Preview
Richard Abel
1
2222 Cleveland Avenue, Apt. #1002
2 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: (707) 340-3894
3
4 Plaintiff, in pro per
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11
RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456
12
Plaintiff; PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
13 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION
v.
TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL BY
14 DEFENDANT JIM NORD
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an
15 individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN,
16 LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 Date: March 8, 2023
through 100, inclusive; Time: 3:00 p.m.
17 Dept: 18
Defendants.
18
19
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
20
This separate statement is hereby submitted by Plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff")
21
in support of his opposition to the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (“FIs”);
22
special interrogatories (“SIs”), requests for admission (“RFAs”), and requests for production of
23
documents (“RPDs”), by defendant Jim Nord ("Nord").
24 I.
25 FORM INTERROGATORIES
26
Interrogatory 2.2: State the date and place of your birth.
27
Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
28
this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
1
1 admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to
2 privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution.
3 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.2 is a foundational
4 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
5 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
6 action.
7 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
8 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
9 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement.
10
11 Interrogatory 2.3: At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver's license?
12 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the
13 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The
14 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not
15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4) irrelevant.
16 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.4 is a foundational
17 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
18 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
19 action.
20 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
21 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
22 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement.
23
24 Interrogatory 2.5: State your present ADDRESS:
25 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the
26 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The
27 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not
28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4) irrelevant.
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
2
1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.5 is a foundational
2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
3 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
4 action.
5 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
6 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
7 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement.
8
9 Interrogatory 2.6: State the name of your present employer or place of self-employment.
10 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the
11 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The
12 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4)irrelevant.
14 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.6 is a foundational
15 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
16 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
17 action.
18 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
19 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
20 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement.
21
22 Interrogatory 2.7: State the name and ADDRESS of each school attended.
23 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the
24 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The
25 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not
26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4)irrelevant.
27 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.7 is a foundational
28 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
3
1 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
2 action.
3 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
4 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
5 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement.
6 Interrogatory 7.2: Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property?
7 Original Response: Objection: (1) the use of the terms "estimate" and "evaluation"
8 renders this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation.
9 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational
10 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
11 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
12 action.
13 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
14 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
15 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement.
16
Interrogatory 10.1: At any time before the INCIDENT did you have injuries that involve the
17 same part of your body as you claim were injured by the INCIDENT?
18 Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter
19 of this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
20 admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to
21 privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution.
22 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational
23 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
24 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
25 action.
26 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
27 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. There was no claim for "bodily injury"
28 made in the complaint. This is only business litigation.
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
4
Interrogatory 10.2: List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediately
1
before the INCIDENT.
2
Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter
3
of this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
4
admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to
5
privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution.
6
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational
7
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
8
Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
9
action.
10
Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
11
responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
12
supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. There were no
13
medical injuries claimed in the complaint. This is only business litigation.
14
15 Interrogatory 10.3: At any time after the INCIDENT did you sustain injuries of the kind for
16
which you are now claiming damages?
Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of
17
this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
18
19
admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to
20
privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution.
21
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational
22
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard
23
Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this
24 action.
25 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
26 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
27 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. There were no
28 medical injuries claimed in the complaint. This is only business litigation.
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
5
Interrogatory 13.1: Have you or anyone conducted surveillance of any individual involved in
1
the INCIDENT?
2
Original Response: Objection: (1) the use of the terms "surveillance" and
3
"INCIDENT," renders this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of
4
this litigation; (2) The information sought is equally available to Propounding Party; and (3) the
5
interrogatory calls for speculation. Discovery has not been completed and is continuing.
6
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 13.1 is a foundational
7
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
8
issue of any surveillance as to Jim Nord where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory
9
on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this action.
10
Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
11
responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
12
supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Nord misquoted the
13
original response in his separate statement.
14
15
Interrogatory 17.1: Is your response to each request for admission served with these
interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is
16 not an unqualified admission: a) state the number of the request; b) state
all facts upon which you base your request; c) state the names,
17
ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have
18 knowledge of those facts; and d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other
tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS,
19 and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or
20 thing.
Original Response: No.
21 (a) 1
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
22
of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
23
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
24
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
25
issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
26
Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 1 seeks
27
to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Randall (Randy) Bailey or
28
someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
6
1 Randall (Randy) Bailey's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a
2 fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not
3 filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
4 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
5 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
6 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
7 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
8 Original Response: No.
(a) 2
9
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
10 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
11 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
12 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
13 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
14 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 2 seeks
15 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Carl E. Barnes and Patricia
16 C. Barnes or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and
17 back-dated Carl E. Barnes' and Patricia C. Barnes' alleged assignment demonstrating that
18 Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this
19 is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order
20 to do so.
21 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
22 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
23 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
24 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
25 Original Response: No.
(a) 3
26
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
27 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
28
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
7
1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
3 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
4 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 3 seeks
5 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Dale M. Barnes and
6 Caroline H. Barnes or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel
7 fabricated and back-dated Dale M. Barnes' and Caroline H. Barnes' alleged assignment
8 demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in
9 this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May
10 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
11 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
12 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
13 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
14 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
15 Original Response: No.
(a) 4
16
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
17 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
18 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
19 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
20 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
21 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 4 seeks
22 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Gary DeZorzi and Judith
23 DeZorzi or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and
24 back-dated Gary DeZorzi's and Judith DeZorzi's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard
25 Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why
26 Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do.
27 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
28 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
8
1 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
2 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
3 Original Response: No.
(a) 5
4
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
5 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
6 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
7 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
8 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
9 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 5 seeks
10 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Suki Ferl or someone else
11 which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Suki Ferl's
12 alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the
13 named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the
14 Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
15 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
16 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
17 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
18 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
19 Original Response: No.
(a) 6
20 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
21 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
22
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
23
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
24
issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
25
Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 6 seeks
to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Robert Gilman and Wendy
26
H. Gilman or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and
27
back-dated Robert Gilman's and Wendy H. Gilman's alleged assignment demonstrating that
28
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
9
1 Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this
2 is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order
3 to do so.
4 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
5 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
6 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
7 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
8 Original Response: No.
(a) 7
9
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
10 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
11 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
12 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
13 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
14 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 7 seeks
15 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by John D. Hightower and
16 Polly Ann Hightower or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel
17 fabricated and back-dated John D. Hightower's and Polly Ann Hightower's alleged assignment
18 demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in
19 this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May
20 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
21 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
22 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
23 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
24 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
25 Original Response: No.
(a) 8
26
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
27 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
28
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
10
1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
3 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
4 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 8 seeks
5 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Gary Holbrook or someone
6 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Gary
7 Holbrook's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the
8 court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion
9 in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
10 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
11 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
12 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
13 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
14 Original Response: No.
(a) 9
15
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
16 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
17 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
18 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
19 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
20 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 9 seeks
21 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Edward Keane or someone
22 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Edward
23 Keane's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court
24 and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in
25 the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
26 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
27 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
28 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
11
1 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
2 Original Response: No.
(a) 10
3
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
4 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
5 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
6 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
7 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
8 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 10 seeks
9 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Pamela A. Lane or
10 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated
11 Pamela A. Lane's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on
12 the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a
13 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
14 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
15 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
16 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
17 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
18 Original Response: No.
(a) 11
19
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
20 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
21
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
22
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
23
issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
24
Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 11 seeks
25
to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Vernon D. Larson or
someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated
26
Vernon D. Larson's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud
27
on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a
28
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
12
1 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
2 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
3 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
4 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
5 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
6 Original Response: No.
(a) 12
7
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
8 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
9 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
10 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
11 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
12 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 12 seeks
13 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by June Liebling or someone
14 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated June
15 Liebling's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the
16 court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion
17 in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
18 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
19 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
20 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
21 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
22 Original Response: No.
(a) 13
23
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
24 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
25
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
26
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
27
issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
28
Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 13 seeks
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
13
1 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Jack Miller or someone
2 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Jack
3 Miller's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court
4 and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in
5 the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
6 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
7 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
8 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
9 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
10 Original Response: No.
(a) 14
11
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
12 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
13 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
14 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
15 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
16 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 14 seeks
17 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Mary Ann Manes or
18 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated
19 Mary Ann Manes' alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on
20 the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a
21 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
22 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
23 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
24 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
25 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
26 Original Response: No.
(a) 15
27
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
28 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
14
1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
3 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
4 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 15 seeks
5 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by David Scott Page or
6 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated
7 David Scott Page's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud
8 on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a
9 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
10 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
11 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
12 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
13 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
14 Original Response: No.
(a) 16
15
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
16 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
17 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
18 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
19 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
20 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 16 seeks
21 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Michelle C. Pitois-
22 Yokoyama or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated
23 and back-dated Michelle C. Pitois-Yokoyama's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard
24 Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why
25 Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do
26 so.
27 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
28 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
15
1 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
2 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
3 Original Response: No.
(a) 17
4
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
5 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
6 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
7 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
8 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
9 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 17 seeks
10 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Dennis A. Ripple and
11 Cathy Ripple or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated
12 and back-dated Dennis A. Ripple and Cathy Ripple alleged assignment demonstrating that
13 Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this
14 is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order
15 to do so.
16 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
17 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
18 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
19 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
20 Original Response: No.
(a) 18
21 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
22 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
23
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
24
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
25
issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 18 seeks
26
to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Elizabeth A. Ross or
27
someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated
28
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
16
1 Elizabeth A. Ross' alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on
2 the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a
3 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
4 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
5 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
6 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
7 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
8 Original Response: No.
(a) 19
9
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
10 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
11 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
12 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
13 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
14 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 19 seeks
15 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Geraldine L. Stewart or
16 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated
17 Geraldine L. Stewart's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a
18 fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not
19 filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
20 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
21 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
22 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
23 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
24 Original Response: No.
(a) 20
25
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
26 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
27
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
28
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
17
1 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
2 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 20 seeks
3 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Troy S. Winslow and
4 Robin L. Winslow or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel
5 fabricated and back-dated Troy S. Winslow's and Robin L. Winslow's alleged assignment
6 demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in
7 this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May
8 6, 2021 filed order to do so.
9 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
10 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
11 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
12 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
13 Original Response: No.
(a) 21
14
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
15 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
16 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
17 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
18 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
19 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 21 seeks
20 to have Richard Abel admit that Sunderland/McCutchan, Inc. that he served as a Doe defendant
21 in this action never represented Richard Abel and Richard Abel's naming Sunderland/
22 McCutchan, Inc. lacks factual and legal basis.
23 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
24 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
25 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
26 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
27 Original Response: No.
(a) 22
28
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
18
(b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code
1
of Civ. Pro.§2033.060.
2
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational
3
interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the
4
issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California
5
Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 21 seeks
6
to have Richard Abel admit that Sunderland/McCutchan, Inc. that he served as a Doe defendant
7
in this action never represented Richard Abel and Richard Abel's naming Sunderland/
8
McCutchan, Inc. lacks factual and legal basis.
9
Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended
10
responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses
11
supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a
12
code-compliant response in the Amended Responses.
13
14 II.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
15
16 Special Interrogatory No. 1: State the specific (month, date, and year) in Exhibit "1"
attached to the accompanying first requests for admission on you by defendant Jim Nord that
17 Randall (Randy) Bailey actually signed your claimed assignment in Sonoma County Case No.
18
SCV-245738, Liebling v. Goodrich, et.al. and the names and address of all witnesses to such and
where the document was allegedly signed.
19
Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is improper because it violates Code
20
of Civil Procedure §2030.060. Objection. Propounding party's definition of “you” is
21
impermissibly overbroad and violates Code of Civil Procedure §2020.010 and 2030.010.
22
Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Nord provided no grounds for a further
23
response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 in his separate statement.
24
Why There Should Not be a Further Response: This interrogatory is not full and
25
complete in and of itself. It refers to another document, in violation of CCP §2030.060(d).
26
This interrogatory requires that Plaintiff make an inquiry with a third party witness (e.g.
27
Randall Bailey). A responding party has no duty to make an inquiry with independent witnesses
28
(persons not his or her agents or employees) in order to answer interrogatories. (See, Holguin v.
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD
19
1 Sup.Ct. (Hoage) (1972) 22 Cal.App. 3d 812, 826.)
2 This interrogatory is compound. Not only does it ask for the date that a third party
3 witness signed the exhibit, the interrogatory also ask for the names and addresses of all
4 witnesses, and the place where the exhibit was signed. This violates CCP §2030.060(f).
5
Special Interrogatory No. 2: State the specific (month, date, and year) in Exhibit "2"
6 attached to the accompanying first requests for admission on you by defendant Jim Nord that
referencing Carl E. Barnes and Patricia C. Barnes actually signed your claimed assignment in
7
Sonoma County Case No. SCV-245738, Liebling v. Goodrich, et.al. and the names and address
8 of all witnesses to such and where the document was allegedly signed.
9 Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is improper
Preview
Richard Abel 1 2222 Cleveland Avenue, Apt. #1002 2 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Telephone: (707) 340-3894 3 4 Plaintiff, in pro per 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456 12 Plaintiff; PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN 13 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION v. TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL BY 14 DEFENDANT JIM NORD B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an 15 individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, 16 LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 Date: March 8, 2023 through 100, inclusive; Time: 3:00 p.m. 17 Dept: 18 Defendants. 18 19 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 20 This separate statement is hereby submitted by Plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff") 21 in support of his opposition to the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (“FIs”); 22 special interrogatories (“SIs”), requests for admission (“RFAs”), and requests for production of 23 documents (“RPDs”), by defendant Jim Nord ("Nord"). 24 I. 25 FORM INTERROGATORIES 26 Interrogatory 2.2: State the date and place of your birth. 27 Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of 28 this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 1 1 admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to 2 privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution. 3 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.2 is a foundational 4 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 5 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 6 action. 7 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 8 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 9 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. 10 11 Interrogatory 2.3: At the time of the INCIDENT, did you have a driver's license? 12 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the 13 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The 14 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not 15 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4) irrelevant. 16 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.4 is a foundational 17 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 18 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 19 action. 20 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 21 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 22 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. 23 24 Interrogatory 2.5: State your present ADDRESS: 25 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the 26 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The 27 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not 28 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4) irrelevant. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 2 1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.5 is a foundational 2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 3 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 4 action. 5 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 6 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 7 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. 8 9 Interrogatory 2.6: State the name of your present employer or place of self-employment. 10 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the 11 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The 12 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4)irrelevant. 14 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.6 is a foundational 15 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 16 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 17 action. 18 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 19 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 20 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. 21 22 Interrogatory 2.7: State the name and ADDRESS of each school attended. 23 Original Response: Objection: (1) The use of the term "INCIDENT" renders the 24 interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation; (2) The 25 information is protected by Responding Party's Constitutional Right to Privacy; (3) is not 26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (4)irrelevant. 27 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 2.7 is a foundational 28 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 3 1 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 2 action. 3 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 4 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 5 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. 6 Interrogatory 7.2: Has a written estimate or evaluation been made for any item of property? 7 Original Response: Objection: (1) the use of the terms "estimate" and "evaluation" 8 renders this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of this litigation. 9 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational 10 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 11 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 12 action. 13 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 14 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 15 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. 16 Interrogatory 10.1: At any time before the INCIDENT did you have injuries that involve the 17 same part of your body as you claim were injured by the INCIDENT? 18 Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter 19 of this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 20 admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to 21 privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution. 22 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational 23 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 24 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 25 action. 26 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 27 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. There was no claim for "bodily injury" 28 made in the complaint. This is only business litigation. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 4 Interrogatory 10.2: List all physical, mental, and emotional disabilities you had immediately 1 before the INCIDENT. 2 Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter 3 of this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 4 admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to 5 privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution. 6 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational 7 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 8 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 9 action. 10 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 11 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 12 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. There were no 13 medical injuries claimed in the complaint. This is only business litigation. 14 15 Interrogatory 10.3: At any time after the INCIDENT did you sustain injuries of the kind for 16 which you are now claiming damages? Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of 17 this action nor the "Incident", and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 18 19 admissible evidence. See, CCP §2017.010. This request violates Responding Party's right to 20 privacy guaranteed under Article 1 of the California Constitution. 21 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 7.2 is a foundational 22 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory where Richard 23 Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this 24 action. 25 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 26 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 27 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. There were no 28 medical injuries claimed in the complaint. This is only business litigation. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 5 Interrogatory 13.1: Have you or anyone conducted surveillance of any individual involved in 1 the INCIDENT? 2 Original Response: Objection: (1) the use of the terms "surveillance" and 3 "INCIDENT," renders this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible in the context of 4 this litigation; (2) The information sought is equally available to Propounding Party; and (3) the 5 interrogatory calls for speculation. Discovery has not been completed and is continuing. 6 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 13.1 is a foundational 7 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 8 issue of any surveillance as to Jim Nord where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory 9 on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this action. 10 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 11 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 12 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Nord misquoted the 13 original response in his separate statement. 14 15 Interrogatory 17.1: Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is 16 not an unqualified admission: a) state the number of the request; b) state all facts upon which you base your request; c) state the names, 17 ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have 18 knowledge of those facts; and d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, 19 and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or 20 thing. Original Response: No. 21 (a) 1 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 22 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 23 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 24 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 25 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 26 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 1 seeks 27 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Randall (Randy) Bailey or 28 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 6 1 Randall (Randy) Bailey's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a 2 fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not 3 filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 4 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 5 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 6 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 7 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 8 Original Response: No. (a) 2 9 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 10 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 11 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 12 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 13 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 14 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 2 seeks 15 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Carl E. Barnes and Patricia 16 C. Barnes or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and 17 back-dated Carl E. Barnes' and Patricia C. Barnes' alleged assignment demonstrating that 18 Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this 19 is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order 20 to do so. 21 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 22 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 23 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 24 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 25 Original Response: No. (a) 3 26 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 27 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 28 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 7 1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 3 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 4 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 3 seeks 5 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Dale M. Barnes and 6 Caroline H. Barnes or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel 7 fabricated and back-dated Dale M. Barnes' and Caroline H. Barnes' alleged assignment 8 demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in 9 this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 10 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 11 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 12 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 13 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 14 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 15 Original Response: No. (a) 4 16 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 17 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 18 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 19 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 20 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 21 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 4 seeks 22 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Gary DeZorzi and Judith 23 DeZorzi or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and 24 back-dated Gary DeZorzi's and Judith DeZorzi's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard 25 Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why 26 Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do. 27 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 28 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 8 1 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 2 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 3 Original Response: No. (a) 5 4 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 5 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 6 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 7 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 8 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 9 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 5 seeks 10 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Suki Ferl or someone else 11 which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Suki Ferl's 12 alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the 13 named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the 14 Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 15 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 16 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 17 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 18 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 19 Original Response: No. (a) 6 20 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 21 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 22 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 23 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 24 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 25 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 6 seeks to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Robert Gilman and Wendy 26 H. Gilman or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and 27 back-dated Robert Gilman's and Wendy H. Gilman's alleged assignment demonstrating that 28 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 9 1 Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this 2 is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order 3 to do so. 4 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 5 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 6 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 7 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 8 Original Response: No. (a) 7 9 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 10 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 11 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 12 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 13 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 14 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 7 seeks 15 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by John D. Hightower and 16 Polly Ann Hightower or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel 17 fabricated and back-dated John D. Hightower's and Polly Ann Hightower's alleged assignment 18 demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in 19 this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 20 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 21 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 22 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 23 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 24 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 25 Original Response: No. (a) 8 26 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 27 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 28 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 10 1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 3 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 4 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 8 seeks 5 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Gary Holbrook or someone 6 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Gary 7 Holbrook's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the 8 court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion 9 in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 10 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 11 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 12 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 13 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 14 Original Response: No. (a) 9 15 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 16 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 17 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 18 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 19 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 20 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 9 seeks 21 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Edward Keane or someone 22 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Edward 23 Keane's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court 24 and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in 25 the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 26 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 27 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 28 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 11 1 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 2 Original Response: No. (a) 10 3 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 4 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 5 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 6 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 7 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 8 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 10 seeks 9 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Pamela A. Lane or 10 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated 11 Pamela A. Lane's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on 12 the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a 13 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 14 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 15 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 16 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 17 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 18 Original Response: No. (a) 11 19 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 20 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 21 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 22 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 23 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 24 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 11 seeks 25 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Vernon D. Larson or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated 26 Vernon D. Larson's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud 27 on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a 28 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 12 1 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 2 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 3 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 4 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 5 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 6 Original Response: No. (a) 12 7 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 8 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 9 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 10 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 11 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 12 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 12 seeks 13 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by June Liebling or someone 14 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated June 15 Liebling's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the 16 court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion 17 in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 18 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 19 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 20 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 21 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 22 Original Response: No. (a) 13 23 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 24 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 25 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 26 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 27 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 28 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 13 seeks PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 13 1 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Jack Miller or someone 2 else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated Jack 3 Miller's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court 4 and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in 5 the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 6 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 7 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 8 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 9 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 10 Original Response: No. (a) 14 11 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 12 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 13 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 14 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 15 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 16 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 14 seeks 17 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Mary Ann Manes or 18 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated 19 Mary Ann Manes' alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on 20 the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a 21 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 22 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 23 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 24 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 25 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 26 Original Response: No. (a) 15 27 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 28 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 14 1 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 2 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 3 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 4 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 15 seeks 5 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by David Scott Page or 6 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated 7 David Scott Page's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud 8 on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a 9 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 10 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 11 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 12 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 13 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 14 Original Response: No. (a) 16 15 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 16 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 17 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 18 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 19 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 20 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 16 seeks 21 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Michelle C. Pitois- 22 Yokoyama or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated 23 and back-dated Michelle C. Pitois-Yokoyama's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard 24 Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why 25 Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do 26 so. 27 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 28 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 15 1 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 2 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 3 Original Response: No. (a) 17 4 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 5 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 6 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 7 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 8 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 9 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 17 seeks 10 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Dennis A. Ripple and 11 Cathy Ripple or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated 12 and back-dated Dennis A. Ripple and Cathy Ripple alleged assignment demonstrating that 13 Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this 14 is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order 15 to do so. 16 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 17 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 18 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 19 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 20 Original Response: No. (a) 18 21 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 22 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 23 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 24 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 25 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 18 seeks 26 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Elizabeth A. Ross or 27 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated 28 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 16 1 Elizabeth A. Ross' alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on 2 the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a 3 motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 4 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 5 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 6 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 7 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 8 Original Response: No. (a) 19 9 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 10 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 11 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 12 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 13 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 14 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 19 seeks 15 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Geraldine L. Stewart or 16 someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel fabricated and back-dated 17 Geraldine L. Stewart's alleged assignment demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a 18 fraud on the court and the named defendants in this action and this is why Richard Abel has not 19 filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 20 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 21 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 22 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 23 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 24 Original Response: No. (a) 20 25 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 26 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 27 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 28 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 17 1 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 2 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 20 seeks 3 to have Richard Abel admit that he drafted the alleged assignment by Troy S. Winslow and 4 Robin L. Winslow or someone else which goes to James Nord's defense that Richard Abel 5 fabricated and back-dated Troy S. Winslow's and Robin L. Winslow's alleged assignment 6 demonstrating that Richard Abel is perpetrating a fraud on the court and the named defendants in 7 this action and this is why Richard Abel has not filed a motion in the Liebling action per the May 8 6, 2021 filed order to do so. 9 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 10 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 11 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 12 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 13 Original Response: No. (a) 21 14 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 15 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 16 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 17 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 18 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 19 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 21 seeks 20 to have Richard Abel admit that Sunderland/McCutchan, Inc. that he served as a Doe defendant 21 in this action never represented Richard Abel and Richard Abel's naming Sunderland/ 22 McCutchan, Inc. lacks factual and legal basis. 23 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 24 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 25 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 26 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 27 Original Response: No. (a) 22 28 PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 18 (b) Objection. This request is improper because it violates Code 1 of Civ. Pro.§2033.060. 2 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Form Interrogatory 17.1 is a foundational 3 interrogatory on a long-standing California Judicial Council Form Interrogatory addressing the 4 issue admission requests where Richard Abel served the very same interrogatory on a California 5 Judicial Council on defendants in this action. Jim Nord's request for admission Number 21 seeks 6 to have Richard Abel admit that Sunderland/McCutchan, Inc. that he served as a Doe defendant 7 in this action never represented Richard Abel and Richard Abel's naming Sunderland/ 8 McCutchan, Inc. lacks factual and legal basis. 9 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: Plaintiff timely served amended 10 responses on September 18, 2022 and October 7, 2022. Plaintiff's Amended Responses 11 supersede the original response used by Nord in Nord's separate statement. Plaintiff provided a 12 code-compliant response in the Amended Responses. 13 14 II. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 15 16 Special Interrogatory No. 1: State the specific (month, date, and year) in Exhibit "1" attached to the accompanying first requests for admission on you by defendant Jim Nord that 17 Randall (Randy) Bailey actually signed your claimed assignment in Sonoma County Case No. 18 SCV-245738, Liebling v. Goodrich, et.al. and the names and address of all witnesses to such and where the document was allegedly signed. 19 Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is improper because it violates Code 20 of Civil Procedure §2030.060. Objection. Propounding party's definition of “you” is 21 impermissibly overbroad and violates Code of Civil Procedure §2020.010 and 2030.010. 22 Why Nord Wants a Further Response: Nord provided no grounds for a further 23 response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 in his separate statement. 24 Why There Should Not be a Further Response: This interrogatory is not full and 25 complete in and of itself. It refers to another document, in violation of CCP §2030.060(d). 26 This interrogatory requires that Plaintiff make an inquiry with a third party witness (e.g. 27 Randall Bailey). A responding party has no duty to make an inquiry with independent witnesses 28 (persons not his or her agents or employees) in order to answer interrogatories. (See, Holguin v. PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION - NORD 19 1 Sup.Ct. (Hoage) (1972) 22 Cal.App. 3d 812, 826.) 2 This interrogatory is compound. Not only does it ask for the date that a third party 3 witness signed the exhibit, the interrogatory also ask for the names and addresses of all 4 witnesses, and the place where the exhibit was signed. This violates CCP §2030.060(f). 5 Special Interrogatory No. 2: State the specific (month, date, and year) in Exhibit "2" 6 attached to the accompanying first requests for admission on you by defendant Jim Nord that referencing Carl E. Barnes and Patricia C. Barnes actually signed your claimed assignment in 7 Sonoma County Case No. SCV-245738, Liebling v. Goodrich, et.al. and the names and address 8 of all witnesses to such and where the document was allegedly signed. 9 Original Response: Objection. This interrogatory is improper