On March 15, 2022 a
82661Plain0063e9
was filed
involving a dispute between
Arntsen Family Partnership, Lp,
Arntsen, Robert,
Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship,
Ho, John,
Huang, Quanyu,
Lee, Mary,
and
Black Horse Holdings, Llc,
Bragg, David M,
Caproc Iii, Llc,
Davis, Gregory J,
Huang, Quanyu,
Huish, Dale,
Justesen, Jason,
Kludt, Kurtis Stuart,
Mclan Trust,
Monks Family Trust,
Oneil, Scott,
Paramont Capital, Llc,
Paramont Woodside, Llc,
Silicon Valley Real Ventures, Llc,
Stoker, Diane,
Stoker, Phil,
Svrv 385 Moore, Llc,
Svrv 387 Moore, Llc,
Teh Capital, Llc,
Wild Rose Irrevocable Trust,
Wolfe, Kevin,
Wz Partners Llc,
for (16) Unlimited Fraud
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720)
1 EIMER STAHL LLP
99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 600
2
San Jose, CA 95113-1605
3 Telephone: (408) 889-1668
Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com
4
Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert Arntsen,
5 Mary Lee. Arntsen Family Partnership, LP,
6 Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship,
John Ho, and Jacky Huang
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family Case No. 22-CIV-01148
11 Partnership, LP; Brian Christopher Dunn
Custodianship, John Ho, and Quanyu Huang; Dept. 21
12
13 Plaintiffs, Hon. Robert D. Foiles
v.
14 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
15 LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
16 Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin Wolfe; AGAINST DEENDANTS DAVID M.
Jason Justesen; Paramont Woodside, LLC; BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL
17 Paramont Capital, LLC; Monks Family Trust; VENTURES, LLC
TEH Capital LLC; Caproc III, LLC; WZ
18 Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose Date: September 15, 2023
Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings, Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil; Dept.: 21
20 Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20,
21 Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
1 On August 18, 2023, this Court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs’ June 12, 2023 motion
2 to compel and for sanctions against Defendants Bragg and SVRV (collectively, “Bragg”) to
3 September 15, 2023 at 9:00am. This Court “strongly encouraged” the parties “to meet and confer
4 prior to Sept. 15 and attempt to resolve, if only in part, the issues raised in the Motion.” Plaintiffs’
5 motion concerns discovery that Bragg has refused to provide for well over a year, during which
6 time Bragg also spoliated all his text messages and explicitly refused to telephonically meet and
7 confer with Plaintiffs. Bragg’s conduct since August 18, 2023 further demonstrates why this Court
8 should impose terminating sanctions.
9 A. Bragg’s Continued Refusal to Telephonically Meet and Confer
10 On August 17, 2023, Bragg’s counsel emailed Plaintiffs saying he had reviewed this
11 Court’s tentative ruling. He stated that he would be available “all next week to chat.” (Ex. A.) The
12 undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel responded the same evening, stating: “I am currently available
13 anytime next week other than from 9am to 11am PST on Tuesday. Please let me know what time
14 works for you.” (Id.)
15 Bragg’s counsel did not respond for three weeks. On Wednesday, September 6, 2023,
16 Bragg’s counsel finally wrote, “I am available any time on Friday after 12:00 p.m. CT, through
17 the weekend, and anytime next week.” (Id.) The next day, Thursday, September 7, 2023, the
18 undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel responded, “I am available at 1pm CST tomorrow, September 8,
19 and can be reached at 408-889-1668.” (Id.) In an effort to focus their discussion, Plaintiffs also
20 attached a letter regarding Bragg’s ongoing discovery deficiencies. (Ex. B.)
21 On Friday, September 8, 2023, Bragg’s counsel refused to telephonically meet and confer
22 with Plaintiffs. Instead, he wrote, “I understand you have availability at 1:00 p.m. today, but I think
23 it is better to continue meeting and conferring in writing.” (Ex. A.) 1 The email bizarrely accused
24 Plaintiffs of failing to suggest “solutions” to Bragg’s ongoing discovery failures. (Id.) It also
25
26 1
Since the inception of this case in March 2022, Plaintiffs have been able to speak telephonically with
Bragg’s counsel only twice—once in July 2022 and once in March 2023—both times after this Court
27 entered defaults against Bragg—despite making numerous requests to meet and confer. (Reply 7.) Bragg’s
counsel’s repeated refusal to engage in productive dialogue illustrates that discovery in this case will remain
28 stalled absent serious sanctions.
2
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
1 described Plaintiffs’ concern about allowing Bragg to self-collect documents as “ludicrous,” even
2 though the IDC Commissioner expressly and repeatedly called this conduct improper—a
3 conclusion highlighted by Bragg’s brazen decision to spoliate his text messages approximately
4 eight months after receiving RFPs asking for texts, and approximately four months after Plaintiffs’
5 counsel expressly warned Bragg’s counsel that Bragg would likely do this. (Reply 5, 8.) The email
6 also made several false assertions about Plaintiffs’ prior representations and erroneously contended
7 that the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the automatic stay somehow limited the scope of
8 discovery—or even allowable claims—in this Court. (Ex. A.) Plaintiffs responded with a letter on
9 September 11, 2023, that corrected these errors and once again offered to meet and confer by
10 telephone. (Ex. C.)
11 In short, notwithstanding this recent Court’s admonition that the parties should attempt to
12 resolve the outstanding discovery disputes, Bragg and his counsel have continued their now 18-
13 month long pattern of obfuscating, making false statements, and asserting frivolous legal
14 arguments in an effort to avoid discovery.
15 B. Bragg’s Continued Refusal to Provide Discovery
16 Despite his repeated assurances—including to the IDC Commissioner—that he would
17 supplement his deficient and missing written discovery responses, Bragg has provided no
18 additional written discovery responses since September 2022—even in the face of multiple IDCs
19 and this Court’s August 18, 2023 continuance. (Vierra Decl. ¶ 6.) In fact, Bragg has still failed to
20 provide responses to discovery requests to which he has not even asserted objections. (Mot. 12.)
21 Bragg has also continued to skip all depositions, including those of SVRV 385 Moore, LLC,
22 SVRV 387 Moore, LLC, Paramont Capital, LLC, Paramont Woodside, LLC, Gregory J. Davis,
23 Kevin Wolfe, Robert Arntsen, Mary Lee, the Arntsen Family Partnership, LP, and the Brian
24 Christopher Dunn Custodianship. (Vierra Decl. ¶ 7.)
25 C. Bragg’s Continued Obstruction
26 As detailed in Plaintiffs’ motion, because Bragg has obstructed Plaintiffs’ access to
27 thousands of responsive documents—and intentionally spoliated all his text messages—Plaintiffs
28 have had to seek responsive documents in Bragg’s possession, custody, and control from third
3
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
1 parties at substantial expense. (Mot. 16.) Two third parties—Kurtis Kludt and Lukas Leuthold—
2 provided Plaintiffs access to their SVRV Google accounts of which Bragg is the administrator.
3 (Vierra Decl. ¶ 5.) Bragg should have provided Plaintiffs access to those documents over a year
4 ago, but he refused. (Id.) Yesterday, Plaintiffs learned that these accounts have been suspended,
5 preventing Plaintiffs from accessing thousands of indisputably responsive documents. (Exs. D, E.)
6 * * *
7 Bragg’s discovery abuses began a year-and-a-half ago when Plaintiffs commenced this
8 case. Bragg’s recent conduct only confirms that he will continue to thumb his nose at his discovery
9 obligations—and this Court and its officers—as long as this Court allows him to do so. This Court
10 should put an end to this obstruction, impose monetary and terminating sanctions, and allow
11 Plaintiffs to return to bankruptcy court to pursue their adversary proceeding.
12
13
Dated: September 12, 2023 By: ______________________
14
Collin J. Vierra
15 EIMER STAHL, LLP
16
Attorney for Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY
Preview
Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720) 1 EIMER STAHL LLP 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 600 2 San Jose, CA 95113-1605 3 Telephone: (408) 889-1668 Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert Arntsen, 5 Mary Lee. Arntsen Family Partnership, LP, 6 Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship, John Ho, and Jacky Huang 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family Case No. 22-CIV-01148 11 Partnership, LP; Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship, John Ho, and Quanyu Huang; Dept. 21 12 13 Plaintiffs, Hon. Robert D. Foiles v. 14 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 15 LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS 16 Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin Wolfe; AGAINST DEENDANTS DAVID M. Jason Justesen; Paramont Woodside, LLC; BRAGG AND SILICON VALLEY REAL 17 Paramont Capital, LLC; Monks Family Trust; VENTURES, LLC TEH Capital LLC; Caproc III, LLC; WZ 18 Partners, LLC; McClan Trust; Wild Rose Date: September 15, 2023 Irrevocable Trust; Black Horse Holdings, Time: 9:00 a.m. 19 LLC; Phil Stoker; Diane Stoker; Scott O’Neil; Dept.: 21 20 Dale Huish; and DOES 1–20, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY 1 On August 18, 2023, this Court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs’ June 12, 2023 motion 2 to compel and for sanctions against Defendants Bragg and SVRV (collectively, “Bragg”) to 3 September 15, 2023 at 9:00am. This Court “strongly encouraged” the parties “to meet and confer 4 prior to Sept. 15 and attempt to resolve, if only in part, the issues raised in the Motion.” Plaintiffs’ 5 motion concerns discovery that Bragg has refused to provide for well over a year, during which 6 time Bragg also spoliated all his text messages and explicitly refused to telephonically meet and 7 confer with Plaintiffs. Bragg’s conduct since August 18, 2023 further demonstrates why this Court 8 should impose terminating sanctions. 9 A. Bragg’s Continued Refusal to Telephonically Meet and Confer 10 On August 17, 2023, Bragg’s counsel emailed Plaintiffs saying he had reviewed this 11 Court’s tentative ruling. He stated that he would be available “all next week to chat.” (Ex. A.) The 12 undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel responded the same evening, stating: “I am currently available 13 anytime next week other than from 9am to 11am PST on Tuesday. Please let me know what time 14 works for you.” (Id.) 15 Bragg’s counsel did not respond for three weeks. On Wednesday, September 6, 2023, 16 Bragg’s counsel finally wrote, “I am available any time on Friday after 12:00 p.m. CT, through 17 the weekend, and anytime next week.” (Id.) The next day, Thursday, September 7, 2023, the 18 undersigned Plaintiffs’ counsel responded, “I am available at 1pm CST tomorrow, September 8, 19 and can be reached at 408-889-1668.” (Id.) In an effort to focus their discussion, Plaintiffs also 20 attached a letter regarding Bragg’s ongoing discovery deficiencies. (Ex. B.) 21 On Friday, September 8, 2023, Bragg’s counsel refused to telephonically meet and confer 22 with Plaintiffs. Instead, he wrote, “I understand you have availability at 1:00 p.m. today, but I think 23 it is better to continue meeting and conferring in writing.” (Ex. A.) 1 The email bizarrely accused 24 Plaintiffs of failing to suggest “solutions” to Bragg’s ongoing discovery failures. (Id.) It also 25 26 1 Since the inception of this case in March 2022, Plaintiffs have been able to speak telephonically with Bragg’s counsel only twice—once in July 2022 and once in March 2023—both times after this Court 27 entered defaults against Bragg—despite making numerous requests to meet and confer. (Reply 7.) Bragg’s counsel’s repeated refusal to engage in productive dialogue illustrates that discovery in this case will remain 28 stalled absent serious sanctions. 2 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY 1 described Plaintiffs’ concern about allowing Bragg to self-collect documents as “ludicrous,” even 2 though the IDC Commissioner expressly and repeatedly called this conduct improper—a 3 conclusion highlighted by Bragg’s brazen decision to spoliate his text messages approximately 4 eight months after receiving RFPs asking for texts, and approximately four months after Plaintiffs’ 5 counsel expressly warned Bragg’s counsel that Bragg would likely do this. (Reply 5, 8.) The email 6 also made several false assertions about Plaintiffs’ prior representations and erroneously contended 7 that the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the automatic stay somehow limited the scope of 8 discovery—or even allowable claims—in this Court. (Ex. A.) Plaintiffs responded with a letter on 9 September 11, 2023, that corrected these errors and once again offered to meet and confer by 10 telephone. (Ex. C.) 11 In short, notwithstanding this recent Court’s admonition that the parties should attempt to 12 resolve the outstanding discovery disputes, Bragg and his counsel have continued their now 18- 13 month long pattern of obfuscating, making false statements, and asserting frivolous legal 14 arguments in an effort to avoid discovery. 15 B. Bragg’s Continued Refusal to Provide Discovery 16 Despite his repeated assurances—including to the IDC Commissioner—that he would 17 supplement his deficient and missing written discovery responses, Bragg has provided no 18 additional written discovery responses since September 2022—even in the face of multiple IDCs 19 and this Court’s August 18, 2023 continuance. (Vierra Decl. ¶ 6.) In fact, Bragg has still failed to 20 provide responses to discovery requests to which he has not even asserted objections. (Mot. 12.) 21 Bragg has also continued to skip all depositions, including those of SVRV 385 Moore, LLC, 22 SVRV 387 Moore, LLC, Paramont Capital, LLC, Paramont Woodside, LLC, Gregory J. Davis, 23 Kevin Wolfe, Robert Arntsen, Mary Lee, the Arntsen Family Partnership, LP, and the Brian 24 Christopher Dunn Custodianship. (Vierra Decl. ¶ 7.) 25 C. Bragg’s Continued Obstruction 26 As detailed in Plaintiffs’ motion, because Bragg has obstructed Plaintiffs’ access to 27 thousands of responsive documents—and intentionally spoliated all his text messages—Plaintiffs 28 have had to seek responsive documents in Bragg’s possession, custody, and control from third 3 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY 1 parties at substantial expense. (Mot. 16.) Two third parties—Kurtis Kludt and Lukas Leuthold— 2 provided Plaintiffs access to their SVRV Google accounts of which Bragg is the administrator. 3 (Vierra Decl. ¶ 5.) Bragg should have provided Plaintiffs access to those documents over a year 4 ago, but he refused. (Id.) Yesterday, Plaintiffs learned that these accounts have been suspended, 5 preventing Plaintiffs from accessing thousands of indisputably responsive documents. (Exs. D, E.) 6 * * * 7 Bragg’s discovery abuses began a year-and-a-half ago when Plaintiffs commenced this 8 case. Bragg’s recent conduct only confirms that he will continue to thumb his nose at his discovery 9 obligations—and this Court and its officers—as long as this Court allows him to do so. This Court 10 should put an end to this obstruction, impose monetary and terminating sanctions, and allow 11 Plaintiffs to return to bankruptcy court to pursue their adversary proceeding. 12 13 Dated: September 12, 2023 By: ______________________ 14 Collin J. Vierra 15 EIMER STAHL, LLP 16 Attorney for Plaintiffs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY