Preview
CHRISTOPHER E. HASKELL, State Bar No. 126745
SHANNON DENATALE BOYD, State Bar No. 273574
PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-0011
Facsimile: (805) 965-3978
ceh@ppplaw.com, sdb@ppplaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STORKE RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - ANACAPA DIVISION
10
11 STORKE RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION, Case No.: 22CV02623
A California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit
12 Corporation, Assigned to the Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
13 Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
14 VS. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION,
15 JANICE BILOTTI, Individually and as Trustee SET ONE AND TO PRODUCE
of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated DOCUMENTS [CRC 3.1345]
16 May 19, 2005, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
[Filed concurrently with Notice Of Motion
17 And Motion To Compel, Declaration Of
Defendants. Christopher E. Haskell]
18
Date: July 10, 2023
19 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept: 5
20
21
Plaintiff Storke Ranch Master Association submits the following Separate Statement,
22
pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, in support of its Motion for an Order compelling
23
Defendant Janice Bilotti, Individually and as Trustee of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated
24
May 19, 2005 (“Defendant”) to comply with Plaintiff to Provide Further Discovery Responses to
25
Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One, and to Produce Documents.
26
27
28
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
9 DEFINITIONS
3 1, “DOCUMENT”, “WRITING” and “WRITINGS” shall have the same meaning as
4 jis contained in California Evidence Code Section 250 and include, but is not limited to, any and
5 | all forms of tangible expression such as typed or handwritten notes, photographs, surveys,
spreadsheets, recordings, correspondence, letters, orders, Purchase Orders, e-mails, texts, instant
messages, voice mails, bills and invoices, checks, receipts and all other tangible written matter,
8 | however it may be, or have been, created, maintained or stored. To the extent that a WRITING
9 | differs from other copies or originals of the same by reason of notations, comments, deletions,
10 ||markings or other differences, the WRITING shall be deemed a separate document. A WRITING
11 shall include not only any information which exists or is maintained electronically, but also any
12 || paper or other copies of electronically stored information, in any tangible or intangible form.
13. | Electronically stored information should be produced in native format with all metadata intact.
14 2, “COMMUNICATIONS” mean any and all direct and/or indirect transmission or
15 |lexchange of information between two or more individuals and/or entities, whether or not reduced
16 |to writing, including, without limitation, any conversation or discussion, whether face-to-face, by
17 ||means of mail, telephone, telegraph, text messages, telecopies, electronic mail or any other
18 |)medium of communication,
19 3. As used in these requests, the term “RELATED TO” shall mean and refer
20 ||discussing, mentioning, pertaining to, assessing, constituting, embodying, recording, stating,
21 ||concerning, identifying, reflecting or summarizing.
9) 4, As used in these requests, the term “JANICE BILOTT!” shall mean and refer to
23 ||shall mean and refer to Janice Bilotti, and any persons acting or purporting to act for any purpose
24 jon her behalf, and shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring
25 | within the scope of the requested information that which might otherwise be construed to be outside
26 |of its scope.
27 5, As used in these requests, the term “STORKE RANCH” shall mean and refer to
28 ||Storke Ranch Master Association, and any persons acting or purporting to act for any purpose on
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
its behalf, and shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within
the scope of the requested information that which might otherwise be construed to be outside of its
scope,
6. As used in these requests, the term “PROPERTY” shall mean and refer to 6838
Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 93117, APN 073-490-06-00-2.
7, As used in these requests, the term “CITY” shall mean and refer to the City of Goleta
located in California,
8, As used in these requests, the term “LEASE AGREEMENT(S)” shall mean and
refer to all agreements for renting or otherwise residing at the PROPERTY, including any portion
10 thereof, regardless of whether the document is titled lease, rental agreement, or something else.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the fence at the PROPERTY including but not
13 limited to photographs, receipts, and COMMUNICATIONS relating to the fence.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
15 1. James Nguyen with Bartline has all the documents related to the fence as well as
16 pictures etc....
17 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
18 No further written response was provided.
19 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
20 Plaintiff, ahhomeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
21 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
22 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
23 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
24 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 93117 (“6838 Silkberry Lane”). Complaint 7
25 5, 6, As a member of Plaintiff homeowner association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the
26 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Storke Ranch Master Association (“CC&Rs”),
27 Complaint Jf 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
28 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure section 2031,210, which requires:
(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
(3) An objection to the particular demand.
Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
requests at hand,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fence violates the CC&Rs. Complaint J{ 14-19. The
10 documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating
11 the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San
12 Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v, Sup. Ct (Lawyers' Mut. Ins.
13 Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc,
14 (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist
15 with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible
16 evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
17 admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010
18 have been satisfied.
19 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
20 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
21 violated the fence height restriction and submitted a fraudulent request for a medical exemption to
22 the height restriction (Complaint J 14-19). Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking
23 evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be
24 granted,
25 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information, Complete, verified discovery
26 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the
27 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
28 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives,
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Any and all COMMUNICATIONS, including but not limited to COMMUNICATIONS
with medical professionals, RELATED TO the fence at the PROPERTY,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
2. James Nguyen has a letter from my doctor/psychiatrist relating to my disability and the
fence...
FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
No further written response was provided,
REASON FURTBER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
10 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
11 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
12 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
13 (5) injunctive relief, Haskell Dec., { 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
14 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ff 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
15 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint #¥ 4, 5, Ex, 1, 2.
16 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
17 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
18 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
19 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
20 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
21 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
22. (3) An objection to the particular demand.
23 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
24 requests at hand.
25 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fence violates the CC&Rs and that Defendant submitted a
26 fraudulent request for a medical exemption to the height restriction. Complaint JJ 14-19. The
27 documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating
28 the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v, Sup.Ct. (City of San
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins.
Co.) (1996) 48 Cal App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc,
(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text), No privileges have been asserted and none exist
with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible
evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010
have been satisfied.
Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
10 violated the fence height restriction and submitted a fraudulent request for a medical exemption to
11 the height restriction (Complaint JJ 14-19). Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking
12 evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be
13 granted,
14 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
15 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the
16 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
17 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
19 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR primary place of residence from January 1,
20 2004 to the present. |
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
22 3, The county records will show that i purchased my home May 3 of 2003.
23 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
24 No further written response was provided.
25 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
26 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
27 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
28 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint §§ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs, Complaint {f 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
10 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
11 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
12 requests at hand.
13 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Article V, Section 5.03 of the CC&Rs with respect
14 to leasing out less than the entire condominium. Complaint 4 23, Ex. 1. Ascertaining Defendant’s
15 primary residence is clearly relevant to this allegation. The documents sought are relevant to this
16 litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even
17 facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539,
18 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611,
19 (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal. App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing
20 text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought.
21 The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly
22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the
23 requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied,
24 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc, §
25 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiff’ s causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
26 violated Article V, Section 5.03 of the CC&Rs with respect to leasing out less than the entire
2/7 condominium. Complaint § 23, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking
28 evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 | granted.
2 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
3 ||responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the
4 |identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
5 ||negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing the number of bedrooms at the PROPERTY,
g | RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
9 4, James Nguyen has a copy of the internal floor plan of my home...
10 | FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
11 No further written response was provided.
12 | REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
13 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
14 |}on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
15 ||negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
16 |S) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., | 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
17 ||located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint §§ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
18 ||association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs, Complaint JJ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
19 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
20 |inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
21 |of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
22 | of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
23 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
24 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
25 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
26 | Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
27 |\requests at hand.
28 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant exceeded the maximum residential occupancy restrictions
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
by renting out portions of her 3-bedroom home to as many as 10 to 20 students at a time. Complaint
qq 20-24. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff
in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v, Sup.Ct. (City
of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut.
Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc.
(2001) 87 Cal App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist
with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible
evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010
10 have been satisfied, |
11 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production, Code Civ. Proc. §
12 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiff? s causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
13 exceeded the maximum residential occupancy restrictions by renting out portions of her 3-bedroom
14 home to as many as 10 to 20 students at a time. Complaint JJ 20-24. Plaintiff's document requests
15 are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing,
16 this motion should be granted.
17 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
18 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the
19 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
20 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO YOUR conversion of the garage at the
23 PROPERTY into a kitchen and living space, including but not limited to photographs, receipts,
24 permits, and construction contracts.
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
26 5. James Nguyen has the report from Albert Torres regarding the garage conversion and
21 that we are waiting on a permit... |
28 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
No further written response was provided.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED;
Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
(5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., § 2, Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint J] 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint [f 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
10 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
11 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
12 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
13 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
14 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
15 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
16 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
17 requests at hand.
18 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area.
19 Complaint JJ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably
20 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez
21 vy, Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct.
22 (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial
23 Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text), No privileges have been
24 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production
25 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to
26 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure
27 section 2017.010 have been satisfied,
28 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint 4 25-32. Plaintiff's document
requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations, Good causes
existing, this motion should be granted.
Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the
identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
10 Any and all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and CITY RELATED TO the
11 PROPERTY from January 1, 2004 to the present including but not limited to
12 COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO the garage, any outdoor sheds, any canopy or pergola, any
13 setback requirements, any applications for permits, any permits, and any denial of applications for
14 permits.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
16 6, James Nguyen has copies of all documentation regarding me and Albert Torres from
17 the city of Goleta...
18 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
19 No further written response was provided.
20 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
21 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
22 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
23 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
24 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., § 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
25 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint {7 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
26 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ff 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
27 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
28 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
(3) An objection to the particular demand,
Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
requests at hand,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a
residential area, Complaint {J 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might
10 reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement.
1] Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton
12 v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v.
13 Colonial Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have
14 been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for
15 production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated
16 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil
17 Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied.
18 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
19 2031,310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
20 illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a residential area, Complaint JY 25-32.
21 Plaintiff's document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these
22 allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be granted.
23 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
24 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the
25 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
26 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
28 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing requests for permits, applications for permits,
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
inspection reports, and/or actual permits obtained from CITY RELATED TO the PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
7. Due to Covid, I am on a waiting list for a contractor/permit for a garage ADU
conversion...
FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
No further written response was provided,
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
10 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
11 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
12 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint J] 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
13 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs, Complaint Jf 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
14 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
15 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
16 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
17 of Civil Procedure section 2031,210, which requires:
18 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
19 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
20 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
21 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
22 requests at hand,
23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage and shed into a residential
24 area without getting permits. Complaint {] 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this
25 litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even
26 facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v, Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539,
27 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers’ Mut. Ins, Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611,
28 (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal. App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
text), No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought.
The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Accordingly, the
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017,.010 have been satisfied,
Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production, Code Civ, Proc. §
2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a residential area without getting permits.
Complaint {J 25-32. Plaintiff's document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts
underlying these allegations, Good causes existing, this motion should be granted,
10 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
11 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiffto gather evidence, ascertain the
12 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
13 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing that YOU obtained a permit from CITY
16 RELATED TO convert the garage at the PROPERTY to a kitchen and/or living space or
17 approving such conversion,
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
19 8, Same answer as #7
20 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
21 No further written response was provided.
22 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
23 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
24 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
25 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
26 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., § 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
27 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint 9{ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
28 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint {Jf 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure section 2031,210, which requires:
(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
(3) An objection to the particular demand.
Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
requests at hand.
10 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area.
11 Complaint J§ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably
12 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez
13 v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct.
14 (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial
15 Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been
16 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production
17 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to
18 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure
19 section 2017.010 have been satisfied.
20 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc, §
21 2031,310(b)(1), Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
22 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint ff 25-32. Plaintiff's document
23 requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes
24 existing, this motion should be granted.
25 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
26 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiffto gather evidence, ascertain the
27 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
28 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing that YOU re-converted the garage at the
PROPERTY back into a garage, including but not limited to photographs.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
9, Same answer as #7
FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9;
No further written response was provided.
REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
10 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
11 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
12 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., §[ 2, Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
13 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint {§ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
14 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint {{ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
15 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by
16 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
17 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
18 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
19 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
20 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
21 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
22 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
23 requests at hand.
24 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area.
25 Complaint {¥ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably
26 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez
27 vy. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct.
28 (Lawyers' Mut, Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text), No privileges have been
asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought, The requests for production
will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure
section 2017.010 have been satisfied.
Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
2031,310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint J] 25-32. Plaintiff's document
requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations, Good causes
10 existing, this motion should be granted.
ll Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
12 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiffto gather evidence, ascertain the
13 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially
14 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO YOUR conversion of an outdoor shed at the
17 PROPERTY to a living space including for use as a bedroom or bedrooms, including but not
18 limited to photographs, receipts, permits, and construction contracts.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
20 10. James Nguyen has the report from Albert Torres stating the outside shed was used as
21 an office and not a living space....
22 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
23 No further written response was provided.
24 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
25 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a home
Preview
CHRISTOPHER E. HASKELL, State Bar No. 126745 SHANNON DENATALE BOYD, State Bar No. 273574 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP 200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 962-0011 Facsimile: (805) 965-3978 ceh@ppplaw.com, sdb@ppplaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff STORKE RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA - ANACAPA DIVISION 10 11 STORKE RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION, Case No.: 22CV02623 A California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit 12 Corporation, Assigned to the Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 13 Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 14 VS. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, 15 JANICE BILOTTI, Individually and as Trustee SET ONE AND TO PRODUCE of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated DOCUMENTS [CRC 3.1345] 16 May 19, 2005, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, [Filed concurrently with Notice Of Motion 17 And Motion To Compel, Declaration Of Defendants. Christopher E. Haskell] 18 Date: July 10, 2023 19 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: 5 20 21 Plaintiff Storke Ranch Master Association submits the following Separate Statement, 22 pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, in support of its Motion for an Order compelling 23 Defendant Janice Bilotti, Individually and as Trustee of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated 24 May 19, 2005 (“Defendant”) to comply with Plaintiff to Provide Further Discovery Responses to 25 Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One, and to Produce Documents. 26 27 28 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 9 DEFINITIONS 3 1, “DOCUMENT”, “WRITING” and “WRITINGS” shall have the same meaning as 4 jis contained in California Evidence Code Section 250 and include, but is not limited to, any and 5 | all forms of tangible expression such as typed or handwritten notes, photographs, surveys, spreadsheets, recordings, correspondence, letters, orders, Purchase Orders, e-mails, texts, instant messages, voice mails, bills and invoices, checks, receipts and all other tangible written matter, 8 | however it may be, or have been, created, maintained or stored. To the extent that a WRITING 9 | differs from other copies or originals of the same by reason of notations, comments, deletions, 10 ||markings or other differences, the WRITING shall be deemed a separate document. A WRITING 11 shall include not only any information which exists or is maintained electronically, but also any 12 || paper or other copies of electronically stored information, in any tangible or intangible form. 13. | Electronically stored information should be produced in native format with all metadata intact. 14 2, “COMMUNICATIONS” mean any and all direct and/or indirect transmission or 15 |lexchange of information between two or more individuals and/or entities, whether or not reduced 16 |to writing, including, without limitation, any conversation or discussion, whether face-to-face, by 17 ||means of mail, telephone, telegraph, text messages, telecopies, electronic mail or any other 18 |)medium of communication, 19 3. As used in these requests, the term “RELATED TO” shall mean and refer 20 ||discussing, mentioning, pertaining to, assessing, constituting, embodying, recording, stating, 21 ||concerning, identifying, reflecting or summarizing. 9) 4, As used in these requests, the term “JANICE BILOTT!” shall mean and refer to 23 ||shall mean and refer to Janice Bilotti, and any persons acting or purporting to act for any purpose 24 jon her behalf, and shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring 25 | within the scope of the requested information that which might otherwise be construed to be outside 26 |of its scope. 27 5, As used in these requests, the term “STORKE RANCH” shall mean and refer to 28 ||Storke Ranch Master Association, and any persons acting or purporting to act for any purpose on PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES its behalf, and shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the requested information that which might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope, 6. As used in these requests, the term “PROPERTY” shall mean and refer to 6838 Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 93117, APN 073-490-06-00-2. 7, As used in these requests, the term “CITY” shall mean and refer to the City of Goleta located in California, 8, As used in these requests, the term “LEASE AGREEMENT(S)” shall mean and refer to all agreements for renting or otherwise residing at the PROPERTY, including any portion 10 thereof, regardless of whether the document is titled lease, rental agreement, or something else. 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the fence at the PROPERTY including but not 13 limited to photographs, receipts, and COMMUNICATIONS relating to the fence. 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 15 1. James Nguyen with Bartline has all the documents related to the fence as well as 16 pictures etc.... 17 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 18 No further written response was provided. 19 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 20 Plaintiff, ahhomeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 21 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 22 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 23 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 24 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 93117 (“6838 Silkberry Lane”). Complaint 7 25 5, 6, As a member of Plaintiff homeowner association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the 26 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Storke Ranch Master Association (“CC&Rs”), 27 Complaint Jf 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 28 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031,210, which requires: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; (3) An objection to the particular demand. Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the requests at hand, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fence violates the CC&Rs. Complaint J{ 14-19. The 10 documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating 11 the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San 12 Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v, Sup. Ct (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. 13 Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc, 14 (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist 15 with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible 16 evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 17 admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 18 have been satisfied. 19 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § 20 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 21 violated the fence height restriction and submitted a fraudulent request for a medical exemption to 22 the height restriction (Complaint J 14-19). Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking 23 evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be 24 granted, 25 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information, Complete, verified discovery 26 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the 27 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 28 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives, PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Any and all COMMUNICATIONS, including but not limited to COMMUNICATIONS with medical professionals, RELATED TO the fence at the PROPERTY, RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 2. James Nguyen has a letter from my doctor/psychiatrist relating to my disability and the fence... FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: No further written response was provided, REASON FURTBER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 10 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 11 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 12 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 13 (5) injunctive relief, Haskell Dec., { 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 14 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ff 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 15 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint #¥ 4, 5, Ex, 1, 2. 16 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by 17 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 18 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 19 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 20 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 21 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 22. (3) An objection to the particular demand. 23 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 24 requests at hand. 25 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fence violates the CC&Rs and that Defendant submitted a 26 fraudulent request for a medical exemption to the height restriction. Complaint JJ 14-19. The 27 documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating 28 the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v, Sup.Ct. (City of San PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text), No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied. Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 10 violated the fence height restriction and submitted a fraudulent request for a medical exemption to 11 the height restriction (Complaint JJ 14-19). Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking 12 evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be 13 granted, 14 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 15 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the 16 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 17 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 19 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR primary place of residence from January 1, 20 2004 to the present. | 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 22 3, The county records will show that i purchased my home May 3 of 2003. 23 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 24 No further written response was provided. 25 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 26 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 27 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 28 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint §§ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs, Complaint {f 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 10 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 11 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 12 requests at hand. 13 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Article V, Section 5.03 of the CC&Rs with respect 14 to leasing out less than the entire condominium. Complaint 4 23, Ex. 1. Ascertaining Defendant’s 15 primary residence is clearly relevant to this allegation. The documents sought are relevant to this 16 litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even 17 facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539, 18 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611, 19 (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal. App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing 20 text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. 21 The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly 22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the 23 requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied, 24 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc, § 25 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiff’ s causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 26 violated Article V, Section 5.03 of the CC&Rs with respect to leasing out less than the entire 2/7 condominium. Complaint § 23, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking 28 evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 | granted. 2 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 3 ||responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the 4 |identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 5 ||negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing the number of bedrooms at the PROPERTY, g | RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 9 4, James Nguyen has a copy of the internal floor plan of my home... 10 | FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 11 No further written response was provided. 12 | REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 13 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 14 |}on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 15 ||negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 16 |S) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., | 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 17 ||located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint §§ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 18 ||association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs, Complaint JJ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 19 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by 20 |inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 21 |of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 22 | of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 23 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 24 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 25 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 26 | Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 27 |\requests at hand. 28 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant exceeded the maximum residential occupancy restrictions PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES by renting out portions of her 3-bedroom home to as many as 10 to 20 students at a time. Complaint qq 20-24. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v, Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 10 have been satisfied, | 11 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production, Code Civ. Proc. § 12 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiff? s causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 13 exceeded the maximum residential occupancy restrictions by renting out portions of her 3-bedroom 14 home to as many as 10 to 20 students at a time. Complaint JJ 20-24. Plaintiff's document requests 15 are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes existing, 16 this motion should be granted. 17 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 18 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the 19 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 20 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO YOUR conversion of the garage at the 23 PROPERTY into a kitchen and living space, including but not limited to photographs, receipts, 24 permits, and construction contracts. 25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 26 5. James Nguyen has the report from Albert Torres regarding the garage conversion and 21 that we are waiting on a permit... | 28 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES No further written response was provided. REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED; Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., § 2, Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint J] 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint [f 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by 10 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 11 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 12 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 13 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 14 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 15 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 16 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 17 requests at hand. 18 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area. 19 Complaint JJ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably 20 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez 21 vy, Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct. 22 (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial 23 Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text), No privileges have been 24 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production 25 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to 26 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 27 section 2017.010 have been satisfied, 28 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint 4 25-32. Plaintiff's document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations, Good causes existing, this motion should be granted. Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 10 Any and all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and CITY RELATED TO the 11 PROPERTY from January 1, 2004 to the present including but not limited to 12 COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO the garage, any outdoor sheds, any canopy or pergola, any 13 setback requirements, any applications for permits, any permits, and any denial of applications for 14 permits. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 16 6, James Nguyen has copies of all documentation regarding me and Albert Torres from 17 the city of Goleta... 18 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 19 No further written response was provided. 20 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 21 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 22 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 23 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 24 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., § 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 25 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint {7 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 26 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ff 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 27 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by 28 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; (3) An objection to the particular demand, Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the requests at hand, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a residential area, Complaint {J 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might 10 reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. 1] Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton 12 v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. 13 Colonial Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have 14 been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for 15 production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated 16 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil 17 Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied. 18 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § 19 2031,310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 20 illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a residential area, Complaint JY 25-32. 21 Plaintiff's document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these 22 allegations. Good causes existing, this motion should be granted. 23 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 24 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the 25 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 26 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 28 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing requests for permits, applications for permits, PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES inspection reports, and/or actual permits obtained from CITY RELATED TO the PROPERTY. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 7. Due to Covid, I am on a waiting list for a contractor/permit for a garage ADU conversion... FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: No further written response was provided, REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 10 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 11 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 12 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint J] 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 13 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs, Complaint Jf 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 14 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by 15 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 16 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 17 of Civil Procedure section 2031,210, which requires: 18 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 19 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 20 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 21 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 22 requests at hand, 23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage and shed into a residential 24 area without getting permits. Complaint {] 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this 25 litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even 26 facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v, Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 27 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers’ Mut. Ins, Co.) (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 1599, 1611, 28 (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal. App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES text), No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017,.010 have been satisfied, Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production, Code Civ, Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a residential area without getting permits. Complaint {J 25-32. Plaintiff's document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations, Good causes existing, this motion should be granted, 10 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 11 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiffto gather evidence, ascertain the 12 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 13 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 15 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing that YOU obtained a permit from CITY 16 RELATED TO convert the garage at the PROPERTY to a kitchen and/or living space or 17 approving such conversion, 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 19 8, Same answer as #7 20 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 21 No further written response was provided. 22 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 23 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 24 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 25 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 26 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., § 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 27 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint 9{ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 28 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint {Jf 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031,010(a), any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031,210, which requires: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; (3) An objection to the particular demand. Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the requests at hand. 10 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area. 11 Complaint J§ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably 12 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez 13 v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct. 14 (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial 15 Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been 16 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production 17 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to 18 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 19 section 2017.010 have been satisfied. 20 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc, § 21 2031,310(b)(1), Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 22 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint ff 25-32. Plaintiff's document 23 requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes 24 existing, this motion should be granted. 25 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 26 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiffto gather evidence, ascertain the 27 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 28 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing that YOU re-converted the garage at the PROPERTY back into a garage, including but not limited to photographs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 9, Same answer as #7 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9; No further written response was provided. REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 10 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 11 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 12 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., §[ 2, Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 13 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint {§ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 14 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint {{ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 15 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010(a), any party may obtain discovery by 16 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 17 of any other party to the action. Defendant’s response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 18 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 19 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 20 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 21 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 22 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 23 requests at hand. 24 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area. 25 Complaint {¥ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably 26 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez 27 vy. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct. 28 (Lawyers' Mut, Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Western Agency, Inc, (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text), No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought, The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied. Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031,310(b)(1). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint J] 25-32. Plaintiff's document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations, Good causes 10 existing, this motion should be granted. ll Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 12 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiffto gather evidence, ascertain the 13 identity and contact information of relevant third parties, assess its causes of action, and potentially 14 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO YOUR conversion of an outdoor shed at the 17 PROPERTY to a living space including for use as a bedroom or bedrooms, including but not 18 limited to photographs, receipts, permits, and construction contracts. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 20 10. James Nguyen has the report from Albert Torres stating the outside shed was used as 21 an office and not a living space.... 22 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 23 No further written response was provided. 24 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 25 Plaintiff, a homeowners’ association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a home