Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
CHRISTOPHER E. HASKELL, State Bar No. 126745 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
SHANNON DENATALE BOYD, State Bar No. 273574 2/6/2023 3:33 PM
2 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP By: Narzralli Baksh , Deputy
200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor
3 Santa Barbara, California 93101
4 Telephone: (805) 962-0011
Facsimile: (805) 965-3978
5 ceh@ppplaw.com, sdb@ppplaw.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
STORK_E RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA -ANACAPA DIVISION
11 STORK_E 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 Ofl\:Jotion
17 And Motion To Compel, Declaration Of
Defendants. Christopher E. Haskell]
18
Date: May 1, 2023
19 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept: 5
20
21
Plaintiff Starke Ranch Master Association submits the following Separate Statement,
22
23 pursuant to California Rule of Court 3 .13 4 5, in support of its Motion for an Order compelling
24 Defendant Janice Bilotti, Individually and as Trustee of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated
25 May 19, 2005 ("Defendant") to comply with Plaintiff to Provide Further Discovery Responses to
Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set One, and to Produce Documents.
26
27
28
PRICE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
2 DEFINITIONS
3 1. "DOCUMENT", "WRITING" and "WRlTINGS" shall have the same meaning as
4 is 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,
6 spreadsheets, recordings, correspondence, letters, orders, Purchase Orders, e-mails, texts, instant
7 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,
1o 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 exchange 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.
22 4. As used in these requests, the term "JANICE BILOTTI" 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 on 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
PRJCE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 its behalf, and shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within
2 the scope of the requested information that which might otherwise be construed to be outside of its
3 scope.
4 6. As used in these requests, the term "PROPERTY" shall mean and refer to 6838
5 Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 93117, APN 073-490-06-00-2.
6 7. As used in these requests, the term "CITY" shall mean and refer to the City of Goleta
7 located in California.
8 8. As used in these requests, the term "LEASE AGREEMENT(S)" shall mean and
9 refer to all agreements for renting or otherwise residing at the PROPERTY, including any portion
1O 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 Baiiline 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, a homeowners' 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
24 located at 683 8 Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 9311 7 ("683 8 Silkberry Lane"). Complaint ,r,r
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 ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
28 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0lO(a), any party may obtain discovery by
PRICE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
2 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
3 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
4 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
5 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
6 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
7 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
8 requests at hand.
9 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's fence violates the CC&Rs. Complaint ~~ 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 2031.31 0(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~~ 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
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
2 Any and all COMMUNICATIONS, including but not limited to COMMUNICATIONS
3 with medical professionals, RELATED TO the fence at the PROPERTY.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
5 2. James Nguyen has a letter from my doctor/psychiatrist relating to my disability and the
6 fence ...
7 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
8 No further written response was provided.
9 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
1o 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
14 located at 6838 Silkbeny Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
15 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
16 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(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 paiiicular 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 ,r,r 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
PRJCE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins.
2 Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc.
3 (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist
4 with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible
5 evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
6 admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010
7 have been satisfied.
8 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
9 2031.31 0(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 ,r,r 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, asce1iain 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 homeowriers' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowrier,
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
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
2 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
3 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
4 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(a), any party may obtain discovery by
5 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
6 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
7 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
8 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
9 (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 ,r 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 2031.31 0(b )(1 ). Plaintiffs 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
27 condominium. Complaint ,r 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
PRJCE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
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.
6 _REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing the number of bedrooms at the PROPERTY.
8 _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 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,1 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
17 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,1~ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
18 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint~~ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
19 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.01 0(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
PRJCE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
SANT A BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 by renting out portions of her 3-bedroom home to as many as 10 to 20 students at a time. Complaint
2 ,r,r 20-24. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff
3 in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (City
4 (~[ San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct. (Lawyers' Mut.
5 Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewartv. Colonial Western Agency, Inc.
6 (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist
7 with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible
8 evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
9 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 2031.31 0(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 ,r,r 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, asce1iain 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
27 that we are waiting on a permit ...
28 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
PRICE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
No further written response was provided.
2 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE JS REQUIRED:
3 Plaintiff, a homeowners' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
4 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
5 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
6 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,i 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
7 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,i~ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
8 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,i~ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
9 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0lO(a), any party may obtain discovery by
1O 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 paiiy lacks the ability to comply;
15 (3) An objection to the paiiicular 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 ,i~ 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 v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct.
22 (Lawyers' Nfut. 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
& PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 2031.31 0(b )(1 ). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
2 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint 1if 25-32. Plaintiffs document
3 requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes
4 existing, this motion should be granted.
5 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery
6 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, asce1iain the
7 identity and contact information of relevant third pmiies, assess its causes of action, and potentially
8 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives.
9 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
25 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
26 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
27 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(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
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
2 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
3 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
4 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
5 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
6 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
7 requests at hand.
8 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a
9 residential area. Complaint il~ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might
IO reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement.
11 Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan 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 2031.31 0(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 ,i,i 25-32.
21 Plaintiffs 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
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
inspection reports, and/or actual permits obtained from CITY RELATED TO the PROPERTY.
2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
3 7. Due to Covid, I am on a waiting list for a contractor/permit for a garage ADU
4 convers10n ...
5 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
6 No further written response was provided.
7 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
8 Plaintiff, a homeowners' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
9 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
1o negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
11 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ir 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
12 located at 6838 Silkbcny Lane. Complaint ,i,i 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
13 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,i,i 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
14 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0lO(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 pmiicular 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 ,i,i 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
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought.
2 The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly
3 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the
4 requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied.
5 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
6 2031. 31 0(b )( 1). Plaintiff's causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
7 illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a residential area without getting permits.
8 Complaint i1i125-32. Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts
9 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 Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the
12 identity and contact information of relevant third paiiies, 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 conve1i 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
27 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
28 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010( a), any party may obtain discovery by
2 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
3 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
4 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
5 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the pmiicular demand;
6 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply;
7 (3) An objection to the pmiicular demand.
8 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
9 requests at hand.
1o Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area.
11 Complaint ,r,r 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 ofSan 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); Stevvart 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 2031.31 0(b )(1 ). Plaintiff's causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
22 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint ,r,r 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 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
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 _REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
2 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing that YOU re-converted the garage at the
3 PROPERTY back into a garage, including but not limited to photographs.
4 _RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
5 9. Same answer as #7
6 _FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
7 No further written response was provided.
8 _REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:
9 Plaintiff, a homeowners' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner,
1o 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., ii 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
13 located at 6838 Silkbeny Lane. Complaint ,i,i 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
14 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,i14, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
15 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0IO(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 1i! 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 v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan 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
PRJCE, POSTEL
&PARMALLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
l Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been
2 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production
3 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to
4 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure
5 section 2017.010 have been satisfied.
6 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. §
7 2031.31 0(b)(1 ). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant
8 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint ,r,r 25-32. Plaintiffs document
9 requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes
10 existing, this motion should be granted.
11 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discove1y
12 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to 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 homeowner,
26 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2)
27 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
28 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property
PRICE, POSTEL
& PARMA LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE ST ATE ME NT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint iii! 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner
2 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,ii] 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2.
3 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(a), any party may obtain discovery by
4 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control
5 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code
6 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires:
7 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand;
8 (2) A representation that the pmiy lacks the ability to comply;
9 (3) An objection to the particular demand.
10 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the
11 requests at hand.
12 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted an outdoor shed into a residential area.
13 Complaint ,i,i 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably
14 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez
15 v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct.
16 (Lawyers' l,.;fut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stevvart v. Colonial
17 Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been
18 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production
19 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to
20 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly,
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara CHRISTOPHER E. HASKELL, State Bar No. 126745 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer SHANNON DENATALE BOYD, State Bar No. 273574 2/6/2023 3:33 PM 2 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP By: Narzralli Baksh , Deputy 200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor 3 Santa Barbara, California 93101 4 Telephone: (805) 962-0011 Facsimile: (805) 965-3978 5 ceh@ppplaw.com, sdb@ppplaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff STORK_E RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA -ANACAPA DIVISION 11 STORK_E 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 Ofl\:Jotion 17 And Motion To Compel, Declaration Of Defendants. Christopher E. Haskell] 18 Date: May 1, 2023 19 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: 5 20 21 Plaintiff Starke Ranch Master Association submits the following Separate Statement, 22 23 pursuant to California Rule of Court 3 .13 4 5, in support of its Motion for an Order compelling 24 Defendant Janice Bilotti, Individually and as Trustee of the Janice Bilotti Revocable Trust Dated 25 May 19, 2005 ("Defendant") to comply with Plaintiff to Provide Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Production, Set One, and to Produce Documents. 26 27 28 PRICE, POSTEL &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE 2 DEFINITIONS 3 1. "DOCUMENT", "WRITING" and "WRlTINGS" shall have the same meaning as 4 is 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, 6 spreadsheets, recordings, correspondence, letters, orders, Purchase Orders, e-mails, texts, instant 7 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, 1o 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 exchange 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. 22 4. As used in these requests, the term "JANICE BILOTTI" 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 on 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 PRJCE, POSTEL &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 its behalf, and shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within 2 the scope of the requested information that which might otherwise be construed to be outside of its 3 scope. 4 6. As used in these requests, the term "PROPERTY" shall mean and refer to 6838 5 Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 93117, APN 073-490-06-00-2. 6 7. As used in these requests, the term "CITY" shall mean and refer to the City of Goleta 7 located in California. 8 8. As used in these requests, the term "LEASE AGREEMENT(S)" shall mean and 9 refer to all agreements for renting or otherwise residing at the PROPERTY, including any portion 1O 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 Baiiline 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, a homeowners' 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 24 located at 683 8 Silkberry Lane, Goleta, California, 9311 7 ("683 8 Silkberry Lane"). Complaint ,r,r 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 ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 28 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0lO(a), any party may obtain discovery by PRICE, POSTEL &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 2 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 3 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 4 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 5 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 6 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 7 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 8 requests at hand. 9 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's fence violates the CC&Rs. Complaint ~~ 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 2031.31 0(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~~ 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 &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 2 Any and all COMMUNICATIONS, including but not limited to COMMUNICATIONS 3 with medical professionals, RELATED TO the fence at the PROPERTY. 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 5 2. James Nguyen has a letter from my doctor/psychiatrist relating to my disability and the 6 fence ... 7 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 8 No further written response was provided. 9 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 1o 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 14 located at 6838 Silkbeny Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 15 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 16 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(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 paiiicular 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 ,r,r 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 PRJCE, POSTEL &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. Ins. 2 Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. 3 (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist 4 with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible 5 evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 6 admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 7 have been satisfied. 8 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § 9 2031.31 0(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 ,r,r 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, asce1iain 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 homeowriers' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowrier, 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 &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 2 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 3 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 4 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(a), any party may obtain discovery by 5 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 6 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 7 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 8 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 9 (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 ,r 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 2031.31 0(b )(1 ). Plaintiffs 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 27 condominium. Complaint ,r 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 PRJCE, POSTEL &PARMALLP 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. 6 _REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 7 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing the number of bedrooms at the PROPERTY. 8 _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 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,1 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 17 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,1~ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 18 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint~~ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 19 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.01 0(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 PRJCE, POSTEL &PARMALLP SANT A BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 by renting out portions of her 3-bedroom home to as many as 10 to 20 students at a time. Complaint 2 ,r,r 20-24. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably assist Plaintiff 3 in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (City 4 (~[ San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct. (Lawyers' Mut. 5 Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stewartv. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. 6 (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist 7 with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production will lead to admissible 8 evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 9 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 2031.31 0(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 ,r,r 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, asce1iain 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 27 that we are waiting on a permit ... 28 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: PRICE, POSTEL &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES No further written response was provided. 2 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE JS REQUIRED: 3 Plaintiff, a homeowners' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 4 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 5 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 6 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,i 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 7 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,i~ 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 8 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,i~ 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 9 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0lO(a), any party may obtain discovery by 1O 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 paiiy lacks the ability to comply; 15 (3) An objection to the paiiicular 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 ,i~ 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 v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup. Ct. 22 (Lawyers' Nfut. 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 & PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 2031.31 0(b )(1 ). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 2 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint 1if 25-32. Plaintiffs document 3 requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes 4 existing, this motion should be granted. 5 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discovery 6 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to gather evidence, asce1iain the 7 identity and contact information of relevant third pmiies, assess its causes of action, and potentially 8 negotiate a settlement so that the parties can move on with their lives. 9 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 25 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 26 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 27 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(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 &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 2 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 3 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 4 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 5 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 6 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 7 requests at hand. 8 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a 9 residential area. Complaint il~ 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might IO reasonably assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. 11 Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan 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 2031.31 0(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 ,i,i 25-32. 21 Plaintiffs 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 &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES inspection reports, and/or actual permits obtained from CITY RELATED TO the PROPERTY. 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 3 7. Due to Covid, I am on a waiting list for a contractor/permit for a garage ADU 4 convers10n ... 5 FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 6 No further written response was provided. 7 REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 8 Plaintiff, a homeowners' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 9 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 1o negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 11 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ir 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 12 located at 6838 Silkbcny Lane. Complaint ,i,i 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 13 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,i,i 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 14 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0lO(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 pmiicular 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 ,i,i 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 &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 text). No privileges have been asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. 2 The requests for production will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly 3 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the 4 requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 have been satisfied. 5 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § 6 2031. 31 0(b )( 1). Plaintiff's causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 7 illegally converted the garage and outdoor shed into a residential area without getting permits. 8 Complaint i1i125-32. Plaintiffs document requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts 9 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 Plaintiff to gather evidence, ascertain the 12 identity and contact information of relevant third paiiies, 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 conve1i 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., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 27 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint ,r,r 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 28 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,r,r 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. PRICE, POSTEL & PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.010( a), any party may obtain discovery by 2 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 3 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 4 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 5 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the pmiicular demand; 6 (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; 7 (3) An objection to the pmiicular demand. 8 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 9 requests at hand. 1o Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted the garage into a residential area. 11 Complaint ,r,r 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 ofSan 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); Stevvart 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 2031.31 0(b )(1 ). Plaintiff's causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 22 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint ,r,r 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 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 &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 _REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 2 Any and all DOCUMENTS evidencing that YOU re-converted the garage at the 3 PROPERTY back into a garage, including but not limited to photographs. 4 _RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 5 9. Same answer as #7 6 _FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 7 No further written response was provided. 8 _REASON FURTHER RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: 9 Plaintiff, a homeowners' association, brought this lawsuit against Defendant, a homeowner, 1o 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., ii 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property 13 located at 6838 Silkbeny Lane. Complaint ,i,i 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 14 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,i14, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 15 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0IO(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 1i! 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 v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan 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 PRJCE, POSTEL &PARMALLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES l Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been 2 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production 3 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to 4 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 5 section 2017.010 have been satisfied. 6 Finally, there is good cause justifying the requests for production. Code Civ. Proc. § 7 2031.31 0(b)(1 ). Plaintiffs causes of action allege specific facts including allegations that Defendant 8 illegally converted the garage into a residential area. Complaint ,r,r 25-32. Plaintiffs document 9 requests are all targeted at seeking evidence of the facts underlying these allegations. Good causes 10 existing, this motion should be granted. 11 Plaintiff is currently being deprived of essential information. Complete, verified discove1y 12 responses with a complete document production will allow Plaintiff to 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 homeowner, 26 on July 11, 2022, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract/CC&Rs; (2) 27 negligence; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and 28 (5) injunctive relief. Haskell Dec., ,r 2. Defendant owns the residential, 3-bedroom real property PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP SANTA BARBARA, CA SEP ARA TE ST ATE ME NT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 1 located at 6838 Silkberry Lane. Complaint iii! 5, 6. As a member of Plaintiff homeowner 2 association, Defendant is subject to and must follow the CC&Rs. Complaint ,ii] 4, 5, Ex. 1, 2. 3 Pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 2031.0l0(a), any party may obtain discovery by 4 inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling land or other property in the possession, custody, or control 5 of any other party to the action. Defendant's response fails to comply with the provisions of Code 6 of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, which requires: 7 (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand; 8 (2) A representation that the pmiy lacks the ability to comply; 9 (3) An objection to the particular demand. 10 Defendant failed to provide this information or produce responsive documents relating to the 11 requests at hand. 12 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant illegally converted an outdoor shed into a residential area. 13 Complaint ,i,i 25-32. The documents sought are relevant to this litigation and might reasonably 14 assist Plaintiff in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or even facilitating settlement. Gonzalez 15 v. Sup.Ct. (City ofSan Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. 16 (Lawyers' l,.;fut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611, (citing text); Stevvart v. Colonial 17 Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013 (citing text). No privileges have been 18 asserted and none exist with respect to the documents being sought. The requests for production 19 will lead to admissible evidence or, at the very least, are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to 20 the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly,