Party Discovery: SBERLO, YOEL, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST VS. YARNG ALTAWAL et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IEE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Dec-16-2013 03:55 pm

Case Number: CUD-13-645401
Filing Date: Dec-16-2013 03:44 pm
Filed by: DENNIS TOYAMA
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04310888
MOTION (CIVIL GENERIC)

SBERLO, YOEL, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST VS. YARNG
ALTAWAL et al

001004310888

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27

28

Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878)
Stephanie Foster, Esq. (SBN 278652)
Hooshmand Law Group

22 Battery Street, Ste. 610

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 318-5709

Fax: (415) 376-5897

Attorney for Defendant Yarng Altawal

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST

Plaintiffs,

vs.

YARNG ALTAWAL,

Defendant.

TS SH SH HS SH SSS SS

‘Sin, Francisco County Superior Cour}
DEC 1 6 2013

CLERK OF THE COURT
—— penne rapt
= jt

¥

CASE NO.: CUD-13-645401

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT
YARNG ALTAWAL TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE;
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST AND ITS ATTORNEY
KAREN UCHIYAMA AND AARON FARMER OF THE
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN UCHIYAMA;
DECLARATION OF MARK HOOSHMAND;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION

Date: December 23, 2013
Time: 9:30 am
Dept.: 501

Trial Date: December 30, 2013

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT YARNG ALTAWAL TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE;
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST AND ITS ATTORNEY KAREN UCHIYAMA AND AARON FARMER OF THE LAW
OFFICES OF KAREN UCHIYAMA; DECLARATION OF MARK HOOSHMAND; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 127

28

To Plaintiff Yoel Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust, and its attorneys of record
Karen Uchiyama and Aaron Farmer, of the Law Offices Karen Uchiyama:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 23, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard in Department 501 or other assigned department of the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102,
MOTION OF DEFENDANT YARNG ALTAWAL TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST AND ITS ATTORNEY KAREN
UCHIYAMA AND AARON FARMER OF THE LAW OFFICES OF KAREN UCHIYAMA will be heard.

The Motion is based on the files in these matters, this Notice, Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of the Motion to Compel Responses, the Declaration of Mark Hooshmand,
Declaration of Stephanie Foster, and evidence to be presented at the hearing of Plaintiffs' Motion.
Defendant Altawal also requests monetary sanctions and attorneys fees against Plaintiff Yoel
Sberlo, trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust, and its attorney of record Karen Uchiyama and Aaron
Farmer of the Law Offices of Karen Uchiyama in the amount of $4,845.00 pursuant to Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (f), (g), (i), CCP 2023.030(a), CCP 2030.300(d), and CCP
2031.310(h) for the failure to comply with this authorized method of discovery in the manner
required by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Per local rule parties may obtain a tentative ruling issued by the Law and Motion
department by telephone the day before the hearing. A party who fails to appear at the hearing is
deemed to submit to the tentative ruling. However, no party may submit to a tentative ruling that
specifies that a hearing is required. Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to
opposing parties by telephone promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing
unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. A party may not argue at the
hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. If no party
appears, or if a party does not appear because the opposing party failed to give sufficient notice of

intent to argue, then the tentative ruling will be adopted.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 2Date: December 16, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP

{Qh

Mark Hooshmand, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 3Defendant Yarng Altawal (“Defendant”) respectfully submits this Motion and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Motion to Compel Responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set Four, and Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, from Plaintiff
Yoel Sberlo. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions where the Plaintiff has been evasive in
responding to discovery.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff has filed a defective three day notice and lawsuit and Defendant is seeking
information to defend against this lawsuit. Plaintiff continues to evade responding to the
discovery in order to pressure the Defendant to move. Despite significant meet and confer
attempts no supplemental responses were received. Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff Yoel Sberlo, trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust, and its attorney of record Karen
Uchiyama and Aaron Farmer of the Law Offices of Karen Uchiyama for propounding meritless
objections and for failing to respond. The discovery is needed by the Defendant to prove their
defenses and without the information the Defendant will be prejudiced.

Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant Yarng Altawal is a resident of 1780 McAllister Street, Unit #3, San Francisco,
California 94115. However, as confirmed by Plaintiff's complaint, Yarng Altawal is not on the
lease for the Subject Property. For every month of the 2013 year through May 2013, Yarng
Altawal tendered timely rent payments for which he received rent receipts from the Plaintiff.
However, starting in January of 2013 the Plaintiffs stopped cashing the rent checks with no notice
to Mr. Altawal. At some point the Plaintiffs also installed a video camera pointed at Defendants
door without their knowledge or any notice.

On or around April 10, 2013, after holding the rent check for months and without any
notice to the Defendants, Plaintiff then proceeded to cash three of the past rent checks at the same
time, for the month of January 2013 (Check No. 118), March 2013 (Check No. 123) and April
2013 (Check No. 128). As these checks were all cashed at one time with no notice to the
Altawals, there were some difficulties with the bank but at least one rent check went through. It is
clear that the check for March 2013 cleared and remains cashed by the Plaintiffs and these funds

were never returned to Defendant Altawal. When these checks did not clear, Defendant Altawal

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 4immediately addressed the issue and spoke with Property Management about the situation. The
Bank reversed the charges and it also appears that the other months The Property Management
assured him that they would resubmit the checks and that they would accept and cash his future
rent payments. On May 1, 2013, Yarng Altawal paid May rent with check number 129. This
check was cashed by the Plaintiff and these funds were never returned.

On or around May 6, 2013, Plaintiff served Defendant Altawal with a Three Day Notice
To Pay or Quit for past due rent for the months of January, February, and March totaling
$2,271.00. Upon receipt, Yarng Altawal attempted to cure this past due rent but the rent
payments were not accepted. Additionally, at all times the Plaintiffs had accepted March rent on
April 10, 2013 when they cashed the March rent check number 123.

Then, on or around May 8, 2013, Plaintiff contends that Defendant was served with a
“supplemental” Three Day Notice to Quit alleging Defendant Altawal had allegedly breached the
Original Tenant Susan Joyce Altawals written rental agreement by subletting and assigning the
unit, specifically for 1) failing to notify the owners or their property managers that the last original
occupant, Susan Joyce Altawal, permanently moved out of the Premises, and by Susan Joyce
Altawal assigning her rental agreement to you in breach of the express terms of it; 2) by replacing
Susan Joyce Altawal with more than one roommate without the prior written or verbal consent of
the Owners or their property managers; 3) by subletting portions of the Premises to more than one
person without notice to and without the written or verbal consent of the Owners or their property
managers; 4) by subletting portions of the Premises and thereby exceeding the occupancy
limitation (two Persons) of the premises; 5) by subletting portions of the Premises without notice
to the Owners or their property managers prior to subtenants moving in; and 6) by charging your
subtenants collectively more rent than the allowable rent you are paying the Owners or for their
fair and proportional use of the Premises. At no time did Yarng Altawal sublet the property or
accept consideration. In addition, the Plaintiff admits he has no evidence of subletting.

On or about May 22, 2013 the Plaintiffs filed the Unlawful Detainer complaint. Since
then, Plaintiffs have served Mr. Altawal and Mrs. Altawal with over 500 written discovery
requests regarding individuals they believe to be subletting the subject premises. However, every

picture produced thus far has been from after the service of the three day notice. Moreover, in

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 5written discovery, Plaintiffs have admitted that they have no evidence that the Altawals sublet the
unit and have admitted that they held the Altawals rent checks for four months and cashed them
only because they were moving to evict the Altawals.

On or about November 22, 2013 Defendnat sent Plaintiff Special Interrogatories, Set Four.
Exhibit A. Plaintiff responded on November 27, 2013 and thereafter did not supplement. Exhibit
B. Defendant also propounded Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, in October 2013
and Plaintiff responded and later verified the requests. Exhibit C, Exhibit D. Defendant met and
conferred regarding these requests and responses and Plaintiff did not supplement the responses
nor provide all documents. Defendant's counsel would regularly also ask Plaintiffs counsel for
this information and each time Plaintiff would respond that they would think about it but no
responses have been forthcoming.

Ill. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A) This Court Should Overrule Defendant's Boilerplate Objections Because They Are Not
Applied With Specificity And Are Therefore Not Code-Complaint

Boilerplate objections do not satisfy the requirements of CCP § 2030 and are sanctionable
if based upon creating annoyance and unnecessary expense for the Plaintiff. California courts
have long frowned upon making objections “predicated upon annoyance, expense, embarrassment,
oppression, or any other ground based on justice and equity” and gives the trial court “wide
discretion, the exercise of which will not be disturbed by the appellate courts in the absence of an
abuse” to correct objections made for these purposes. Cembrook v. Superior Court of San
Francisco, (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 427.

The statute in question states: “If the propounding party, on receipt of a response to
interrogatories, deems “(1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) ...
the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory
is without merit or too general,” the party may move for an order compelling further response.”
CCP 2030. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery as a matter of right. Cembrook v. Superior Court of
San Francisco, (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 427. The only way for Defendant to refuse to answer
questions or to object properly is if it successfully fulfills its burden showing that the requests do

not fall within the purview of the statute. Jd To meet this burden is a high standard requiring

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 6specific objections because the courts are required to adopt a liberal construction of the statute in
favor of discovery. Id. Here, Defendant clearly does not meet its burden because it does not
make proper, specific objections to show why certain requests fall outside the purview of the
statute.

Plaintiffs objections are simply general statements which are unsupported. These overly
broad and vague objections are sanctionable by the court. Best Products, Inc. v. Superior Court,
119 Cal. App. 4th 1181, 1190 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2004). Answering any discovery request with
copied and pasted objections to the questions asked opens the door for Plaintiff to move to compel
further answers and for sanctions to be imposed. Id.

B) Where The Requests at Issue Are Relevant And The Plaintiff Does Not Offer Responses Are

Not Code Compliant, Plaintiff Should Be Ordered To Supply Further Information In Response

Defendant's Request For Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories, Set Four

Defendant's requests involve basic information regardign the acceptance of rent, the

manner in which rent checks are deposited, and the negotiation of tendered rent which is
specifically at issue in the Three Day Notice underlying the unlawful detainer action. By refusing
to provide the relevant responses, the Plaintiff has improperly made the discovery process far
more costly and time intensive.

First, the interrogatories that Defendant propounded are allowable under the liberal
standard for discovery. The test for allowable discovery is broad and requires the production of
any information sought that may reasonably lead to other admissible evidence. CCP § 2017.010;
see Davies v. Sup.Ct. (State of Calif) (1984) 36 C3d 291, 301. A court resolving discovery
disputes looks only to see “whether it is possible that information in a particular subject area could
be relevant or admissible at the time of trial.” Maldonado v. Sup.Ct. (ICG Telecom Group, Inc.)
(2002) 94 CA4th 1390, 1397. Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery,
particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Perry) (1982) 31 C3d 785, 790. Here, Defendant propounds only
Request for Documents that are relevant and would provide information necessary for Defendant's
defenses. As further detailed in the Separate Statement attached to this motion, Defendant falls

clearly within the liberal standard for allowable discovery.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 727

28

Second, the Plaintiff's responses are wholly unresponsive, warranting the court to compel
responses. The court will grant a motion to compel further responses where the responses were
incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either
without merit or too general. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants, (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403. The documents requested are narrowly tailored to
the time frame at issue and issues at hand.

Despite considerable meeting and conferring, Plaintiff has explicitly refused to provide
relevant document requests. Plaintiff is improperly withholding information and unnecessarily
delaying the discovery process with its general objections, evasive responses and refusal to
cooperate with Defendant. Because of this refusal, the Court should compel the Defendant to
respond further to the discovery.

Basically Plaintiff is attempting to only produce information they want to produce rather
than the responsive documents. The information requested should be readily available to the
Plaintiff as at times the Plaintiffs have said that the Plaintiffs do not have any personal knowledge
and that they are relying on their property manager in their entirety in which case information
known to their property manager is within their custody and control. Their property manager even
verified the discvoery in this case. As the property manager, Urban Pioneer is responsible for
collecting rent, distributing rent reciepts, and for creating a ledger of rental payments for tenants.
Urban Pioneer is the party that has been responsible for collecting all evidence that will be used
against the Defendant. Moreover, it is believed that Urban Pioneer deposits rent payments and
then transfers the funds to the Sberlo Trust. Defendant attempted to retrieve bank records
regarding the reciept and deposit of specific checks to the Sberlos, but these documents are
inadequate to identify specific checks. As such, Defendant has requested the bank documents of
Urban Pioneer to show these deposits.

Despite this, counsel explicitly refused to provide Plaintiff or Urban Pioneers relevant
document requests. Plaintiff is improperly withholding information and unnecessarily delaying

the discovery process with its general objections and refusal to cooperate with Defendant.
1. Defendant Has Shown Good Cause For Each Request

If the moving party shows good cause, the burden is then on the responding party to justify

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 8any objections made to document disclosure. Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95
Cal.App.4th 92, 98. Good cause is provided for each request at issue as listed in the attached
Separate Statement. Generally speaking, Defendant claims that rent was collected for the period
of the three day notice, making the three day notice to cure invalid and the subsequent unlawful
detainer action invalid as well. Woven through all of Defendants requests is an attempt to
determine whether these funds were produced and to prevent the Landlord from further hiding this
pivotal information. These document requests are tailored to obtain this information.

The special interrogatories requested are clearly relevant to the litigation as they show
whether rent was actually received. As the party collecting rent, it is clear that the Sberlos and
their agents, Urban Pioneer, would have the best access to this information and documents related
to this question. Plaintiff's denial of these requests and the evasive responses show a pattern of
unnecessary delay.

C) Monetary Sanctions are Warranted against Plaintiff Yoel Sberlo and His Attorneys

Karen Uchiyama and Aaron Farmer Because of the Refusal to Put forth Full and Complete

Responses and the Meritless Objections

This Court should sanction Plaintiff Yoel Sberlo and his Attorneys Karen Uchiyama and

Aaron Farmer for the refusal to put forth full and complete discovery responses and documents.
Plaintiff continues to make meritless objections despite only providing information that they
intend to rely on. This is directly prejudicial to the Defendant and despite repeated requests
Plaintiff refuses. It is important to note that Plaintiff indicates that he has no personal knowledge
and that he is only relying on his Property manager Urban Pioneer, produces some of their
documents but does not produce all of the relevant documents, In addition, Plaintiff does not

confirm that proper diligent searches have been completed. CCP § 2031.

Under these circumstances, the court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone
misusing the discovery process and the responsible parties must pay reasonable expenses,
including attorney's fees unless the opposition was made with substantial justification or other
circumstances exist that make sanctions unjust. CCP § 2031.310(h), 2023.030(a), 2030.300(d);
see Kravitz v. Sup.Ct. (Milner) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021, 111 Cal.Rep.2d 385, 389
(citing text). Sanctions may be imposed against anyone who engaged in such conduct, including
the parties and their counsel or both. CCP § 2023.030.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 9Plaintiff and its counsel are refusing to answer relevant and proper discovery propounded
by Yarng Altawal as a delay tactic and to prejudice Defendant. Defendant has emphasized the
necessity of the responses and also made limitations to the requested discovery, along with notice
of the filing of this motion. As a result, Defendant Yarng Altawal requests sanctions against
Plaintiff Yoel Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust, and its attorney, Karen Uchiyama and
Aaron Farmer, of the Law Offices of Karen Uchiyama where Defendant put forth meritless
objections to the discovery propounded by Yarng Altawal Defendant's intention was to delay
discovery, requiring the Plaintiff to file this motion in order to increase Plaintiff's costs. As a

result, Plaintiff should be reimbursed his fees and costs incurred in filing this motion.

Because of the extent of the objections and the refusal to produce responsive documents,
Defendants have incurred $4,845.00 in attorneys fees to obtain information which Plaintiffs are
obligated to produce. Hooshmand Decl., §J 14, 15.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Yarng Altawal asks that Plaintiff Yoel Sberlo,
Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust be ordered to respond to all requests at issue and to pay
monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,845.00 along with his counsel, Karen Uchiyama and
Aaron Farmer, jointly and severally. The specific requests as identified in the separate statement
are Special Interrogatories, Set Four, Numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16. As to Requests
for Production of Documents, Set Three, Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Dated: December 16, 2013 HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP

A\

Mark Hooshmand, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 10MEET AND CONFER DECLARATION OF MARK HOOSHMAND
I, MARK HOOSHMAND, declare the following:

1. I am the attorney for the Plaintiff in this matter.

2. The facts stated within this declaration are based upon my personal knowledge,
except for those which are based on information and belief, and I am competent to testify as to
these facts.

3. Our office has represented Plaintiffs since the inception of this litigation.

4, On November 22, 2013 Defendant sent Special Interrogatories, Set Four to
Plaintiff. Exhibit A.

5. Plaintiff responded thereafter. Exhibit B.

6. In an attempt to meet and confer, Defendant limited the requested information to
the time period to the period of the three Day Notice (January 2013-March 2013) as well as April
through July 2013 to determine whether any deposits were made to Urban Pioneer.

7. In October 2013 we propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three
to Plaintiff. Exhibit C.

8. Plaintiff responded thereafter but refused to produce many relevant documents.
Exhibit D.
9. Plaintiff has been routinely refusing to produce information in discovery which is

creating significant difficulty for the Defendant to be able to present his case.

10. We attempted further meet and confer on the issue, and in person discussions, and
we explained that the documentation was needed to show attempted deposits and returns and any
other information related to the issue, since the amount paid and retained is a critical issue to the
case. Exhibit E, Exhibit F.

11. Plaintiff's counsel refused to supplement the discovery and refused to provide
additional documents.

12. We gave notice of our intent to file a Motion to Compel and Plaintiff still did not

supplement.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 1113. When I asked Plaintiff's counsel about specific documents that were withheld that
are discoverable including communications between the Plaintiff and his property manager,
counsel said she would “think about it”. To date no documents have been produced.

14. [have spent 11.4 hours preparing, reviewing and revising this motion. My hourly
rate is $425.00 an hour. These fees total total $ 4,845.

15. This rate is consistent with the rate of attorneys with 15 years of experience
practicing in the San Francisco Bay Area. Our office specializes in landlord tenant and eviction
matters.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Date: December 16, 2013

Mark Hooshmand, Esq.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSES FROM
PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO 12Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878)
Hooshmand Law Group

22 Battery Street, Ste 610

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 318-5709

Fax: (415) 376-5897

Attorney for Defendant Yang Altawal

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST

CASE: CUD-13-645401

Plaintiff,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR
PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL
TO YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE

SBERLO FAMILY TRUST
vs.

YARNG ALTAWAL, etal,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT SUSAN ALTAWAL

RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO
FAMILY TRUST

SET NUMBER: SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL TO YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR
THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 1427

28

Defendant Yarng Altawal propounds the following Special Interrogatories, Set Four to

Yoel Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE:

1, Identify the definition of subletting that YOU contend YARNG has violated as it applies
to the APARTMENT he is renting. “YARNG” shall refer to Yarng Altawal.
“APARTMENT” shall refer to 1780 McAllister Street, Apt. 3, San Francisco, CA 94115.
“YOU” and YOUR” and “PLAINTIFFS” shall refer to Yoel Sberlo, individually and as
Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust, including information known to him and those
individuals affiliated with Urban Pioneer as they are under his possession, custody and
control.

2. Identify the person who deposited each of the checks YARNG provided for his rent for the
months of January 2013, February 2013, March 2013, April 2013, and May 2013.

3. Describe the process of how YARNG's checks were electronically deposited, including
from the time YARNG provided the checks to Urban Pioneer to when they were deposited
into the PLAINTIFFs bank account.

4. identify the exact date in April 2013 that it was decided to terminate YARNG's tenancy for
subletting.

5. Explain why YOU deposited funds related to YARNG's tenancy with the Superior Court of
San Francisco.

6. Identify who decided to terminate YARNG's tenancy for subletting in April 2013.

7. sidentify-al-facts personally known to Yoel Sberlo concerning the alleged violations of
subletting and non-payment of rent for which YARN G is presently being evicted in this
unlawful detainer.

8. s¥entify all facts Personally known to Nadine Sberlo concerning the alleged violations of

subletting and non-payment of rent for which YARNG is presently being evicted in this
unlawful detainer.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL TO YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR

THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 29. Identify all facts personally known to Jeff Jurow concerning the alleged violations of
subletting and non-payment of rent for which YARNG is presently being evicted in this
unlawful detainer.

10. Identify all facts personally known to Michael Fonti concerning the alleged violations of
subletting and non-payment of rent for which YARNG is presently being evicted in this
unlawful detainer.

11. Identify all notices given to YARNG directly that YOU were reserving YOUR right to
terminate his tenancy for subletting.

12. Explain why YOU did not accept YARNG's attempt to cure the three day notice .

13. Identify the date on which it was decided that YARNG's tenancy would be terminated for
non-payment of rent in 2013.

®fetdentify the bates numbers for the checks YOU contend YOU retumed to YARNG that
“ had bounced.

15. Identify all efforts and by whom, where taken to determine which checks of YARNG
ALTAWAL bounced.

"¥6Sxplain:the:credit:to. Urban Pioneer in the amount of $2,271.00 on YOUR bank statement
efApril 2013.

Dated: November 22, 2013 HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP

Stephanie Foster, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET FOUR, PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL TO YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR

THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 3Exh £KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA - STATE BAR NO. 154414
AARON A. FARMER - STATE BAR NO. 268921
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA

1441 Baker Street

San Francisco, California 94115

Telephone: (415) 563-9300

Facsimile: (415) 563-9304

‘Attorney for Plaintiff
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE ) Case No. CUD-13-645401
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, }
) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO
Plaintiffs, ) DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL
) INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. FOUR
v. )
)
YARNG ALTAWAL, et. al., )
Defendants. )
)
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIESPROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT YARNG ALTAWAL
RESPONDING PARTY: — PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO
FAMILY TRUST
SET NO: FOUR
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff continues to investigate the facts relating to this case, has not completed
discovery, and has not completed preparation for trial. The following responses are therefore
limited to the information presently known, available, and recalled. The responses are made
without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to make use of subsequently discovered facts and
information.
SPE INTERROGATO! SET.NO. T. iE
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Objection, Defendant is not seeking discovery of facts, but instead wants Plaintiff's
attorney to conduct legal research for him. Therefore, the answer to this question is equally
available to Defendant. Notwithstanding, a sublease is the lease to another of all or a portion of
the leased premises by a tenant who has leased the premises from the owner. The lessee is
responsible for paying the rent to the owner (landlord/lessor) through the terms of the original
lease and sublease. Plaintiff also defines subletting as when the tenant who leased the premises
from the owner allows others to use and occupy the premises for consideration.
Notwithstanding this definition, Defendant’s rental agreement also prohibited long-term “guests”
staying at the rent-controlled apartment for more than seven days, which suggests that the
prohibition against unauthorized subletting also applies to guests using and occupying the
apartment for more than seven days.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Objection. This interrogatory is irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and the
information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Code of Civ. Pro. § 2017.010. Notwithstanding, after a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiff

unable to determine who physically scanned and deposited Defendant’s rent checks, but there is

2

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES.circumstantial evidence of the deposits and the fact of the deposits is undisputed.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

They were electronically scanned by Urban Pioneer directly to the bank account of Yoel
Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust.

RESPONSE TO.SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Objection. Irrelevant to any defense in this case. Asked and answered, see Plaintiffs
response to special interrogatory number 20, Set Three.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

It is an amount in controversy. Plaintiff did not want to accept rent from Defendant after
the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit expired on May 6, 2013. Yet, Defendant will owe
money to Plaintiff whether he prevails in this action or not — either in rent, or daily unlawful
detainer damages. Therefore, it made no sense for Plaintiff to return rent money to Defendant
when he is unlawfully detaining his property. This money will ultimately belong to Plaintiff
when this case is over. The Superior Court of San Francisco is acting as an escrow for this
amount that is still in controversy at this time.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Objection. This interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
privilege. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Responding Party answers as follows: Yoel
Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust based on the facts given to him by his property
managers at Urban Pioneer Property Management.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

: Objection. Compound. Asked and answered, see response to Request for Admission #1,
Set Two.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Objection. Compound. Vague and ambiguous. Yoel Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo
Family Trust cannot attest to the personal knowledge of a third party.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Objection. Compound. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Responding Party

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIESanswers as follows: Rent checks from Yarng Altwal bounced and a three day notice to pay rent
or quit was issued. Defendant ALTAWAL failed to cure the three day notice to pay rent or quit.
Security camera footage shows several unknown strangers accessing the Subject Property with
keys unescorted by Defendant ALTAWAL. Jeff Jurow has observed and concluded from the
videotape and witness reports that Defendant ATLAWAL was subletting without notice to or
consent of the landlords, and Susan Altawal was not using the subject property as her principal
place of residence. ,
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Objection. Compound. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Responding Party
answers as follows: Rent checks from Yarng Altwal bounced and a three day notice to pay rent
or quit was issued. Defendant ALTAWAL failed to cure the three day notice to pay rent or quit.
Security camera footage shows several unknown strangers accessing the Subject Property with
keys unescorted by Defendant ALTAWAL. Michael Fonti has observed and concluded from the
videotape and witness reports that Defendant ATLAWAL was subletting without notice to or
consent of the landlords, and Susan Altawal was not using the subject property as her principal
place of residence.

RESPONSE TO SPEC. TOR A:

Letter dated April 2, 2013 to Defendant from Michael Fonti, otherwise known by its
Bates stamp “SBERLO 0018”.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Defendant made no attempt to cure the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit before it
expired.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

On May 7, 2013, the day after the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit expired on May
6, 2013 as Defendant did not pay or offer to pay the sum demanded in the notice by then.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Objection, unintelligible, asked and answered several times in discovery, and harassing.
Defendant already has personal knowledge of the check numbers of his three rent checks that

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIESbounced due to insufficient funds in his checking account. The information is now, and has
always been within his own knowledge, custody and control via his own bank statements and
with his own bank. Plaintiffs knowledge would only be secondary.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Objection, irrelevant. Notwithstanding this objection, the determination of exactly which

checks bounced only arose during this litigation. Plaintiff was only concerned with the sum of

the total rent owed by Defendant after three out of four of his rent checks bounced. At the time
the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was served, only Defendant had this knowledge, not
Plaintiff.
‘SPONSE TO SPEC. INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Objection, asked and asked. See declaration of Cris Lamas, controller for Urban Pioneer
Property Management, otherwise known by its Bates stamp “SBERLO 001154” through
“SBERLO 001155”.

DATED: November 27, 2013 5
47

By:
AARON A. F.
Attorney for Plaingiff
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES
TO DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIESVERIFICATIO!

I, Michael Fonti, am the authorized agent for the plaintiff in this action. I have
read the foregoing Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set. No.
Four, and hereby verify that the responses are true, to the best of my knowledge. I make
this verification on November 27, 2013, under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of

MICHAEL FONTI

the State of California.Exch Cos XN

Mark Hooshmand, Esq. (SBN 194878)
Stephanie Foster, Esq. (SBN 278652)
Hooshmand Law Group

22 Battery Street, Ste 610

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 318-5709

Fax: (415) 376-5897

Attorney for Defendant Yarng Altawal

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE CASE: CUD-13-645401

SBERLO FAMILY TRUST,

Plaintiffs,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET THREE,
PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL
TO YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST

vs.

YARNG ALTAWAL, SUSAN
ALTAWAL, et al,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT YARNG ALTAWAL

RESPONDING PARTY: YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY
TRUST

SET NUMBER: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
THREE

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL TO YOEL
SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 1Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031, Defendant Yamg Altawal demands that Yoel
Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust, serve a written response under oath to this demand
within five (5) days after service of this demand. In addition, the originals of all responsive
documents are required to be produced along with the written response in a manner corresponding
to each request. Legible photocopies of each such document will be accepted or condition that the
photocopies are accompanied by a statement subscribed under oath and identifying the documents
and indicating that they comprise the totality of the documents to be produced within a particular
category.

The time period for this request shall be from December 1, 2012 until October 24, 2013
unless otherwise noted.

“YOU” and “YOUR?” shall refer to Yoel Sberlo, Trustee for the Sberlo Family Trust, his
agents, employees, independent contractors, attomeys, insurance agents, and anyone acting at his
direction or with his knowledge.

This request seeks documents which are in your possession, custody or control, or in the
possession, custody or control of your directors, officers, employees, attorneys, accountants,
advisors or agents, where the person or entity is directly or indirectly employed by or connected
with you or your attomeys or anyone else otherwise subject to your control. Each document
produced by you is to be produced in its original folder or container with all file labels intact.

For each document which you fail or refuse to produce, you must furnish the following

information:

a) The exact name and the title by which you refer to the document;
b) The date and all serial or other identifying numbers on the document;
c) The identity of each person who wrote, signed, initiated or otherwise

participated in the preparation or execution of the document;

d) The subject matter of the document;
e) The recipient or recipients of the documents; and
f) The reason why you have failed or refused to produce the document and all

facts in support of that reason.
DEFINITIONS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL TO YOEL
SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 2In responding to this request, the following words are defined as set forth
herein.

"DOCUMENTS" means any "writing" as that term is defined in Evidence Code Section
250, which is as follows:

"Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing,

photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of

recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including
letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record
thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.

In addition, "DOCUMENTS" means any computer data, whether stored on hard disk, tape
drive, cassette tape, CD ROM, floppy disk, removable disk, or other storage method, videotape or
audiotape recordings, or any other media or retrievable data. “DOCUMENTS” includes all
documents which are now or were at any time in your actual or constructive possession, custody
or control, or in the actual or constructive possession, custody or control of your directors,
officers, employees, attorneys, investigators, experts or consultants, or of which you or your
directors, officers, employees, attorneys, investigators, experts or consultants have any
information or knowledge. “DOCUMENTS” includes both original documents, copies and any
non-identical copies.

"CONCERNING” means referring to, alluding to, responding to, connected with,
commenting on, relating to, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing, involving, showing,
describing, reflecting, analyzing, evaluating, or constituting.

"OR” means both or and the logical inclusive "or," i.e., “and/or."

"INCLUDING" means "including, but not limited to."

Words used in the singular include the plural and vice-versa.

"ALL" means both all and any.

"CORRESPONDENCE" means all contact, written, oral or otherwise, formal or informal,

at any time or place or under any circumstances during which information of any type was

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL TO YOEL
SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 3transmitted, including telephone notes, memoranda of conversations, correspondence, electronic
mail, voice mail, facsimile and telegrams.

“YARNG?” shall refer to YARNG ALTAWAL.

“LEASED PREMISES” shall refer to the space leased at 1780 McAllister Street, Apt. 3,
San Francisco, CA 94115..

“LEASE” shall refer to all written agreements to lease space at 1780 McAllister Street,
Apt. 3, San Francisco, CA 94115.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE:

1. All bank statements for Sberlo Family Trust for 2013.

2. All bank statements for Urban Pioneer for 2013.

3. All DOCUMENTS indicating the return of check number 118.
4. All DOCUMENTS evidencing the attempts to deposit checks provided by Yarng
Altawal for 2013.

5, All DOCUMENTS indicating the return of check number 121.

6. All DOCUMENTS indicating the return of check number 123.

7. All DOCUMENTS indicating the return of check number 128.

8. All DOCUMENTS indicating any rent received and kept by YOU from YARNG
ALTAWAL for the year 2013.

9. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Urban Pioneer concerning Yarng
Altawal.

Dated: October 24, 2013 HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP

Z

Suede Foster, Esq.
ey for Defendant

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE, PROPOUNDED BY YARNG ALTAWAL TO YOEL
SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 4Exch

D27
28

LAW OFFICES OF
KAREN Y, UCHIYAMA
1461 Baker Street
San Francisco, California

1

‘41
(615) 563-9300

KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA - STATE BAR NO. 154414
AARON A. FARMER - STATE BAR NO. 268921
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA

1441 Baker Street

San Francisco, California 94115

Telephone: (415) 563-9300

Facsimile: (415) 563-9304

Attorney for Plaintiff
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE Case No. CUD-13-645401
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST,
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO
Plaintiff. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
v. THREE

YARNG ALTAWAL, et. al.,

Defendants.

eee

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTIONwin

27
28

LAW OFFICES OF
KAREN Y. UCHIVAMA

1441 Baker Street

‘San Francisco, California

94115
(415) 583-9300

N

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT YARNG ALTAWAL |
RESPONDING PARTY: | PLAINTIFF YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR THE SBERLO
FAMILY TRUST
SET NO: THREE
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff continues to investigate the facts relating to this case, has not completed

discovery, and has not completed preparation for trial. The following responses are therefore
limited to the information presently known, available, and recalled. The responses are made
without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to make use of subsequently discovered facts and
information.

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 1:

Objection. This request seeks privileged and private financial information. This request
seeks information that is not relevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Further,
this request includes dates after the expiration of the three day notice which is not relevant in this
case. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent answers as follows: Responding
party will produce all documents previously provided to Defendant while responding to his

motion for summary judgment. See attached.

REQUEST NO. 2:

Objection. Urban Pioneer Property Management is not a party in this action. This
request seeks privileged and private financial information. This request seeks information that is
not relevant in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. This request is overbroad and unduly burdensome.

REQUEST NO. 3:

Objection. Vague and ambiguous. What does “check number 118” refer to?
Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent answers as follows: Responding party will

produce all documents previously provided to Defendant while responding to his motion for

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION27
28

LAW OFFICES OF
KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA,

94115
(415) 568-8300

summary judgment. See attached.
REQUEST NO. 4:

Objection. Vague and ambiguous. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent
answers as follows: Responding party will produce all documents previously provided to
Defendant while responding to his motion for summary judgment. See attached.

REQUEST NO. 5:

Objection. Vague and ambiguous. What does “check number 121” refer to?
Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent answers as follows: Responding party will
produce all documents previously provided to Defendant while responding to his motion for
summary judgment. See attached.

REQUEST NO. 6:

Objection. Vague and ambiguous. What does “check number 123” refer to?
Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent answers as follows: Responding party will
produce all documents previously provided to Defendant while responding to his motion for
summary judgment. See attached.

REQUEST NO. 7:
Objection. Vague and ambiguous. What does “check number 128” refer to?

Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent answers as follows: Responding party will
produce all documents previously provided to Defendant while responding to his motion for

summary judgment. See attached.

REQUEST NO. 8:

Objection. Vague and ambiguous. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent
answers as follows: Responding party will produce all documents previously provided to
Defendant while responding to his motion for summary judgment. See attached.

REQUEST NO. 9:

Objection. Asked and answered in Defendant Yarng Altawal’s Request for Production of

Documents, Set One, Request 34. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Respondent answers

as follows: See Plaintiff's response to Defendant Yarng Altawal’s Request for Production of
3
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION27

28

LAW OFFICES OF
KAREN Y, UCHIVAMA

1441 Baker Steet

San Francisca, Caforia

94115
(419) 569-8900

MS

Documents, Set One, Request 34.

DATED: October 29, 2013

By:

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO.
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION

FOR THEVERIFICATION TO FOLLOWSuh EE12/16/13 Workspace Webmail :: Print

Print | Close Window

Subject: Sberlo v. Altawal - Meet and Confer Discovery Responses, Sets Three and Four
From: “Mark Hooshmand” 
Date: Mon, Dec 09, 2013 8:14 pm
To: ron Farmer” , "Karen Uchiyama” 
Cc: "Mark Hooshmand” , "Stephanie Foster" 
Attach: Altawal Meet and Confer re Plaintiff's Responses to Set Three.pdf

Counsel

In the matter of Sberlo v. Altawal, this email and the attached letter will serve as our final meet and
confer attempt regarding the unresponsive and inadequate discovery responses we received from
Plaintiffs regarding Defendants Written Discovery Sets Three and Four including Special
Interrogatories, Set Four, Request For Admission, Set Four, and Form Interrogatories, Set Four.

Special Interrogatories:

| Request 3: This request seeks basic information regarding the process of how Yarngs checks were

electronically deposited. Your response, again simply stating they are electronically scanned is
insufficient. Per the request, please provide additional information regarding how the checks are
electronically deposited from the time the checks are tendered to when and where they are
electronically deposited into the Plaintiffs b