce:
Thank you for the reply.
Is it possible to obtain discovery responses sooner than "the end of next week"?
| have no idea what those "the end of next week" responses will be (or whether
responsive documents will be included), and | need to have the responses anddocuments in time to respond to your MSA by November 16. If | file my motion to
compel today, | can get it heard November 5, and get an order requiring further
responses prior to November 16. If your "end of next week" responses are still
insufficiently, | won't have enough time to move to compel before the November 16
MSA opposition due date.
If you want me to hold off on the motion to compel, | need two things:
1) a stipulation to have a motion to compel heard on shortened time (7 court days
instead of 16 court days)
2) reassurances from you that | will get substantive responses and produced documents
"by the end of next week."
Can you give me these two things?
Law Offices of Benny Martin
195 41st Street
P.O. Box 11120
Oakland, CA 94611
Phone: 510.227.4406
knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is
strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This
transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged
information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached
to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by
return e-mail and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading
or saving in any manner.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Joyce Clifford
wrote:
| am preparing supplemental responses and will should be able to get them to you by
the end of next week.
Joyce CliffordJoyce Clifford
Attorney at Law
MURCHISON jclifford@murchisoniaw.com
415-524-4300 Phone
415.391.2058 Fax
| 275 Battery Street Suite 550
- San Francisco
CA 94111
Vi
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to
Murchison & Cumming LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please delete it
from your computer and notify us immediately.
From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gqmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:34 AM
To: Joyce Clifford
Subject: Re: Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses
Joyce:
| just wanted to give you a heads up that I'll be filing a motion to compel further
responses to written discovery today if | don't get supplemental responses.
| wish I could give more time. Please let me know
On Friday, October 9, 2015, Benny Martin wrote:
Ms. Clifford:
Thank you for letting me know that Ms. Wilson will not be attending the October 20,
2015 notice deposition. | will wait until you provide me alternative dates. Please keep in
mind that | must be able to depose Ms. Wilson in sufficient time to oppose the MSA filed
on her behalf this week.Regarding outstanding written discovery, please let me know when further responses
will be provided. In the event you do not let me know when further responses will be
provided by October 14, 2015,.1 will be forced to move to compel further responses
thereto.
Thank you and have a nice weekend.
Benny Martin
Law Offices of Benny Martin
195 41st Street
P.O. Box 11120
Oakland, CA 94611
Phone: 510.227.4406
knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is
strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This
transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged
information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached
to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by
return e-mail and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading
or saving in any manner.ee Mkoo ON OD OHO RF WD =
=
Matthew K. Wisinski (SBN 195535)
Joyce E. Clifford (SBN 197654)
Katelyn M. Knight (SBN 264573)
MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 550
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 489-4798
Facsimile: (415) 391-2058
E-Mail: — mwisinski@murchisonlaw.com
jclifford@murchisonlaw.com
kknight@murchisonlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant ANGELO WILSON
and CARRIE WILSON, in her capacity as
trustee of THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PHILLIP GARCIA, CASE NO. CGC-14-538560
Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES OF
DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER
vs. CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST
CARRIE WILSON, in her capacity as FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY
trustee of THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST, PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA
SHAUN MARKHAM, ERIKA MARKHAM,
and ANGELO WILSON, and DOES 1-20, Action Filed: April 10, 2014
Trial Date: None Set
Defendants.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: PHILLIP GARCIA
RESPONDING PARTY: CARRIE WILSON in her capacity as trustee for
THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST
SET NO.: ONE
COMES NOW defendant, Carrie Wilson, the Wilson Family Trust and submits its
responses to plaintiff's First Request For Admissions as follows:
REQUEST NO. 1:
Admit that YOU authorized Angelo Wilson to be the property manager of the Subject
Premises.
4
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoO ON OO HO RW DY =
=
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous
responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding
Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that
are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the
information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California
Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and
harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery fora
detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Deny
REQUEST NO, 2:
Admit that YOU authorized Erika Markham to be the property manager of the
Subject Premises.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in
2
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoo ON DO HM RF OW NY A
=
previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition,
Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product.
Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the
California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive
and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for
a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Deny
REQUEST NO. 3:
Admit that YOU authorized Shaun Markham to be the property manager of the
Subject Premises.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous
responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding
Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that
are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the
information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California
Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and
harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a
detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
3
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoon nt OD aA RB Oo NY =
Ny NN NY NY HY NY NY DN @ Base sa a a a A a
on O a FB © NHN BS CH ODN DW HO F WH |= DO
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Deny
REQUEST NO. 4:
Admit that in exchange for paying no rent to live in the unit above the SUBJECT
PREMISES you authorized Shawn Markham to assist Angelo Wilson in managing the
SUBJECT PREMISES.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous
responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding
Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that
are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the
information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California
Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and
harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a
detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
Deny
REQUEST NO. 5:
Admit that THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST owned the SUBJECT PREMISES from
4
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoOo N OD HO BF WON A
NNN NY NY NY NY NPN B BA Bw Ba Ba Ba A As 3
ont naansk © Yb = FS © ON DWH BF WY SF OO
2010 until it was sold.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous
responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding
Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that
are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the
information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California
Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and
harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a
detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Admit
REQUEST NO. 6:
Admit that Angelo Wilson was YOUR “authorized agent" in entering into the
written lease agreement with Phillip Garcia for the SUBJECT PREMISES, as set forth on
the last page of exhibit A to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ~
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoOo ON OD HO RF WN S&
Ny NN NY NY NY KY NY KN 2B Bs Bw Ba 2a a aw Aa
aoantoauw fk © yb = oC © AN DW HT FB WN =
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in
previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition,
Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product.
Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the
California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive
and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for
a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Deny
REQUEST NO. 7:
Admit that YOU disciplined (oral reprimand, written, or otherwise) Shawn
Markham after discovering he was capturing film and audio of other tenants in the
SUBJECT PREMISES without their knowledge while in their respective apartments.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous
responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding
Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that
are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the
information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California
6
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIA=
oo MON OW OH PF WD
Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and
harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a
detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
Deny
REQUEST NO. 8:
Admit that YOU gave Shawn Markham permission to capture film and audio of
other tenants before Mr. Markham did so in 2013 to Mr. Garcia.
REQUEST NO. 8:
Admit that YOU gave Shawn Markham permission to capture film and audio of
other tenants before Mr. Markham did so to Mr. Garcia.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in
previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition,
Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product.
Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the
California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive
and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for
a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
7
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAParty's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Deny
REQUEST NO. 9:
Admit that YOU were aware that Shawn Markham was "keeping tabs" on tenants
at THE SUBJECT PREMISES, as he testified in his August 26, 2013 deposition, pages.
21-22. Relevant pages are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in
previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition,
Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or
materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product.
Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the
California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive
and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for
a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel
refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding
Party's recovery.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
Deny
REQUEST NO. 10:
Admit that in May 2012, Shawn Markham stated to YOU "I've been keeping tabs,"
on other tenants living at the SUBJECT PREMISES, as he testified in his August
8
SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIA26,2013 deposition, pages 20:24-25. Relevant pages are attached hereto as Exhibit 1
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is
vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding
Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is
not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is
redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous
responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding
Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that
are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the
information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California
Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and
harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old
Preview
o Oo N Oa RF BW ND NN NY YN NY NY DN @B AB @ Ba oa oa 2a a a oa on Oo aA FF WN |= FG oOo AON OD HG RF YW DY = OO Matthew K. Wisinski (SBN 195535) Joyce E. Clifford (SBN 197654) Katelyn M. Knight (SBN 264573) ELECTRONICALLY MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 550 _ et San Francisco, California 94111 County of sun Pierectecs! Telephone: (415) 524-4300 Facsimile: (415) 391-2058 eter Coeaee E-Mail: — mwisinski@murchisonlaw.com BY:WILLIAM TRUPEK jclifford@murchisonlaw.com Deny Sen kknight@murchisonlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants ANGELO WILSON and CARRIE WILSON in her capacity as Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PHILLIP GARCIA, CASE NO. CGC-14-538560 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO vs. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY CARRIE WILSON, in her capacity as trustee of THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST, Date: November 9, 2015 SHAUN MARKHAM, ERIKA MARKHAM, Time: 9:00 a.m. and ANGELO WILSON, and DOES 1-20, Dept.: 501 Defendants. Action Filed: April 10, 2014 Trial Date: None Set |, Joyce E. Clifford, declare and state: | am an attorney-at-law licensed to practice in the State of California and | am an associate with Murchison & Cumming LLP, counsel of record herein for CARRIE WILSON i her capacity as Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST. | am one of the attorneys at our firm responsible for handling the defense of this matter on behalf of CARRIE WILSON in her capacity as Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST, and, on this basis, and upon such other bases set forth below, | have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this 1 DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERYoo OB NO OO F BW NY A NN NY NY NY NY NYY HN B BSB a Bw Ba a a Bw Bn a on OW oO FF WH |= OG Ob ABN DBD oH RF HO DY = Declaration, except where stated on information and belief, and could and would competently testify to them under oath if called as a witness. 1. | contacted Plaintiffs counsel Benny Martin to inform him that Ms. Wilson would require some accommodations for her deposition due to her advanced age and deteriorating health and provided a letter from her doctor. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Multiple discussions with Plaintiff's counsel regarding the deposition followed. 2. On September 15, 2015, | wrote an e-mail to Mr. Martin indicating that Ms. Wilson's health had taken a turn for the worse and she would not be able to respond to outstanding discovery at that time. | also stated that 1 would contact Ms. Wilson's family to obtain more information regarding her health. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mr. Martin responded on September 16, 2015 indicating that he expected all discovery obligations to be timely met and suggesting that the Trust be passed on to a new Trustee. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3. | responded the same day with the additional information that Ms. Wilson had a recent fall resulting in a hip injury and would be undergoing surgery at the end of the month for a detached retina. As a consequence, Ms. Wilson was on pain medication and not in a condition to respond to discovery. | noted that there were outstanding discovery requests due on September 24, 2015 and asked an extension of at least one month to respond in light of Ms. Wilson's health situation. | previously granted Plaintiff multiple extensions to provide discovery responses totaling approximately two months. | also reiterated that Ms. Wilson would absolutely respond to discovery and appear for deposition, but that more time was needed. A true and correct copy of my e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the note provided by Ms. Wilson's doctor indicating that she had just had cataracts surgery and her vision was very poor due to a detached retina. 2 DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY= oclOoUlUlUOWUN CUOOUMOUCUCUMARDCUCUAOUDN 4. Mr. Martin indicated that he would provide an extension for the discovery only if | would accept service on behalf of the other named Defendants Shawn and Erika Markham, provide Ms. Wilson's home address, and agree to provide verified responses to all discovery by October 24, 2015. A true and correct copy of Mr. Martin's e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit F. This is not the first time that Mr. Martin has asked me to accept service on behalf of the remaining defendants. | responded that | could not agree to those terms and so would be serving objections to the discovery. A true and correct copy of my e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 5. Responses to the discovery containing Ms. Wilson's objections were served on September 22, 2015. Mr. Martin sent an e-mail on October 1, 2015 asking for further information regarding Ms. Wilson's health and arguing, among other things, that | should be able to provide some of the information requested without Ms. Wilson's input and demanded! further unverified responses by October 12". A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit H. | responded the same day that Ms. Wilson had surgery the prior week and that further discovery responses would be provided as soon as she recovered, but that | could not provide a firm date. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 6. On October 14, 2015, Mr. Martin indicated that he would be filing a motion to compel that day if he did not receive further discovery responses. | responded that | was working on supplemental responses and should be able to provide them by the end of the following week. Mr. Martin asked if it would be possible to provide them sooner, stating that he needed the discovery to support his opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication, which was due November 16". | noted that the case is still not at issue and there is no need for the urgency. | suggested that the parties respective Motions for Summary Adjudication be continued to January or February, which would provide more time. Mr. Martin declined and indicated that he would file the motion to compel and would simply take it off calendar if compliant responses were subsequently provided. A true and correct copy of our e-mail exchange is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 3 DECLARATION OF JOYCE CLIFFORD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERYoo N DO oO RF WYO NY = Ry RMN NN NH NY NR BB @ eB ow on ws 8 es aN OO HF FF WH SFA OFC Oo DN DOD HO RB WH HY & SO 7, On October 27, 2015, | served unverified supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of discovery. A true and correct copy of the supplemental responses is attached hereto as Exhibit K. | sent a copy of the supplemental responses and verifications to Ms. Wilson by U.S. mail as she does not have an e-mail account or fax machine. | understand that Ms. Wilson had surgery just three weeks ago and is still recovering. She is only reachable through family caring for her. Once the responses are received, she will need to have family members read them to her and assuming there are no changes, the verifications will be returned by U.S. mail. Given that Ms. Wilson is still recovering from her two eye surgeries and hip injury, and given her advantaged age and overall health, | anticipate that she will need at least 30 more days to fully review the responses and provide verifications. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of October, 2015, at San Francisco, California. 4 COMPEL DISCOVERY06/25/2815 17:02 4788271973 BROWN FAMILY PRACTIC PAGE 62/82 Brown Family Practice, LLC Crystal L. Brown MD 701 BLUE BIRD BLVD Fort Valley, GA 31030-5085 (478) 827-1971 Jun 25, 2015 Patient information: CARRIE WILSON 227 APPLING DR Roberta, GA 31078 DOB: 08/25/1931 To whom it may concern: This letter is concerning CARRIE WILSON. She has been my patient 2006, | have seen her numerous times and am familiar with her medical history and the current state of her health. She is eight four years old. She has a history of osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, and osteoporosis. Her mobility difficulties have increased with her age. She has pain in the hips, ankles, and feet worse with weightbearing, In addition, she has degenerative disc disease in the thoracic-lumbar spine which makes it difficult for her to stand erect. She will have difficulty standing for long distances, walking for prolonged distances, climbing stairs, and prolonged sitting. She is at risk for falling. It is not advisable for Mrs. Wilson to travel long distances, nor is it advisable for her to be required to sit for an extended period of time. It is not advisable for her to travel from her home in Georgia to California, as the walking and sitting that would be required is painful and difficulty for her, Sincerely, Poe Ap Eeee eeGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &view... { °j es mii Benny Martin Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee Joyce Clifford Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:45 AM To: Benny Martin Mr. Martin, 1 do not know about the Dublin/Lizella question. When | asked Ms. Wilson for a conveniet place for the deposition, she told be Dublin. | do not know why. Perhaps she has family members there who could help her, | don't know. { have also spoken with Ms. Wilson's family recently about responding to the outstanding discovery. | am told that she has taken a turn for the worse and is not able to respond to discovery at this time. | will endeavor to obtain more information regarding her health. Joyce Clifford Joyce Clifford CE M U RCHI SON Atiomey at Law jelifford@murchisoniaw.com 411-624-4300 Phone, 415.391.2088 Fax 275 Battery Street Suite 550 San Francisco CA 94111 View my vCard www.murchisonlaw.com 1 of 24 10/15/15 10:21 AMee FYHIBITCGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428&view... lof? i mi i i Benny Martin Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee Benny Martin Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:24 AM To: Joyce Clifford Joyce: Thank you for letting me know about the Dublin/Lizella issue. | will located the deposition in Dublin. Regarding discovery, and Ms. Wllson's health, please keeping in mind that we are suing the trust, not Ms. Wilson. If the Wilsons insist on keeping Ms. Wllson as a trustee through her health difficulties, there is not much anyone can do. It is now September 2015, 18 months after this case was filed. We had to serve by publication because no one would accept service. Then, you actually required my client to spend thousands of dollars completing service by publication instead of filing your demurer, which you did anyways weeks later. What | am getting at is this: | expect all discovery obligations to be timely met. If Ms. Wilson is unable to fulfill her trustee duties, then | respectfully suggest finding a new trustee. Law Offices of Benny Martin 195 41st Street P.O. Box 11120 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: 510.227 4406 knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden) [Quoted text hidden} [Quoted text hidden} [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden} [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden} 1O/LS/15 12:45 PMGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428&view... Gm Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee Benny Martin Joyce Clifford Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:58 PM To: Benny Martin Mr, Martin, Ms. Wilson is the only one left who has any knowledge of the trust. There does not appear to be any other possible trustee, Ms. Wilson has a detached Retina and will be undergoing surgery at the end of this month. | will get a note from her doctor concerning her condition. She will not be able to attend a deposition until after such time as her vision has recovered. In addition, she recently fell and has a hip injury. | believe she is taking pain medication and iis not in any condition to respond to discovery at this time. tam asking for the same courtesy | provided to you in responding to discovery. There are outstanding discovery requests that are due on September 24, 2015. | would ask for a least a month in order to respond. | know that | gave you something like two or three months to respond to discovery. We willl respond to discovery and we will produce Ms. Wilson for her deposition, but we will need more time. Joyce Clifford | of 26 1O/IS/1S 12:51 PM8 EXHIBITEJ. GREGORY JONES, M.D., P. oo J. Gregory Jones, M.D. * David W, Boone, D.O insets) MD. 4856 First Street « Macon, Georgia 31201—— HOURS PHONE RY APPOINTMENT ATB-14 161280. me Addvess,. Bo fy, leila pad catmonet Set " _ bhag n Sin L eee ylrfecdeg, 2 Sle fe S pow 7 hunt clefectort: KD abs. Coy “fn AN old re Cuts ee bow be Generic substitution permitied Sb A oy Ad. shentd wot A an\00, — ot Wey fYgho.3os NonRefll Refills -bethontexGmail - Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/2ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &vie Lof2 ~~ C 3 i w { ; Benny Martin Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee Benny Martin Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:31 PM To: Joyce Clifford Joyce: \'m really sorry to hear about Ms. Wilson’s fall, and her health problems. That sounds terrible. It sounds like she is ok though, and my client and | hope for a quick recovery. Its been 18 months since this action crossed your desk. We have no trial date. This is because Defendants have not all been served. Once | got an order for publication for the Trust, even then, you required us to incur thousands of dollars in actually publishing the summons and complaint in two jurisdictions. Delay, apparently, was OK with you then. Now that its your turn to respond to discovery is here, delay is OK? I'm sure you see why this contradiction gives me pause in evaluating your extension request. So | offer you this: | will grant you a one-month extension on the Trust's outstanding discovery responses if under the following conditions: 1) You immediately provide Ms. Wilson's home address so that | can arrange the closest possible deposition center. 2) You respond to all outstanding discovery together, no later than October 24, 2105, with verification and responsive documents, without boilerplate objections. 3) You accept served of process on behalf of the non-appearing Defendants, Erika Markham and Shawn Markham. This offer expired September 18, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. Law Offices of Benny Martin 195 41st Street P.O. Box 11120 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: 510.227 4406 knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com Confidentiality Notice This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 1O/TS/15 12:58 PMrvice of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &view... Gmail - Notice of Gm i Benny Martin Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee Joyce Clifford Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:36 PM To: Benny Martin Well, of course, you know I cannot agree to your conditions. So, since | will not be able to provide verifications or documents at this time, | will provide objections. Joyce Clifford Joyce Clifford OD MU RCH ISON Attomey at Law jeliford@murchisonlaw.com 415-524-4300 Phone 415.391.2088 Fax 275 Battery Street Suite 550 San Francisco casa View my yar www.murchisonlaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to Murchison & Cumming LLP which Is confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication by error, please delete it from your computer and notify us immediately. From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:31 PM To: Joyce Clifford Subject: Re: Notice of Service of Publication; Carrie Wilson in her Capacity as Trustee Joyce lof 2h 10/15/15 1:00 PMGmail - Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/2ui=2&ik=ea02e2c428 &view... poe A ba 4 | i Benny Martin Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses Benny Martin Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:55 PM To: "Joyce E. Clifford" Joyce: | hope this email finds you well. This is my meet and confer effort in the hope that we can avoid more discovery law and motion practice in this case. Responses to First Set for Form Interrogatories; Responses to Requests for Admission; Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories; Responses to Request for Production of Documents Of the 15 document requests, only objection were provided in responses, and not a single document was produced. Of the 35 Special Interrogatories, only objection were provided in responses. Of the 30 Admission Requests, only objection were provided in responses. Of the first set of form interrogatories, only objection were provided in responses. In addition to the boilerplate objections (vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, privilege, work produce, privacy, harassment), you have also objected that due to a “detached retina" the Trustee of the Wilson Family Trust, an 85 year old woman, is unable to respond to discovery at this time. While the boilerplate objections are unspecific and all entirely baseless, thus precluding a meaningful response herein, | have six (5) responses to the health-based objection. First, you have represented Carrie Wilson in her capacity as trustee of the Wilson Family Trust for approximately sixteen (16) months now. As early as July 22, 2014, you represented to the Court in Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Angelo Wilson's demurrer: “Defense counsel represents all defendants with respect to this action." Despite this length of representation, if you believe you have no obligation to respond to discovery at this time due Ms. Wilson's recent and very unfortunate health issue, you'll have to persuade the Court. For me, | cannot understand how a reputable insurance defense firm such as Murchison & Cummings would not investigate claims and speak to clients when there are no "coverage issues" getting in the way. Second, Carrie Wilson is aware of this action against her, which was confirmed by Angelo Wilson in his August 2014 deposition. She has had plenty of time to transmit information and documents relevant to this action during the past year. The only reason discovery was propounded in the summer of 2015 and not the summer of 2014 was because Ms. Wilson was avoiding service of process, and Mr. Garcia had to serve via publication. Third, lawyers and parties respond to discovery together. Written discovery pertaining to legal matters in the case are responded to by lawyers. Rifkind v. Sup.Ct. (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App. 4th 1255, 1259. Indeed the vast majority of propounded written discovery requires legal responses, for which your client's input would be unneeded, i.e., ostensible agency authority; employee status; legal ownership of real property. 1of3 10/15/15 1:02 PMGmail - Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery ... hitps://mail google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ca02e2cd Wk view... The defense lawyers have information regarding insurance policies, witnesses interviewed, statements obtained, inspections performed, surveillance conducted, violation of any law or ordinance, claims to administrative or governmental agencies, other claims or actions filed, trust documents, and legal defenses relating to breach of contract. All of these subject matters require lawyers, not clients. If and when consultation with a client is needed to respond to the written discovery, there are 3 other defendants you represent in this action without health problems: Angelo Wilson Shaun Markham, Erika Markham. Fourth, the subject area of many of the propounded interrogatories can be responded to upon a reasonable investigation outside Ms. Wilson, i.e. that Michael Raifsnider was hired to initiate the unlawful detainer action; that Angelo Wilson collected Ms. Garcia's rent checks and deposited them into Ms. Wilson's bank account; that Davis Realty was hired; that Angelo Wilson was reimbursed and/or paid for his property manager duties; that Mr. Garcia's checks were not deposited into Ms. Wilson's account at the conclusion of the UD action, etc. Defendant's burden to conduct a reasonable investigation is outlined clearly in C.C.P. § 2030.220: “If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to plaintiffs" The plain language of C.C.P. § 2030.220 indicates that you must do more than throw up your hands and give up Ms. Wilson's discovery obligations merely because she is injured. Fifth, you have provided no documentation of the severity of the injury, or the medication she is on, or when the onset of the injury was. Was she injured between the time discovery was served, and objections were served? To me, Ms. Wilson's advanced age creates a reason to compel responses to discovery, not further delay them. There is even grounds to set this matter for trial preference. C.C.P. § 36(a) and (e). When was she injured, and what areas of her life are affected? Does she have assistance? If so, with what? Sixth, if Ms. Wilson is so injured, and is unable to carryout her trustee duties, shouldn't a new trustee be appointed? We are suing the trustee as property owner--we do not care who the trustee is. Joyce, | really do not want to make this anymore difficult of Ms. Wilson than is absolutely necessary. | have empathy for her pain and injuries, but you have indicated you will be filing a dispositive motion under CCP 437c in the next week or so. How can | oppose that motion if you refuse to respond to any discovery, or produce your client for a deposition? You have until October 12, 2015 to provided further responses with responsive documents. Verifications can wait. I'll move to compel on October 13. Law Offices of Benny Martin 195 41st Street P.O. Box 11120 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: 510.227.4406 knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any 2of 3 10/15/15 1:02 PMKi k=caN2e2cd28& view... Gmail - Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery .. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?uis Gm Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses Benny Martin Joyce Clifford Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM To: Benny Martin Me. Martin, Ms. Wilson just had surgery last week. As soon as she recovers, we will provide responses to the discovery. | do not have a firm date as to when that will occur. Joyce Clifford Joyce Clifford CH MURCHISON eestor jolifford@murchisoniaw.com 419-524-4300 Phone 415.391.2058 Fax 275 Battery Street Suite 550 San Francisco cA 94111 View my Card www.murchisoniaw.com CONFI NTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to Murchison & Cumming LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. if you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information Is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication by error, please delete it from your computer and notify us immediately. From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:55 PM To: Joyce Clifford Subject: Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses lof 2 10/15/15 1:02 PMOn Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Joyce Clifford wrote: Since, there is no real urgency regarding the case, it is, after all, not at issue. It would be far easier to move the dates for the Motions for Summary Adjudications to be heard to January or February. We could agree to have the hearing dates of both of our Motions moved to the middle or end of January. Joyce Clifford Joyce Clifford Attorney at Law MURCHISON jclifford@murchisonlaw.com 415-524-4300 Phone 415.391.2058 Fax attery Street Suite 550 Francisco CA 94111 View my vCard CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to Murchison & Cumming LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please delete it from your computer and notify us immediately. From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gqmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 12:44 PM To: Joyce Clifford Subject: Re: Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses Joyce: Thank you for the reply. Is it possible to obtain discovery responses sooner than "the end of next week"? | have no idea what those "the end of next week" responses will be (or whether responsive documents will be included), and | need to have the responses anddocuments in time to respond to your MSA by November 16. If | file my motion to compel today, | can get it heard November 5, and get an order requiring further responses prior to November 16. If your "end of next week" responses are still insufficiently, | won't have enough time to move to compel before the November 16 MSA opposition due date. If you want me to hold off on the motion to compel, | need two things: 1) a stipulation to have a motion to compel heard on shortened time (7 court days instead of 16 court days) 2) reassurances from you that | will get substantive responses and produced documents "by the end of next week." Can you give me these two things? Law Offices of Benny Martin 195 41st Street P.O. Box 11120 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: 510.227.4406 knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Joyce Clifford wrote: | am preparing supplemental responses and will should be able to get them to you by the end of next week. Joyce CliffordJoyce Clifford Attorney at Law MURCHISON jclifford@murchisoniaw.com 415-524-4300 Phone 415.391.2058 Fax | 275 Battery Street Suite 550 - San Francisco CA 94111 Vi CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication contains information belonging to Murchison & Cumming LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of said information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please delete it from your computer and notify us immediately. From: Benny Martin [mailto:knowyourrightsinsf@gqmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: Joyce Clifford Subject: Re: Meet and Confer - The Wilson Family Trust discovery responses Joyce: | just wanted to give you a heads up that I'll be filing a motion to compel further responses to written discovery today if | don't get supplemental responses. | wish I could give more time. Please let me know On Friday, October 9, 2015, Benny Martin wrote: Ms. Clifford: Thank you for letting me know that Ms. Wilson will not be attending the October 20, 2015 notice deposition. | will wait until you provide me alternative dates. Please keep in mind that | must be able to depose Ms. Wilson in sufficient time to oppose the MSA filed on her behalf this week.Regarding outstanding written discovery, please let me know when further responses will be provided. In the event you do not let me know when further responses will be provided by October 14, 2015,.1 will be forced to move to compel further responses thereto. Thank you and have a nice weekend. Benny Martin Law Offices of Benny Martin 195 41st Street P.O. Box 11120 Oakland, CA 94611 Phone: 510.227.4406 knowyourrightsinsf@gmail.com Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.ee Mkoo ON OD OHO RF WD = = Matthew K. Wisinski (SBN 195535) Joyce E. Clifford (SBN 197654) Katelyn M. Knight (SBN 264573) MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 550 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 489-4798 Facsimile: (415) 391-2058 E-Mail: — mwisinski@murchisonlaw.com jclifford@murchisonlaw.com kknight@murchisonlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant ANGELO WILSON and CARRIE WILSON, in her capacity as trustee of THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PHILLIP GARCIA, CASE NO. CGC-14-538560 Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER vs. CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST CARRIE WILSON, in her capacity as FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY trustee of THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST, PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA SHAUN MARKHAM, ERIKA MARKHAM, and ANGELO WILSON, and DOES 1-20, Action Filed: April 10, 2014 Trial Date: None Set Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: PHILLIP GARCIA RESPONDING PARTY: CARRIE WILSON in her capacity as trustee for THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST SET NO.: ONE COMES NOW defendant, Carrie Wilson, the Wilson Family Trust and submits its responses to plaintiff's First Request For Admissions as follows: REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that YOU authorized Angelo Wilson to be the property manager of the Subject Premises. 4 SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoO ON OO HO RW DY = = RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery fora detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Deny REQUEST NO, 2: Admit that YOU authorized Erika Markham to be the property manager of the Subject Premises. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in 2 SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoo ON DO HM RF OW NY A = previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Deny REQUEST NO. 3: Admit that YOU authorized Shaun Markham to be the property manager of the Subject Premises. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel 3 SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoon nt OD aA RB Oo NY = Ny NN NY NY HY NY NY DN @ Base sa a a a A a on O a FB © NHN BS CH ODN DW HO F WH |= DO refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Deny REQUEST NO. 4: Admit that in exchange for paying no rent to live in the unit above the SUBJECT PREMISES you authorized Shawn Markham to assist Angelo Wilson in managing the SUBJECT PREMISES. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Deny REQUEST NO. 5: Admit that THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST owned the SUBJECT PREMISES from 4 SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoOo N OD HO BF WON A NNN NY NY NY NY NPN B BA Bw Ba Ba Ba A As 3 ont naansk © Yb = FS © ON DWH BF WY SF OO 2010 until it was sold. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit REQUEST NO. 6: Admit that Angelo Wilson was YOUR “authorized agent" in entering into the written lease agreement with Phillip Garcia for the SUBJECT PREMISES, as set forth on the last page of exhibit A to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ~ WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAoOo ON OD HO RF WN S& Ny NN NY NY NY KY NY KN 2B Bs Bw Ba 2a a aw Aa aoantoauw fk © yb = oC © AN DW HT FB WN = evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Deny REQUEST NO. 7: Admit that YOU disciplined (oral reprimand, written, or otherwise) Shawn Markham after discovering he was capturing film and audio of other tenants in the SUBJECT PREMISES without their knowledge while in their respective apartments. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California 6 SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIA= oo MON OW OH PF WD Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Deny REQUEST NO. 8: Admit that YOU gave Shawn Markham permission to capture film and audio of other tenants before Mr. Markham did so in 2013 to Mr. Garcia. REQUEST NO. 8: Admit that YOU gave Shawn Markham permission to capture film and audio of other tenants before Mr. Markham did so to Mr. Garcia. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding 7 SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIAParty's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Deny REQUEST NO. 9: Admit that YOU were aware that Shawn Markham was "keeping tabs" on tenants at THE SUBJECT PREMISES, as he testified in his August 26, 2013 deposition, pages. 21-22. Relevant pages are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old woman who requires surgery for a detached retina and is unable to respond to discovery at this time. Opposing counsel refused to grant an extension to respond to said discovery to allow for Responding Party's recovery. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Deny REQUEST NO. 10: Admit that in May 2012, Shawn Markham stated to YOU "I've been keeping tabs," on other tenants living at the SUBJECT PREMISES, as he testified in his August 8 SUPP. RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT CARRIE WILSON IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE WILSON FAMILY TRUST TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED BY PLTF PHILLIP GARCIA26,2013 deposition, pages 20:24-25. Relevant pages are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Responding Party objects to this Request for Admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, as well as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party further objects to this Request for Admission because it seeks information that is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it is redundant of previous discovery, this question has been asked and answered in previous responses to written discovery and in deposition testimony. In addition, Responding Party objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and/or materials that are protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. Further, the information sought is protected by the right of privacy as protected by the California Constitution. Responding Party further objects to this request as oppressive and harassment as Responding Party is an 85 year-old