Preview
OOOO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-05-2014 8:53 am
Case Number: CUD-13-645401
Filing Date: Jan-27-2014 9:28
Filed by: ANNIE PASCUAL
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04359706
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
SBERLO, YOEL, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST VS. YARNG ALTAWAL
et al
001004359706
instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.3°
KAREN Y. sci al GN NO. 154414
AARON A. FARMER — STATE BAR NO. 268921
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA
1441 Baker Street F J LED.
San Francisco, California 94115
Telephone: (415) 563-9300
Facsimile: (415) 563-9304 JAN 27 2014
COURT
Attorneys for Plaintiff CLER eE
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE BY
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST,
Case No. CUD-13-645401
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 _
EXCLUDING TESTIMONY THAT
OCCUPANTS WERE NONPA YING
RELATIVES, FRIENDS OR GUESTS FOR
VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF
DECEMBER 16, 2013
Trial:
Date: January, 2014
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.:
Plaintiff,
Vv.
YARNG ALTAWAL, et. al.,
Defendants.
NS SS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR
ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPAYING FAMILY, FRIENDS
OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013LAW OFFICES OF
4115
(415) 563-6300
© °
Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST,
hereby moves in limine for an order precluding any evidence of, testimony about, argument or
reference to Defendant’s anticipated defense that the occupants staying with him in his apartment
were nonpaying relatives, friends or guests.
This motion is brought on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide good
addresses and telephone numbers for the witnesses that he identified as the occupants seen and
recorded by the security cameras in the hallways of Plaintiff's apartment building. Defendant
willfully and deliberately violated the Court Order entered on December 16, 2013 whereby Judge
Lynn O’Malley Taylor ordered Defendant to “provide true and correct residential addresses for
eight third party witnesses so Plaintiff could serve deposition and/or trial subpoenas on them” by
December 19, 2013. Judge Taylor also ordered Defendant to sign a declaration under penalty of
perjury to explain every deposit in every bank statement from all of his bank accounts from
January 1, 2012 to the present date. A true and correct copy of the Discovery Order entered on
December 16, 2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
After failing and refusing to comply with the Court’s Order by December 19,
2013, Defendant then brought Judge Taylor up on a writ of mandate and misrepresented to the
Appellate Division that this discovery dispute was a “case of first impression” so he could create
delay before trial and avoid producing the names of his subtenants to Plaintiff, and how much
they each paid him. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to subpoena any of the persons
photographed by the security camera going in and out of Defendant’s apartment on a regular
basis.
After hearing from the clerk of the Appellate Division that Defendant’s petition
for a writ of mandate was DENIED, Plaintiff's attorney write to Defendant’s attorney, Mark
Hooshmand, demanding that he and his client comply with the Court Order of December 16,
2013 and provide the discovery responses before this trial. A true and correct copy of the e-mail
from Karen Uchiyama to Mark Hooshmand on January 23, 2014 is attached hereto as Exhibit
“B»
Defendant ALTAWAL and his attorneys did not provide any verified,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR
ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPAYING FAMILY, FRIENDS
OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013© 3°
supplemental discovery responses, or the aforementioned signed declaration under penalty of
perjury from Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL, amongst other things. They willfully violated the
Court’s Order.
Therefore, it is an appropriate sanction to prohibit Defendant or any other witness
from testifying, presenting evidence, or raising as a defense to Plaintiff's unauthorized subletting
claim that these people were simply “family members, relatives, friends and guests” who stayed
with Defendant ALTAWAL from time to time, but never paid him any rent or money for housing
services.
If these strangers were in fact Defendant’s “family members, relatives, friends and
guests, then with very little diligence, Defendant could have and should have contacted them and
provided Plaintiff with updated contact information during the discovery process, so they could
be subpoenaed for trial.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. THE COURT HAS BROAD DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT
IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL.
There are no limits on the subject matter on motions in limine. They can be used
to exclude “any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or
subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” Clemens v. American Warranty Corp.
(1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 415. It is unethical for counsel to deliberately mention evidence that
has been excluded via a motion in limine because the evidence in question is clearly
inadmissible.
Similarly, facts likely to curry sympathy for the defendant or that can be helpful to
the defendant may be excluded if irrelevant to the issues in the case (ie., that fact that the
defendant is an immigrant, does not speak perfect English or understand English well.. -)
A motion in limine may be used to prevent reference to evidence barred by
discovery rules or discovery orders in the case. Failures are grounds for exclusion if it is shown
that the failure to comply with a discovery rule or discovery order was “unreasonable.” Code of
Civil Procedure §2034(j); Starchfield v. Hamer Toyota, Inc. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4" 1495, 1504.
3
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR
ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPAYING FAMILY, FRIENDS
OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013The nature and extent of any prejudice to the party seeking exclusion are likely to be the most
important considerations in determining “unreasonableness.”
The Court may impose “evidence sanctions” (order prohibiting introduction of
designated matters in evidence) on parties who violate discovery orders or otherwise engage in
“misuse of the discovery process.” C.C.P. §2023(b)(3); Thoren v. Johnson & Washer (1972) 29
Cal.App.3d 270, 274. The Court may bar testimony of witness whose identity was concealed by
willfully false answers to interrogatories which impeded the other party’s trial preparation.
Failure to exchange witness information may result in not able to call witnesses to
trial. A motion in limine may be used to Prevent opposing counsel from introducing testimony or
exhibits without proof of necessary foundational facts. Therefore, Defendant ALTAWAL cannot
call witnesses that he did not disclose to Plaintiff and whose contact information he refused to
provide to Plaintiff. Nor should Defendant or his attorney be able to testify about or talk about or
argue that the strangers seen in the security camera footage are Defendant’s “nonpaying relatives,
friends and guests” without proof of necessary foundational facts that was provided to the
opposing party during the discovery process.
Dated: January Z%, 2014
Attorney for Plaintiff
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR
ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPA YING FAMILY, FRIENDS
OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013© 3
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA
KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA - STATE BAR NO. 154414
AARON A. FARMER - STATE BAR NO. 268921
1441 Baker Street
San Francisco, California 94115
Telephone: (415) 563-9300 ¥F Lee?
Facsimile: (415) 563-9304
PEC 1c 2013
Attorney for Plaintiff
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO CLERK OF THE CO
FAMILY TRUST at z
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO
FAMILY TRUST,
Case No. CUD-13-645401
Plaintiff DISCOVERY
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND
MONETARY SANCTIONS
v.
YARNG ALTAWAL, et. al,
Defendants.
Date: December 13, 2013
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 611
meme
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARYeo 2 SYS AD HY ®B WD DB
SP SSSR ee eee eee yg,
SOR Pe NP Se ede ERBKR EB
26
© o
Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST’s motion
to compel further discovery Tesponses to request for production of documents, special . .
interrogatories, and for monetary min Sa ernaed nbn ot si
Department 611 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Lynn O'MalleyTaylor presiding.
Karen Y. Uchiyama appeared as attorney for Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, Mark Hooshmand appeared as attomey for Defendant YARNG
ALTAWAL. ~the bral has Wen tantnued to December 20, 20/3. hor ral
After full consideration of the authorities submitted by counsel, as well as the
Parties’ oral argument, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Tequest
for production of documents, and special interrogatories. Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall
Personally serve complete and verified responses to all issues raised below by no later than 4:00
p.m. on December 19, 2013.
1) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall Provide unredacted bank statements wrt,
from all bank accounts from January 1, 2012, to present;
2) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide a declaration signed under
Penalty of perjury to explain every deposit in every bank statement Provided in Paragraph 1,
above;
3) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide all pay stubs from any employer
from January 1, 2012, to Present without redactions;
4) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL
documenting any of dle mn =
redactions;
hall oe eee checkbook registers Li
i e
anh oF 2, to present without
5) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide all credit card statements for
any credit card he had from January 1, 2012, to present without redactions;
6) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide documentation of any overdraft
Protection for any bank account he had from January 1, 2012, to present without redactions;
7) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide an unredacted Wells Fargo
checking account statement reflecting an available balance of $2,271.00 on May 1, 2013;
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY1441 Baker Sire ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
c. °
1 8) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall Provide a verified response to special
2 | interrogatory number 308, set three, without objections; }_
3 9) Defendant YAR
5 | No. 1903 ffom his\Wells 54 Scking-a . (ie., ches nes. 1004, 1005, 1006, _
6
1007, apd 1008); k OT
7 unredacted true and correct
8 f copi
9 | from checking accounN#e7check nos. 1
10 1) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide true and correct residential
11 | addresses for the following ‘third party witnesses,so Plaintiff. may serve deposition and/or trial
12 | subpoenas on them: Nikolai Mikatai Oreshkin, Matthew Richardson, Sydney Scott, Alex
13 [ Aronian, Susan Altawal -
, Sue
Nizar LaBichi, and Sonia Gharaghor. Se ed
Defendant YARNG
15 4 ALTAWAL on December 19, 2013, the Court will consider striking Defendant YARNG
16 | ALTAWAL’s answer in the instant litigation on December 30, 2013, the date currently scheduled
17 | for trial in this action. ,
iff d responses are not timely served by
25 Sanctions are granted against Defendant’s attorneys Mark Hooshmand and
26 | Stephanie Foster, and Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL in the amount of $1,770.00 payable to the
27 | Law Office of Karen Y, Uchiyama within five days of entry of this Order.
Pecetber 3 20% Benecer 0 ace lee 3
FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM. INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY© °
Superior Court of California
County of San Francisco
Case Number: CUD-13-645401
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY
TRUST,
Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
(CCP 1013a (4) )
Vv.
YARNG ALTAWAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
I, Rosallie Gumpal, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco,
certify that I am not a party to the within action.
On December 16, 2013, I served the attached STIPULATION FOR ORDER TO
TRANSFER ACTION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; ORDER by placing a copy thereof in
a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA, ESQ. MARK HOOSHMAND
LAW OFFICES of KAREN Y, UCHIYAMA HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP
1441 Baker Street 22 Battery Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, California 94115 San Francisco, CA. 94111
and, I then placed the sealed envelope in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,
CA, 94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and
mailing on that date following standard court practices.
Dated: December 16, 2013
T. MICHAEL YUEN, Clerk
by 9BueOe LS
Rosallie GumpalDeputy Clerk
Preview
OOOO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-05-2014 8:53 am Case Number: CUD-13-645401 Filing Date: Jan-27-2014 9:28 Filed by: ANNIE PASCUAL Juke Box: 001 Image: 04359706 MOTIONS IN LIMINE SBERLO, YOEL, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST VS. YARNG ALTAWAL et al 001004359706 instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.3° KAREN Y. sci al GN NO. 154414 AARON A. FARMER — STATE BAR NO. 268921 LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA 1441 Baker Street F J LED. San Francisco, California 94115 Telephone: (415) 563-9300 Facsimile: (415) 563-9304 JAN 27 2014 COURT Attorneys for Plaintiff CLER eE YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE BY SBERLO FAMILY TRUST SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, Case No. CUD-13-645401 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 _ EXCLUDING TESTIMONY THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPA YING RELATIVES, FRIENDS OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013 Trial: Date: January, 2014 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: Plaintiff, Vv. YARNG ALTAWAL, et. al., Defendants. NS SS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPAYING FAMILY, FRIENDS OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013LAW OFFICES OF 4115 (415) 563-6300 © ° Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, hereby moves in limine for an order precluding any evidence of, testimony about, argument or reference to Defendant’s anticipated defense that the occupants staying with him in his apartment were nonpaying relatives, friends or guests. This motion is brought on the grounds that Defendant failed to provide good addresses and telephone numbers for the witnesses that he identified as the occupants seen and recorded by the security cameras in the hallways of Plaintiff's apartment building. Defendant willfully and deliberately violated the Court Order entered on December 16, 2013 whereby Judge Lynn O’Malley Taylor ordered Defendant to “provide true and correct residential addresses for eight third party witnesses so Plaintiff could serve deposition and/or trial subpoenas on them” by December 19, 2013. Judge Taylor also ordered Defendant to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury to explain every deposit in every bank statement from all of his bank accounts from January 1, 2012 to the present date. A true and correct copy of the Discovery Order entered on December 16, 2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” After failing and refusing to comply with the Court’s Order by December 19, 2013, Defendant then brought Judge Taylor up on a writ of mandate and misrepresented to the Appellate Division that this discovery dispute was a “case of first impression” so he could create delay before trial and avoid producing the names of his subtenants to Plaintiff, and how much they each paid him. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to subpoena any of the persons photographed by the security camera going in and out of Defendant’s apartment on a regular basis. After hearing from the clerk of the Appellate Division that Defendant’s petition for a writ of mandate was DENIED, Plaintiff's attorney write to Defendant’s attorney, Mark Hooshmand, demanding that he and his client comply with the Court Order of December 16, 2013 and provide the discovery responses before this trial. A true and correct copy of the e-mail from Karen Uchiyama to Mark Hooshmand on January 23, 2014 is attached hereto as Exhibit “B» Defendant ALTAWAL and his attorneys did not provide any verified, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPAYING FAMILY, FRIENDS OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013© 3° supplemental discovery responses, or the aforementioned signed declaration under penalty of perjury from Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL, amongst other things. They willfully violated the Court’s Order. Therefore, it is an appropriate sanction to prohibit Defendant or any other witness from testifying, presenting evidence, or raising as a defense to Plaintiff's unauthorized subletting claim that these people were simply “family members, relatives, friends and guests” who stayed with Defendant ALTAWAL from time to time, but never paid him any rent or money for housing services. If these strangers were in fact Defendant’s “family members, relatives, friends and guests, then with very little diligence, Defendant could have and should have contacted them and provided Plaintiff with updated contact information during the discovery process, so they could be subpoenaed for trial. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. THE COURT HAS BROAD DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL. There are no limits on the subject matter on motions in limine. They can be used to exclude “any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 415. It is unethical for counsel to deliberately mention evidence that has been excluded via a motion in limine because the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible. Similarly, facts likely to curry sympathy for the defendant or that can be helpful to the defendant may be excluded if irrelevant to the issues in the case (ie., that fact that the defendant is an immigrant, does not speak perfect English or understand English well.. -) A motion in limine may be used to prevent reference to evidence barred by discovery rules or discovery orders in the case. Failures are grounds for exclusion if it is shown that the failure to comply with a discovery rule or discovery order was “unreasonable.” Code of Civil Procedure §2034(j); Starchfield v. Hamer Toyota, Inc. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4" 1495, 1504. 3 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPAYING FAMILY, FRIENDS OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013The nature and extent of any prejudice to the party seeking exclusion are likely to be the most important considerations in determining “unreasonableness.” The Court may impose “evidence sanctions” (order prohibiting introduction of designated matters in evidence) on parties who violate discovery orders or otherwise engage in “misuse of the discovery process.” C.C.P. §2023(b)(3); Thoren v. Johnson & Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270, 274. The Court may bar testimony of witness whose identity was concealed by willfully false answers to interrogatories which impeded the other party’s trial preparation. Failure to exchange witness information may result in not able to call witnesses to trial. A motion in limine may be used to Prevent opposing counsel from introducing testimony or exhibits without proof of necessary foundational facts. Therefore, Defendant ALTAWAL cannot call witnesses that he did not disclose to Plaintiff and whose contact information he refused to provide to Plaintiff. Nor should Defendant or his attorney be able to testify about or talk about or argue that the strangers seen in the security camera footage are Defendant’s “nonpaying relatives, friends and guests” without proof of necessary foundational facts that was provided to the opposing party during the discovery process. Dated: January Z%, 2014 Attorney for Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT THAT OCCUPANTS WERE NONPA YING FAMILY, FRIENDS OR GUESTS FOR VIOLATING COURT ORDER OF DECEMBER 16, 2013© 3 LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA - STATE BAR NO. 154414 AARON A. FARMER - STATE BAR NO. 268921 1441 Baker Street San Francisco, California 94115 Telephone: (415) 563-9300 ¥F Lee? Facsimile: (415) 563-9304 PEC 1c 2013 Attorney for Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO CLERK OF THE CO FAMILY TRUST at z SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, Case No. CUD-13-645401 Plaintiff DISCOVERY ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND MONETARY SANCTIONS v. YARNG ALTAWAL, et. al, Defendants. Date: December 13, 2013 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 611 meme ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARYeo 2 SYS AD HY ®B WD DB SP SSSR ee eee eee yg, SOR Pe NP Se ede ERBKR EB 26 © o Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST’s motion to compel further discovery Tesponses to request for production of documents, special . . interrogatories, and for monetary min Sa ernaed nbn ot si Department 611 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Lynn O'MalleyTaylor presiding. Karen Y. Uchiyama appeared as attorney for Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, Mark Hooshmand appeared as attomey for Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL. ~the bral has Wen tantnued to December 20, 20/3. hor ral After full consideration of the authorities submitted by counsel, as well as the Parties’ oral argument, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Tequest for production of documents, and special interrogatories. Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall Personally serve complete and verified responses to all issues raised below by no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 19, 2013. 1) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall Provide unredacted bank statements wrt, from all bank accounts from January 1, 2012, to present; 2) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide a declaration signed under Penalty of perjury to explain every deposit in every bank statement Provided in Paragraph 1, above; 3) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide all pay stubs from any employer from January 1, 2012, to Present without redactions; 4) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL documenting any of dle mn = redactions; hall oe eee checkbook registers Li i e anh oF 2, to present without 5) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide all credit card statements for any credit card he had from January 1, 2012, to present without redactions; 6) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide documentation of any overdraft Protection for any bank account he had from January 1, 2012, to present without redactions; 7) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide an unredacted Wells Fargo checking account statement reflecting an available balance of $2,271.00 on May 1, 2013; ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY1441 Baker Sire ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL c. ° 1 8) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall Provide a verified response to special 2 | interrogatory number 308, set three, without objections; }_ 3 9) Defendant YAR 5 | No. 1903 ffom his\Wells 54 Scking-a . (ie., ches nes. 1004, 1005, 1006, _ 6 1007, apd 1008); k OT 7 unredacted true and correct 8 f copi 9 | from checking accounN#e7check nos. 1 10 1) Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL shall provide true and correct residential 11 | addresses for the following ‘third party witnesses,so Plaintiff. may serve deposition and/or trial 12 | subpoenas on them: Nikolai Mikatai Oreshkin, Matthew Richardson, Sydney Scott, Alex 13 [ Aronian, Susan Altawal - , Sue Nizar LaBichi, and Sonia Gharaghor. Se ed Defendant YARNG 15 4 ALTAWAL on December 19, 2013, the Court will consider striking Defendant YARNG 16 | ALTAWAL’s answer in the instant litigation on December 30, 2013, the date currently scheduled 17 | for trial in this action. , iff d responses are not timely served by 25 Sanctions are granted against Defendant’s attorneys Mark Hooshmand and 26 | Stephanie Foster, and Defendant YARNG ALTAWAL in the amount of $1,770.00 payable to the 27 | Law Office of Karen Y, Uchiyama within five days of entry of this Order. Pecetber 3 20% Benecer 0 ace lee 3 FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM. INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND FOR MONETARY© ° Superior Court of California County of San Francisco Case Number: CUD-13-645401 YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (CCP 1013a (4) ) Vv. YARNG ALTAWAL, ET AL., Defendants. I, Rosallie Gumpal, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action. On December 16, 2013, I served the attached STIPULATION FOR ORDER TO TRANSFER ACTION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; ORDER by placing a copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA, ESQ. MARK HOOSHMAND LAW OFFICES of KAREN Y, UCHIYAMA HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP 1441 Baker Street 22 Battery Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, California 94115 San Francisco, CA. 94111 and, I then placed the sealed envelope in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA, 94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and mailing on that date following standard court practices. Dated: December 16, 2013 T. MICHAEL YUEN, Clerk by 9BueOe LS Rosallie GumpalDeputy Clerk