Preview
1 Louis R. Chao, State Bar No. 178426
Brian K. Stewart, State Bar No. 126412
2 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP
3 790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
4 (626) 243-1100 – FAX (626) 243-1111
Email: bstewart@ccllp.law
5 Email: lchao@ccllp.law
6 Attorneys for Defendants,
7 JOCK M. SEWALL AIA and J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
11
THADIAS B. KING and TERRI S. KING, ) CASE NO. 21CV00598
12 Individually and as Trustees of The King ) Assigned to Honorable Colleen K. Stern
13 Family Trust, ) Department 5
)
14 Plaintiffs, ) DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN
) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE:
15 vs. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
16
J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES; JOCK M. ) Filed concurrently with Defendants’ Reply in
17 SEWALL; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive,) Support of Motion for Summary Judgment;
) Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Additional
18 Defendants. ) Material Facts; Defendants’ Objections to the
) Declaration of Jordan T. Porter and Use of an
19 ) Uncertified Deposition Transcript and
) [Proposed] Order Thereon; and Defendants’
20
) Objections to the Declaration of Thadias King
21 ) and [Proposed] Order Thereon
)
22 ) Hearing Date: 11/14/22
) Time: 10:00 a.m.
23 ) Dept.: SB5
)
24
) Complaint Filed: February 11, 2021
25 ) Trial Date: November 7, 2022
) MSC: October 14, 2022
26 )
27 ///
28
FILE # 21870
1
790 E. Colorado Blvd.,
Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE:
Phone (626) 243-1100
Fax (626) 243-1111
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 I, LOUIS R. CHAO, declare as follows:
2 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California. I am an attorney with
3
the law firm of Collins + Collins LLP, which represents Defendants, J.M. SEWALL &
4
ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as “JMSA”) and JOCK M. SEWALL in this matter.
5
personally familiar with the matters stated herein and if called as a witness could competently testify
6
7 thereto.
8 2. Plaintiffs allege that since the start of his involvement with their ADU project, Mr.
9 Sewall could have had access to “ten (10) sets of Hofer’s 2010 plans depicting the correct location
10 of the Kings’ lot line and buildings”. (See Plaintiffs’ Additional Fact nos. 33 and 34.) However,
11
Plaintiffs only produced one (1) copy of this site plan (bates stamped KING00823), on or about July
12
27, 2022, and only after our office provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a detailed meet and confer letter
13
explaining how Mr. King’s responses to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One,
14
15 served more than one year earlier (on April 30, 2021), did not include many of the documents
16 referenced by Mr. King in his April 11, 2022 deposition.
17 3. To this end, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the verified
18
responses that Mr. King provided to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on
19
or about April 30, 2021. As set forth below, in two of the requests (nos. 17 and 19) , Mr. King was
20
asked to produce all “WRITINGS” related to Brian Hofer, and in his responses, Mr. King agreed to
21
do so:
22
23 • A “copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Brian Hofer.” (See,
24 Request no. 17.)
25 Mr. King’s response to this request was: “Responding Party will produce documents
26
responsive to this request that are in this Responding Party’s possession, custody, and
27
control.”
28
FILE # 21870
2
790 E. Colorado Blvd.,
Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE:
Phone (626) 243-1100
Fax (626) 243-1111
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 • A “copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY based on a
2
design for a new carport provided by Brian Hofer.” (See, Request no. 19.)
3
Following a series of objections, Mr. King responded in relevant part that: “Responding
4
Party will produce the Hofer plans that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or
5
control.”
6
7 (Request nos. 17 and 19, along with the responses provided by Mr. King are found in Ex.
8 “A” attached hereto at p. 7, l. 24 – p. 8, l. 23.)
9 4. In fact, the only documents that Plaintiffs produced along with the responses to
10
Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, were bates stamped KING00001 – 151.
11
5. On or about July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs provided an Index that corresponded to their
12
production of additional documents bates stamped KING00152 – 822. This index also identified how
13
each of the documents (KING00001 – 822) were responsive to each of the categories included in
14
15 Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two. A true and correct copy of
16 this Index produced by Plaintiffs is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
17 6. On or about July 27, 2022, Plaintiffs produced additional documents bates stamped
18
KING00823 – 984. In similar fashion, this Index also identified how each of the responsive
19
documents was responsive to each of the categories included in Defendants’ Request for Production
20
of Documents, Sets One and Two. A true and correct copy of this Index produced by Plaintiffs is
21
attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. NOTE: This was the first time that Plaintiffs produced a copy of the
22
23 Hofer 2010 plan (KING00823), and only one (1) copy was produced—not ten (10), as now referenced
24 in Mr. King’s Declaration.
25 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D,” please find relevant portions of the deposition
26
testimony provided by Jock Sewall on October 11, 2022.
27
///
28
FILE # 21870
3
790 E. Colorado Blvd.,
Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE:
Phone (626) 243-1100
Fax (626) 243-1111
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of the verified Complaint
2 (Santa Barbara County, case no. 1380068) filed on March 25, 2011 by Mr. and Mrs. Gunderson
3
against Plaintiffs, which, as set forth below, reflects that the concerns regarding the easement were
4
previously raised by the Gundersons in or about 2009—before Mr. Prober conducted his survey
5
work.
6
7 9. On or about September 28. 2009, Paul Gunderson addressed the
Montecito Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing
8 concerning proposed improvements to the King Property. At the
conclusion of the hearing Thadias B. King and Terri S. King
9 approached Paul Gunderson and stated 1hat they intended to
prevent the Gundersons from using their casement rights, as
10 described above, if the Gundersons opposed the Kings' development
11 plans. Beginning on or about September 28, 2009, the Kings posted a
large placard which stated "No Trespassing -- No Entry Without
12 Permission" or words to that effect and parked one of their personal
vehicles so as to obstruct the Express Easement and the Prescriptive
13 Easement and prevent the Gundersons from using their casement
rights. On an on-going basis since September 28, 2009, the Kings
14
have continued to obstruct the Express Easement and the
15 Prescriptive Easement and in so doing have unreasonably
interfered with the Gundersons' use of said casements for ingress
16 to and egress from the Gundcrsons' Property.”
17 (Emphases added.)
18
19 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy of the verified Responses
20 to the Request for Admission, Set Two, propounded by Defendants, where Mr. King acknowledged
21 that a concrete pour took place on September 20, 2018.
22
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40:
23
Please admit that instead of waiting for the meeting with Mr.
24 Gunderson to take place, YOU proceeded with the construction work
at YOUR PROPERTY, including the pouring of the concrete
25 foundation. (For your convenience only, you may want to review the
document that was bates stamped as KING00051 and produced during
26
the course of this litigation.)
27 ///
28
FILE # 21870
4
790 E. Colorado Blvd.,
Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE:
Phone (626) 243-1100
Fax (626) 243-1111
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 RESPONSE TO NO. 40:
2 Objection. The declaration for additional discovery is facially
3 inadequate and does not comport with Code Civ. Pro., § 2033.050 as
no reasons why the complexity of the instant lawsuit are stated.
4 Further, this request is plainly made for an improper purposes, to harass
the party and needlessly increase the costs of the litigation. Code Civ.
5 Pro., §§ 2023.010; 2033.050. This discovery was propounded after
Responding Party’s deposition, during which time inquiry was made
6 as to these documents and matters. Subject to, without waiving, and
7 hereby incorporating the foregoing objection, Responding Party
responds: Admit that concrete foundation pours happened on August
8 28, 2018 and September 20, 2018. Except as admitted, deny.
9 (See, Ex. “F” at p. 9, l. 26 – p. 10, l. 11. Emphases added.)
10 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G,” please find true and correct copies of Daily Field
11
Reports prepared by the soils engineer for work that took place on September 18 and 19, 2018. These
12
documents are bates stamped respectively as KING00658 and 659 and were produced by Plaintiffs
13
during the course of litigation in this action. (See Exs. “B” and “C” attached hereto.)
14
15 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “H,” pleased find true and correct copies of concrete
16 delivery tickets from Valley Ready Mix, Inc., which show that the first of four (4) concrete trucks
17 arrived at Plaintiffs’ property on September 20, 2018, at 8:15 a.m. These documents were bates
18
stamped KING00645 - 648 and produced by Plaintiffs during the course of this litigation. (See Exs.
19
“B” and “C” attached hereto.)
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California, that the foregoing
21
is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on the ___ day of November 2022 at San
22
23 Marino, California.
24 DATED: November 9, 2022 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP
25
By: ________________________________
26
27
28
FILE # 21870
5
790 E. Colorado Blvd.,
Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE:
Phone (626) 243-1100
Fax (626) 243-1111
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT A
1 Jordan T. Porter (SBN 250112)
jordan@nshmlaw.com
2 NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
3 Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
4 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
5 Attorney for Plaintiffs THADIAS B. KING and TERRI S.
KING, Individually and as Trustees of The King Family
6 Trust
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 THADIAS B. KING and TERRI S. KING, CASE NO.: 21CV00598
Individually and as Trustees of The King Assigned for all purposes, including trial, to
11 Family Trust, the Hon. Colleen K. Stern, Dept. SB5
12 Plaintiffs,
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 vs. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M.
14 SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST
J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES; JOCK M. FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
15 SEWALL; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, SET NUMBER ONE
16 Defendants. TRIAL DATE: Not set.
17 Complaint Filed: February 11, 2021
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES
20 RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, THADIAS KING, AS AN INDIVIDUAL
21 SET NO.: ONE
22 Plaintiff, THADIAS B. KING, as an Individual, hereby responds to Defendant J.M.
23 SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ Request for Production of Documents, Set Number One, fully and
24 under oath.
25 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
26 This response is meant solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action. Each document
27 is given subject to each and every general objection and each and every specific objection stated
28 below, including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality,
1
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 proprietary and admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any document produced
2 pursuant to this request if the document were submitted in court. All such objections and grounds
3 therefore may be interposed at the time of trial. Each of these general grounds of objection is
4 incorporated by reference into each of the specific responses to specific numbered requests set forth
5 below.
6 It is anticipated that discovery, and further independent investigation and legal research and
7 analysis will supply additional facts, add meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely
8 new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to,
9 changes in, and variations from the contentions set forth herein.
10 The following responses are given without prejudice to the responding party's right to
11 produce evidence of any subsequently discovered document, fact or facts which this responding
12 party may later obtain or recall. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 all answers herein as additional documents and/or facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal
14 research is completed, and contentions are formed. The answers contained herein are made in a
15 good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal
16 contentions as is presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of this party in
17 relationship to further discovery, research or analysis.
18 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
19 These responses are made subject to the following objections, qualifications, and
20 explanations ("general objections") which apply to each request, and are incorporated by reference
21 herein into each and every response.
22 1. Responding party has not completed its investigation of the facts in this case.
23 Further, Responding Party just begun discovery in this action, has not yet received Defendants’
24 Answers, and has not yet completed its preparation for trial. Accordingly, Responding Party
25 reserves the right, but does not undertake any duty, to supplement or amend its responses and to
26 introduce additional evidence at trial or otherwise, as additional factual or legal information
27 becomes available.
28 ///
2
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 2. These responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action.
2 Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections
3 concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and admissibility). All such objections
4 and grounds thereof are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial in this matter.
5 3. Responding Party objects to each request to the extent that it seeks information that
6 is protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, privacy rights, or any
7 other applicable privilege or doctrine. Responding Party’s responses shall not include any
8 information protected by such privileges or doctrines.
9 4. Responding Party objects to each request to the extent it purports to seek information
10 that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Responding Party.
11 5. Responding Party objects to each request as unduly burdensome and harassing to the
12 extent it seeks information already within the possession of, equally available to, and already
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 produced to defendants.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
16 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
17 Set One, interrogatory number 7.2, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
19 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
20 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
22 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
23 Set One, interrogatory number 9.2, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
25 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
26 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
27 ///
28 ///
3
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
2 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
3 Set One, interrogatory number 12.3, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
5 Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks discovery of materials
6 protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. (Evid. Code, §
7 954; Code Civ. Pro., § 2018.030.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby incorporating the
8 foregoing, Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party will produce non-
9 privileged documents responsive to this request that are in this Responding Party’s possession,
10 custody, and control.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
12 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 Set One, interrogatory number 12.4, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
15 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
16 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
18 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
19 Set One, interrogatory number 12.5, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
21 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
22 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
24 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
25 Set One, interrogatory number 12.6, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
27 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand,
28 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge,
4
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 documents responsive to this request have never existed.
2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
3 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
4 Set One, interrogatory number 13.1, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7:
6 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand,
7 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge,
8 documents responsive to this request have never existed.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
10 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
11 Set One, interrogatory number 13.2, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand,
14 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge,
15 documents responsive to this request have never existed.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
17 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
18 Set One, interrogatory number 17.1, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
20 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
21 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
23 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory,
24 Set One, interrogatory number 50.1, which was propounded at the same time as this request.
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
26 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand,
27 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge,
28 no documents were identified in response to Form Interrogatory, Set One.
5
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
2 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all communications that YOU had with
3 Paul Gunderson in September 2018.
4 WRITINGS as used herein shall have the same definition as in Evidence Code section 250,
5 which provides in relevant part: “[a] handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating,
6 photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means
7 of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including
8 letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created,
9 regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.”
10 “YOU” or “YOUR” as used herein shall refer to Thadias King, in his individual capacity,
11 Terri King, in her individual capacity, Thadias King, as trustee for the King Family Trust, Terri
12 King, as trustee of the King Family Trust, their agents, representatives, consultants, and/or design
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 professionals.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
15 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
16 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
18 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all communications that YOU had with
19 Jock Sewall in September 2018.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
21 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
22 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
24 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all communications that took place in
25 September 2018 between YOU and individuals that YOU hired to perform construction work at
26 YOUR PROPERTY, including the pouring of concrete, pursuant to permit (no. 17BDP-00000-
27 01119) that was issued to YOU by the County of Santa Barbara.
28 ///
6
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 “PROPERTY” as used herein shall refer to the single-family home located at 2200
2 Sycamore Canyon Road, Montecito, California 93108.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
4 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
5 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
7 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Prober
8 Land Surveying from 2008 through the present.
9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
10 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
11 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Victor
14 Padilla with VP Design Group from 2008 through the present.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
16 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
17 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
19 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Victor
20 Padilla with VP Design Group from 2008 through the present.
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
22 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
23 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
25 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Brian
26 Hofer.
27 ///
28 ///
7
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
2 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
3 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
5 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS from Waters Land Surveying, Inc.
6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
7 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this
8 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
10 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY
11 based on a design for a new carport provided by Brian Hofer.
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks discovery of
14 information neither admissible in evidence nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
15 admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Pro., § 2017.010.) This request was made for the improper purpose
16 of harassing the Responding Party, and is an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression,
17 or undue burden and expense (Code Civ. Pro., § 2023.010(b)&(c).) Such information is as readily
18 available to the defendants as it is to the plaintiffs, and no perceivable purpose consonant with the
19 discovery laws is served by compelling one party to search public records, compile the results and
20 furnish them to his opponent. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968)
21 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby incorporating the foregoing,
22 Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party will produce the Hofer plans
23 that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control.
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
25 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY
26 pursuant to permit (no. 17BDP-00000-01119) that was issued to YOU by the County of Santa
27 Barbara.
28 ///
8
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
2 Objection. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it seeks discovery of
3 materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.
4 (Evid.Code, § 954; Code Civ. Pro., § 2018.030.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby
5 incorporating the foregoing, Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party
6 will produce the Hofer plans that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
8 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY
9 pursuant to permit (no. No.: 19BDP-00000-00407) that was issued to YOU by the County of Santa
10 Barbara.
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
12 Objection. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it seeks discovery of
NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
13 materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.
14 (Evid.Code, § 954; Code Civ. Pro., § 2018.030.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby
15 incorporating the foregoing, Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party
16 will produce the Hofer plans that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control.
17
18 Dated: April 30, 2021 NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
19
20 By:
Jordan T. Porter, Esq.
21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THADIAS B. KING and
TERRI S. KING, Individually and as Trustees of
22 The King Family Trust
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 525843C2-3687-4A20-976A-51A9C94C8D51
VERIFICATION
I have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE and know its contents.
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own
knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and
belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
I am of , a party to this action, and am authorized to
make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that
reason. I have read the foregoing document(s). I am informed and believe and
on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true.
I am one of the attorneys of record for
Preview
1 Louis R. Chao, State Bar No. 178426 Brian K. Stewart, State Bar No. 126412 2 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 3 790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 4 (626) 243-1100 – FAX (626) 243-1111 Email: bstewart@ccllp.law 5 Email: lchao@ccllp.law 6 Attorneys for Defendants, 7 JOCK M. SEWALL AIA and J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 11 THADIAS B. KING and TERRI S. KING, ) CASE NO. 21CV00598 12 Individually and as Trustees of The King ) Assigned to Honorable Colleen K. Stern 13 Family Trust, ) Department 5 ) 14 Plaintiffs, ) DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN ) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE: 15 vs. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) 16 J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES; JOCK M. ) Filed concurrently with Defendants’ Reply in 17 SEWALL; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive,) Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; ) Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Additional 18 Defendants. ) Material Facts; Defendants’ Objections to the ) Declaration of Jordan T. Porter and Use of an 19 ) Uncertified Deposition Transcript and ) [Proposed] Order Thereon; and Defendants’ 20 ) Objections to the Declaration of Thadias King 21 ) and [Proposed] Order Thereon ) 22 ) Hearing Date: 11/14/22 ) Time: 10:00 a.m. 23 ) Dept.: SB5 ) 24 ) Complaint Filed: February 11, 2021 25 ) Trial Date: November 7, 2022 ) MSC: October 14, 2022 26 ) 27 /// 28 FILE # 21870 1 790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE: Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 I, LOUIS R. CHAO, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California. I am an attorney with 3 the law firm of Collins + Collins LLP, which represents Defendants, J.M. SEWALL & 4 ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as “JMSA”) and JOCK M. SEWALL in this matter. 5 personally familiar with the matters stated herein and if called as a witness could competently testify 6 7 thereto. 8 2. Plaintiffs allege that since the start of his involvement with their ADU project, Mr. 9 Sewall could have had access to “ten (10) sets of Hofer’s 2010 plans depicting the correct location 10 of the Kings’ lot line and buildings”. (See Plaintiffs’ Additional Fact nos. 33 and 34.) However, 11 Plaintiffs only produced one (1) copy of this site plan (bates stamped KING00823), on or about July 12 27, 2022, and only after our office provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a detailed meet and confer letter 13 explaining how Mr. King’s responses to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, 14 15 served more than one year earlier (on April 30, 2021), did not include many of the documents 16 referenced by Mr. King in his April 11, 2022 deposition. 17 3. To this end, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the verified 18 responses that Mr. King provided to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on 19 or about April 30, 2021. As set forth below, in two of the requests (nos. 17 and 19) , Mr. King was 20 asked to produce all “WRITINGS” related to Brian Hofer, and in his responses, Mr. King agreed to 21 do so: 22 23 • A “copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Brian Hofer.” (See, 24 Request no. 17.) 25 Mr. King’s response to this request was: “Responding Party will produce documents 26 responsive to this request that are in this Responding Party’s possession, custody, and 27 control.” 28 FILE # 21870 2 790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE: Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 • A “copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY based on a 2 design for a new carport provided by Brian Hofer.” (See, Request no. 19.) 3 Following a series of objections, Mr. King responded in relevant part that: “Responding 4 Party will produce the Hofer plans that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or 5 control.” 6 7 (Request nos. 17 and 19, along with the responses provided by Mr. King are found in Ex. 8 “A” attached hereto at p. 7, l. 24 – p. 8, l. 23.) 9 4. In fact, the only documents that Plaintiffs produced along with the responses to 10 Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, were bates stamped KING00001 – 151. 11 5. On or about July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs provided an Index that corresponded to their 12 production of additional documents bates stamped KING00152 – 822. This index also identified how 13 each of the documents (KING00001 – 822) were responsive to each of the categories included in 14 15 Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Sets One and Two. A true and correct copy of 16 this Index produced by Plaintiffs is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 17 6. On or about July 27, 2022, Plaintiffs produced additional documents bates stamped 18 KING00823 – 984. In similar fashion, this Index also identified how each of the responsive 19 documents was responsive to each of the categories included in Defendants’ Request for Production 20 of Documents, Sets One and Two. A true and correct copy of this Index produced by Plaintiffs is 21 attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. NOTE: This was the first time that Plaintiffs produced a copy of the 22 23 Hofer 2010 plan (KING00823), and only one (1) copy was produced—not ten (10), as now referenced 24 in Mr. King’s Declaration. 25 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D,” please find relevant portions of the deposition 26 testimony provided by Jock Sewall on October 11, 2022. 27 /// 28 FILE # 21870 3 790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE: Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of the verified Complaint 2 (Santa Barbara County, case no. 1380068) filed on March 25, 2011 by Mr. and Mrs. Gunderson 3 against Plaintiffs, which, as set forth below, reflects that the concerns regarding the easement were 4 previously raised by the Gundersons in or about 2009—before Mr. Prober conducted his survey 5 work. 6 7 9. On or about September 28. 2009, Paul Gunderson addressed the Montecito Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing 8 concerning proposed improvements to the King Property. At the conclusion of the hearing Thadias B. King and Terri S. King 9 approached Paul Gunderson and stated 1hat they intended to prevent the Gundersons from using their casement rights, as 10 described above, if the Gundersons opposed the Kings' development 11 plans. Beginning on or about September 28, 2009, the Kings posted a large placard which stated "No Trespassing -- No Entry Without 12 Permission" or words to that effect and parked one of their personal vehicles so as to obstruct the Express Easement and the Prescriptive 13 Easement and prevent the Gundersons from using their casement rights. On an on-going basis since September 28, 2009, the Kings 14 have continued to obstruct the Express Easement and the 15 Prescriptive Easement and in so doing have unreasonably interfered with the Gundersons' use of said casements for ingress 16 to and egress from the Gundcrsons' Property.” 17 (Emphases added.) 18 19 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy of the verified Responses 20 to the Request for Admission, Set Two, propounded by Defendants, where Mr. King acknowledged 21 that a concrete pour took place on September 20, 2018. 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: 23 Please admit that instead of waiting for the meeting with Mr. 24 Gunderson to take place, YOU proceeded with the construction work at YOUR PROPERTY, including the pouring of the concrete 25 foundation. (For your convenience only, you may want to review the document that was bates stamped as KING00051 and produced during 26 the course of this litigation.) 27 /// 28 FILE # 21870 4 790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE: Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 RESPONSE TO NO. 40: 2 Objection. The declaration for additional discovery is facially 3 inadequate and does not comport with Code Civ. Pro., § 2033.050 as no reasons why the complexity of the instant lawsuit are stated. 4 Further, this request is plainly made for an improper purposes, to harass the party and needlessly increase the costs of the litigation. Code Civ. 5 Pro., §§ 2023.010; 2033.050. This discovery was propounded after Responding Party’s deposition, during which time inquiry was made 6 as to these documents and matters. Subject to, without waiving, and 7 hereby incorporating the foregoing objection, Responding Party responds: Admit that concrete foundation pours happened on August 8 28, 2018 and September 20, 2018. Except as admitted, deny. 9 (See, Ex. “F” at p. 9, l. 26 – p. 10, l. 11. Emphases added.) 10 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G,” please find true and correct copies of Daily Field 11 Reports prepared by the soils engineer for work that took place on September 18 and 19, 2018. These 12 documents are bates stamped respectively as KING00658 and 659 and were produced by Plaintiffs 13 during the course of litigation in this action. (See Exs. “B” and “C” attached hereto.) 14 15 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “H,” pleased find true and correct copies of concrete 16 delivery tickets from Valley Ready Mix, Inc., which show that the first of four (4) concrete trucks 17 arrived at Plaintiffs’ property on September 20, 2018, at 8:15 a.m. These documents were bates 18 stamped KING00645 - 648 and produced by Plaintiffs during the course of this litigation. (See Exs. 19 “B” and “C” attached hereto.) 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California, that the foregoing 21 is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on the ___ day of November 2022 at San 22 23 Marino, California. 24 DATED: November 9, 2022 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 25 By: ________________________________ 26 27 28 FILE # 21870 5 790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 DECLARATION OF LOUIS R. CHAO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY RE: Phone (626) 243-1100 Fax (626) 243-1111 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT EXHIBIT A 1 Jordan T. Porter (SBN 250112) jordan@nshmlaw.com 2 NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 3 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 4 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs THADIAS B. KING and TERRI S. KING, Individually and as Trustees of The King Family 6 Trust 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 THADIAS B. KING and TERRI S. KING, CASE NO.: 21CV00598 Individually and as Trustees of The King Assigned for all purposes, including trial, to 11 Family Trust, the Hon. Colleen K. Stern, Dept. SB5 12 Plaintiffs, NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 vs. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. 14 SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES; JOCK M. FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 15 SEWALL; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, SET NUMBER ONE 16 Defendants. TRIAL DATE: Not set. 17 Complaint Filed: February 11, 2021 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT, J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES 20 RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF, THADIAS KING, AS AN INDIVIDUAL 21 SET NO.: ONE 22 Plaintiff, THADIAS B. KING, as an Individual, hereby responds to Defendant J.M. 23 SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ Request for Production of Documents, Set Number One, fully and 24 under oath. 25 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 26 This response is meant solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action. Each document 27 is given subject to each and every general objection and each and every specific objection stated 28 below, including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, 1 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 proprietary and admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any document produced 2 pursuant to this request if the document were submitted in court. All such objections and grounds 3 therefore may be interposed at the time of trial. Each of these general grounds of objection is 4 incorporated by reference into each of the specific responses to specific numbered requests set forth 5 below. 6 It is anticipated that discovery, and further independent investigation and legal research and 7 analysis will supply additional facts, add meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely 8 new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, 9 changes in, and variations from the contentions set forth herein. 10 The following responses are given without prejudice to the responding party's right to 11 produce evidence of any subsequently discovered document, fact or facts which this responding 12 party may later obtain or recall. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 all answers herein as additional documents and/or facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal 14 research is completed, and contentions are formed. The answers contained herein are made in a 15 good faith effort to supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal 16 contentions as is presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of this party in 17 relationship to further discovery, research or analysis. 18 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 19 These responses are made subject to the following objections, qualifications, and 20 explanations ("general objections") which apply to each request, and are incorporated by reference 21 herein into each and every response. 22 1. Responding party has not completed its investigation of the facts in this case. 23 Further, Responding Party just begun discovery in this action, has not yet received Defendants’ 24 Answers, and has not yet completed its preparation for trial. Accordingly, Responding Party 25 reserves the right, but does not undertake any duty, to supplement or amend its responses and to 26 introduce additional evidence at trial or otherwise, as additional factual or legal information 27 becomes available. 28 /// 2 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 2. These responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action. 2 Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections 3 concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and admissibility). All such objections 4 and grounds thereof are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial in this matter. 5 3. Responding Party objects to each request to the extent that it seeks information that 6 is protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, privacy rights, or any 7 other applicable privilege or doctrine. Responding Party’s responses shall not include any 8 information protected by such privileges or doctrines. 9 4. Responding Party objects to each request to the extent it purports to seek information 10 that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Responding Party. 11 5. Responding Party objects to each request as unduly burdensome and harassing to the 12 extent it seeks information already within the possession of, equally available to, and already NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 produced to defendants. 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 16 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 17 Set One, interrogatory number 7.2, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 19 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 20 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 22 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 23 Set One, interrogatory number 9.2, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 25 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 26 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 27 /// 28 /// 3 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 2 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 3 Set One, interrogatory number 12.3, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 5 Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds it seeks discovery of materials 6 protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. (Evid. Code, § 7 954; Code Civ. Pro., § 2018.030.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby incorporating the 8 foregoing, Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party will produce non- 9 privileged documents responsive to this request that are in this Responding Party’s possession, 10 custody, and control. 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 12 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 Set One, interrogatory number 12.4, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 15 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 16 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 18 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 19 Set One, interrogatory number 12.5, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 21 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 22 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 24 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 25 Set One, interrogatory number 12.6, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 27 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand, 28 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge, 4 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 documents responsive to this request have never existed. 2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 3 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 4 Set One, interrogatory number 13.1, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7: 6 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand, 7 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge, 8 documents responsive to this request have never existed. 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 10 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 11 Set One, interrogatory number 13.2, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand, 14 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge, 15 documents responsive to this request have never existed. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 17 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 18 Set One, interrogatory number 17.1, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 20 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 21 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 23 Please provide a copy of all documents identified in your response to Form Interrogatory, 24 Set One, interrogatory number 50.1, which was propounded at the same time as this request. 25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 26 After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand, 27 Responding Party is unable to comply with this demand, because to Responding Party’s knowledge, 28 no documents were identified in response to Form Interrogatory, Set One. 5 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 2 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all communications that YOU had with 3 Paul Gunderson in September 2018. 4 WRITINGS as used herein shall have the same definition as in Evidence Code section 250, 5 which provides in relevant part: “[a] handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, 6 photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means 7 of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including 8 letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, 9 regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.” 10 “YOU” or “YOUR” as used herein shall refer to Thadias King, in his individual capacity, 11 Terri King, in her individual capacity, Thadias King, as trustee for the King Family Trust, Terri 12 King, as trustee of the King Family Trust, their agents, representatives, consultants, and/or design NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 professionals. 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 15 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 16 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 18 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all communications that YOU had with 19 Jock Sewall in September 2018. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 21 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 22 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 24 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all communications that took place in 25 September 2018 between YOU and individuals that YOU hired to perform construction work at 26 YOUR PROPERTY, including the pouring of concrete, pursuant to permit (no. 17BDP-00000- 27 01119) that was issued to YOU by the County of Santa Barbara. 28 /// 6 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 “PROPERTY” as used herein shall refer to the single-family home located at 2200 2 Sycamore Canyon Road, Montecito, California 93108. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 4 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 5 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 7 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Prober 8 Land Surveying from 2008 through the present. 9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 10 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 11 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Victor 14 Padilla with VP Design Group from 2008 through the present. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 16 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 17 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 19 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Victor 20 Padilla with VP Design Group from 2008 through the present. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 22 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 23 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 25 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS reflecting all services provided to YOU by Brian 26 Hofer. 27 /// 28 /// 7 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 2 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 3 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 5 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS from Waters Land Surveying, Inc. 6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 7 Responding Party will produce documents responsive to this request that are in this 8 Responding Party’s possession, custody, and control. 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 10 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY 11 based on a design for a new carport provided by Brian Hofer. 12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it seeks discovery of 14 information neither admissible in evidence nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 15 admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Pro., § 2017.010.) This request was made for the improper purpose 16 of harassing the Responding Party, and is an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, 17 or undue burden and expense (Code Civ. Pro., § 2023.010(b)&(c).) Such information is as readily 18 available to the defendants as it is to the plaintiffs, and no perceivable purpose consonant with the 19 discovery laws is served by compelling one party to search public records, compile the results and 20 furnish them to his opponent. (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 21 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby incorporating the foregoing, 22 Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party will produce the Hofer plans 23 that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control. 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 25 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY 26 pursuant to permit (no. 17BDP-00000-01119) that was issued to YOU by the County of Santa 27 Barbara. 28 /// 8 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 2 Objection. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it seeks discovery of 3 materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. 4 (Evid.Code, § 954; Code Civ. Pro., § 2018.030.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby 5 incorporating the foregoing, Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party 6 will produce the Hofer plans that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control. 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 8 Please provide a copy of all WRITINGS regarding work performed at YOUR PROPERTY 9 pursuant to permit (no. No.: 19BDP-00000-00407) that was issued to YOU by the County of Santa 10 Barbara. 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 12 Objection. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it seeks discovery of NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201 13 materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. 14 (Evid.Code, § 954; Code Civ. Pro., § 2018.030.) Subject to, without waiving, and hereby 15 incorporating the foregoing, Responding Party makes the following response: Responding Party 16 will produce the Hofer plans that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody, or control. 17 18 Dated: April 30, 2021 NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 19 20 By: Jordan T. Porter, Esq. 21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THADIAS B. KING and TERRI S. KING, Individually and as Trustees of 22 The King Family Trust 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE DocuSign Envelope ID: 525843C2-3687-4A20-976A-51A9C94C8D51 VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF, THADIAS B. KING’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT J.M. SEWALL & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NUMBER ONE and know its contents. I am a party to this action. The matters stated in it are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I am of , a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. I have read the foregoing document(s). I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. I am one of the attorneys of record for