Preview
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081)
jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035)
kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
3
EMILY ROSE MARGOLIS (SBN 324089)
4 emily.margolis@us.dlapiper.com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
5 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
6 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501
7
Attorneys for Defendants
8 CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and
THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
12
13
LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269
14
Plaintiff,
15 DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VALLEY
v.
16 ROCK FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT
17 COMPLIANCE WITH DOCUMENT
WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK REQUESTS
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49
18 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization,
and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Date: December 8, 2023
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young
20 Dept.: B
21 Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
FAC Filed: March 8, 2023
22 Trial Date: April 4, 2024
23
24
25
26 I, Kathleen S. Kizer, declare as follows:
27 1. I am Of Counsel at DLA Piper LLP (US), attorneys for Defendants Celeste White,
28 Dr. Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation (“Foundation”), in this action. I submit this
-1-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 declaration in support of Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa
2 Keith’s Compliance with Document Requests (the “Motion”). This declaration is based on my
3 personal knowledge. If called to testify, I could and would testify competently to the matters
4 herein.
5 2. Defendants timely responded to nine sets of written discovery from Plaintiff on
6 March 8, 2023, including responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of
7 Documents, and Requests for Admission. Defendants also hired a discovery consultant to
8 undertake a professional document collection from their personal computers and mobile devices,
9 after which Defendants produced to Plaintiff all non-privileged, responsive documents in their
10 possession, custody, and control.
11 3. On April 5, 2023, the Foundation served on Keith a Request for Production of
12 Documents – Set One (“Document Requests”), Special Interrogatories – Set One, and Form
13 Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Requests for Admission – Set One; and Dr. White served
14 on Plaintiff Special Interrogatories – Set One (collectively, “Defendants’ Discovery Requests”).
15 4. True and correct copies of the Defendants’ Discovery Requests were attached as
16 Exhibits 1 through 5 to my declaration in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses
17 filed with this Court on June 21, 2023 for hearing on July 14, 2023 (“MTC Declaration”).
18 5. A true and correct copy of the Foundation’s Document Requests is attached hereto
19 as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference.
20 6. The Foundation and Dr. White served Defendants’ Discovery Requests on Plaintiff
21 via email on April 5, 2023. A true and correct copy of the Proof of Service for the discovery
22 requests in Exhibits 1 through 5, along with the transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit 6 to the
23 MTC Declaration.
24 7. On March 21, 2023, the parties agreed to serve all documents in this action by
25 email. A true and correct copy of the email memorializing that agreement was attached as Exhibit
26 7 to the MTC Declaration.
27 8. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests was
28 initially May 9, 2023. But on Thursday, May 4, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney, Angie Lam of Johnston,
-2-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 Kinney & Zulaica, LLP, sent an email to DLA Piper LLP (US) partner Jeffrey Tsai and me in
2 which she requested an extension for Plaintiff’s responses. Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff
3 a 30-day extension to June 8, 2023, to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests.
4 9. On June 8, 2023, the date on which Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Discovery
5 Requests were due, Ms. Lam again contacted Mr. Tsai and me and requested another 30-day
6 extension for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests. In response to Ms. Lam’s
7 voicemail message to me requesting the extension, I telephoned Ms. Lam and inquired as to the
8 reason for the extension. Ms. Lam merely explained that Plaintiff required her to make the request.
9 As no explanation for the extension was provided, Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff a one-
10 week extension to June 15, 2023.
11 10. Both extensions for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests were
12 memorialized by email. A true and correct copy of the email string memorializing the extensions
13 was attached as Exhibit 8 to the MTC Declaration.
14 11. Plaintiff did not provide written responses to Defendants’ Discovery Requests or
15 produce documents by the June 15, 2023 deadline.
16 12. On June 8, 2023, the same day that Defendants granted Plaintiff her second
17 extension to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests, Plaintiff served by mail to Mr. Tsai and
18 me, as Defendants’ attorneys, a Substitution of Attorney that purported to substitute Plaintiff, in
19 propria persona, in place of the Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP firm. The Substitution of
20 Attorney was not signed by Plaintiff, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 284. A true
21 and correct copy of the Substitution of Attorney, along with the envelope showing it was mailed
22 on June 8, 2023, were attached as Exhibit 9 to the MTC Declaration.
23 13. On June 15, 2023, Mr. Tsai and I sent a letter to Plaintiff’s attorneys, John Rueppel
24 and Angie Lam, at the Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP firm, informing them of the defective
25 Substitution of Attorney. The letter was sent to them via email on June 15, 2023. A true and
26 correct copy of that letter, along with the transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit 10 to the MTC
27 Declaration. We did not receive a response from Plaintiff or her attorneys to the letter in Exhibit
28 10.
-3-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 14. The Foundation and Dr. White moved to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to
2 Defendants’ Discovery Requests on June 21, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the Court issued its tentative
3 ruling granting in part Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses. Neither party contested the
4 tentative ruling. The Court stayed the ruling (“Compel Order”) until after resolution of Plaintiff’s
5 Waiver Relief Motion.
6 15. On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff served her Motion for Order Relieving Responding
7 Party from Waiver of Objections (“Waiver Relief Motion”), which was set for hearing on August
8 8, 2023. On August 7, 2023, the Court issued its tentative ruling denying Plaintiff’s Waiver Relief
9 Motion. Plaintiff did not contest the tentative ruling. The Court thereby lifted its stay of the
10 Compel Order.
11 16. On August 16, 2023, Defendants served on Plaintiff a Notice of Entry of Order
12 regarding the Compel Order, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and
13 incorporated herein by this reference.
14 17. On August 16, 2023, Defendants served on Plaintiff a Notice of Entry of Order
15 regarding the Court’s ruling denying her Waiver Relief Motion.
16 18. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff served written responses to Defendants’ Discovery
17 Requests but produced no documents.
18 19. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Response to Defendant Valley
19 Rock Foundation’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Lisa Keith, Set One is
20 attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
21 20. On August 23, 2023, Defendants’ attorneys sent Plaintiff a detailed meet and
22 confer letter identifying deficiencies in many of Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses and demanding
23 compliance with the Court’s Order requiring her to produce all documents, without objection. A
24 true and correct copy of that letter, along with the transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit G to
25 my declaration filed on October 10, 2023, in support of Defendant’s Sanctions Motion (“Sanctions
26 Declaration”).
27 21. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff produced 18 documents. All but 13 pages of the
28 documents were already in Defendants’ possession due to Plaintiff having previously filed them in
-4-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 Court. Specifically, Plaintiff produced: (1) two press releases and one tweet that were attached to
2 the First Amended Complaint (pages 1-8); (2) screenshots of two text messages (not in native file
3 format) (pages 9-11); (3) printouts of two emails (not in native file format) (pages 12-14); (4)
4 Keith’s motion to amend petition from the Trust Action (pages 15-160); (5) Keith’s amended
5 petition from the Trust Action (pages 161-293); (6) Keith’s second amended petition from the
6 Trust Action (pages 294-443); (7) Keith’s status conference statement from the Trust Action
7 (pages 444-467); (8) Order approving the settlement in the Trust Action (pages 468-470); (9)
8 undated one-page printout entitled “Agent Production” (page 471); (10) two copies of Keith’s
9 2020 W-2 (pages 472, 477); and (11) Annual Commission Summary Reports for years 2019,
10 2020, and 2022 (but not 2021) (pages 473-476). Only the documents described in (2), (3), (9),
11 (10) and (11) were new documents not previously provided to Defendants.
12 22. Plaintiff did not produce any documents in native file format even though the
13 Foundation’s April 5 Request for Production of Documents specified that electronically stored
14 information be produced in native file format.
15 23. On August 29, 2023, Defendants’ attorneys sent a letter to Plaintiff’s attorneys
16 regarding her deficient document production. A true and correct copy of that letter, along with the
17 transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit H to the Sanctions Declaration.
18 24. On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney, Angie Lam, emailed me in response to
19 the August 29 letter identifying deficiencies in Plaintiff’s document responses. In that email, Ms.
20 Lam stated, “we are still working with our client to obtain email communications” and requested
21 until September 29 to produce them. A true and correct copy of that email was attached as Exhibit
22 J to the Sanctions Declaration.
23 25. On September 6, 2023, Jeff Tsai responded on behalf of Defendants to Plaintiff’s
24 request for another extension. A true and correct copy of that response letter, along with the
25 transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit K to the Sanctions Declaration.
26 26. On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ sent to Defendants’ attorneys by
27 email a letter and one email exchange (not in native file format) purporting to represent the
28 remainder of the documents in Plaintiff’s possession, custody and control that are responsive to
-5-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 the Foundation’s document requests. Specifically, attorney Rueppel stated the supplemental
2 production “completes” Plaintiff’s response to the Foundations’ Document Requests. A true and
3 correct copy of that letter was attached as Exhibit L to the Sanctions Declaration.
4 27. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney wrote to Defendants’ attorneys stating
5 that Plaintiff had only just then retained a third-party vendor to collect Plaintiff’s emails.
6 Plaintiff’s attorney wrote: “As of today, I do not have a set time as to when the production will be
7 completed,” only vaguely estimating that by “early to mid-October” Plaintiff might provide the
8 production. A true and correct copy of this email was attached as Exhibit M to the Sanctions
9 Declaration. Defendants’ counsel were shocked to learn that, almost six months after their
10 discovery requests were first propounded, Plaintiff had still not yet even begun to collect
11 responsive documents.
12 28. On September 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel provided a detailed response to this
13 unexpected update, including a list of conditions under which Defendants would accept yet
14 another request for an extension on Plaintiff’s document production. A true and correct copy of
15 this email was attached as Exhibit N to the Sanctions Declaration.
16 29. Plaintiff did not produce any documents by October 3, 2023, or by the October 6
17 extended deadline that Defendants’ counsel offered. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel responded on
18 October 3 and admitted that Plaintiff had thus far identified over 1,600 emails responsive to
19 Defendants’ requests but continued to refuse to produce a single one, stating only that they
20 “should” have them “reviewed” by October 20. A true and correct copy of this letter was attached
21 as Exhibit O to the Sanctions Declaration.
22 30. The Foundations’ Document Requests specified the deadline for production of
23 documents as the same date responses were due. Because the discovery statutes provide that
24 “documents shall be produced on the date specified in the demand” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280,
25 subd. (b); see also id., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(1)), Defendants reasonably understood the Compel
26 Order to require Plaintiff to serve written responses and produce all responsive documents by the
27 August 21, 2023, Court-ordered deadline. Plaintiff did not produce any documents by August 21,
28 so on October 10, after extensive meet-and-confer efforts, Defendants filed a motion for issue,
-6-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 evidence and/or termination sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300
2 (“Sanctions Motion”). The Sanctions Declaration was submitted in support of the Sanctions
3 Motion.
4 31. On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants’ Sanctions
5 Motion and produced documents responsive to the Document Requests. In support of her
6 opposition, Plaintiff filed a declaration from her e-discovery vendor, Benjamin Rose, a true and
7 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by this reference.
8 32. Plaintiff also filed with her opposition to Defendants’ Sanctions Motion a
9 declaration from her attorney, Angie Lam, a true and correct copy of which—without all the
10 exhibits referred to therein—is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by this
11 reference.
12 33. My and my colleagues’ review of Plaintiff’s October 23 document production and
13 the supporting declaration from Plaintiff’s e-discovery vendor, Benjamin Rose, determined the
14 collection and production contained many significant deficiencies and issues. On October 31,
15 Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the Sanctions Motion identifying those deficiencies. A
16 true and correct copy of that reply brief is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and incorporated herein by
17 this reference.
18 34. Along with the Sanctions Motion reply brief, Defendants submitted a declaration
19 from DLA Piper e-discovery expert Dennis Kiker, a true and correct copy of which is attached
20 hereto as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein by this reference.
21 35. To date, Plaintiff has not remedied any of the deficiencies identified in the
22 Sanctions Motion reply brief.
23 36. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 and incorporated herein by this reference is a copy of
24 a document produced by Plaintiff in which she stated that her communications with her siblings
25 about the press releases “were mainly over text.”
26 37. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Celeste White in Support of
27 Defendants’ Special Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint is attached hereto as
28 Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein by this reference.
-7-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 38. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Lisa Keith in support of her Waiver
2 Relief Motion is attached hereto as Exhibit 10 and incorporated herein by this reference.
3 39. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Angie Lam in support of Plaintiff’s
4 Waiver Relief Motion, without all the exhibits referred to therein, is attached hereto as Exhibit 11
5 and incorporated herein by this reference.
6 40. I spent more than 6 hours drafting the notice of motion, memorandum, separate
7 statement, and declaration in support, and compiling all exhibits. DLA Piper partner Jeff Tsai
8 spent more than 1 hour reviewing the moving papers. DLA Piper bills $1,115 per hour for my time
9 and $1,215 per hour for Mr. Tsai’s time. Based on the foregoing, Defendants will have incurred
10 more than $7,905 in attorney’s fees because of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’
11 discovery requests (not including time spent on meet-and-confer letters).
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 9, 2023, at San Francisco, California.
14 /s/ Kathleen S. Kizer
Kathleen S. Kizer
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
EXHIBIT 1
0009
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081)
jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035)
kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
3
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
5 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501
6 Attorneys for Defendants
CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and
7
THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
11
12
LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269
13
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT VALLEY ROCK
14 FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR
v. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
15 PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT
16 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 Trial Date: Not Set
17 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization,
and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
23 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff LISA KEITH
24 SET NO.: One
25
26
27
28
-1-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0010
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Valley Rock Foundation hereby requests that
3 Plaintiff Lisa Keith (“Plaintiff”) respond—separately, fully, and under oath—to the following
4 Requests for Production within thirty (30) days from the date of service. Pursuant to section
5 2031.030(a)(2) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is requested to produce all
6 “electronically stored information,” as that term is defined in Section 2016.020(e) Code of Civil
7 Procedure, in its native format. Plaintiff’s responses and responsive documents should be sent
8 electronically or, in the alternative to the extent electronic submission is unavailable, to DLA Piper
9 LLP (US), 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California, 94105.
10 INSTRUCTIONS
11 1. To the extent a responsive DOCUMENT sought herein was, but no longer is, in
12 YOUR possession, subject to YOUR control, or in existence, state whether it: is missing or lost, has
13 been destroyed, has been transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily to others, or has been otherwise
14 disposed of, and in each instance explain the circumstances surrounding any authorization for its
15 disposition, state the date or approximate date of disposition, the contents of the DOCUMENT, and
16 the person who authorized its transfer, destruction, or other disposition.
17 2. For all DOCUMENTS responsive to these requests that YOU do not intend to
18 produce because of an assertion of privilege, as to each such DOCUMENT, identify the
19 DOCUMENT’S subject matter, date, author(s), addressee(s), and all other recipients, the nature of
20 the privilege asserted (e.g., attorney-client privilege, attorney work product), and the basis for the
21 privilege asserted.
22 3. These requests include all electronically stored information permitted by the
23 California Code of Civil Procedure. All DOCUMENTS requested shall be produced both in hard
24 copy and in native electronic format.
25 4. If YOU object to any part of a DOCUMENT request, set forth the specific basis for
26 YOUR objection.
27 5. These discovery requests require the production of DOCUMENTS either in the same
28 form and in the same order as they are kept in their normal course, or organized and labeled to
-2-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0011
1 correspond with the particular demand set forth below. If YOU choose the former method, the
2 DOCUMENTS are to be produced in boxes, file folders, binders or any other containers in which
3 the DOCUMENTS are found. The titles or other descriptions on the boxes, file folders, binders or
4 containers are to be left intact.
5 6. These DOCUMENT requests are continuing in nature, requiring that YOUR
6 responses be supplemented in the event that additional responsive documents are identified or
7 obtained before trial.
8 7. Words used in the singular shall, where the context permits, include the plural, and
9 words used in the plural shall, where the context permits, include the singular.
10 8. Any verb formed in the present tense shall also be taken in the past, imperfect, and
11 future tenses, and vice versa.
12 9. Any word formed in the singular shall also be taken in the plural, and vice versa.
13 10. Any sentence or phrase formed in the disjunctive shall also be taken in the
14 conjunctive, and vice versa.
15 11. Any pronoun in the masculine gender shall also be taken in the feminine gender, and
16 vice versa.
17 12. If YOU perceive any ambiguity in a question, instruction, or definition, set forth the
18 matter deemed ambiguous and the construction used in answering.
19 DEFINITIONS
20 Notwithstanding any definitions below, each word, term, or phrase used in these
21 Interrogatories is intended to have the broadest meaning permitted under the California Code of
22 Civil Procedure.
23 1. The term “AUGUST 2021 PRESS RELEASE” shall mean and refer to the
24 DOCUMENT attached to the FAC as Exhibit D.
25 2. The terms “COMMUNICATION” and “COMMUNICATIONS” are used in the
26 broadest sense possible, and include, without limitation, any discussion, conversation, conference,
27 meeting or exchange of information or DOCUMENTS between or among persons, whether in
28 person, by telephone, in writing, electronically or otherwise, as well as any DOCUMENT which
-3-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0012
1 records, reflects and/or pertains to any such communication, including, without limitation, letters,
2 telegrams, text messages, instant messages, social media posts, tweets, facsimiles, message slips,
3 personal calendars, personal notes, memoranda and/or sound recordings and transcripts thereof.
4 3. The term “DEFENDANTS” shall mean and refer to Celest White, Robert White,
5 and the FOUNDATION, both individually and collectively.
6 4. The term “DOCUMENTS” is used in the broadest sense possible and shall include,
7 without limitation: COMMUNICATIONS; all things which would be considered to be a
8 “writing” within the meaning set forth in section 250 of the California Evidence Code; and any
9 writing or tangible thing containing or exhibiting any information or COMMUNICATION or
10 having the ability to convey or exhibit the same through any medium whatsoever. A draft or non-
11 identical copy is a separate DOCUMENT within the meaning of these terms and each request
12 seeks production of those DOCUMENTS in their entirety, without deletion, redaction,
13 abbreviation, or expurgation.
14 5. The term “FAC” shall mean and refer the First Amended Complaint filed in the
15 above-captioned action in the Napa County Superior Court on or about March 8, 2023.
16 6. The term “FOUNDATION” shall mean and refer to Defendant Valley Rock
17 Foundation.
18 7. The term “MARCH 2021 PRESS RELEASE” shall mean and refer to the
19 DOCUMENT attached to the FAC as Exhibit C.
20 8. The term “NAPA VALLEY REGISTER ARTICLE” shall mean and refer to the
21 article by Jennifer Huffman published by the Napa Valley Register on or about February 3, 2018,
22 titled “Wealthy Napa businessman’s heirs seek answers about $92 million estate,” a copy of which
23 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
24 9. The term “PERSON” includes, in the plural, as well as the singular, any natural
25 person, entity, firm, association, organization, partnership, trust, corporation, committee, union, or
26 public entity.
27 10. The term “PRESS RELEASES” shall collectively mean and refer to the MARCH
28 2021 PRESS RELEASE and the AUGUST 2021 PRESS RELEASE.
-4-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0013
1 11. The term “RELATING TO,” “RELATED TO” or “REGARDING” shall mean
2 constituting, pertaining to, referring to, alluding to, responding to, elaborating upon, concerning,
3 memorializing, supporting, refuting, evidencing, connected with, commenting on, regarding,
4 discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing, recording, including, mentioning, in respect
5 of, or about.
6 12. The term “TRUST” shall mean and refer to the trust created by the Complete
7 Amendment and Restated Edward A. Keith Declaration of Trust executed August 16, 2002, as
8 amended February 10, 2006.
9 13. The term “TRUST ACTION” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph 11
10 of the FAC.
11 14. The terms “YOU,” “YOUR” and “PLAINTIFF” shall mean and refer to plaintiff
12 Lisa Keith, and includes each of PLAINTIFF’s employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, and
13 all other PERSONS, both past and present, acting or purporting to act on YOUR behalf.
14 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
16 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that “[f]urther publications,
17 authored by Defendants, were disseminated to the world through various online media, asserting
18 that Plaintiff’s claims in the litigation were meritless and that Plaintiff acted improperly in
19 pursuing her claims.”
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the NAPA VALLEY REGISTER ARTICLE.
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
23 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Dominic Campisi,
24 Timothy Keith, Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family
25 members and friends, RELATING TO the NAPA VALLEY REGISTER ARTICLE.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
27 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Dominic Campisi,
28 Timothy Keith, Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family
-5-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0014
1 members and friends, RELATING TO the DEFENDANTS from April 1, 2020, to October 22,
2 2022.
3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
4 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Timothy Keith,
5 Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family members and
6 friends, RELATING TO the PRESS RELEASES.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
8 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Timothy Keith,
9 Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family members and
10 friends, RELATING TO harm YOU contend the PRESS RELEASES caused to YOUR reputation.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
12 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Timothy Keith,
13 Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family members and
14 friends, RELATING TO harm YOU contend the PRESS RELEASES caused to YOUR standing
15 in the community.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff did all, or
18 substantially all, of the significant things the agreement required her to do, except for those
19 required acts that were waived, excused, or discharged.”
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that “Defendants breached the
22 Agreement in various ways.”
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
24 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that “Defendants may have made
25 other similar statements to individuals and/or through other organs of publication that similarly
26 disparage Plaintiff and were derogatory, critical of, or negative.”
27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
28 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation in the FAC that a “robust non-
-6-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0015
1 disparagement clause was then drafted by the parties’ counsel.”
2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
3 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff could
4 have obtained significant additional damages in her prior lawsuit had she proceeded to trial.”
5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
6 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “the releases implied
7 that Plaintiff’s suit against Defendants Celeste K. White and Robert White was baseless.”
8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
9 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation the PRESS RELEASES contained
10 statements that were derogatory of YOU.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
12 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation the PRESS RELEASES contained
13 statements that were critical of YOU.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
15 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation the PRESS RELEASES contained
16 statements that were negative toward YOU.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
18 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention the TRUST ACTION was not
19 baseless.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
21 All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Defendants may have
22 made other similar statements to individuals and/or through other organs of publication that
23 similarly disparage Plaintiff and were derogatory, critical of, or negative.”
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
25 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention the Court found evidence to support
26 YOUR claims in the TRUST ACTION.
27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
28 All DOCUMENTS YOU contend supported YOUR claims in the TRUST ACTION.
-7-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0016
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
2 All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegation in the FAC that it is “unbelievable that
3 ‘no evidence’ supported Plaintiff’s claims.”
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
5 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that the payment to YOU of
6 $1,295,000 constituted “compensation for damages claimed by Plaintiff.”
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
8 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention the Court in the TRUST ACTION did
9 not exonerate Celeste White.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
11 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation that Celeste White engaged in
12 “wrongdoing as trustee.”
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
14 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention that Celeste White did not properly
15 carry out her duties as co-trustee of the TRUST.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
17 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “there was never any
18 actual judicial review of any of Celeste K. White’s accountings in the Trust Action.”
19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
20 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention the accountings that Celeste White
21 submitted in the TRUST ACTION should not have been approved by the Court.
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
23 All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Defendants
24 consciously entered into an agreement regarding non-disparagement that they knew they had no
25 intention of keeping.”
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
27 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “thousands or tens of
28 thousands of individuals read these headlines and articles.”
-8-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0017
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
2 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “[a]s a direct and
3 proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the Agreement, Plaintiff was publicly cast in a negative
4 light as an unreasonably litigious plaintiff with frivolous claims, damaging her personal and
5 professional reputation.”
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
7 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff has been
8 damaged in an amount no less than $2,000,000.”
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
10 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that DEFENDANTS
11 intended “to ensure that any Internet search engine searches containing the names of Plaintiff or
12 Defendants performed by anyone anywhere would show the content of these releases.”
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
14 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Defendants have
15 likely made additional defamatory statements to friends, family, and acquaintances, both related to
16 the press releases, and independent of them.”
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
18 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that the MARCH 2021
19 PRESS RELEASE contains information provided by Celeste White which she knew to be false
20 and misleading.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
22 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff has been
23 harmed in her reputation and standing in the community.”
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
25 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff could have
26 obtained significant additional damages in her prior lawsuit had she proceeded to trial.”
27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
28 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR claim of damages.
-9-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0018
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
2 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR income for the one-year period before the
3 MARCH 2021 PRESS RELEASE was issued.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
5 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR income for the one-year period after the
6 MARCH 2021 PRESS RELEASE was issued.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
8 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC: “It is therefore
9 unbelievable that ‘no evidence’ supported Plaintiff’s claims.”
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
11 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR assertion in paragraph 3 of YOUR Opposition
12 to Defendants’ Demurrer that “Plaintiff took special care to demand the inclusion of the Non-
13 Disparagement Provision as a material term in the Settlement Agreement in exchange for her
14 voluntarily releasing her claims against Defendants.”
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
16 All DOCUMENTS YOU refer to in YOUR responses to the Form Interrogatories served
17 simultaneously with these Requests for Production of Documents.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
19 All DOCUMENTS YOU refer to in YOUR responses to the Special Interrogatories served
20 simultaneously with these Requests for Production of Documents.
21 Dated: April 5, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
22
By:
23
JEFFREY E. TSAI
24 KATHLEEN S. KIZER
Attorneys for Defendants Celeste White, Dr.
25 Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation
26
27
28
-10-
DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0019
EXHIBIT 2
0020
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081)
jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035)
kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
3
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
5 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501
6 Attorneys for Defendants
CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and
7
THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
11
12
LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269
13
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
14
v. Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
15 Trial Date: Not Set
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT
16 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49
17 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization,
and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0021
1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 11, 2023, the Court signed its Order Granting
2 in Part the Motion (1) to Compel Responses from Plaintiff Lisa Keith to Request for Production of
3 Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories; (2) Deem Admitted Matters
4 Specified in Requests for Admission, and for (3) Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Due to
5 Plaintiff’s Misuse of the Discovery Process and Failure to Respond to Document Requests and
6 Procedure Requested Documents. A true and correct copy of the Order entered on August 15,
7 2023, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8
9 Dated: August 16, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
10
By:
11
JEFFREY E. TSAI
12 KATHLEEN S. KIZER
Attorneys for Defendants Celeste White, Dr.
13 Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
CASE NO. 22CV001269 0022
EXHIBIT A
0023
Q}
8/1 1/2023 e-file
JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081)
jefftsai@us.dlapiper.com
KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035)
ka thy. kizer@us. dlapiper. com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
AUG 1 5
gm
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 2023
San Francisco California 94105—2933
’
Tw- NAPA SUPER OR
v - .
coum
L ’
Tel: 415.836.2500 Fax: 415.836.2501
|
‘
'
DEPUTY
Attorneys for Defendants
CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and
THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
11
12
LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269
13
Plaintiffi
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
[ ED]
14 (1) T0 COMPEL RESPONSES
THE MOTION
V -
FROM PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH To REQUEST
15 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUIV‘ENTS’
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT SPECIAL MTERROGATORIES, AND FORM
WHITE, an 1nd1v1dual, the VALLEY ROCK INTERROGATORIES,
. . .
16 (2) To DEEM
_
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 ADMITTED MATTERS SPECIFIED IN
17 FOUNDATION a charitable org anization
a
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND (3) FOR
’
and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE’
MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
18 PLAINTIFF DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S MISUSE OF
Defendants
THE DISCOVERY PROCESS AND FAILURE
'
19 TO RESPOND TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
AND PRODUCE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS
20
Preview
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081) jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com 2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035) kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com 3 EMILY ROSE MARGOLIS (SBN 324089) 4 emily.margolis@us.dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 5 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94105-2933 6 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 12 13 LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269 14 Plaintiff, 15 DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VALLEY v. 16 ROCK FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT 17 COMPLIANCE WITH DOCUMENT WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK REQUESTS FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 18 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Date: December 8, 2023 19 Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young 20 Dept.: B 21 Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022 FAC Filed: March 8, 2023 22 Trial Date: April 4, 2024 23 24 25 26 I, Kathleen S. Kizer, declare as follows: 27 1. I am Of Counsel at DLA Piper LLP (US), attorneys for Defendants Celeste White, 28 Dr. Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation (“Foundation”), in this action. I submit this -1- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 declaration in support of Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa 2 Keith’s Compliance with Document Requests (the “Motion”). This declaration is based on my 3 personal knowledge. If called to testify, I could and would testify competently to the matters 4 herein. 5 2. Defendants timely responded to nine sets of written discovery from Plaintiff on 6 March 8, 2023, including responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of 7 Documents, and Requests for Admission. Defendants also hired a discovery consultant to 8 undertake a professional document collection from their personal computers and mobile devices, 9 after which Defendants produced to Plaintiff all non-privileged, responsive documents in their 10 possession, custody, and control. 11 3. On April 5, 2023, the Foundation served on Keith a Request for Production of 12 Documents – Set One (“Document Requests”), Special Interrogatories – Set One, and Form 13 Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Requests for Admission – Set One; and Dr. White served 14 on Plaintiff Special Interrogatories – Set One (collectively, “Defendants’ Discovery Requests”). 15 4. True and correct copies of the Defendants’ Discovery Requests were attached as 16 Exhibits 1 through 5 to my declaration in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses 17 filed with this Court on June 21, 2023 for hearing on July 14, 2023 (“MTC Declaration”). 18 5. A true and correct copy of the Foundation’s Document Requests is attached hereto 19 as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference. 20 6. The Foundation and Dr. White served Defendants’ Discovery Requests on Plaintiff 21 via email on April 5, 2023. A true and correct copy of the Proof of Service for the discovery 22 requests in Exhibits 1 through 5, along with the transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit 6 to the 23 MTC Declaration. 24 7. On March 21, 2023, the parties agreed to serve all documents in this action by 25 email. A true and correct copy of the email memorializing that agreement was attached as Exhibit 26 7 to the MTC Declaration. 27 8. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests was 28 initially May 9, 2023. But on Thursday, May 4, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney, Angie Lam of Johnston, -2- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 Kinney & Zulaica, LLP, sent an email to DLA Piper LLP (US) partner Jeffrey Tsai and me in 2 which she requested an extension for Plaintiff’s responses. Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff 3 a 30-day extension to June 8, 2023, to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests. 4 9. On June 8, 2023, the date on which Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Discovery 5 Requests were due, Ms. Lam again contacted Mr. Tsai and me and requested another 30-day 6 extension for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests. In response to Ms. Lam’s 7 voicemail message to me requesting the extension, I telephoned Ms. Lam and inquired as to the 8 reason for the extension. Ms. Lam merely explained that Plaintiff required her to make the request. 9 As no explanation for the extension was provided, Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff a one- 10 week extension to June 15, 2023. 11 10. Both extensions for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests were 12 memorialized by email. A true and correct copy of the email string memorializing the extensions 13 was attached as Exhibit 8 to the MTC Declaration. 14 11. Plaintiff did not provide written responses to Defendants’ Discovery Requests or 15 produce documents by the June 15, 2023 deadline. 16 12. On June 8, 2023, the same day that Defendants granted Plaintiff her second 17 extension to respond to Defendants’ Discovery Requests, Plaintiff served by mail to Mr. Tsai and 18 me, as Defendants’ attorneys, a Substitution of Attorney that purported to substitute Plaintiff, in 19 propria persona, in place of the Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP firm. The Substitution of 20 Attorney was not signed by Plaintiff, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 284. A true 21 and correct copy of the Substitution of Attorney, along with the envelope showing it was mailed 22 on June 8, 2023, were attached as Exhibit 9 to the MTC Declaration. 23 13. On June 15, 2023, Mr. Tsai and I sent a letter to Plaintiff’s attorneys, John Rueppel 24 and Angie Lam, at the Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP firm, informing them of the defective 25 Substitution of Attorney. The letter was sent to them via email on June 15, 2023. A true and 26 correct copy of that letter, along with the transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit 10 to the MTC 27 Declaration. We did not receive a response from Plaintiff or her attorneys to the letter in Exhibit 28 10. -3- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 14. The Foundation and Dr. White moved to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to 2 Defendants’ Discovery Requests on June 21, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the Court issued its tentative 3 ruling granting in part Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses. Neither party contested the 4 tentative ruling. The Court stayed the ruling (“Compel Order”) until after resolution of Plaintiff’s 5 Waiver Relief Motion. 6 15. On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff served her Motion for Order Relieving Responding 7 Party from Waiver of Objections (“Waiver Relief Motion”), which was set for hearing on August 8 8, 2023. On August 7, 2023, the Court issued its tentative ruling denying Plaintiff’s Waiver Relief 9 Motion. Plaintiff did not contest the tentative ruling. The Court thereby lifted its stay of the 10 Compel Order. 11 16. On August 16, 2023, Defendants served on Plaintiff a Notice of Entry of Order 12 regarding the Compel Order, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and 13 incorporated herein by this reference. 14 17. On August 16, 2023, Defendants served on Plaintiff a Notice of Entry of Order 15 regarding the Court’s ruling denying her Waiver Relief Motion. 16 18. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff served written responses to Defendants’ Discovery 17 Requests but produced no documents. 18 19. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Response to Defendant Valley 19 Rock Foundation’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Lisa Keith, Set One is 20 attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 21 20. On August 23, 2023, Defendants’ attorneys sent Plaintiff a detailed meet and 22 confer letter identifying deficiencies in many of Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses and demanding 23 compliance with the Court’s Order requiring her to produce all documents, without objection. A 24 true and correct copy of that letter, along with the transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit G to 25 my declaration filed on October 10, 2023, in support of Defendant’s Sanctions Motion (“Sanctions 26 Declaration”). 27 21. On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff produced 18 documents. All but 13 pages of the 28 documents were already in Defendants’ possession due to Plaintiff having previously filed them in -4- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 Court. Specifically, Plaintiff produced: (1) two press releases and one tweet that were attached to 2 the First Amended Complaint (pages 1-8); (2) screenshots of two text messages (not in native file 3 format) (pages 9-11); (3) printouts of two emails (not in native file format) (pages 12-14); (4) 4 Keith’s motion to amend petition from the Trust Action (pages 15-160); (5) Keith’s amended 5 petition from the Trust Action (pages 161-293); (6) Keith’s second amended petition from the 6 Trust Action (pages 294-443); (7) Keith’s status conference statement from the Trust Action 7 (pages 444-467); (8) Order approving the settlement in the Trust Action (pages 468-470); (9) 8 undated one-page printout entitled “Agent Production” (page 471); (10) two copies of Keith’s 9 2020 W-2 (pages 472, 477); and (11) Annual Commission Summary Reports for years 2019, 10 2020, and 2022 (but not 2021) (pages 473-476). Only the documents described in (2), (3), (9), 11 (10) and (11) were new documents not previously provided to Defendants. 12 22. Plaintiff did not produce any documents in native file format even though the 13 Foundation’s April 5 Request for Production of Documents specified that electronically stored 14 information be produced in native file format. 15 23. On August 29, 2023, Defendants’ attorneys sent a letter to Plaintiff’s attorneys 16 regarding her deficient document production. A true and correct copy of that letter, along with the 17 transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit H to the Sanctions Declaration. 18 24. On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney, Angie Lam, emailed me in response to 19 the August 29 letter identifying deficiencies in Plaintiff’s document responses. In that email, Ms. 20 Lam stated, “we are still working with our client to obtain email communications” and requested 21 until September 29 to produce them. A true and correct copy of that email was attached as Exhibit 22 J to the Sanctions Declaration. 23 25. On September 6, 2023, Jeff Tsai responded on behalf of Defendants to Plaintiff’s 24 request for another extension. A true and correct copy of that response letter, along with the 25 transmittal email, was attached as Exhibit K to the Sanctions Declaration. 26 26. On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ sent to Defendants’ attorneys by 27 email a letter and one email exchange (not in native file format) purporting to represent the 28 remainder of the documents in Plaintiff’s possession, custody and control that are responsive to -5- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 the Foundation’s document requests. Specifically, attorney Rueppel stated the supplemental 2 production “completes” Plaintiff’s response to the Foundations’ Document Requests. A true and 3 correct copy of that letter was attached as Exhibit L to the Sanctions Declaration. 4 27. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s attorney wrote to Defendants’ attorneys stating 5 that Plaintiff had only just then retained a third-party vendor to collect Plaintiff’s emails. 6 Plaintiff’s attorney wrote: “As of today, I do not have a set time as to when the production will be 7 completed,” only vaguely estimating that by “early to mid-October” Plaintiff might provide the 8 production. A true and correct copy of this email was attached as Exhibit M to the Sanctions 9 Declaration. Defendants’ counsel were shocked to learn that, almost six months after their 10 discovery requests were first propounded, Plaintiff had still not yet even begun to collect 11 responsive documents. 12 28. On September 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel provided a detailed response to this 13 unexpected update, including a list of conditions under which Defendants would accept yet 14 another request for an extension on Plaintiff’s document production. A true and correct copy of 15 this email was attached as Exhibit N to the Sanctions Declaration. 16 29. Plaintiff did not produce any documents by October 3, 2023, or by the October 6 17 extended deadline that Defendants’ counsel offered. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel responded on 18 October 3 and admitted that Plaintiff had thus far identified over 1,600 emails responsive to 19 Defendants’ requests but continued to refuse to produce a single one, stating only that they 20 “should” have them “reviewed” by October 20. A true and correct copy of this letter was attached 21 as Exhibit O to the Sanctions Declaration. 22 30. The Foundations’ Document Requests specified the deadline for production of 23 documents as the same date responses were due. Because the discovery statutes provide that 24 “documents shall be produced on the date specified in the demand” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, 25 subd. (b); see also id., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(1)), Defendants reasonably understood the Compel 26 Order to require Plaintiff to serve written responses and produce all responsive documents by the 27 August 21, 2023, Court-ordered deadline. Plaintiff did not produce any documents by August 21, 28 so on October 10, after extensive meet-and-confer efforts, Defendants filed a motion for issue, -6- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 evidence and/or termination sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 2 (“Sanctions Motion”). The Sanctions Declaration was submitted in support of the Sanctions 3 Motion. 4 31. On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants’ Sanctions 5 Motion and produced documents responsive to the Document Requests. In support of her 6 opposition, Plaintiff filed a declaration from her e-discovery vendor, Benjamin Rose, a true and 7 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by this reference. 8 32. Plaintiff also filed with her opposition to Defendants’ Sanctions Motion a 9 declaration from her attorney, Angie Lam, a true and correct copy of which—without all the 10 exhibits referred to therein—is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by this 11 reference. 12 33. My and my colleagues’ review of Plaintiff’s October 23 document production and 13 the supporting declaration from Plaintiff’s e-discovery vendor, Benjamin Rose, determined the 14 collection and production contained many significant deficiencies and issues. On October 31, 15 Defendants filed a reply brief in support of the Sanctions Motion identifying those deficiencies. A 16 true and correct copy of that reply brief is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and incorporated herein by 17 this reference. 18 34. Along with the Sanctions Motion reply brief, Defendants submitted a declaration 19 from DLA Piper e-discovery expert Dennis Kiker, a true and correct copy of which is attached 20 hereto as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein by this reference. 21 35. To date, Plaintiff has not remedied any of the deficiencies identified in the 22 Sanctions Motion reply brief. 23 36. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 and incorporated herein by this reference is a copy of 24 a document produced by Plaintiff in which she stated that her communications with her siblings 25 about the press releases “were mainly over text.” 26 37. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Celeste White in Support of 27 Defendants’ Special Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint is attached hereto as 28 Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein by this reference. -7- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 38. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Lisa Keith in support of her Waiver 2 Relief Motion is attached hereto as Exhibit 10 and incorporated herein by this reference. 3 39. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of Angie Lam in support of Plaintiff’s 4 Waiver Relief Motion, without all the exhibits referred to therein, is attached hereto as Exhibit 11 5 and incorporated herein by this reference. 6 40. I spent more than 6 hours drafting the notice of motion, memorandum, separate 7 statement, and declaration in support, and compiling all exhibits. DLA Piper partner Jeff Tsai 8 spent more than 1 hour reviewing the moving papers. DLA Piper bills $1,115 per hour for my time 9 and $1,215 per hour for Mr. Tsai’s time. Based on the foregoing, Defendants will have incurred 10 more than $7,905 in attorney’s fees because of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ 11 discovery requests (not including time spent on meet-and-confer letters). 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 9, 2023, at San Francisco, California. 14 /s/ Kathleen S. Kizer Kathleen S. Kizer 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN KIZER ISO FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 22CV001269 EXHIBIT 1 0009 1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081) jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com 2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035) kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com 3 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94105-2933 5 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501 6 Attorneys for Defendants CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and 7 THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 11 12 LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269 13 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT VALLEY ROCK 14 FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR v. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO 15 PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH – SET ONE CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT 16 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022 FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 Trial Date: Not Set 17 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION 23 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff LISA KEITH 24 SET NO.: One 25 26 27 28 -1- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0010 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Valley Rock Foundation hereby requests that 3 Plaintiff Lisa Keith (“Plaintiff”) respond—separately, fully, and under oath—to the following 4 Requests for Production within thirty (30) days from the date of service. Pursuant to section 5 2031.030(a)(2) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is requested to produce all 6 “electronically stored information,” as that term is defined in Section 2016.020(e) Code of Civil 7 Procedure, in its native format. Plaintiff’s responses and responsive documents should be sent 8 electronically or, in the alternative to the extent electronic submission is unavailable, to DLA Piper 9 LLP (US), 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California, 94105. 10 INSTRUCTIONS 11 1. To the extent a responsive DOCUMENT sought herein was, but no longer is, in 12 YOUR possession, subject to YOUR control, or in existence, state whether it: is missing or lost, has 13 been destroyed, has been transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily to others, or has been otherwise 14 disposed of, and in each instance explain the circumstances surrounding any authorization for its 15 disposition, state the date or approximate date of disposition, the contents of the DOCUMENT, and 16 the person who authorized its transfer, destruction, or other disposition. 17 2. For all DOCUMENTS responsive to these requests that YOU do not intend to 18 produce because of an assertion of privilege, as to each such DOCUMENT, identify the 19 DOCUMENT’S subject matter, date, author(s), addressee(s), and all other recipients, the nature of 20 the privilege asserted (e.g., attorney-client privilege, attorney work product), and the basis for the 21 privilege asserted. 22 3. These requests include all electronically stored information permitted by the 23 California Code of Civil Procedure. All DOCUMENTS requested shall be produced both in hard 24 copy and in native electronic format. 25 4. If YOU object to any part of a DOCUMENT request, set forth the specific basis for 26 YOUR objection. 27 5. These discovery requests require the production of DOCUMENTS either in the same 28 form and in the same order as they are kept in their normal course, or organized and labeled to -2- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0011 1 correspond with the particular demand set forth below. If YOU choose the former method, the 2 DOCUMENTS are to be produced in boxes, file folders, binders or any other containers in which 3 the DOCUMENTS are found. The titles or other descriptions on the boxes, file folders, binders or 4 containers are to be left intact. 5 6. These DOCUMENT requests are continuing in nature, requiring that YOUR 6 responses be supplemented in the event that additional responsive documents are identified or 7 obtained before trial. 8 7. Words used in the singular shall, where the context permits, include the plural, and 9 words used in the plural shall, where the context permits, include the singular. 10 8. Any verb formed in the present tense shall also be taken in the past, imperfect, and 11 future tenses, and vice versa. 12 9. Any word formed in the singular shall also be taken in the plural, and vice versa. 13 10. Any sentence or phrase formed in the disjunctive shall also be taken in the 14 conjunctive, and vice versa. 15 11. Any pronoun in the masculine gender shall also be taken in the feminine gender, and 16 vice versa. 17 12. If YOU perceive any ambiguity in a question, instruction, or definition, set forth the 18 matter deemed ambiguous and the construction used in answering. 19 DEFINITIONS 20 Notwithstanding any definitions below, each word, term, or phrase used in these 21 Interrogatories is intended to have the broadest meaning permitted under the California Code of 22 Civil Procedure. 23 1. The term “AUGUST 2021 PRESS RELEASE” shall mean and refer to the 24 DOCUMENT attached to the FAC as Exhibit D. 25 2. The terms “COMMUNICATION” and “COMMUNICATIONS” are used in the 26 broadest sense possible, and include, without limitation, any discussion, conversation, conference, 27 meeting or exchange of information or DOCUMENTS between or among persons, whether in 28 person, by telephone, in writing, electronically or otherwise, as well as any DOCUMENT which -3- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0012 1 records, reflects and/or pertains to any such communication, including, without limitation, letters, 2 telegrams, text messages, instant messages, social media posts, tweets, facsimiles, message slips, 3 personal calendars, personal notes, memoranda and/or sound recordings and transcripts thereof. 4 3. The term “DEFENDANTS” shall mean and refer to Celest White, Robert White, 5 and the FOUNDATION, both individually and collectively. 6 4. The term “DOCUMENTS” is used in the broadest sense possible and shall include, 7 without limitation: COMMUNICATIONS; all things which would be considered to be a 8 “writing” within the meaning set forth in section 250 of the California Evidence Code; and any 9 writing or tangible thing containing or exhibiting any information or COMMUNICATION or 10 having the ability to convey or exhibit the same through any medium whatsoever. A draft or non- 11 identical copy is a separate DOCUMENT within the meaning of these terms and each request 12 seeks production of those DOCUMENTS in their entirety, without deletion, redaction, 13 abbreviation, or expurgation. 14 5. The term “FAC” shall mean and refer the First Amended Complaint filed in the 15 above-captioned action in the Napa County Superior Court on or about March 8, 2023. 16 6. The term “FOUNDATION” shall mean and refer to Defendant Valley Rock 17 Foundation. 18 7. The term “MARCH 2021 PRESS RELEASE” shall mean and refer to the 19 DOCUMENT attached to the FAC as Exhibit C. 20 8. The term “NAPA VALLEY REGISTER ARTICLE” shall mean and refer to the 21 article by Jennifer Huffman published by the Napa Valley Register on or about February 3, 2018, 22 titled “Wealthy Napa businessman’s heirs seek answers about $92 million estate,” a copy of which 23 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 24 9. The term “PERSON” includes, in the plural, as well as the singular, any natural 25 person, entity, firm, association, organization, partnership, trust, corporation, committee, union, or 26 public entity. 27 10. The term “PRESS RELEASES” shall collectively mean and refer to the MARCH 28 2021 PRESS RELEASE and the AUGUST 2021 PRESS RELEASE. -4- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0013 1 11. The term “RELATING TO,” “RELATED TO” or “REGARDING” shall mean 2 constituting, pertaining to, referring to, alluding to, responding to, elaborating upon, concerning, 3 memorializing, supporting, refuting, evidencing, connected with, commenting on, regarding, 4 discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing, recording, including, mentioning, in respect 5 of, or about. 6 12. The term “TRUST” shall mean and refer to the trust created by the Complete 7 Amendment and Restated Edward A. Keith Declaration of Trust executed August 16, 2002, as 8 amended February 10, 2006. 9 13. The term “TRUST ACTION” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph 11 10 of the FAC. 11 14. The terms “YOU,” “YOUR” and “PLAINTIFF” shall mean and refer to plaintiff 12 Lisa Keith, and includes each of PLAINTIFF’s employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, and 13 all other PERSONS, both past and present, acting or purporting to act on YOUR behalf. 14 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 16 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that “[f]urther publications, 17 authored by Defendants, were disseminated to the world through various online media, asserting 18 that Plaintiff’s claims in the litigation were meritless and that Plaintiff acted improperly in 19 pursuing her claims.” 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the NAPA VALLEY REGISTER ARTICLE. 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 23 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Dominic Campisi, 24 Timothy Keith, Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family 25 members and friends, RELATING TO the NAPA VALLEY REGISTER ARTICLE. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 27 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Dominic Campisi, 28 Timothy Keith, Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family -5- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0014 1 members and friends, RELATING TO the DEFENDANTS from April 1, 2020, to October 22, 2 2022. 3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 4 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Timothy Keith, 5 Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family members and 6 friends, RELATING TO the PRESS RELEASES. 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 8 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Timothy Keith, 9 Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family members and 10 friends, RELATING TO harm YOU contend the PRESS RELEASES caused to YOUR reputation. 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: 12 All COMMUNICATIONS with any person, including but not limited to Timothy Keith, 13 Richard Keith, Darlene Keith, David Keith, Roxanne Keith, and other family members and 14 friends, RELATING TO harm YOU contend the PRESS RELEASES caused to YOUR standing 15 in the community. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff did all, or 18 substantially all, of the significant things the agreement required her to do, except for those 19 required acts that were waived, excused, or discharged.” 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that “Defendants breached the 22 Agreement in various ways.” 23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 24 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that “Defendants may have made 25 other similar statements to individuals and/or through other organs of publication that similarly 26 disparage Plaintiff and were derogatory, critical of, or negative.” 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 28 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation in the FAC that a “robust non- -6- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0015 1 disparagement clause was then drafted by the parties’ counsel.” 2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 3 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff could 4 have obtained significant additional damages in her prior lawsuit had she proceeded to trial.” 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 6 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “the releases implied 7 that Plaintiff’s suit against Defendants Celeste K. White and Robert White was baseless.” 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 9 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation the PRESS RELEASES contained 10 statements that were derogatory of YOU. 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 12 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation the PRESS RELEASES contained 13 statements that were critical of YOU. 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 15 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation the PRESS RELEASES contained 16 statements that were negative toward YOU. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 18 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention the TRUST ACTION was not 19 baseless. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: 21 All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Defendants may have 22 made other similar statements to individuals and/or through other organs of publication that 23 similarly disparage Plaintiff and were derogatory, critical of, or negative.” 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 25 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention the Court found evidence to support 26 YOUR claims in the TRUST ACTION. 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 28 All DOCUMENTS YOU contend supported YOUR claims in the TRUST ACTION. -7- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0016 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: 2 All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegation in the FAC that it is “unbelievable that 3 ‘no evidence’ supported Plaintiff’s claims.” 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: 5 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that the payment to YOU of 6 $1,295,000 constituted “compensation for damages claimed by Plaintiff.” 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: 8 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR contention the Court in the TRUST ACTION did 9 not exonerate Celeste White. 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 11 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation that Celeste White engaged in 12 “wrongdoing as trustee.” 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 14 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention that Celeste White did not properly 15 carry out her duties as co-trustee of the TRUST. 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 17 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “there was never any 18 actual judicial review of any of Celeste K. White’s accountings in the Trust Action.” 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: 20 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR contention the accountings that Celeste White 21 submitted in the TRUST ACTION should not have been approved by the Court. 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: 23 All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Defendants 24 consciously entered into an agreement regarding non-disparagement that they knew they had no 25 intention of keeping.” 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: 27 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “thousands or tens of 28 thousands of individuals read these headlines and articles.” -8- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0017 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: 2 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “[a]s a direct and 3 proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the Agreement, Plaintiff was publicly cast in a negative 4 light as an unreasonably litigious plaintiff with frivolous claims, damaging her personal and 5 professional reputation.” 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 7 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff has been 8 damaged in an amount no less than $2,000,000.” 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: 10 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that DEFENDANTS 11 intended “to ensure that any Internet search engine searches containing the names of Plaintiff or 12 Defendants performed by anyone anywhere would show the content of these releases.” 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: 14 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Defendants have 15 likely made additional defamatory statements to friends, family, and acquaintances, both related to 16 the press releases, and independent of them.” 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: 18 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC that the MARCH 2021 19 PRESS RELEASE contains information provided by Celeste White which she knew to be false 20 and misleading. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: 22 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff has been 23 harmed in her reputation and standing in the community.” 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: 25 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR allegation in the FAC that “Plaintiff could have 26 obtained significant additional damages in her prior lawsuit had she proceeded to trial.” 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: 28 All DOCUMENTS supporting YOUR claim of damages. -9- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0018 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: 2 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR income for the one-year period before the 3 MARCH 2021 PRESS RELEASE was issued. 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: 5 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR income for the one-year period after the 6 MARCH 2021 PRESS RELEASE was issued. 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: 8 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR allegation in the FAC: “It is therefore 9 unbelievable that ‘no evidence’ supported Plaintiff’s claims.” 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: 11 All DOCUMENTS REGARDING YOUR assertion in paragraph 3 of YOUR Opposition 12 to Defendants’ Demurrer that “Plaintiff took special care to demand the inclusion of the Non- 13 Disparagement Provision as a material term in the Settlement Agreement in exchange for her 14 voluntarily releasing her claims against Defendants.” 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: 16 All DOCUMENTS YOU refer to in YOUR responses to the Form Interrogatories served 17 simultaneously with these Requests for Production of Documents. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: 19 All DOCUMENTS YOU refer to in YOUR responses to the Special Interrogatories served 20 simultaneously with these Requests for Production of Documents. 21 Dated: April 5, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 22 By: 23 JEFFREY E. TSAI 24 KATHLEEN S. KIZER Attorneys for Defendants Celeste White, Dr. 25 Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation 26 27 28 -10- DEF. VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PL. LISA KEITH – SET ONE CASE NO. 22CV001269 0019 EXHIBIT 2 0020 1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081) jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com 2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035) kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com 3 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94105-2933 5 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501 6 Attorneys for Defendants CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and 7 THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 11 12 LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269 13 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER 14 v. Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022 15 Trial Date: Not Set CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT 16 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 17 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CASE NO. 22CV001269 0021 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 11, 2023, the Court signed its Order Granting 2 in Part the Motion (1) to Compel Responses from Plaintiff Lisa Keith to Request for Production of 3 Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories; (2) Deem Admitted Matters 4 Specified in Requests for Admission, and for (3) Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Due to 5 Plaintiff’s Misuse of the Discovery Process and Failure to Respond to Document Requests and 6 Procedure Requested Documents. A true and correct copy of the Order entered on August 15, 7 2023, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8 9 Dated: August 16, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 10 By: 11 JEFFREY E. TSAI 12 KATHLEEN S. KIZER Attorneys for Defendants Celeste White, Dr. 13 Robert White, and the Valley Rock Foundation 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CASE NO. 22CV001269 0022 EXHIBIT A 0023 Q} 8/1 1/2023 e-file JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081) jefftsai@us.dlapiper.com KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035) ka thy. kizer@us. dlapiper. com DLA PIPER LLP (US) AUG 1 5 gm 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 2023 San Francisco California 94105—2933 ’ Tw- NAPA SUPER OR v - . coum L ’ Tel: 415.836.2500 Fax: 415.836.2501 | ‘ ' DEPUTY Attorneys for Defendants CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 11 12 LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269 13 Plaintiffi ORDER GRANTING IN PART [ ED] 14 (1) T0 COMPEL RESPONSES THE MOTION V - FROM PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH To REQUEST 15 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUIV‘ENTS’ CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT SPECIAL MTERROGATORIES, AND FORM WHITE, an 1nd1v1dual, the VALLEY ROCK INTERROGATORIES, . . . 16 (2) To DEEM _ FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 ADMITTED MATTERS SPECIFIED IN 17 FOUNDATION a charitable org anization a REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND (3) FOR ’ and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE’ MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST 18 PLAINTIFF DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S MISUSE OF Defendants THE DISCOVERY PROCESS AND FAILURE ' 19 TO RESPOND TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND PRODUCE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS 20