Preview
AUP
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-16-2012 10:01 am
Case Number: CGC-10-500934
Filing Date: Oct-16-2012 9:58
Filed by: VANESSA WU
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03803227
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)
CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND
XIANG ZHANG et al
001C03803227
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BY FAX
Michael Gerard Fletcher (State Bar No. 070849) b
mfletcher@frandzel.com 1
Kenneth N. Russak (State Bar No. 107283) 1 netiot Cou!
krussak@frandzel.com C0 county >
Hanna B. Raanan (State Bar No. 261014) gan Franc! 5 20i2
hraanan@frandzel.com acl {2 a1
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C. rin OU
6500 Wilshire Boulevard 2 ‘ =
Seventeenth Floor eT at
Los Angeles, California 90048-4920 By:
Telephone (323) 852-1000
Facsimile (323) 651-2577
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
CATHAY BANK
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NORTHERN DISTRICT
CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE No. CGC-10-500934
corporation,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF DISPUTED
v. DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC
3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, aka COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
RAYMOND KAI ZHANG, aka RAYMOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
ZHANG, aka XIANG KAI ZHANG, aka DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP {
XIANG ZHANG, aka ZHANG XIANG, an 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP.
individual; CINDY ZHANG, an individual; §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)
DONG YING QUI, an individual; XIANG
KAI, LLC, a California limited liability Date: October 26, 2012
company ; RAY KAI, LLC, a California Time: 9:00 a.m.
limited liability company; ZHANGS, LLC, Dept. 302
California limited liability company; and
DOES | through 200, inclusive,
Defendant.
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, an
individual, CINDY ZHANG, an individual;
DONG YING QUI, an individual; RAY KAI,
LLC, a California limited liability company;
and ZHANGS, LLC, a California limited
liability company,
Cross-Complainant,
1090402.1 | 023000-0790
1_
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP § 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 80048-4920
(323) 852-1000
v.
CATHAY BANK, a California banking
corporation; and DOES 201-230, Inclusive,
Cross-Defendant.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and RAYMOND.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible.
Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the
Bank cannot respond to this request.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST.
NO. 1:
Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action...CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284.
In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also
raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for
production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses
alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited
to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we
construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to
comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or
expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 2
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP § 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & Csaro, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 17TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 80048-4920
(323) 882-1000
Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally
negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the
various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very
beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's
agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when
construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral
were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at
issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various
extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language
barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or
more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date
between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue
in this action.
Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must
indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses
and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here,
Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this
request, as requested.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS
REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 1:
Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the
context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by
Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank in its communications with Raymond and Cindy
Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA,
and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 3
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP.
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 852-1000
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four
properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a
clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to
particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have
had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is
unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through
every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual
throughout the history of its existence.
In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was
unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non-
privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in
its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has
produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the
defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this
does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce
documents which do not exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Cindy Zhang ("CINDY").
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible.
Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the
Bank cannot respond to this request.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST
NO. 2:
Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action...CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without
1090402.1 | 623000-0790 4
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & Csaro, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 17TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90046-4920
(323) 852-1000
Co em IN Dw
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal. App.4th 1277, 1284.
In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also
raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for
production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses
alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited
to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we
construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to
comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or
expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction.”
Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally
negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the
various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very
beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's
agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when
construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral
were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at
issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various
extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language
barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or
more years.. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date
between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue
in this action.
Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must
indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses
and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here,
1090402.1 | 02300-0790
5.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP ] 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOoM & Csaro, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. 1'77H FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 852-1000
Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this
request, as requested.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS
REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 2:
Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the
context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by
Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy
Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA,
and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC
which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four
properties in Oakland and San Francisco.
As construed in the context of this case, the Defendant's reliance on Standon is wholly
unfounded. The request identified by the Defendant himself in Standon at least specified what the
documents referred to. In this case, the Request asks for "any communications" without a
clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to
particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have
had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is
unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through
every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual
throughout the history of its existence.
In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was
unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non-
privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in
its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has
produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the
defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this
1090402.1 | 02300-0790
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 80048-4920
(323) 852-1000
does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce
documents which do not exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Dong Ying Qui ("QUI").
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible.
Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the
Bank cannot respond to this request.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST
NO. 3:
Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284.
In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also
raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for
production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses
alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited
to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we
construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to
comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or
expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."
Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally
negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the
various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very
beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 1
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP.
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA @0048-4920
(323) 852-1000
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLooM & CsaTo, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
fF wWiN
agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when
construction Joan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral
were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at
issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various
extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language
barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or
more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date
between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue
in this action.
Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must
indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses
and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here,
Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this
request, as requested.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS
REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 3:
Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the
context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by
Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy
Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA,
and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC
which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four
properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a
clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to
particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have
1090402.1 | 23000-0790 8g
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP ¥ 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, I 7TH FLOOR
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 882-1000
had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is
unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through
every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual
throughout the history of its existence.
In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was
unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non-
privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in
its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has
produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the
defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this
does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce
documents which do not exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Ray Kai, LLC ("KAI").
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible.
Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the
Bank cannot respond to this request.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST
NO. 4:
Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284.
In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also
raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 O
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 852-1000
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C.
production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses
alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited
to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we
construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to
comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or
expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction.”
Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally
negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the
various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very
beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's
agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when
construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral
were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at
issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various
extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language
barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or
more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date
between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue
in this action.
Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must
indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses
and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here,
Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this
request, as requested.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS
1090402.1 | 23000-0790
10
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 71H FLOOR
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 852-1000
REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 4:
Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the
context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by
Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy
Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA,
and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC
which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four
properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a
clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to
particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have
had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is
unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through
every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual
throughout the history of its existence.
In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was
unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non-
privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in
its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has
produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the
defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this
does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce
documents which do not exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and defendant Zhangs, LLC ("ZHANGS").
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Objection. This request is overbroad, vague , ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible.
Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the
1090402. | 02300-0790 u
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP ] 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 852-1000
Bank cannot respond to this request.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST
NO. 5:
Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284.
In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also
raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for
production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses
alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited
to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we
construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to
comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or
expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction.”
Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally
negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the
various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very
beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's
agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when
construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral
were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at
issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various
extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language
barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or
more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date
1090402.1 | 02300-0790
12.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA @0048-4920
(323) 852-1000
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C.
500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 1 77H FLOOR
between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue
in this action.
Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must
indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses
and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here,
Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this
request, as requested,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS
REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 5:
Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the
context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by
Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy
Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA,
and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC
which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four
properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a
clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to
particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have
had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is
unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through
every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual
throughout the history of its existence.
In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was
unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non-
privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in
1090402.1 | 023000-0790 1B
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 852-1000
oe IN Aw
its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has
produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the
defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this
does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce
documents which do not exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Xiang Kai, LLC ("XIANG").
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible.
Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the
Bank cannot respond to this request.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST
NO. 6:
Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284,
In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also
raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for
production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses
alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited
to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we
construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to
comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or
expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."
Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 14
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP.
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & Csato, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 20048-4920
(323) 852-1000
Ce NM DH BB NH
YN YY NY NY NN KY & Be Be ewe Be eB eH Be
eI A A FH NH = SOwe AA ABRBwBNH ES
negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the
various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very
beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's
agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when
construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral
were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at
issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various
extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language
barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or
more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date
between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue
in this action.
Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must
indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses
and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here,
Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this
request, as requested.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS
REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 6:
Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the
context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by
Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy
Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA,
and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC
which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 15
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP § 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP.
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOoM & CsaTo, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 1 77H FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(329) 852-1000
properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications” without a
clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to
particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have
had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is
unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through
every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual
throughout the history of its existence.
In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was
unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non-
privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in
its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has
produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the
defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this
does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce
documents which do not exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
ANY DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the property commonly known as 229-255
International Boulevard, Oakland, California ("INTERNATIONAL").
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Responding Party objects on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome and unduly oppressive.
Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Responding
party further objects to this Request to the extent that it asks for documents which are already in
the public record and equally available to the Defendants. Without waiving such objections,
Responding Party responds as follows:
1090402.1 | 02300-0790
16
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C.
‘6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR,
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90046-4920
(323) 852-1000
Rw N |
= Sc «ex aw
aS 8
14
Responding Party will produce any non-privileged documents in its custody, control or
possession which are responsive to this request.
REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST
NO. 7:
Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without
substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284.
In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also
raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for
production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses
alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited
to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we
construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to
comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or
expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction."
Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally
negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the
various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very
beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's
agent Nicholas Chung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when
construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral
were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at
issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various
extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language
barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 17
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
(323) 852-1000
FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOom & Csaro, L.C.
6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 1 77H FLOOR
Cm ND
10
"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date
between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue
in this action.
Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must
indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses
and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here,
Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 771, 783.
Additionally, even while representing that they would produce documents responsive to
this request, Plaintiff's production was void of documents one would reasonably presume to exist
in this context — notices of default, correspondence threatening default, correspondence between
1° and 2 liens, and parties interest in purchasing said loans and/or properties, correspondence
warning of withholding construction loan funds due to the incompleteness of the project, edited
appraisal response for the various properties referenced in other documents, sales or foreclosure
related documents of the loans and properties, etc. On September 20, 2012, counsel for
Defendants emailed counsel for Plaintiff to meet and confer regarding these missing documents.
On September 21, 2012, Cathay's counsel emailed Defendants counsel, stating that they had failed
to produce a box of documents. On September 24, 2012, Defendant received from Cathay a cd
disc containing scans of documents from the previously unproduced box. Counsel for Cathay
refused to extend Defendants motion to compel deadline beyond October 1, 2012 in order to allow
for proper review of the documents. While possible that the disc contains some responsive
documents, Defendants must move to compel here, and in light of the gamesmanship so far on the
part of Plaintiff, it is reasonable to believe that the disc will not contain all the documents
Defendants has demanded. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to
this request, as requested.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSE IS
1090402.1 | 023000-0790 18
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP
§§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 77H FLOOR
(323) 852-1000
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLoom & CsaTo, L.C
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920
REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 7:
The defendant's protest as to the Bank's response to this request is meritless and the Motion
to Compel is made in bad faith, particularly where, as in this case, the Bank has produced all non-
privileged, non-confidential documents responsive to this request, as indicated in its response.
Defendant wastes this Court's time and resources in its frivolous and boilerplate statement, which
regurgitates the same reasoning as that used in the prior six statements why further response
should be compelled. In fact, as the Bank has repeatedly told defendants' counsel in telephone
calls and emails, the Bank has now produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its
files which relate to the two loans at issue in its Verified Complaint. The Defendants have had
over one month to raise any issues regarding the bank's production of documents but chose to wait
until five days before the deadline to file motions to compel. Counsel for the Defendants had six
days, from September 24, 2012 to review the documents and then request an additional extension
of time for motion to compel as to those documents only. In fact, Defendants chose not to do this.
Instead, they chose to wait until five days prior to the discovery cutoff date to even begin a
discussion regarding the production of documents, in which the Bank did grant a five day
extension of time to move to compel further responses, and invited further discussion regarding an
additional extension.
The fact that Defendant appears unhappy that his allegations are unsupported does not
impose some duty on Cathay, nor does it make Cathay's response or production deficient. The
Motion should be denied as frivolous and intended to harass the Bank.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
ANY DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the property commonly known as 4900 Third
Street, San Francisco, California ("THIRD STREET").
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Responding Party objects on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this Request on
the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome and unduly oppressive.
1090402.1 | 02300-0790 19
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY
REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF D
Preview
AUP SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-16-2012 10:01 am Case Number: CGC-10-500934 Filing Date: Oct-16-2012 9:58 Filed by: VANESSA WU Juke Box: 001 Image: 03803227 GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE) CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND XIANG ZHANG et al 001C03803227 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BY FAX Michael Gerard Fletcher (State Bar No. 070849) b mfletcher@frandzel.com 1 Kenneth N. Russak (State Bar No. 107283) 1 netiot Cou! krussak@frandzel.com C0 county > Hanna B. Raanan (State Bar No. 261014) gan Franc! 5 20i2 hraanan@frandzel.com acl {2 a1 FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C. rin OU 6500 Wilshire Boulevard 2 ‘ = Seventeenth Floor eT at Los Angeles, California 90048-4920 By: Telephone (323) 852-1000 Facsimile (323) 651-2577 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant CATHAY BANK SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NORTHERN DISTRICT CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE No. CGC-10-500934 corporation, PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED v. DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, aka COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RAYMOND KAI ZHANG, aka RAYMOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF ZHANG, aka XIANG KAI ZHANG, aka DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { XIANG ZHANG, aka ZHANG XIANG, an 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP. individual; CINDY ZHANG, an individual; §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H) DONG YING QUI, an individual; XIANG KAI, LLC, a California limited liability Date: October 26, 2012 company ; RAY KAI, LLC, a California Time: 9:00 a.m. limited liability company; ZHANGS, LLC, Dept. 302 California limited liability company; and DOES | through 200, inclusive, Defendant. RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, an individual, CINDY ZHANG, an individual; DONG YING QUI, an individual; RAY KAI, LLC, a California limited liability company; and ZHANGS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Cross-Complainant, 1090402.1 | 023000-0790 1_ PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP § 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 80048-4920 (323) 852-1000 v. CATHAY BANK, a California banking corporation; and DOES 201-230, Inclusive, Cross-Defendant. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and RAYMOND. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible. Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the Bank cannot respond to this request. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST. NO. 1: Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284. In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction." 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 2 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP § 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & Csaro, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 17TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 80048-4920 (323) 882-1000 Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue in this action. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here, Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this request, as requested. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 1: Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank in its communications with Raymond and Cindy Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA, and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 3 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP. §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 852-1000 FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual throughout the history of its existence. In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non- privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce documents which do not exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Cindy Zhang ("CINDY"). PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible. Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the Bank cannot respond to this request. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST NO. 2: Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without 1090402.1 | 623000-0790 4 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & Csaro, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 17TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90046-4920 (323) 852-1000 Co em IN Dw substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App.4th 1277, 1284. In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction.” Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or more years.. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue in this action. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here, 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 5. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP ] 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOoM & Csaro, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. 1'77H FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 852-1000 Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this request, as requested. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 2: Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA, and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four properties in Oakland and San Francisco. As construed in the context of this case, the Defendant's reliance on Standon is wholly unfounded. The request identified by the Defendant himself in Standon at least specified what the documents referred to. In this case, the Request asks for "any communications" without a clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual throughout the history of its existence. In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non- privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 80048-4920 (323) 852-1000 does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce documents which do not exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Dong Ying Qui ("QUI"). PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible. Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the Bank cannot respond to this request. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST NO. 3: Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284. In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction." Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 1 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP. §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA @0048-4920 (323) 852-1000 FRANDZEL ROBINS BLooM & CsaTo, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR fF wWiN agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when construction Joan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue in this action. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here, Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this request, as requested. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 3: Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA, and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have 1090402.1 | 23000-0790 8g PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP ¥ 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, I 7TH FLOOR Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 882-1000 had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual throughout the history of its existence. In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non- privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce documents which do not exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Ray Kai, LLC ("KAI"). PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible. Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the Bank cannot respond to this request. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST NO. 4: Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284. In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 O PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 852-1000 FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C. production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction.” Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue in this action. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here, Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this request, as requested. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS 1090402.1 | 23000-0790 10 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 71H FLOOR Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 852-1000 REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 4: Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA, and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual throughout the history of its existence. In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non- privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce documents which do not exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and defendant Zhangs, LLC ("ZHANGS"). PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Objection. This request is overbroad, vague , ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible. Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the 1090402. | 02300-0790 u PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP ] 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 852-1000 Bank cannot respond to this request. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST NO. 5: Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284. In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction.” Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 12. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA @0048-4920 (323) 852-1000 FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C. 500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 1 77H FLOOR between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue in this action. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here, Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this request, as requested, PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 5: Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA, and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications" without a clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual throughout the history of its existence. In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non- privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in 1090402.1 | 023000-0790 1B PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP { 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 852-1000 oe IN Aw its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce documents which do not exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: ANY COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Defendant Xiang Kai, LLC ("XIANG"). PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Objection. This request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive and unintelligible. Furthermore, this request does not specify what "communications" relate to, and as a result, the Bank cannot respond to this request. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST NO. 6: Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284, In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction." Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 14 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP. §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & Csato, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 20048-4920 (323) 852-1000 Ce NM DH BB NH YN YY NY NY NN KY & Be Be ewe Be eB eH Be eI A A FH NH = SOwe AA ABRBwBNH ES negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's agent Nicholas Cheung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue in this action. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here, Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this request, as requested. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSES IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 6: Defendant's request raises a number of issues which make it impossible to respond to in the context of the case before the Court. First, there are two cross-complaints at issues: one filed by Xiang Kai LLC, alleging bad acts by the Bank is its communications with Raymond and Cindy Zhang regarding a loan secured by real property located at 5330 Mission Blvd., Daly City, CA, and one filed by Raymond and Cindy Zhang, Dong Ying Qui, Ray Kai LLC, and Zhangs LLC which alleges bad acts by the Bank related to a construction loan to Ray Kai secured by four 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 15 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP § 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP. §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOoM & CsaTo, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 1 77H FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (329) 852-1000 properties in Oakland and San Francisco. The Request asks for "any communications” without a clarification as to time period or reference as to what the communications should relate to particularly in case such as this, where there are multiple loans at issue, and the Bank may have had other loans with the defendants which are not the subject of this lawsuit. Such a request is unduly burdensome and oppressive. It is simply unreasonable to expect a bank to search through every record it has ever created and maintained for a communication with one individual throughout the history of its existence. In spite of the overbroad nature of this request and in spite of the Bank response that it was unable to produce documents responsive to the request, the Bank has now produced all non- privileged, non-confidential documents in its possession related to the construction loan at issue in its Verified Complaint. Furthermore, the Bank has repeatedly informed the defendants that it has produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files. Unfortunately, the defendants appear unhappy that the documents do not support their allegations — however, this does not change that the Bank has in fact produced all documents in its files and cannot produce documents which do not exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: ANY DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the property commonly known as 229-255 International Boulevard, Oakland, California ("INTERNATIONAL"). PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Responding Party objects on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome and unduly oppressive. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. Responding party further objects to this Request to the extent that it asks for documents which are already in the public record and equally available to the Defendants. Without waiving such objections, Responding Party responds as follows: 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 16 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CsaTo, L.C. ‘6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90046-4920 (323) 852-1000 Rw N | = Sc «ex aw aS 8 14 Responding Party will produce any non-privileged documents in its custody, control or possession which are responsive to this request. REASONS WHY FURTHER RESPONSES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REQUEST NO. 7: Plaintiff's objections are meritless and should be overruled. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action... CCP §2017.010. It is a misuse of the discovery process to make "without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery..." Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1284. In Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901, respondent Kim "also raised the objection of "vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible" to, for example, the demand for production of "Any and all bills, statements, invoices, and similar documents evidencing expenses alleged to have been incurred as a result of this incident. This request includes, but is not limited to, all medical bills, drug receipts, automobile repair bills and estimates, etc." However, we construe this as a "nuisance" objection, and not as an attempt to justify a complete failure to comply. Had Kim relied on this objection to the extent of refusing to produce any medical bills or expense documentation, it is beyond question that this would have been subject to sanction." Further, Plaintiff's counsel is aware that Defendants are alleging that what was verbally negotiated between Defendants and Plaintiff is not what was later transmitted to paper on the various loan documents. Defendant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleges that from the very beginning, the first communications between Defendant Raymond Zhang and Plaintiff Cathay's agent Nicholas Chung are at issue in this action, and remain at issue through the end, when construction loan funding was frozen, and various properties taken from Defendants as collateral were foreclosed upon. All communications between Plaintiff and Defendants are potentially at issue — there are multiple pieces of property, a construction loan, various lines of credit, various extensions and modifications of loan documents, multiple negotiations, extension fees, a language barrier, proposed sales of property, and alleged continuous wrongdoing over the course of four or 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 17 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 (323) 852-1000 FRANOZEL ROBINS BLOom & Csaro, L.C. 6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 1 77H FLOOR Cm ND 10 " 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 more years. This action is not about a single isolated event which occurred on one single date between one plaintiff and one defendant, and as such, this document demand is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information, and is related to all the claims and defenses at issue in this action. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which states that a document demand must indicate a date certain, or that in an action similar to this with various cross-claims and defenses and multiple parties, that more specificity is required. By refusing to produce any documents here, Plaintiff is clearly not responding in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Keilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Additionally, even while representing that they would produce documents responsive to this request, Plaintiff's production was void of documents one would reasonably presume to exist in this context — notices of default, correspondence threatening default, correspondence between 1° and 2 liens, and parties interest in purchasing said loans and/or properties, correspondence warning of withholding construction loan funds due to the incompleteness of the project, edited appraisal response for the various properties referenced in other documents, sales or foreclosure related documents of the loans and properties, etc. On September 20, 2012, counsel for Defendants emailed counsel for Plaintiff to meet and confer regarding these missing documents. On September 21, 2012, Cathay's counsel emailed Defendants counsel, stating that they had failed to produce a box of documents. On September 24, 2012, Defendant received from Cathay a cd disc containing scans of documents from the previously unproduced box. Counsel for Cathay refused to extend Defendants motion to compel deadline beyond October 1, 2012 in order to allow for proper review of the documents. While possible that the disc contains some responsive documents, Defendants must move to compel here, and in light of the gamesmanship so far on the part of Plaintiff, it is reasonable to believe that the disc will not contain all the documents Defendants has demanded. Plaintiff must be compelled to produce any documents responsive to this request, as requested. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND REASON WHY NO FURTHER RESPONSE IS 1090402.1 | 023000-0790 18 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE (CCP 4 2031.310) AND FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.010-2023.030, 2031.310(H)6500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, | 77H FLOOR (323) 852-1000 FRANDZEL ROBINS BLoom & CsaTo, L.C LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048-4920 REQUIRED TO REQUEST NO. 7: The defendant's protest as to the Bank's response to this request is meritless and the Motion to Compel is made in bad faith, particularly where, as in this case, the Bank has produced all non- privileged, non-confidential documents responsive to this request, as indicated in its response. Defendant wastes this Court's time and resources in its frivolous and boilerplate statement, which regurgitates the same reasoning as that used in the prior six statements why further response should be compelled. In fact, as the Bank has repeatedly told defendants' counsel in telephone calls and emails, the Bank has now produced all non-privileged, non-confidential documents in its files which relate to the two loans at issue in its Verified Complaint. The Defendants have had over one month to raise any issues regarding the bank's production of documents but chose to wait until five days before the deadline to file motions to compel. Counsel for the Defendants had six days, from September 24, 2012 to review the documents and then request an additional extension of time for motion to compel as to those documents only. In fact, Defendants chose not to do this. Instead, they chose to wait until five days prior to the discovery cutoff date to even begin a discussion regarding the production of documents, in which the Bank did grant a five day extension of time to move to compel further responses, and invited further discussion regarding an additional extension. The fact that Defendant appears unhappy that his allegations are unsupported does not impose some duty on Cathay, nor does it make Cathay's response or production deficient. The Motion should be denied as frivolous and intended to harass the Bank. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: ANY DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the property commonly known as 4900 Third Street, San Francisco, California ("THIRD STREET"). PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Responding Party objects on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome and unduly oppressive. 1090402.1 | 02300-0790 19 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER CRC 3.1345 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF D