Preview
MM
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-10-2013 3:13 pm
Case Number: CUD-13-645401
Filing Date: Dec-10-2013 3:06
Filed by:
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04304115
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS
SBERLO, YOEL, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST VS. YARNG ALTAWAL
et al
001004304115
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 Oe ND HW BF WN
NN Yb NY YN NN NY Bee we Be we ewe Be ee ee
ont DW FF BN = SOD we AI DHA FB Dw NH FS
1441 Baker Street
San Francisco, California 94115
Telephone: (415) 563-9300
Facsimile: (415) 563-9304
Attorney for Plaintiff
FAMILY TRUST
[YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO
FAMILY TRUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
\YARNG ALTAWAL, SUSAN ALTAWAL,
and DOES 1 through X, in occupancy,
Defendants.
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO
Se
D ORIG.
LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA
KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA - STATE BAR NO. 154414
AARON A. FARMER - STATE BAR NO. 268921
rE:
fern
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
Case No. CUD-13-645401
DISCOVERY
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND
FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Date: December 13, 2013
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Department: 501
1
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 Oo ND HW FF WN
10
SEPARATE STATEMENT RE REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #9:
All statements from any and all financial institutions at which YOU had an account from
January 1, 2012, to present. You may redact all personal and financial information other than
deposit dates, and deposit amounts.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS,
REQEUST #9:
Objection, this request is vague, overbroad, and ambiguous. Objection, this request calls
for information equally available to the requesting party. Respondents object as this request calls
for information potentially subject to a claim of privilege, including, without limitation, the
attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine. Objection, this violates Responding
Party’s financial privacy, is overbroad as to time. Without waiving the foregoing objections:
Bank statements are being produced, Altawal Bates Labeled Documents Numbers
“ALTAWAL 00022-00064” and the attached Wells Fargo Bank Statements, and attached Citi
Bank Statements. Defendant has provided all bank statements available online for both Wells
Faro and Citi Bank. These accounts do not allow further access than what is provided.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #9 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce a Wells Fargo checking account
statement for April 2013 (that he insists he has). Instead, all that has been provided is bank
statements from May 16, 2013, which show a zero balance in the checking account. At his
deposition, on December 6, 2013, Mr. ALTAWAL insisted that he opening this account in April
2013, with an opening deposit of $100.00. To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce
documentation of this.
Next, all financial statements provided by Defendant ALTAWAL do not include check
numbers or transaction descriptions. Defendant ATLAWAL redacted all of this information so
Plaintiff cannot track unexplained transactions in the accounts. At his deposition of December 6,
2
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSC0 Oe ND HW BF YW NY He
Se Be oe
Nu FF So
13
2013, Defendant ALTAWAL insisted that the only deposits in all of his accounts were from his
employer, cash advances from his credit card, and cash from his pocket that he had previously
withdrawn from the same account. Because Defendant ALTAWAL heavily redacted all
statements Plaintiff has no way of verifying Defendant ALTAWAL’s assertions. This
information is directly relevant to the issues in this litigation because Plaintiff contends that the
numerous deposits ranging from $30 to $200 are in fact deposits of funds from Defendant
ALTAWAL/’s unauthorized subtenants for the use and occupancy of the Subject Property.
Plaintiff has no way of obtaining this information other than from the statements.
Further, at his deposition on December 6, 2013, when asked about the unexplained cash
deposits into his checking account, Defendant ALTAWAL testified that he took cash advances
from his credit card (American Express) account and deposited the funds to his checking
account. Obviously, these statements are relevant to prove ALTAWAL’s explanation or cast
doubt on his explanation for the cash deposits. No credit card statements have been provided for
this account to date. These documents are directly relevant to the issues in this litigation because
Plaintiff contends that the numerous deposits ranging from $30 to $200 are in fact deposits of
funds from Defendant ALTAWAL’s unauthorized subtenants for the use and occupancy of the
Subject Property. The only way to determine the truth of this matter is through the American
Express or other credit card statements. Additionally, these statements should have been
produced in response to this discovery request. Why is Plaintiff only finding out about them at
the deposition of Defendant ALTAWAL?
Finally, at his deposition on December 6, 2013, for the first time, Defendant ALTAWAL
argued that his checks should not have bounced because he claimed to have Overdraft Protection
from an investment account to support his checking account at Chase bank. Defendant
ALTAWAL contends that somehow Plaintiff or Chase Bank caused the subject rent checks to
bounce. However, Defendant ALTA WAL has produced no documents to verify that he has
Overdraft Protection for the account. If this were true, it would be listed on any of the statements
related to either of these accounts. Defendant ALTAWAL should be compelled to produce
documentation to prove his contention.
3
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 Oe ND NH BF WN
10
Particularly, Plaintiff wishes to trace the sources of Mr. Altawal’s rent money in order to
dispel his defense that he collected no rent money from the various occupants observed with
keys to his apartment. (ie., the money that Mr. Altawal collected from his subtenants and
deposited into the bank account(s) he used to pay the rent). Defendant’s deposits of money
outside his regular salary will also prove receipt of money from his unauthorized subtenants and
will trace money received by Defendant to the payors, who are key witnesses in this case.
SEPARATE STATEMENT RE REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET TWO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #10:
All statements from YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 from
October 1, 2012 to the present date. You may redact all personal and financial information other
than the account number, name(s) of account holder(s), check numbers of all checks that cleared,
dates that all checks cleared, scanned copies of checks, dates of all deposits therein, and amounts
of deposits therein.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS,
REQEUST #10:
Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope
of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for
disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October
2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery
regarding his personal finances.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #10 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
Recently, Defendant ALTAWAL produced a photocopy of a check dated May 1, 2013, in
the amount of $2,271.00 that he claims he tendered to cure the three day notice to pay rent or
quit. Plaintiff believes Defendant ALTA WAL created this check recently to fabricate evidence.
Of course, bank statements from this account would prove when it was opened, if checks have
ever been written from it, and if $2,271.00 was in the account on May 1, 2013. This request will
4
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 ON DA HW BF WN |
RYN Ye NY YN NR NN Se Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Se
oI A A BF BN = SOD we NIN DH BF WN KF OD
produce evidence directly relevant to disproving Defendant ALTAWAL/’s fabricated evidence
concerning this check. Further, Plaintiffs counsel agreed to limit this request by allowing
Defendant ALTAWAL to redact irrelevant financial information.
Defendant does not accurately state the ruling on the protective order. It said that
Defendant ALTAWAL need not answer Special Interrogatory Number 24, Set One, because it is
overbroad. The Special Interrogatory asked: “Describe each and every source of YOUR income
from January 1, 2012 to present.” Clearly an order stating this request is overbroad does not
mean that Defendant is not required to answer any discovery request that could in any way
include personal finances.
To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce a Wells Fargo checking account
statement for April 2013. Instead, all that has been provided is bank statements from May 16,
2013, which show a zero balance in the checking account. At his deposition, on December 6,
2013, Mr. ALTAWAL insisted that he opening this account in April 2013, with an opening
deposit of $100.00. To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce documentation of this.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #11:
Your checkbook/register for YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853
from October 1, 2012 to the present date. You may redact all account balances.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS,
REQEUST #11:
Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope
of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for
disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October
2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery
regarding his personal finances.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above.
5
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #12:
True and correct copies of the five cancelled checks, in sequential order, that YOU wrote
prior to Check No. 1003 from YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 (ie.,
check nos. 1002, 1001, 1000, 999, 998, etc.). For each check, you may redact the amount of the
check, but do not redact the payee, the date of the check, or YOUR signature on the check.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS,
REQEUST #12:
Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope
of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for
disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October
2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery
regarding his personal finances.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #12 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #13:
True and correct copies of the five cancelled checks, in sequential order, that YOU wrote
right after YOU wrote Check No. 1003 from YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no.
8310300853 (ie., check nos. 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, etc.. For each check, you may redact
the amount of the check, but do not redact the payee, the date of the check or YOUR signature
on the check.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS,
REQEUST #13:
Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope
of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for
disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October
2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery
regarding his personal finances. Objection. Irrelevant. Defendants previous checks are
6
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSoem YN DH FF WBN =
NR YN NY NY N KY NY Bee ew ee ee ee
RB eR RREEKR RS Se wAAaADEBAHAS
irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #13 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #17:
Any and all DOCUMENTS (ie., Wells Fargo Bank statement) evidencing that YOU had
at least $2,271.00 in YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 on May 6,
2013 to cure the THREE DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS,
REQEUST #17:
Objection, Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial
information and invades the Responding Parties right of privacy. Without waiving the foregoing
objections:
All documents evidencing this have been produced, consisting of the May 1, 2013 Wells
Fargo Check No. 1003.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #17 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #24:
Any and all DOCUMENTS showing the name and address of any and all employers who
have paid YOU during the following period: From January 1, 2012 to the present date (ie., at
least one pay stub from each regular employer). You may redact the amount of YOUR salary or
earnings.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS,
REQEUST #24:
Objection, Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial
information and invades the Responding Parties right of privacy. The request is overbroad as to
7
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONScS Om IN DH PF WN
time. Objection. Irrelevant. Respondents object as this request calls for information potentially
subject to a claim of privilege, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege and
attorney work product doctrine. Defendants previous paychecks are irrelevant to the subject
matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the Court Order following the October 2013
motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery
regarding his personal finances.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #24 SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above. Further,
this information is the only way to tell what deposits on Defendant ALTAWAL’s bank
statements are from employment, and which are from elsewhere. Finally, the request allows
Defendant ALTAWAL to redact the amount of his salary or earnings.
SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 308, SET THREE:
Explain why YOU did not produce Wells Fargo Bank Check No. 1003 in YOUR first
response to PLAINTIFF’S first Requests for Production of Documents.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 308, SET THREE:
Responding Parties object as the request calls for information that is subject to a claim of
privilege under the attorney work-product doctrine and invades the Defendant’s right to privacy.
Objection. This interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit
and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 308,
SET THREE, SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
After six months of litigation, Defendant ALTAWAL produced a photocopy of a check
he claims he tendered on May 1, 2013, to cure the three day notice to quit. Plaintiff is entitled to
know why this evidence was produced so late. Further, the only work-product privilege would
be if his attorney told him to intentionally withhold or fabricate evidence. In any event, Plaintiff
8
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS,0 em YN DH FWY
Ny NN N NY NY BS Be Be Be Be eB eB ese eB
BXeRRRORNRBESCSEWFAESERSS
is entitled to this information.
SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1, SET TWO:
State the full name, current residential address, and telephone number of each different
person in the photographs labeled “SBERLO 00386” through “SBERLO 001103” attached to
this document.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1, SET TWO:
Objection. This entire interrogatory is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and subject to
varying interpretations. A response to this interrogatory is virtually impossible. The
interrogatory contains subparts and is compound in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Section
2030.060(f). A response to this interrogatory would be unduly burdensome, time consuming,
and expensive. A response to this interrogatory would also necessitate the preparation or the
making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary which does not exist, and the burden or
expense to do so is substantially the same for the propounding party. A response to the
interrogatory and the documents from which such information can be ascertained include
information that is proprietary, confidential, or otherwise privileged, including but not limited to
information protected from disclosure under attorney-client privilege and attorney work product
privileges. Objection as the request seeks responses to over 750 pictures without the production
of the pictures. No pictures were attached to the document. Objection as the declaration of
necessity is not proper as counsel has not indicated that these individuals are different than those
provided before Objection as the requests are not full and complete
Without waiving the prior objections,
The Defendant has conducted a diligent search, called the individuals, and attempted to
locate this information. The following is the best information obtained after said diligent search:
1, Yarng Altawal, 1780 McAllister Street #3, in the County of San Francisco, California,
94115, (408) 694-2272.
2. Sue Givens, 7 Mulberry Street, Apt #5, Claremont, NH, 03743. 603-219-1551.
3. Matthew G. Richardson, 1501 Larkin St #301, SF, CA 94109, (415) 846-4130.
9
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS,4. Sonia Gharaghor — 01 1-962-77-966-9775 Al Bosyrea St., Amman, Jordan. The
Defendant is undertaking a diligent search to attempt to locate the street address for the street in
Jordan.
5. Nikolai Mikatai Oreshkin, after a diligent search it is believed that 2422 Grant St Apt
A, Berkeley CA 94703 (415) 767-6111 is his principal residence and that at times he has lived at
1957 Landings Dr, Mountain View, CA 94043-0801.
6. Alex Aronian, the last known address in the United States was 2488 Juniper Blvd.,
Daly City, CA 94195 (415) 269-0287 and Mr. Aronian presently lives in the country of Italy.
7. Andrew — (415) 370-7395. Defendant has made a diligent search defendant has
produced all information within custody, control and possession and he has reached out to Mr.
Oreshkin to attempt to locate more information regarding Andrew.
8. Sydney Scott — (925) 549-1132. It is believed that Sydneys last name is “Scott”. The
last known address was 1188 MISSION ST APT 2112, SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-6753
between 2010 and January 2011 and after a diligent search including attempts at calling the Ms.
Scott and searching online, no additional information has been obtained.
9. Nizar LaBichi, Los Angeles, California — (415) 846-2166. After a diligent search,
Defendant has made a diligent search defendant has produced all information within custody,
control and possession and continues to call mutual acquaintenances to obtain this information.
REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1, SET
TWO, SHOULD BE COMPELLED:
Defendant Yarng Altawal’s response is insufficient, and evasive. Unlawful subletting is
a cause of action in the instant litigation. Plaintiff is entitled to the age, mailing address, and
phone number for every guest or invitee who was physically present at the Subject Property.
All of these people are witnesses with personal knowledge of the disputed issues in the instant
litigation. This interrogatory seeks information that will lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Contact information for these witnesses with personal knowledge is not protected by
any privilege. Further, Plaintiffs only way to obtain valid contact information for Defendant
ALTAWAL!’s “friends and family” is from Defendant ALTAWAL.
10
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 ON DH BF WN &
°
11
Alex Aronian: The address provided is 2488 Juniper Blvd, Daly City, CA. No such
street exists in Daly City, CA. We assume Defendant meant 2488 Junipero Serra, which is a
business address.
Sydney Scott: The resident at 1188 Mission St., Apt. 2112, San Francisco, CA, our
process server reports that no person named Sydney Scott lives at this address.
Nikolai Oreshkin: The resident at the Berkeley address provided said Mr. Oreshkin has
not been there for six months. The Mountain View address provided is a business address. At
his deposition, Mr. Altawal stated that he is still in contact with Mr. Oreshkin and saw him last
week. Defendant ALTAWAL should be compelled to provide a valid address for Mr. Oreshkin
forthwith.
Matthew Richardson: Mr. Richardson cannot be found at the address provided despite
several service attempts by our process server. If Defendant and his attorney were able to locate
him to sign a declaration earlier in this litigation, then why can’t they locate him to verify his
address?
By.
AARON A. FARMER, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR
SBERLO FAMILY TRUST
11
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Preview
MM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-10-2013 3:13 pm Case Number: CUD-13-645401 Filing Date: Dec-10-2013 3:06 Filed by: Juke Box: 001 Image: 04304115 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS SBERLO, YOEL, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST VS. YARNG ALTAWAL et al 001004304115 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 Oe ND HW BF WN NN Yb NY YN NN NY Bee we Be we ewe Be ee ee ont DW FF BN = SOD we AI DHA FB Dw NH FS 1441 Baker Street San Francisco, California 94115 Telephone: (415) 563-9300 Facsimile: (415) 563-9304 Attorney for Plaintiff FAMILY TRUST [YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. \YARNG ALTAWAL, SUSAN ALTAWAL, and DOES 1 through X, in occupancy, Defendants. YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO Se D ORIG. LAW OFFICES OF KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA KAREN Y. UCHIYAMA - STATE BAR NO. 154414 AARON A. FARMER - STATE BAR NO. 268921 rE: fern SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION Case No. CUD-13-645401 DISCOVERY PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Date: December 13, 2013 Time: 10:00 a.m. Department: 501 1 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 Oo ND HW FF WN 10 SEPARATE STATEMENT RE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET ONE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #9: All statements from any and all financial institutions at which YOU had an account from January 1, 2012, to present. You may redact all personal and financial information other than deposit dates, and deposit amounts. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #9: Objection, this request is vague, overbroad, and ambiguous. Objection, this request calls for information equally available to the requesting party. Respondents object as this request calls for information potentially subject to a claim of privilege, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine. Objection, this violates Responding Party’s financial privacy, is overbroad as to time. Without waiving the foregoing objections: Bank statements are being produced, Altawal Bates Labeled Documents Numbers “ALTAWAL 00022-00064” and the attached Wells Fargo Bank Statements, and attached Citi Bank Statements. Defendant has provided all bank statements available online for both Wells Faro and Citi Bank. These accounts do not allow further access than what is provided. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #9 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce a Wells Fargo checking account statement for April 2013 (that he insists he has). Instead, all that has been provided is bank statements from May 16, 2013, which show a zero balance in the checking account. At his deposition, on December 6, 2013, Mr. ALTAWAL insisted that he opening this account in April 2013, with an opening deposit of $100.00. To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce documentation of this. Next, all financial statements provided by Defendant ALTAWAL do not include check numbers or transaction descriptions. Defendant ATLAWAL redacted all of this information so Plaintiff cannot track unexplained transactions in the accounts. At his deposition of December 6, 2 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSC0 Oe ND HW BF YW NY He Se Be oe Nu FF So 13 2013, Defendant ALTAWAL insisted that the only deposits in all of his accounts were from his employer, cash advances from his credit card, and cash from his pocket that he had previously withdrawn from the same account. Because Defendant ALTAWAL heavily redacted all statements Plaintiff has no way of verifying Defendant ALTAWAL’s assertions. This information is directly relevant to the issues in this litigation because Plaintiff contends that the numerous deposits ranging from $30 to $200 are in fact deposits of funds from Defendant ALTAWAL/’s unauthorized subtenants for the use and occupancy of the Subject Property. Plaintiff has no way of obtaining this information other than from the statements. Further, at his deposition on December 6, 2013, when asked about the unexplained cash deposits into his checking account, Defendant ALTAWAL testified that he took cash advances from his credit card (American Express) account and deposited the funds to his checking account. Obviously, these statements are relevant to prove ALTAWAL’s explanation or cast doubt on his explanation for the cash deposits. No credit card statements have been provided for this account to date. These documents are directly relevant to the issues in this litigation because Plaintiff contends that the numerous deposits ranging from $30 to $200 are in fact deposits of funds from Defendant ALTAWAL’s unauthorized subtenants for the use and occupancy of the Subject Property. The only way to determine the truth of this matter is through the American Express or other credit card statements. Additionally, these statements should have been produced in response to this discovery request. Why is Plaintiff only finding out about them at the deposition of Defendant ALTAWAL? Finally, at his deposition on December 6, 2013, for the first time, Defendant ALTAWAL argued that his checks should not have bounced because he claimed to have Overdraft Protection from an investment account to support his checking account at Chase bank. Defendant ALTAWAL contends that somehow Plaintiff or Chase Bank caused the subject rent checks to bounce. However, Defendant ALTA WAL has produced no documents to verify that he has Overdraft Protection for the account. If this were true, it would be listed on any of the statements related to either of these accounts. Defendant ALTAWAL should be compelled to produce documentation to prove his contention. 3 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 Oe ND NH BF WN 10 Particularly, Plaintiff wishes to trace the sources of Mr. Altawal’s rent money in order to dispel his defense that he collected no rent money from the various occupants observed with keys to his apartment. (ie., the money that Mr. Altawal collected from his subtenants and deposited into the bank account(s) he used to pay the rent). Defendant’s deposits of money outside his regular salary will also prove receipt of money from his unauthorized subtenants and will trace money received by Defendant to the payors, who are key witnesses in this case. SEPARATE STATEMENT RE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET TWO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #10: All statements from YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 from October 1, 2012 to the present date. You may redact all personal and financial information other than the account number, name(s) of account holder(s), check numbers of all checks that cleared, dates that all checks cleared, scanned copies of checks, dates of all deposits therein, and amounts of deposits therein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #10: Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October 2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery regarding his personal finances. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #10 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: Recently, Defendant ALTAWAL produced a photocopy of a check dated May 1, 2013, in the amount of $2,271.00 that he claims he tendered to cure the three day notice to pay rent or quit. Plaintiff believes Defendant ALTA WAL created this check recently to fabricate evidence. Of course, bank statements from this account would prove when it was opened, if checks have ever been written from it, and if $2,271.00 was in the account on May 1, 2013. This request will 4 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 ON DA HW BF WN | RYN Ye NY YN NR NN Se Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Se oI A A BF BN = SOD we NIN DH BF WN KF OD produce evidence directly relevant to disproving Defendant ALTAWAL/’s fabricated evidence concerning this check. Further, Plaintiffs counsel agreed to limit this request by allowing Defendant ALTAWAL to redact irrelevant financial information. Defendant does not accurately state the ruling on the protective order. It said that Defendant ALTAWAL need not answer Special Interrogatory Number 24, Set One, because it is overbroad. The Special Interrogatory asked: “Describe each and every source of YOUR income from January 1, 2012 to present.” Clearly an order stating this request is overbroad does not mean that Defendant is not required to answer any discovery request that could in any way include personal finances. To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce a Wells Fargo checking account statement for April 2013. Instead, all that has been provided is bank statements from May 16, 2013, which show a zero balance in the checking account. At his deposition, on December 6, 2013, Mr. ALTAWAL insisted that he opening this account in April 2013, with an opening deposit of $100.00. To date, Defendant ALTAWAL has failed to produce documentation of this. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #11: Your checkbook/register for YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 from October 1, 2012 to the present date. You may redact all account balances. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #11: Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October 2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery regarding his personal finances. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #11 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above. 5 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #12: True and correct copies of the five cancelled checks, in sequential order, that YOU wrote prior to Check No. 1003 from YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 (ie., check nos. 1002, 1001, 1000, 999, 998, etc.). For each check, you may redact the amount of the check, but do not redact the payee, the date of the check, or YOUR signature on the check. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #12: Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October 2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery regarding his personal finances. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #12 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #13: True and correct copies of the five cancelled checks, in sequential order, that YOU wrote right after YOU wrote Check No. 1003 from YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 (ie., check nos. 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, etc.. For each check, you may redact the amount of the check, but do not redact the payee, the date of the check or YOUR signature on the check. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #13: Objection, this request is overbroad as to time as it requests documents beyond the scope of time at issue in the three day notice to quit. Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial information. Moreover, the Court Order following the October 2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery regarding his personal finances. Objection. Irrelevant. Defendants previous checks are 6 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSoem YN DH FF WBN = NR YN NY NY N KY NY Bee ew ee ee ee RB eR RREEKR RS Se wAAaADEBAHAS irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #13 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #17: Any and all DOCUMENTS (ie., Wells Fargo Bank statement) evidencing that YOU had at least $2,271.00 in YOUR Wells Fargo Bank checking account no. 8310300853 on May 6, 2013 to cure the THREE DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #17: Objection, Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial information and invades the Responding Parties right of privacy. Without waiving the foregoing objections: All documents evidencing this have been produced, consisting of the May 1, 2013 Wells Fargo Check No. 1003. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #17 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #24: Any and all DOCUMENTS showing the name and address of any and all employers who have paid YOU during the following period: From January 1, 2012 to the present date (ie., at least one pay stub from each regular employer). You may redact the amount of YOUR salary or earnings. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #24: Objection, Respondents object as this request calls for disclosure of personal financial information and invades the Responding Parties right of privacy. The request is overbroad as to 7 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONScS Om IN DH PF WN time. Objection. Irrelevant. Respondents object as this request calls for information potentially subject to a claim of privilege, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Defendants previous paychecks are irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the Court Order following the October 2013 motion for protective order indicated that Defendant was not required to answer discovery regarding his personal finances. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, REQEUST #24 SHOULD BE COMPELLED: For the same reasons as request for production of documents number 10 above. Further, this information is the only way to tell what deposits on Defendant ALTAWAL’s bank statements are from employment, and which are from elsewhere. Finally, the request allows Defendant ALTAWAL to redact the amount of his salary or earnings. SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET THREE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 308, SET THREE: Explain why YOU did not produce Wells Fargo Bank Check No. 1003 in YOUR first response to PLAINTIFF’S first Requests for Production of Documents. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 308, SET THREE: Responding Parties object as the request calls for information that is subject to a claim of privilege under the attorney work-product doctrine and invades the Defendant’s right to privacy. Objection. This interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 308, SET THREE, SHOULD BE COMPELLED: After six months of litigation, Defendant ALTAWAL produced a photocopy of a check he claims he tendered on May 1, 2013, to cure the three day notice to quit. Plaintiff is entitled to know why this evidence was produced so late. Further, the only work-product privilege would be if his attorney told him to intentionally withhold or fabricate evidence. In any event, Plaintiff 8 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS,0 em YN DH FWY Ny NN N NY NY BS Be Be Be Be eB eB ese eB BXeRRRORNRBESCSEWFAESERSS is entitled to this information. SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1, SET TWO: State the full name, current residential address, and telephone number of each different person in the photographs labeled “SBERLO 00386” through “SBERLO 001103” attached to this document. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1, SET TWO: Objection. This entire interrogatory is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and subject to varying interpretations. A response to this interrogatory is virtually impossible. The interrogatory contains subparts and is compound in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.060(f). A response to this interrogatory would be unduly burdensome, time consuming, and expensive. A response to this interrogatory would also necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary which does not exist, and the burden or expense to do so is substantially the same for the propounding party. A response to the interrogatory and the documents from which such information can be ascertained include information that is proprietary, confidential, or otherwise privileged, including but not limited to information protected from disclosure under attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privileges. Objection as the request seeks responses to over 750 pictures without the production of the pictures. No pictures were attached to the document. Objection as the declaration of necessity is not proper as counsel has not indicated that these individuals are different than those provided before Objection as the requests are not full and complete Without waiving the prior objections, The Defendant has conducted a diligent search, called the individuals, and attempted to locate this information. The following is the best information obtained after said diligent search: 1, Yarng Altawal, 1780 McAllister Street #3, in the County of San Francisco, California, 94115, (408) 694-2272. 2. Sue Givens, 7 Mulberry Street, Apt #5, Claremont, NH, 03743. 603-219-1551. 3. Matthew G. Richardson, 1501 Larkin St #301, SF, CA 94109, (415) 846-4130. 9 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS,4. Sonia Gharaghor — 01 1-962-77-966-9775 Al Bosyrea St., Amman, Jordan. The Defendant is undertaking a diligent search to attempt to locate the street address for the street in Jordan. 5. Nikolai Mikatai Oreshkin, after a diligent search it is believed that 2422 Grant St Apt A, Berkeley CA 94703 (415) 767-6111 is his principal residence and that at times he has lived at 1957 Landings Dr, Mountain View, CA 94043-0801. 6. Alex Aronian, the last known address in the United States was 2488 Juniper Blvd., Daly City, CA 94195 (415) 269-0287 and Mr. Aronian presently lives in the country of Italy. 7. Andrew — (415) 370-7395. Defendant has made a diligent search defendant has produced all information within custody, control and possession and he has reached out to Mr. Oreshkin to attempt to locate more information regarding Andrew. 8. Sydney Scott — (925) 549-1132. It is believed that Sydneys last name is “Scott”. The last known address was 1188 MISSION ST APT 2112, SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-6753 between 2010 and January 2011 and after a diligent search including attempts at calling the Ms. Scott and searching online, no additional information has been obtained. 9. Nizar LaBichi, Los Angeles, California — (415) 846-2166. After a diligent search, Defendant has made a diligent search defendant has produced all information within custody, control and possession and continues to call mutual acquaintenances to obtain this information. REASON WHY FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1, SET TWO, SHOULD BE COMPELLED: Defendant Yarng Altawal’s response is insufficient, and evasive. Unlawful subletting is a cause of action in the instant litigation. Plaintiff is entitled to the age, mailing address, and phone number for every guest or invitee who was physically present at the Subject Property. All of these people are witnesses with personal knowledge of the disputed issues in the instant litigation. This interrogatory seeks information that will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Contact information for these witnesses with personal knowledge is not protected by any privilege. Further, Plaintiffs only way to obtain valid contact information for Defendant ALTAWAL!’s “friends and family” is from Defendant ALTAWAL. 10 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS0 ON DH BF WN & ° 11 Alex Aronian: The address provided is 2488 Juniper Blvd, Daly City, CA. No such street exists in Daly City, CA. We assume Defendant meant 2488 Junipero Serra, which is a business address. Sydney Scott: The resident at 1188 Mission St., Apt. 2112, San Francisco, CA, our process server reports that no person named Sydney Scott lives at this address. Nikolai Oreshkin: The resident at the Berkeley address provided said Mr. Oreshkin has not been there for six months. The Mountain View address provided is a business address. At his deposition, Mr. Altawal stated that he is still in contact with Mr. Oreshkin and saw him last week. Defendant ALTAWAL should be compelled to provide a valid address for Mr. Oreshkin forthwith. Matthew Richardson: Mr. Richardson cannot be found at the address provided despite several service attempts by our process server. If Defendant and his attorney were able to locate him to sign a declaration earlier in this litigation, then why can’t they locate him to verify his address? By. AARON A. FARMER, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff YOEL SBERLO, TRUSTEE FOR SBERLO FAMILY TRUST 11 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS