On February 11, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bettis, Danny K,
Spitzzeri, Paul,
and
Spitzzeri, Paul,
for Trust
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
7 R 1 AL
1 PI W ARD J M1I I C R SI3 1
IIL I V T I I 3
2 AN tt G MII I R S 898
k c rzi 11 iller P N
3 97 Sky anvon Drive Suite 104
1Vlurri t
SIIPERl4JR
COUNTY QFCQURT
SAN F q FpRNIA
r 92563 f NJ pINt7
4 951 296 1775 T 1 hon AN F3ERNAR tIIVO L fSTF21CT
951t29b 1776 Facs rnil
5 7148 j 2 iZ
6 Attorneys for Petitioner
DANNY K BETTIS p F d u
7
a
SUPERIQR GOIJRT QF CAI IFOKNIA
9
m IN AND FOR T IE C O NTY OI SAN BERNAI2DIN0
10
11 In Re CASE NO TRUPS 2000017
12 MAE THERI SA DUFORD OPPOSITIQN TO AMENDED
REVOCABLI LIVING TRUST dated MOTION TO t UASH SUBFOENA
13 3une 7 1993 and Restatement of the DITCES TECUM
MAE THERESA DUFQRD
14 REVOCAI3LE LIVING TRUST dated I ATE I dovember 2 2020
M
July 10 2003 and SEC4ND TIME 830
IS A11 l NI T T AI 1D COMPLETE DEPT S37
RESTATrMENT OF MAE I HERESA
16 DUFORI7 REVOCABLE TRUST
AGREEMENT dated August 28 2009
17
18
19 Petitioner Danny K Bettis Petitioner submits the fo lowing Opposition to the
2 Amended Motion to Quash Motion filed by Respondent Paul Spitzzeri
21 Respondent
22 I INTRODUCTION
23 Respondent s Motion should be denied alang with Respondent s Request for
24 ttorneys Fees because Respondent puts forth misplaced legal arguments The
25 information sought in the Subpoena Duces I ecum goes ta the heart of the issues in this
26 probate proceeding Even when veighing the privacy interests of the Settlor the
27 halance tips in favor of pr4duction of the recards Petitioner alleges that Respc ndent has
28 mis used ar allowed others to mis use the funds in the Settlar s Bank Account at First
1 Oppasition t Amended Motion to Quash
1 Ha aiian Bank Despite numerous meet and confer effarts Respondent refused to
2 provide bank statements f or the Settlor s account at First Hawaiian T e requested bank
3 statements will conclusively show whether Respondent has or has not mis used the
4 account Records obtained from Settlor s Investment Account sho v that significant
5 sums of 100 OQ0 have been transferred to Settlar s bank accaunt
money approYimately
6
at First Hawaiian Bank and Respondent refuses to provide any explanation as to how
7 those funds vere used
See Declaration of Ashley R Wedding f led concurrently
8 herewith and incorporated herein by reference
9 II LEGAL AUTHORITY
l0 A The Discavery Cvrle Applies fo all Prnbate Actions
11 Pursuant to Probate Code section 1000 the rules ofpractice applicable o civii
12 actions including discovery praceedings apply to and constitute the rules of practice
13 in proceedings under this cade A Plaintiff may at any time after ten 10 days have
l elapsed follc ing service afthe summons initiate discovery including by issuing a
IS subpoena duces tecum Cade af Civil Pracedure 2031 020 d I herefore Petitioner s
16 Subpaena was proper
17 Respondent obviously understands that because he propounded discovery to
IS Petitianer at the outset of this matter Therefore Respondent s arguments that the
19 discovery is somehow premature is fr nkly incarrect
20 B The Riglit of rivacy is Nvt Absolute
21 The Right of Privacy is a qualified and not an absolute right Financial
22
informatian may be subject ta disclosure even in the face of a privacy objection where
23 the n cessity 4f the requested information outweighs the right to privacy Cobe ly v
24 SuperiQr Court 231 Cai App 2d 685 1965 In Coberly the Court determined that the
25
t eneficiary of a Trust was entitled to discovery including a full inspection of
26 docuinents so the beneficiary cauld litigate the issues of neglect by the Trustee
27
Tl e Trust its assets and office af Trustee is the subject of this proceeding
28 Petitioner is Settlar s son Petitioner is not seeking bank records of some stranger but
2 Opposition to Amended Motion to Quash
Document Filed Date
October 21, 2020
Case Filing Date
February 11, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
7 R 1 AL 1 PI W ARD J M1I I C R SI3 1 IIL I V T I I 3 2 AN tt G MII I R S 898 k c rzi 11 iller P N 3 97 Sky anvon Drive Suite 104 1Vlurri t SIIPERl4JR COUNTY QFCQURT SAN F q FpRNIA r 92563 f NJ pINt7 4 951 296 1775 T 1 hon AN F3ERNAR tIIVO L fSTF21CT 951t29b 1776 Facs rnil 5 7148 j 2 iZ 6 Attorneys for Petitioner DANNY K BETTIS p F d u 7 a SUPERIQR GOIJRT QF CAI IFOKNIA 9 m IN AND FOR T IE C O NTY OI SAN BERNAI2DIN0 10 11 In Re CASE NO TRUPS 2000017 12 MAE THERI SA DUFORD OPPOSITIQN TO AMENDED REVOCABLI LIVING TRUST dated MOTION TO t UASH SUBFOENA 13 3une 7 1993 and Restatement of the DITCES TECUM MAE THERESA DUFQRD 14 REVOCAI3LE LIVING TRUST dated I ATE I dovember 2 2020 M July 10 2003 and SEC4ND TIME 830 IS A11 l NI T T AI 1D COMPLETE DEPT S37 RESTATrMENT OF MAE I HERESA 16 DUFORI7 REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT dated August 28 2009 17 18 19 Petitioner Danny K Bettis Petitioner submits the fo lowing Opposition to the 2 Amended Motion to Quash Motion filed by Respondent Paul Spitzzeri 21 Respondent 22 I INTRODUCTION 23 Respondent s Motion should be denied alang with Respondent s Request for 24 ttorneys Fees because Respondent puts forth misplaced legal arguments The 25 information sought in the Subpoena Duces I ecum goes ta the heart of the issues in this 26 probate proceeding Even when veighing the privacy interests of the Settlor the 27 halance tips in favor of pr4duction of the recards Petitioner alleges that Respc ndent has 28 mis used ar allowed others to mis use the funds in the Settlar s Bank Account at First 1 Oppasition t Amended Motion to Quash 1 Ha aiian Bank Despite numerous meet and confer effarts Respondent refused to 2 provide bank statements f or the Settlor s account at First Hawaiian T e requested bank 3 statements will conclusively show whether Respondent has or has not mis used the 4 account Records obtained from Settlor s Investment Account sho v that significant 5 sums of 100 OQ0 have been transferred to Settlar s bank accaunt money approYimately 6 at First Hawaiian Bank and Respondent refuses to provide any explanation as to how 7 those funds vere used See Declaration of Ashley R Wedding f led concurrently 8 herewith and incorporated herein by reference 9 II LEGAL AUTHORITY l0 A The Discavery Cvrle Applies fo all Prnbate Actions 11 Pursuant to Probate Code section 1000 the rules ofpractice applicable o civii 12 actions including discovery praceedings apply to and constitute the rules of practice 13 in proceedings under this cade A Plaintiff may at any time after ten 10 days have l elapsed follc ing service afthe summons initiate discovery including by issuing a IS subpoena duces tecum Cade af Civil Pracedure 2031 020 d I herefore Petitioner s 16 Subpaena was proper 17 Respondent obviously understands that because he propounded discovery to IS Petitianer at the outset of this matter Therefore Respondent s arguments that the 19 discovery is somehow premature is fr nkly incarrect 20 B The Riglit of rivacy is Nvt Absolute 21 The Right of Privacy is a qualified and not an absolute right Financial 22 informatian may be subject ta disclosure even in the face of a privacy objection where 23 the n cessity 4f the requested information outweighs the right to privacy Cobe ly v 24 SuperiQr Court 231 Cai App 2d 685 1965 In Coberly the Court determined that the 25 t eneficiary of a Trust was entitled to discovery including a full inspection of 26 docuinents so the beneficiary cauld litigate the issues of neglect by the Trustee 27 Tl e Trust its assets and office af Trustee is the subject of this proceeding 28 Petitioner is Settlar s son Petitioner is not seeking bank records of some stranger but 2 Opposition to Amended Motion to Quash