Preview
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999)
—
MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION
133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403
PO
Pasadena, CA 91107
Phone: (626) 796-9998
FILED
WY
Fax: (626) 796-9992
Superior Court of California
He
County of Piaser
Attorneys for Defendant(s) JUN 13 2019
OH
R Jake Chatters
Dn
speoutive Officer & Clerk
By: O. Lucatuorto, Deputy
NN
eo
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Oo
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
=
© |=
FF
eo UNION INTERNATIONAL, ) Case No. S-CV 0042080
N
)
)
FF
Plaintiff, ) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ
BW
) NANGANO IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS
FF
vs. ) TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY
DH
ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND
FF
Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October ) Date: July 11, 2019
12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
ND
DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. ) Dept.: 42
Ff
BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The )
Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and) Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
SF
)
ODO
Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
)
YF
) Trial Date: None Set
Defendants. )
SC
NN
)
)
FSF
NY
)
N
I, Michael A.J. Nangano, declare:
ON
I am an attomey licensed to practice law in the State of California with the firm of
N
1.
NY
Michael AJ Nangano, A Law Corporation, attorneys of record for the Defendants in the within
Rak
HH
matter. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge, and if called to testify could
NY
competently testify thereto.
wo
BS
1
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO
2. This declaration is made to confirm my attempts to “meet and confer” with Plaintiff's
counsel regarding their responses to Defendants’ discovery remands as per CCP §2030.300 and
nN
local rules.
we
a, On May 20, 2019, we senta letter to Plaintiffs counsel regarding deficiencies in their
responses to our clients’ Special interrogatories, Set One. The May 20, 2019 letter is attached hereto
WN
as Exhibit 1.
4, On May 22, 2019, we received a response via email regarding Plaintiff's interpretation
~
of certain Special Interrogatory requests at issue. A copy of the March 22, 2019 letter from Lindsay
A. Morgan, Esq. is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
5. On May 28, 2019, our office sent correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel attempting to
meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's response to Request for Admission 8 (renumbered by Plaintiffs
as No.12. due to a clerical oversight). The May 28, 2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
6. On June 3, 2019. our office sent correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel requesting
supplemental responses to certain Special Interrogatories by June 7, 2019. A copy of the June 3,
2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
7. Plaintiffs response to our June 3, 2019 letter as well as previous correspondence is
attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on this 13th day of June, 2019, in Pasadena, California.
By/ j J
bo
bo
MICHAEL A. J.
Decla rant
i)
te
Facsimile signature as original
Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d)
5
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO
EXHIBIT 1
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO
A LAW CORPORATION
133 NORTH ALTADENA DRIVE, SUITE 403
PASADENA, CA 91107
Tel. (626) 796-9998
Fax: (213) 232-3252
May 20, 2019
Via Email
Shannon B. Jones, Esq.
Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc.
208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Pacific Union International. Inc. v. Ludwick, et al.
Case No.SCV0042080 (in Placer County, Superior Court)
Dear Ms. Jones:
We have received your client's responses to our client's Special Interrogatories, Set Number One and
note several deficiencies in the responses. Please consider this correspondence an attempt to meet and confer
as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure. The below listed deficiencies in your client's
responses must be addressed by May 27, 2019 or we will file a Motion to Compel.
Your response to special interrogatory No. 8 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the
interrogatory. The response only identified the DRE number in effect when the listing was opened, not all
numbers over the life of the listing as requested.
You failed to respond to special interrogatory No. 26 claiming you did not know what "Buyer"
meant. This is preposterous, particularly since you responded to the following interrogatory which used the
same term and in which you had no problem understanding the term "Buyer" referred to Eghbali. Answer
the interrogatory.
Your response to special interrogatory No. 28 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the
interrogatory. You failed to provide the dates for the conversations you referenced in your response.
Your response to special interrogatory No. 29 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the
interrogatory. You failed to identify the e-mails referenced in the response and completely failed to describe
the contents of the alleged Hildebrand/Ludwick conversations referenced in the response.
Your response to special interrogatory No. 31 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the
interrogatory. You failed to provide the identities of the individuals who provided the documents referenced
in the response.
You failed to respond to special interrogatory No. 32. Provide the names of those individuals who
provided any documents to the seller that referenced a dual agency situation existed as part of the transaction.
Shannon B. Jones, Esq.
May 20, 2019
Page 2
As to special interrogatory No. 33, you fail to provide any detail as to the four transactions
referenced out of purported third party privacy concerns. Granting for the moment this is a legitimate
concern on your part, it did not excuse you from describing the transactions with enough specificity for our
client to bring a motion to compel. Please provide us with a privilege log identifying the transactions. Of
course, this issue can be resolved if you prepare a confidentiality agreement regarding what will be disclosed
in this litigation and give notice to the involved third parties.
You failed to respond completely or at all to special interrogatories Nos. 60 and 61 claiming the term
“reasonable value" was not defined. The term was not defined as it was used in its common usage. If you
are still at a loss to its meaning, you may wish to invest in a dictionary.
We would appreciate you giving the above concerns your prompt attention. We remain,
Very truly yours,
Michael AJ Nangano
MAJN:pmp
cc: Lindsey A. Morgan, Esq. (via email)
Lawrence E. Skidmore
EXHIBIT 2
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
Writer's Direct No.: (925) 837-5577 x 317
Writer’s Direct Email: lam@sbj-law.com
May 22, 2019
Via Email and U.S. Mail
mnangano@lacounsel.com
Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq.
A Law Corporation
133 North Altadena Drive, Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91107
Re: Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick. et al.
Case No: SCV0042080
Dear Mr. Nangano:
I write to respond to your letters of May 8, May 16, May 20, and May 22, 2019,
regarding various issues you raise in response to the discovery responses and document
production of Pacific Union International, Inc. (“Pacific Union”).
As stated in Pacific Union’s the responses to requests for production numbers 15,
20, and 21, documents related to Pacific Union’s acquisition of Partners Trust were withheld to
protect confidential trade secret information, and will be produced only after entry of a stipulated
protective order. No other responsive documents were withheld.
Pacific Union’s 983-page document production was produced as the documents
are kept in the ordinary course of business.
Thank you for providing alternative dates for Mr. Booth’s deposition. We will re-
notice his deposition for June 19, 2019, assuming that date is still available. We are also
available on June 20, 2019, if June 19 no longer works. The amended deposition notice will
modify Requests for Production number 7, 8, and 13 to the relevant time frame, as you have
requested.
Danville | 208 W. E! Pintado Road, Danville, CA 94526 - Tel: (925) 837-2317 - Fax: (925) 837-4831
Sacramento | 8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95826 - Tel: (916) 368-1000
San Jose | 111 North Market Street, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95113 ° Tel: (408) 363-3635
(Please respond to Danville Office) | www.calrealestatelaw.com
Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq.
May 23, 2019
Page 2
With respect to Pacific Union’s responses to the eighty-three (83) Special
Interrogatories propounded by your office, Pacific Union agrees to supplement its response to
Special Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 31.
Your demands for additional information responsive to Special Interrogatory No.
33 are without any basis or legal justification. Pacific Union takes the privacy of its clients
seriously, and will not provide irrelevant, sensitive personal information about non-party clients
and unrelated transactions, particularly when those transactions have no relevance to your
clients’ refusal to pay an earned commission to Pacific Union.
As for your issues with Pacific Union’s responses to Special Interrogatories
number 8, 26, 28, 32, 60, and 61, those interrogatories range from being poorly worded to
incoherent. Pacific Union timely deciphered and responded to hundreds of your largely
unintelligible discovery requests in good faith and to the best of its ability. Pacific Union stands
on its responses to Special Interrogatories number 8, 26, 28, 32, 33, 60, and 61.
Very truly yaurs,
L A. MORGAN
cc (via email): Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq.
Patti Poole
EXHIBIT 3
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO
A LAW CORPORATION
133 NORTH ALTADENA DRIVE, SUITE 403
PASADENA, CA 91107
Tel. (626) 796-9998
Fax: (213) 232-3252
May 28, 2019
Via Email
Shannon B. Jones, Esq.
Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc.
208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick. et al.
Case No.SCV0042080 (in Placer County, Superior Court)
Dear Ms. Jones:
Weare in receipt of your client's responses to our Request for Admissions, Set No. 1. Please
consider this an attempt to "meet and confer" as required by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Your professed inability to answer the request for admission you have identified as No.12
(our numbering No.8) is unconvincing. First, of the terms you profess to be confused by,
"contractually bound"," listing agreement" and "done business", were all used in preceding RFAs
which you somehow managed to deny. Clearly, there is no confusion on your part as to how these
terms were being used as you understood them well enough to respond to other requests. Further,
your client is the only entity which would have knowledge of whether Partners Trust has ever done
business in Placer County. Comply with your client's obligations under the Civil Discovery Act and
either admit or deny the request.
Please provide a response to this request by June 3, 2019 or you will leave us no alternative but to
bring a Motion to Compel. We remain,
Very truly yours,
Michael AJ Nangano
MAJN:pmp
cc: Lindsey A. Morgan, Esq. (via email)
Lawrence E. Skidmore (via email)
EXHIBIT 4
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO
A Law CORPORATION
133 NORTH ALTADENA DRIVE, SUITE 403
PASADENA, CA 91107
Tel. (626) 796-9998
Fax: (213) 232-3252
June 3, 2019
Via Email
Shannon B. Jones, Esq.
Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc.
208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick, et al.
Case No.SCV0042080 (in Placer County, Superior Court)
Dear Ms. Jones:
In your correspondence of May 23, 2019, which responded to the concerns we raised as to
the deficiencies in your responses to our Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1, you indicated you would
be supplementing your responses to Special interrogatories Nos. 29 and 31. Please be advised that
if we have not received verified supplemental responses to these interrogatories by June 7, 2019, they
will be included along with the other interrogatories we requested further responses to in the Motion
to compel we will be shortly filing with the Court. We remain,
Very truly yours,
Michael AJ Nangano
MAJN:pmp
ce: Lindsey A. Morgan, Esq. (via email)
Lawrence E. Skidmore (via email)
EXHIBIT 5
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
Writer's Direct No.: (925) 837-2317
Writer's Direct Email: sbj@sbj-law.com
June 6, 2019
Via Email and U.S. Mail
mnangano@lacounsel.com
Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq.
A Law Corporation
133 North Altadena Drive, Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91107
Re: Pacific Union International. Inc. v. Ludwick, etal.
Case No: SCV0042080
Dear Mr. Nangano:
We write to respond to your latest round of letters dated May 24, May 28, June 3
(first letter), and June 3 (second letter), 2019, regarding various issues you raise in response to
-the discovery responses and document production of Pacific Union International, Inc. (“Pacific
Union”).
As we have previously represented, Pacific Union agrees to supplement its
response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 31. Pacific Union will provide supplemental
responses by June 21, 2019.
Pacific Union, as previously stated in our letter to you dated May 22, 2019,
withheld documents relating to its acquisition of Partners Trust until the parties have a signed
protective order entered in this matter. We will provide a proposed protective order for your
review by June 14, 2019.
Pacific Union declines to further respond to Request for Admission No. 12. The
request is unintelligible and incoherent. Pacific Union also stands on its responses to Form
Interrogatory 17.1 with respect to Requests for Admission Nos. 21 and 98-101 for the same
reasons. Finally, please provide any legal basis you think you have for your demand that Pacific
Union provide a declaration regarding maintaining documents in the course of business.
Danville | 208 W. El Pintado Road, Danville, CA 94526 - Tel: (925) 837-2317 - Fax: (925) 837-4831
Sacramento | 8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95826 - Tel: (916) 368-1000
San Jose | 111 North Market Strect, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95113: Tel: (408) 363-3635
(Please respond to Danville Office) | www.calrealcstatelaw.com
Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq.
June 6, 2019
Page 2
We remind you again that the listing agreement contains an attorneys’ fees
provision under which Pacific Union is entitled to recover all fees incurred in prosecuting this
action to recover its wrongfully withheld commission, including all fees incurred opposing
losing motions.
Very truly yours,
Bg
SHANNON B. JONES
SBJ:lam
cc (via email): Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq.
Patti Poole
PROOF OF SERVICE
[am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. | am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 133 N. Altadena Drive, Suite 403,
Pasadena, CA 91107.
On June 13, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as:
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO
COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
on all interested parties in this action by placing [X]atrue copy | ] the original thereof enclosed
in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST
[| (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error
was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a
record of the transmission.
(BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) Lam readily familiar with the firm’s practice for
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document
will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid
at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date
is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVER Y/COURIER) I served the above referenced document(s)
enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in
the ordinary course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on
attached sheet.
(BY E-MAIL) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing document(s) via e-mail to the
addressee(s). Courtesy copy
[X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
Executed on June 13, 2019, at Pasadena, California.
a
a
(< Patricia M. Poole
Facsimile signature as original
Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d)
PROOF OF SERVICE
MAILING LIST
Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick, et al.
Case No. SCV0042080
Shannon B. Jones, Esq.
Lindsey Morgan, Esq.
Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc.
208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, CA 94526
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO (SBN 133999) — MICHAEL AJ NANGANO, A LAW CORPORATION 133 No. Altadena Drive, Suite 403 PO Pasadena, CA 91107 Phone: (626) 796-9998 FILED WY Fax: (626) 796-9992 Superior Court of California He County of Piaser Attorneys for Defendant(s) JUN 13 2019 OH R Jake Chatters Dn speoutive Officer & Clerk By: O. Lucatuorto, Deputy NN eo SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oo IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER = © |= FF eo UNION INTERNATIONAL, ) Case No. S-CV 0042080 N ) ) FF Plaintiff, ) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ BW ) NANGANO IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FF vs. ) TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY DH ERIK LUDWICK, an individual AND FF Settlor of The Anything Trust dated October ) Date: July 11, 2019 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ND DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. ) Dept.: 42 Ff BOOTH, in his capacity as Trustee of The ) Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and) Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018 SF ) ODO Does 1 through 50, inclusive, ) YF ) Trial Date: None Set Defendants. ) SC NN ) ) FSF NY ) N I, Michael A.J. Nangano, declare: ON I am an attomey licensed to practice law in the State of California with the firm of N 1. NY Michael AJ Nangano, A Law Corporation, attorneys of record for the Defendants in the within Rak HH matter. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge, and if called to testify could NY competently testify thereto. wo BS 1 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO 2. This declaration is made to confirm my attempts to “meet and confer” with Plaintiff's counsel regarding their responses to Defendants’ discovery remands as per CCP §2030.300 and nN local rules. we a, On May 20, 2019, we senta letter to Plaintiffs counsel regarding deficiencies in their responses to our clients’ Special interrogatories, Set One. The May 20, 2019 letter is attached hereto WN as Exhibit 1. 4, On May 22, 2019, we received a response via email regarding Plaintiff's interpretation ~ of certain Special Interrogatory requests at issue. A copy of the March 22, 2019 letter from Lindsay A. Morgan, Esq. is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 5. On May 28, 2019, our office sent correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel attempting to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's response to Request for Admission 8 (renumbered by Plaintiffs as No.12. due to a clerical oversight). The May 28, 2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 6. On June 3, 2019. our office sent correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel requesting supplemental responses to certain Special Interrogatories by June 7, 2019. A copy of the June 3, 2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 7. Plaintiffs response to our June 3, 2019 letter as well as previous correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 13th day of June, 2019, in Pasadena, California. By/ j J bo bo MICHAEL A. J. Decla rant i) te Facsimile signature as original Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d) 5 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO EXHIBIT 1 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO A LAW CORPORATION 133 NORTH ALTADENA DRIVE, SUITE 403 PASADENA, CA 91107 Tel. (626) 796-9998 Fax: (213) 232-3252 May 20, 2019 Via Email Shannon B. Jones, Esq. Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc. 208 W. El Pintado Road Danville, CA 94526 Re: Pacific Union International. Inc. v. Ludwick, et al. Case No.SCV0042080 (in Placer County, Superior Court) Dear Ms. Jones: We have received your client's responses to our client's Special Interrogatories, Set Number One and note several deficiencies in the responses. Please consider this correspondence an attempt to meet and confer as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure. The below listed deficiencies in your client's responses must be addressed by May 27, 2019 or we will file a Motion to Compel. Your response to special interrogatory No. 8 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the interrogatory. The response only identified the DRE number in effect when the listing was opened, not all numbers over the life of the listing as requested. You failed to respond to special interrogatory No. 26 claiming you did not know what "Buyer" meant. This is preposterous, particularly since you responded to the following interrogatory which used the same term and in which you had no problem understanding the term "Buyer" referred to Eghbali. Answer the interrogatory. Your response to special interrogatory No. 28 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the interrogatory. You failed to provide the dates for the conversations you referenced in your response. Your response to special interrogatory No. 29 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the interrogatory. You failed to identify the e-mails referenced in the response and completely failed to describe the contents of the alleged Hildebrand/Ludwick conversations referenced in the response. Your response to special interrogatory No. 31 is deficient as you did not completely respond to the interrogatory. You failed to provide the identities of the individuals who provided the documents referenced in the response. You failed to respond to special interrogatory No. 32. Provide the names of those individuals who provided any documents to the seller that referenced a dual agency situation existed as part of the transaction. Shannon B. Jones, Esq. May 20, 2019 Page 2 As to special interrogatory No. 33, you fail to provide any detail as to the four transactions referenced out of purported third party privacy concerns. Granting for the moment this is a legitimate concern on your part, it did not excuse you from describing the transactions with enough specificity for our client to bring a motion to compel. Please provide us with a privilege log identifying the transactions. Of course, this issue can be resolved if you prepare a confidentiality agreement regarding what will be disclosed in this litigation and give notice to the involved third parties. You failed to respond completely or at all to special interrogatories Nos. 60 and 61 claiming the term “reasonable value" was not defined. The term was not defined as it was used in its common usage. If you are still at a loss to its meaning, you may wish to invest in a dictionary. We would appreciate you giving the above concerns your prompt attention. We remain, Very truly yours, Michael AJ Nangano MAJN:pmp cc: Lindsey A. Morgan, Esq. (via email) Lawrence E. Skidmore EXHIBIT 2 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. Writer's Direct No.: (925) 837-5577 x 317 Writer’s Direct Email: lam@sbj-law.com May 22, 2019 Via Email and U.S. Mail mnangano@lacounsel.com Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. A Law Corporation 133 North Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 Re: Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick. et al. Case No: SCV0042080 Dear Mr. Nangano: I write to respond to your letters of May 8, May 16, May 20, and May 22, 2019, regarding various issues you raise in response to the discovery responses and document production of Pacific Union International, Inc. (“Pacific Union”). As stated in Pacific Union’s the responses to requests for production numbers 15, 20, and 21, documents related to Pacific Union’s acquisition of Partners Trust were withheld to protect confidential trade secret information, and will be produced only after entry of a stipulated protective order. No other responsive documents were withheld. Pacific Union’s 983-page document production was produced as the documents are kept in the ordinary course of business. Thank you for providing alternative dates for Mr. Booth’s deposition. We will re- notice his deposition for June 19, 2019, assuming that date is still available. We are also available on June 20, 2019, if June 19 no longer works. The amended deposition notice will modify Requests for Production number 7, 8, and 13 to the relevant time frame, as you have requested. Danville | 208 W. E! Pintado Road, Danville, CA 94526 - Tel: (925) 837-2317 - Fax: (925) 837-4831 Sacramento | 8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95826 - Tel: (916) 368-1000 San Jose | 111 North Market Street, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95113 ° Tel: (408) 363-3635 (Please respond to Danville Office) | www.calrealestatelaw.com Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. May 23, 2019 Page 2 With respect to Pacific Union’s responses to the eighty-three (83) Special Interrogatories propounded by your office, Pacific Union agrees to supplement its response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 31. Your demands for additional information responsive to Special Interrogatory No. 33 are without any basis or legal justification. Pacific Union takes the privacy of its clients seriously, and will not provide irrelevant, sensitive personal information about non-party clients and unrelated transactions, particularly when those transactions have no relevance to your clients’ refusal to pay an earned commission to Pacific Union. As for your issues with Pacific Union’s responses to Special Interrogatories number 8, 26, 28, 32, 60, and 61, those interrogatories range from being poorly worded to incoherent. Pacific Union timely deciphered and responded to hundreds of your largely unintelligible discovery requests in good faith and to the best of its ability. Pacific Union stands on its responses to Special Interrogatories number 8, 26, 28, 32, 33, 60, and 61. Very truly yaurs, L A. MORGAN cc (via email): Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq. Patti Poole EXHIBIT 3 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO A LAW CORPORATION 133 NORTH ALTADENA DRIVE, SUITE 403 PASADENA, CA 91107 Tel. (626) 796-9998 Fax: (213) 232-3252 May 28, 2019 Via Email Shannon B. Jones, Esq. Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc. 208 W. El Pintado Road Danville, CA 94526 Re: Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick. et al. Case No.SCV0042080 (in Placer County, Superior Court) Dear Ms. Jones: Weare in receipt of your client's responses to our Request for Admissions, Set No. 1. Please consider this an attempt to "meet and confer" as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Your professed inability to answer the request for admission you have identified as No.12 (our numbering No.8) is unconvincing. First, of the terms you profess to be confused by, "contractually bound"," listing agreement" and "done business", were all used in preceding RFAs which you somehow managed to deny. Clearly, there is no confusion on your part as to how these terms were being used as you understood them well enough to respond to other requests. Further, your client is the only entity which would have knowledge of whether Partners Trust has ever done business in Placer County. Comply with your client's obligations under the Civil Discovery Act and either admit or deny the request. Please provide a response to this request by June 3, 2019 or you will leave us no alternative but to bring a Motion to Compel. We remain, Very truly yours, Michael AJ Nangano MAJN:pmp cc: Lindsey A. Morgan, Esq. (via email) Lawrence E. Skidmore (via email) EXHIBIT 4 MICHAEL A.J. NANGANO A Law CORPORATION 133 NORTH ALTADENA DRIVE, SUITE 403 PASADENA, CA 91107 Tel. (626) 796-9998 Fax: (213) 232-3252 June 3, 2019 Via Email Shannon B. Jones, Esq. Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc. 208 W. El Pintado Road Danville, CA 94526 Re: Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick, et al. Case No.SCV0042080 (in Placer County, Superior Court) Dear Ms. Jones: In your correspondence of May 23, 2019, which responded to the concerns we raised as to the deficiencies in your responses to our Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1, you indicated you would be supplementing your responses to Special interrogatories Nos. 29 and 31. Please be advised that if we have not received verified supplemental responses to these interrogatories by June 7, 2019, they will be included along with the other interrogatories we requested further responses to in the Motion to compel we will be shortly filing with the Court. We remain, Very truly yours, Michael AJ Nangano MAJN:pmp ce: Lindsey A. Morgan, Esq. (via email) Lawrence E. Skidmore (via email) EXHIBIT 5 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. Writer's Direct No.: (925) 837-2317 Writer's Direct Email: sbj@sbj-law.com June 6, 2019 Via Email and U.S. Mail mnangano@lacounsel.com Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. A Law Corporation 133 North Altadena Drive, Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91107 Re: Pacific Union International. Inc. v. Ludwick, etal. Case No: SCV0042080 Dear Mr. Nangano: We write to respond to your latest round of letters dated May 24, May 28, June 3 (first letter), and June 3 (second letter), 2019, regarding various issues you raise in response to -the discovery responses and document production of Pacific Union International, Inc. (“Pacific Union”). As we have previously represented, Pacific Union agrees to supplement its response to Special Interrogatories Nos. 29 and 31. Pacific Union will provide supplemental responses by June 21, 2019. Pacific Union, as previously stated in our letter to you dated May 22, 2019, withheld documents relating to its acquisition of Partners Trust until the parties have a signed protective order entered in this matter. We will provide a proposed protective order for your review by June 14, 2019. Pacific Union declines to further respond to Request for Admission No. 12. The request is unintelligible and incoherent. Pacific Union also stands on its responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 with respect to Requests for Admission Nos. 21 and 98-101 for the same reasons. Finally, please provide any legal basis you think you have for your demand that Pacific Union provide a declaration regarding maintaining documents in the course of business. Danville | 208 W. El Pintado Road, Danville, CA 94526 - Tel: (925) 837-2317 - Fax: (925) 837-4831 Sacramento | 8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95826 - Tel: (916) 368-1000 San Jose | 111 North Market Strect, Suite 300, San Jose, CA 95113: Tel: (408) 363-3635 (Please respond to Danville Office) | www.calrealcstatelaw.com Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. June 6, 2019 Page 2 We remind you again that the listing agreement contains an attorneys’ fees provision under which Pacific Union is entitled to recover all fees incurred in prosecuting this action to recover its wrongfully withheld commission, including all fees incurred opposing losing motions. Very truly yours, Bg SHANNON B. JONES SBJ:lam cc (via email): Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq. Patti Poole PROOF OF SERVICE [am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 133 N. Altadena Drive, Suite 403, Pasadena, CA 91107. On June 13, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL AJ NANGANO IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY on all interested parties in this action by placing [X]atrue copy | ] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST [| (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission. (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) Lam readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVER Y/COURIER) I served the above referenced document(s) enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in the ordinary course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached sheet. (BY E-MAIL) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing document(s) via e-mail to the addressee(s). Courtesy copy [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 13, 2019, at Pasadena, California. a a (< Patricia M. Poole Facsimile signature as original Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.305(d) PROOF OF SERVICE MAILING LIST Pacific Union International, Inc. v. Ludwick, et al. Case No. SCV0042080 Shannon B. Jones, Esq. Lindsey Morgan, Esq. Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Inc. 208 W. El Pintado Road Danville, CA 94526 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE