Preview
LAW OFFICES OF
McCARTHY & KROES
125 E. VICTORIA STREET, SUITE A
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
(805) 564-2085
R. Chris Kroes, State Bar No. 134935
Linda Elias- Wheelock, State Bar No. 150431
Attorneys for: Defendants CHANNE COLES and THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G.
COLES
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ANACAPA DIVISION
10 CASE NO. 20CV04132
MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee
11 of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated
CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE
September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN,
12 OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF
<2 Conservator of the Estate and Person of
nue
RES MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
65< 13 Rosemary Free Leahy,
Bao RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
gst PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
rRE 14 Plaintiffs,
ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;
52
gl< MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
aoa 15 vs.
ax AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R.
BaF
aZz
o< 16 CHRIS KROES
PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE
17 LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a
[Filed concurrently with Motion to Compel
California corporation; PATRICIA WOLLUM;
Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
18 SUSAN REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a
California corporation; and DOES 1-10,
19 inclusive, Date: December 22, 2023
20 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Defendants. Dept.: 3
21
Complaint Filed: 12/11/20
22 First Amended Complaint Filed: 1/23/23
Second Amended Complaint Filed: 9/8/23
23
[Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle,
24 in Department 3.]
25
Ml
26
Mt
27
28 1
CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS
KROES
TO THE COURT, TO PLAINTIFFS, TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 22, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 3 of
the above-entitled court, Defendants CHANNE COLES and THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE
G. COLES (hereinafter collectively "Coles" or “the Coles Defendants”), will and hereby move
the Court for an Order compelling Plaintiffs MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee of
the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, Conservator
of the Estate and Person of Rosemary Free Leahy to produce verified responses and documents
without objection in response to the Coles Defendants’ Request For Production of Documents,
10 Set One (RFPDs).
11 Such an Order is appropriate as the Coles Defendants properly served discovery requests
<2
12 on each of the Plaintiffs on September 7, 2023 by email and have not received any response to
nwR
ge
o5< 13 the RFPDs (or the Form Interrogatories as set forth in the concurrently filed Motion to Compel
Bae
as
nk< 14 Responses to Form Interrogatories) as of the date of this Motion. Both Plaintiffs have therefore
zo
=e
eQ< waived all objections to their respective discovery requests. (Code of Civil Procedure §
aoa 15
wt
205
S< 16 2031.300). The Coles Defendants will also move for an Order imposing monetary sanctions in
17 the amount of $1,207.50 against both Plaintiffs and their counsel, David Tappeiner, Esq.,
18 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2023.010 and 2031.300.
19 This Motion is based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
20 Authorities, the attached Declaration of R. Chris Kroes, all pleadings and papers on file in the
21 above-captioned action, and other evidence that may be presented by moving defendants prior to
22 or at the hearing on this Motion to Strike.
23 Date: November 2, 2023 McCARTHY & KRQES
24
By:
25 R. HRIS KROES
Attorneys for Defendants
26 CHANNE COLES, THE LAW
OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES
27
28 2
‘CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS
KROES
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Sellars and Morin have both failed to timely respond or object to the Coles
Defendants’ RFPDs properly served on them on September 7, 2023 by the Coles Defendants.
Both Plaintiffs have therefore waived all objections to each and every discovery request.
Plaintiffs' failure to comply with their basic discovery obligations should be met with an order
compelling their compliance, requiring that they properly respond to the RFPDs without
objections and produce all documents responsive to the inspection demands. Plaintiffs and their
counsel should further be sanctioned for their misuse of the discovery process.'
10
IL. STATEMENT OF FACTS
11
Plaintiff Sellars filed the original Complaint on December 11, 2020 against Leahy, his
a 15
uit a demurrer and motion to strike filed by Coles, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
28“= 16
(“SAC”)
17
On September 7, 2023, the Coles Defendants propounded and served requests for
18
production of documents (RFPDs, Set One) on each of the Plaintiffs. (Kroes Decl. 2; Exhibit
19
1 (RFPDs Set One). Responses were due on October 9, 2023. That deadline came and went
20
without the Coles Defendants’ counsel receiving any response from either Plaintiff. (Kroes
21
Decl. 4 4.)
22
On Thursday, November 2, 2023, Mr. Kroes (the Coles Defendants’ counsel) emailed
23
Mr. Tappeiner (the Plaintiffs’ counsel) informing him that he had not received any responses to
24
the FRs and RFPDs, despite Mr. Tappeiner’s assertions that he would send them “weeks ago”.
25
(Kroes Decl. § 5. and Exhibit 2) Mr. Tappeiner responded late that evening saying “I believe I
26
27 1 The Coles Defendants are concurrently filing a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) to
address Plaintiffs’ wholesale failure to respond to the FRs (Set One).
28 3
‘CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS
KROES
can get the responses to you by Monday”. “By Monday” meant November 6'". (Kroes Decl. 6
and Exhibit 2)
Since Mr. Tappeiner never sent responses “by Monday”, on November 8" , Mr. Kroes
again emailed Mr. Tappeiner regarding the overdue discovery responses. Mr. Tappeiner did not
respond to that email. (Kroes Decl. { 7, Exhibit 3.)
Eight days later, on November 16, 2023, Mr. Kroes again emailed Mr. Tappeiner stating
that he had not received any discovery responses, and that a motion to compel would be
necessary although he “would prefer not to do so”. (Kroes Decl. {| 8. and Exhibit 4.) Mr.
Tappeiner responded the next day by email, promising “I will get this to you today”. (Kroes
10 Decl. § 9. and Exhibit 4.) As of the filing date of this Motion, Mr. Kroes nor his office have
ll received responses to the long overdue discovery. (Kroes Decl. {] 10.)
12 TL. SINCE PLAINTIFFS HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE
<2
aug
geo REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, THEY MUST BE
o5< 13 ORDERED TO DO SO WITHOUT OBJECTIONS
Guo
as
>Re
zo
14 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300 provides that a motion to compel a
Ee
eQ<
aoa 15
Sai< response to an inspection demand is proper when a responding party fails to object or respond.
Eas
13 CHANNE G. COLES
ag
mk<
zo
14
=e
“2Q<
<> 15
ai
zag
“< 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
(CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS
KROES
DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES
I, R. CHRIS KROES, say and declare as follows:
1 I know the following from my own personal knowledge. If called upon to testify,
I could and would competently testify to the following from my own personal knowledge. Tam
an attorney at law licensed to practice before all of the courts within the State of California and
am a partner in the law firm of McCarthy & Kroes, attorneys for Defendants Channe Coles and
The Law Office of Channe G. Coles (collectively “the Coles Defendants”) in this matter.
2 Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of the Coles
Defendants’ Request For Production of Documents (Set One) propounded to Plaintiff Sellars and
10 to Plaintiff Morin and served on their counsel by email on September 7, 2023.
11 3 My office also propounded Form Interrogatories (Set One) to each of the
12 Plaintiffs and also served them on their counsel by email on September 7, 2023. Plaintiffs’
<2
nog
RES
eS 13 complete failure to respond to either of their Form Interrogatories is the subject of the
8s
ne< 14 concurrently filed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories.
zo
Q<«
gra 15 4 Responses to both the FRs and RFPDs were due on October 9, 2023. That
ui <
SuaFS
aZ
“= 16 deadline came and went without my office receiving any response from Plaintiffs.
17 5 On Thursday, November 2, 2023, I emailed Mr. Tappeiner (the Plaintiffs’
18 counsel) informing him that I had not received any responses to the FRs and RFPDs, despite Mr.
19 Tappeiner’s assertions that he would send them “weeks ago”. A true and correct copy of that
20 email is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
21 6 Mr. Tappeiner responded to me late that evening saying “I believe I can get the
22 responses to you by Monday”. “By Monday” meant November 6", (see Exhibit 2)
23 7 On November 8, 2023, since Mr. Tappeiner never sent a response “by Monday”, I
24 again emailed Mr. Tappeiner regarding the overdue discovery responses. Mr. Tappeiner did not
25 respond to that email. A true and correct copy of my email is attached as Exhibit 3.
26 8 Eight days later, on November 16, 2023, I once again emailed Mr. Tappeiner
27 stating that I had not received any discovery responses, and that a motion to compel would be
1
28
CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS
KROES
necessary although I “would prefer not to do so”. A true and correct copy of that email is
attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
9 Mr. Tappeiner responded the next day - November 17, 2023 by email, promising
“J will get this to you today” (by November 17, 2023) (See Exhibit 4.)
10. Notwithstanding, as of November 22, 2023, I still have not received any
responses to the long overdue discovery.
11. I have incurred expenses in meeting, conferring, and corresponding with
Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding their failure to timely respond to our discovery requests. I have
spent approximately % an hour in the discovery efforts described in the Motion to Compel and
10 meet and confer efforts. My normal billing rate is $ 495.00/hour.
11 12. Further, my associate, Linda Elias-Wheelock spent in excess of 2 hours preparing
12 this Motion and the concurrently filed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories.
e
zo
14 12. ALL text messages between you and any person related to CHANNE COLES (other than
ze
aQ< text messages to or from your attorney).
>a 15
ai<
Eas McCARTHY & KROES
c< 16 Dated: September 7, 2023
17
18
R. Chris Kroes
19 Attorneys for Defendants: CHANNE COLES,
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES,
20 a California corporation
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Notice to Produce To Mark Sellars
Case Name: Sellars v. Leahy, et al.
Case No.: 20CV04132
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the county of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years of age and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 125 E. Victoria Street,
Suite A, Santa Barbara, California.
On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing documents entitled:
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
on all interested parties in said action by:
__X__ (MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for each
10 person(s) named below, addressed as set forth immediately below the respective
name(s), with postage thereon fully prepaid as first-class mail. I deposited the same in
11
a mailing facility regularly maintained by the United States Post Office for the mailing
12 of letter(s) at my above-stated place of business.
<2
wR
o5< 13 (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
Gav
se sealed envelope, designated by Federal Express, for each person(s) named below,
14 addressed as set forth immediately below the respective name(s). Such envelope
nog
ge
gea 15 was deposited in a Federal Express receptacle prior to the pick-up time, on the
Buix date set forth below.
Sa5
Sz 16
__X__ (E-MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof in our office scanner, scanning the
17 document and transmitting the document via electronic mail for each person(s)
named below as set forth immediately below the respective name(s) pursuant to this
18
Proof of Service.
19
(E-SERVICE) By placing a true copy thereof in our office scanner, scanning the
20 document and transmitting the document via Odyssey for each person(s) named
below as set forth immediately below the respective name(s) pursuant to this Proof
21 of Service.
22 *** SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST ***
23
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
24
Executed on September 7, 2023, at Santa Barbara, California.
25
26 /s/
ESMERALDA MURILLO
27
28
5
Notice to Produce To Mark Sellars
Case Name: Sellars v. Leahy, et al.
Case No.: 20CV04132
SERVICE LIST
Counsel for Plaintiff David J. Tappeiner
MARK SELLARS and DT Law Partners, LLP
REBECCA MORIN 125 E. Victoria Street, Ste. I
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
david@dtlawpartners.com
E-MAIL ONLY
Counsel for Defendant Gregory K. Sabo
10 PATRICIA WOLLUM and Issa F. Mikel
SUSAN REYNOLDS David A. Napper
11
Chapman & Glucksman
<2 12 11900 West Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800
pa Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704
o5< 13
Bag ervice@cgdrlaw.com
az gsabo@cgdrlaw.com
>Re 14
Be
BQ<
imikel@cgdrlaw.com
gra 15 dnapper@cgdrlaw.com
wis
2a6 slahijaniha@cgdrlaw.com
Sa 16 kwindrim@cgdrlaw.com
E-MAIL ONLY
17
18
Defendant in Pro Per Patrick Leahy
19 PATRICK LEAHY 961 Randolph Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
20 U.S. MAIL ONLY
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Notice to Produce To Mark Sellars
LAW OFFICES OF
McCARTHY & KROES
125 E. VICTORIA STREET, SUITE A
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
(805) 564-2085
R. Chris Kroes, SBN 134935
Attorneys for Defendants: CHANNE COLES,
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a California corporation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10
11 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee CASE NO.: 20CV04132
of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated
<2
12 September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF
nak
geo Conservator of the Estate and Person of DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
5<
av 13
Rosemary Free Leahy,
as
rE 14
ZO Plaintiffs,
bbe
wQ<
fea 15 vs.
ast
BaF
az
c= 16 PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE Complaint Filed: 12/11/20
LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a First Amended Complaint Filed: 1/23/23
17
California corporation; PATRICIA WOLLUM; [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas Anderle,
18 SUSAN REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a department 3.]
California corporation; and DOES 1 -10,
19 inclusive,
20 Defendants.
21
22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: CHANNE G. COLES
23
RESPONDING PARTY: REBECCA MORIN
24
SET NUMBER: ONE
25
W
26 W
W
27
28
1
Notice to Produce
Defendant CHANNE G. COLES hereby propounds these Requests For Production of Documents,
Set One, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 et seq. to
Plaintiff REBECCA MORIN. Said requests are to be responded to fully and in writing under oath
within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof, plus mailing if applicable.
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these requests, the following definitions of words and phrases shall be
applicable:
A. The terms “WRITING(S)” as used herein mean a writing as defined in Evidence Code
§ 250, as well as anything that is in written form or that is a tangible recording of speech, sounds,
10
pictures, words or symbols, however produced or reproduced, including the originals (or any copies
11
when originals are not available) and any other non-identical copies (whether different from the
<2
12
BS originals because of notes made on such copies or because of indications that said copies were sent to
o5< 13
Gav
3s different individuals than the original or because of any other reason), including, but not limited to,
Re 14
Ee
aQ< working papers, preliminary, intermediate or final drafts, correspondence, memoranda, inter-office
Sea 15
ax
ics memoranda, notes, reports, compilations, computer printouts, computer disks, email, and all other data
S= 16
found or stored on a computer, minutes or records of meetings, invoices, financial statements, financial
17
calculations, diaries, job diaries, reports of telephone or other conversations, desk calendars,
18
appointment books, photographs, videotapes, films, motion pictures, tape recordings and all other
19
writings and recordings of any kind.
20
B The terms “YOU”, “YOUR” and “RESPONDING PARTY” as used herein refer to
21
Plaintiff, Rebecca Morin and each of your present or former agents, your attorney and/ or any other
22
person and/or entity acting on your behalf.
23
24
Cc. The terms “PERSON” and “PERSONS” means any individual, corporation,
partnership, joint venture, proprietorship, association or other legal entity.
25
D. The term “COMPLAINT” when used herein refers to the operative Complaint filed by
26
YOU against the PROPOUNDING PARTY in this case.
27
28
2
Notice to Produce
E. The term “COMMUNICATIONS” as used herein refer to any WRITING and/or
transmission, of any sort whatsoever, by one or more persons or entities to one or more persons or
entities by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to, telephone conversations, letters,
telegrams, teletypes, telexes, facsimiles, electronic mail messages, (email) written memoranda, texts,
instant messages, social media interaction and/or postings, and face-to-face conversations. This
includes communications in which the recipient is included on an email even if not sent directly to
him or her.
F The term “ALL” means any and all.
G The “LAWSUIT” shail refer to Santa Barbara Superior Court case #20CV04132.
10 H. “EVIDENCE” means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented
11 to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact (Evidence Code § 140).
12 I “RECORDINGS” as used herein shall refer to audio and/or visual recording of a
<2
BR
SE5S< 13 person’s voice and/or visual images as well as any transcription of same.
no
3g
pee 14 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
EES
weQ<
a 1S during the last eight (8) years.
Su<
Ens This
os 16 14. ALL WRITINGS related to medical evaluations of ROSEMARY FREE LEAHY.
17 includes but is not limited to examinations, reports, notes, tests, test results regarding her
18 during the last eight (8) years.
19 15. ALL RECORDINGS of PATRICK LEAHY during the last eight (8) years.
20 16 ALL RECORDINGS of ROSEMARY FREE during the last eight (8) years.
21 17. ALL EVIDENCE that YOU have regarding any allegations in the COMPLAINT as against
22 CHANNE COLES.
23 Dated: September 7, 2023 McCARTHY & KROES
24
25 By:
bhi, Mage
R. Chris Kroes
26 Attorneys for Defendants: CHANNE COLES,
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES,
27 a California corporation
28
4
Notice to Produce
Case Name: Sellars v. Leahy, et al.
Case No.: 20CV04132
PROOF OF SERVICE
Tam employed in the county of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years of age and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 125 E. Victoria Street,
Suite A, Santa Barbara, California.
On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing documents entitled:
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
on all interested parties in said action by:
__X_ (MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for each
10 person(s) named below, addressed as set forth immediately below the respective
name(s), with postage thereon fully prepaid as first-class mail. I deposited the same in
11
a mailing facility regularly maintained by the United States Post Office for the mailing
12 of letter(s) at my above-stated place of business.
<2
gag
geo
S<
av
13 (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
as sealed envelope, designated by Federal Express, for each person(s) named below,
nee 14 addressed as set forth immediately below the respective name(s). Such envelope
ZOog
EBs
BOS
sea 15 was deposited in a Federal Express receptacle prior to the pick-up time, on the
Sui
Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis
; Lini Elias Wheelock
Subject: RE: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery
Thank you David. And you are correct, the discovery cannot be used in the demurrer.
From: David J. Tappeiner
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 10:22 PM
To: Chris Kroes
Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis
; Lini Elias Wheelock
Subject: Re: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery
Chris:
My apologies. With moving firms and then getting hit with Covid again about 3 weeks ago, it’s been
challenging. | believe | can get the responses to you by Monday. | don’t think the discovery matters for
purposes of the demurrer?
David
David J. Tappeiner | Partner
RIMON PC
david.ta einer rimonlaw.com
701 Anacapa St., Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Please note: | often dictate my emails and replies to emails. As such, please forgive any typos. If my
email is unclear, please let me know immediately. Thank you.
From: Chris Kroes
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 1:53:14 PM
To: David J. Tappeiner
Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis
; Lini Elias Wheelock
Subject: RE: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery
David: On September 7, 2023, our office propounded form interrogatories and a demand for production
of documents upon you in the above referenced case. To date, we have not received any responses,
and they are long overdue, despite your assertion that you would get them to us weeks ago. All
objections have now been waived. Please provide full and complete responses without objections
within the next five (5) days. If you fail to do so, we will have to bring a motion to compel. Thank you
for your immediate attention to this matter. Chris Kroes
Exhibit 3
From: Chris Kroes
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 7:13 AM
To: David J. Tappeiner
Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis
; Lini Elias Wheelock
Subject: RE: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery
David: | am still waiting on the discovery responses which you promised to provide us. Chris
Exhibit 4
From: David J. Tappeiner
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:18 AM
To: Chris Kroes
Cc: Esmeralda Murillo; Amanda Lopez-Solis; Lini Elias Wheelock
Subject: RE: Overdue discovery
Hi Chris:
lam very sorry. This Covid has punished me.
| am going to get this to you today.
David
From: Chris Kroes
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 7:09 AM
To: David J. Tappeiner
Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis ; Lini
Elias Wheelock
Subject: Overdue discovery
David: | have been more than patient in waiting for the discovery which is long overdue. You have told me on at least
two prior occasions that you will have them for me “by Monday” or words to this effect, but | still don’t have
them. Clearly this discovery is not a priority for you. You are not leaving me a whole lot of choice but to bring a motion
to compel. | would prefer not to do so. Chris
PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL
I, the undersigned, declare:
Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is
125 E. Victoria St, Ste. A Santa Barbara, California 93101
On the date set forth below, I served the following:
HANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES
by placing true copies thereof in our office scanner, scanning the document and transmitting the document
via electronic mail to those addresses as follows:
10
11 COUNSEL FOR Plaintiffs: Counsel for Defendants PATRICIA WOLLUM
David J. Tappeiner and SUSAN OLDS
12 Gregory K. Sabo
<2
auZ david@dtlawpartners.com
geo DT LAW PARTNERS, LLP David A. Napper
5<
as 13
125 E. Victoria Street, Suite I Gabriella L. Sternfeld
as Santa Barbara, California 93101 Issa Mikel
me< 14
ea Chapman & Glucksman
ZQ<
<>a 15 11900 West Olympic Bivd., Ste. 800
ai < Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704
zag
a< 16 imikel@cgdrlaw.com
slahijaniha@cgdrlaw.com
17 Defendant in PRO PER:
Patrick Leahy
18 961 Randolph Road
19 Santa Barbara, CA 93111
20 At the time of the transmission, I was over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. The
21 machine used for said transmission complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251, and said
22 transmission was reported complete and without error.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
24 true and correct and that this declaration is executed at Santa Barbara, California, on the date hereinafter
25 set forth.
26 /s/
DATED: November 2\ , 2023
ESMERALDA MURILLO
27
28 9
CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS
KROES
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF McCARTHY & KROES 125 E. VICTORIA STREET, SUITE A SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 (805) 564-2085 R. Chris Kroes, State Bar No. 134935 Linda Elias- Wheelock, State Bar No. 150431 Attorneys for: Defendants CHANNE COLES and THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ANACAPA DIVISION 10 CASE NO. 20CV04132 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee 11 of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, 12 OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF <2 Conservator of the Estate and Person of nue RES MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 65< 13 Rosemary Free Leahy, Bao RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR gst PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET rRE 14 Plaintiffs, ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; 52 gl< MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & aoa 15 vs. ax AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. BaF aZz o< 16 CHRIS KROES PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE 17 LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a [Filed concurrently with Motion to Compel California corporation; PATRICIA WOLLUM; Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) 18 SUSAN REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a California corporation; and DOES 1-10, 19 inclusive, Date: December 22, 2023 20 Time: 10:00 a.m. Defendants. Dept.: 3 21 Complaint Filed: 12/11/20 22 First Amended Complaint Filed: 1/23/23 Second Amended Complaint Filed: 9/8/23 23 [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle, 24 in Department 3.] 25 Ml 26 Mt 27 28 1 CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES TO THE COURT, TO PLAINTIFFS, TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 22, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the above-entitled court, Defendants CHANNE COLES and THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES (hereinafter collectively "Coles" or “the Coles Defendants”), will and hereby move the Court for an Order compelling Plaintiffs MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, Conservator of the Estate and Person of Rosemary Free Leahy to produce verified responses and documents without objection in response to the Coles Defendants’ Request For Production of Documents, 10 Set One (RFPDs). 11 Such an Order is appropriate as the Coles Defendants properly served discovery requests <2 12 on each of the Plaintiffs on September 7, 2023 by email and have not received any response to nwR ge o5< 13 the RFPDs (or the Form Interrogatories as set forth in the concurrently filed Motion to Compel Bae as nk< 14 Responses to Form Interrogatories) as of the date of this Motion. Both Plaintiffs have therefore zo =e eQ< waived all objections to their respective discovery requests. (Code of Civil Procedure § aoa 15 wt 205 S< 16 2031.300). The Coles Defendants will also move for an Order imposing monetary sanctions in 17 the amount of $1,207.50 against both Plaintiffs and their counsel, David Tappeiner, Esq., 18 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§2023.010 and 2031.300. 19 This Motion is based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 20 Authorities, the attached Declaration of R. Chris Kroes, all pleadings and papers on file in the 21 above-captioned action, and other evidence that may be presented by moving defendants prior to 22 or at the hearing on this Motion to Strike. 23 Date: November 2, 2023 McCARTHY & KRQES 24 By: 25 R. HRIS KROES Attorneys for Defendants 26 CHANNE COLES, THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES 27 28 2 ‘CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Sellars and Morin have both failed to timely respond or object to the Coles Defendants’ RFPDs properly served on them on September 7, 2023 by the Coles Defendants. Both Plaintiffs have therefore waived all objections to each and every discovery request. Plaintiffs' failure to comply with their basic discovery obligations should be met with an order compelling their compliance, requiring that they properly respond to the RFPDs without objections and produce all documents responsive to the inspection demands. Plaintiffs and their counsel should further be sanctioned for their misuse of the discovery process.' 10 IL. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 Plaintiff Sellars filed the original Complaint on December 11, 2020 against Leahy, his a 15 uit a demurrer and motion to strike filed by Coles, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint 28“= 16 (“SAC”) 17 On September 7, 2023, the Coles Defendants propounded and served requests for 18 production of documents (RFPDs, Set One) on each of the Plaintiffs. (Kroes Decl. 2; Exhibit 19 1 (RFPDs Set One). Responses were due on October 9, 2023. That deadline came and went 20 without the Coles Defendants’ counsel receiving any response from either Plaintiff. (Kroes 21 Decl. 4 4.) 22 On Thursday, November 2, 2023, Mr. Kroes (the Coles Defendants’ counsel) emailed 23 Mr. Tappeiner (the Plaintiffs’ counsel) informing him that he had not received any responses to 24 the FRs and RFPDs, despite Mr. Tappeiner’s assertions that he would send them “weeks ago”. 25 (Kroes Decl. § 5. and Exhibit 2) Mr. Tappeiner responded late that evening saying “I believe I 26 27 1 The Coles Defendants are concurrently filing a Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) to address Plaintiffs’ wholesale failure to respond to the FRs (Set One). 28 3 ‘CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES can get the responses to you by Monday”. “By Monday” meant November 6'". (Kroes Decl. 6 and Exhibit 2) Since Mr. Tappeiner never sent responses “by Monday”, on November 8" , Mr. Kroes again emailed Mr. Tappeiner regarding the overdue discovery responses. Mr. Tappeiner did not respond to that email. (Kroes Decl. { 7, Exhibit 3.) Eight days later, on November 16, 2023, Mr. Kroes again emailed Mr. Tappeiner stating that he had not received any discovery responses, and that a motion to compel would be necessary although he “would prefer not to do so”. (Kroes Decl. {| 8. and Exhibit 4.) Mr. Tappeiner responded the next day by email, promising “I will get this to you today”. (Kroes 10 Decl. § 9. and Exhibit 4.) As of the filing date of this Motion, Mr. Kroes nor his office have ll received responses to the long overdue discovery. (Kroes Decl. {] 10.) 12 TL. SINCE PLAINTIFFS HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE <2 aug geo REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, THEY MUST BE o5< 13 ORDERED TO DO SO WITHOUT OBJECTIONS Guo as >Re zo 14 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300 provides that a motion to compel a Ee eQ< aoa 15 Sai< response to an inspection demand is proper when a responding party fails to object or respond. Eas 13 CHANNE G. COLES ag mk< zo 14 =e “2Q< <> 15 ai zag “< 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 (CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES I, R. CHRIS KROES, say and declare as follows: 1 I know the following from my own personal knowledge. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to the following from my own personal knowledge. Tam an attorney at law licensed to practice before all of the courts within the State of California and am a partner in the law firm of McCarthy & Kroes, attorneys for Defendants Channe Coles and The Law Office of Channe G. Coles (collectively “the Coles Defendants”) in this matter. 2 Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of the Coles Defendants’ Request For Production of Documents (Set One) propounded to Plaintiff Sellars and 10 to Plaintiff Morin and served on their counsel by email on September 7, 2023. 11 3 My office also propounded Form Interrogatories (Set One) to each of the 12 Plaintiffs and also served them on their counsel by email on September 7, 2023. Plaintiffs’ <2 nog RES eS 13 complete failure to respond to either of their Form Interrogatories is the subject of the 8s ne< 14 concurrently filed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories. zo Q<« gra 15 4 Responses to both the FRs and RFPDs were due on October 9, 2023. That ui < SuaFS aZ “= 16 deadline came and went without my office receiving any response from Plaintiffs. 17 5 On Thursday, November 2, 2023, I emailed Mr. Tappeiner (the Plaintiffs’ 18 counsel) informing him that I had not received any responses to the FRs and RFPDs, despite Mr. 19 Tappeiner’s assertions that he would send them “weeks ago”. A true and correct copy of that 20 email is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 21 6 Mr. Tappeiner responded to me late that evening saying “I believe I can get the 22 responses to you by Monday”. “By Monday” meant November 6", (see Exhibit 2) 23 7 On November 8, 2023, since Mr. Tappeiner never sent a response “by Monday”, I 24 again emailed Mr. Tappeiner regarding the overdue discovery responses. Mr. Tappeiner did not 25 respond to that email. A true and correct copy of my email is attached as Exhibit 3. 26 8 Eight days later, on November 16, 2023, I once again emailed Mr. Tappeiner 27 stating that I had not received any discovery responses, and that a motion to compel would be 1 28 CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES necessary although I “would prefer not to do so”. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 9 Mr. Tappeiner responded the next day - November 17, 2023 by email, promising “J will get this to you today” (by November 17, 2023) (See Exhibit 4.) 10. Notwithstanding, as of November 22, 2023, I still have not received any responses to the long overdue discovery. 11. I have incurred expenses in meeting, conferring, and corresponding with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding their failure to timely respond to our discovery requests. I have spent approximately % an hour in the discovery efforts described in the Motion to Compel and 10 meet and confer efforts. My normal billing rate is $ 495.00/hour. 11 12. Further, my associate, Linda Elias-Wheelock spent in excess of 2 hours preparing 12 this Motion and the concurrently filed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories. e zo 14 12. ALL text messages between you and any person related to CHANNE COLES (other than ze aQ< text messages to or from your attorney). >a 15 ai< Eas McCARTHY & KROES c< 16 Dated: September 7, 2023 17 18 R. Chris Kroes 19 Attorneys for Defendants: CHANNE COLES, THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, 20 a California corporation 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Notice to Produce To Mark Sellars Case Name: Sellars v. Leahy, et al. Case No.: 20CV04132 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the county of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years of age and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 125 E. Victoria Street, Suite A, Santa Barbara, California. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing documents entitled: DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS on all interested parties in said action by: __X__ (MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for each 10 person(s) named below, addressed as set forth immediately below the respective name(s), with postage thereon fully prepaid as first-class mail. I deposited the same in 11 a mailing facility regularly maintained by the United States Post Office for the mailing 12 of letter(s) at my above-stated place of business. <2 wR o5< 13 (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a Gav se sealed envelope, designated by Federal Express, for each person(s) named below, 14 addressed as set forth immediately below the respective name(s). Such envelope nog ge gea 15 was deposited in a Federal Express receptacle prior to the pick-up time, on the Buix date set forth below. Sa5 Sz 16 __X__ (E-MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof in our office scanner, scanning the 17 document and transmitting the document via electronic mail for each person(s) named below as set forth immediately below the respective name(s) pursuant to this 18 Proof of Service. 19 (E-SERVICE) By placing a true copy thereof in our office scanner, scanning the 20 document and transmitting the document via Odyssey for each person(s) named below as set forth immediately below the respective name(s) pursuant to this Proof 21 of Service. 22 *** SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST *** 23 I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed on September 7, 2023, at Santa Barbara, California. 25 26 /s/ ESMERALDA MURILLO 27 28 5 Notice to Produce To Mark Sellars Case Name: Sellars v. Leahy, et al. Case No.: 20CV04132 SERVICE LIST Counsel for Plaintiff David J. Tappeiner MARK SELLARS and DT Law Partners, LLP REBECCA MORIN 125 E. Victoria Street, Ste. I Santa Barbara, CA 93101 david@dtlawpartners.com E-MAIL ONLY Counsel for Defendant Gregory K. Sabo 10 PATRICIA WOLLUM and Issa F. Mikel SUSAN REYNOLDS David A. Napper 11 Chapman & Glucksman <2 12 11900 West Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800 pa Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704 o5< 13 Bag ervice@cgdrlaw.com az gsabo@cgdrlaw.com >Re 14 Be BQ< imikel@cgdrlaw.com gra 15 dnapper@cgdrlaw.com wis 2a6 slahijaniha@cgdrlaw.com Sa 16 kwindrim@cgdrlaw.com E-MAIL ONLY 17 18 Defendant in Pro Per Patrick Leahy 19 PATRICK LEAHY 961 Randolph Road Santa Barbara, CA 93111 20 U.S. MAIL ONLY 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Notice to Produce To Mark Sellars LAW OFFICES OF McCARTHY & KROES 125 E. VICTORIA STREET, SUITE A SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 (805) 564-2085 R. Chris Kroes, SBN 134935 Attorneys for Defendants: CHANNE COLES, THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a California corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 11 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee CASE NO.: 20CV04132 of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated <2 12 September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF nak geo Conservator of the Estate and Person of DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 5< av 13 Rosemary Free Leahy, as rE 14 ZO Plaintiffs, bbe wQ< fea 15 vs. ast BaF az c= 16 PATRICK LEAHY; CHANNE COLES, THE Complaint Filed: 12/11/20 LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a First Amended Complaint Filed: 1/23/23 17 California corporation; PATRICIA WOLLUM; [Assigned to the Honorable Thomas Anderle, 18 SUSAN REYNOLDS; HELP UNLIMITED, a department 3.] California corporation; and DOES 1 -10, 19 inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: CHANNE G. COLES 23 RESPONDING PARTY: REBECCA MORIN 24 SET NUMBER: ONE 25 W 26 W W 27 28 1 Notice to Produce Defendant CHANNE G. COLES hereby propounds these Requests For Production of Documents, Set One, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 et seq. to Plaintiff REBECCA MORIN. Said requests are to be responded to fully and in writing under oath within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof, plus mailing if applicable. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of these requests, the following definitions of words and phrases shall be applicable: A. The terms “WRITING(S)” as used herein mean a writing as defined in Evidence Code § 250, as well as anything that is in written form or that is a tangible recording of speech, sounds, 10 pictures, words or symbols, however produced or reproduced, including the originals (or any copies 11 when originals are not available) and any other non-identical copies (whether different from the <2 12 BS originals because of notes made on such copies or because of indications that said copies were sent to o5< 13 Gav 3s different individuals than the original or because of any other reason), including, but not limited to, Re 14 Ee aQ< working papers, preliminary, intermediate or final drafts, correspondence, memoranda, inter-office Sea 15 ax ics memoranda, notes, reports, compilations, computer printouts, computer disks, email, and all other data S= 16 found or stored on a computer, minutes or records of meetings, invoices, financial statements, financial 17 calculations, diaries, job diaries, reports of telephone or other conversations, desk calendars, 18 appointment books, photographs, videotapes, films, motion pictures, tape recordings and all other 19 writings and recordings of any kind. 20 B The terms “YOU”, “YOUR” and “RESPONDING PARTY” as used herein refer to 21 Plaintiff, Rebecca Morin and each of your present or former agents, your attorney and/ or any other 22 person and/or entity acting on your behalf. 23 24 Cc. The terms “PERSON” and “PERSONS” means any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, proprietorship, association or other legal entity. 25 D. The term “COMPLAINT” when used herein refers to the operative Complaint filed by 26 YOU against the PROPOUNDING PARTY in this case. 27 28 2 Notice to Produce E. The term “COMMUNICATIONS” as used herein refer to any WRITING and/or transmission, of any sort whatsoever, by one or more persons or entities to one or more persons or entities by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to, telephone conversations, letters, telegrams, teletypes, telexes, facsimiles, electronic mail messages, (email) written memoranda, texts, instant messages, social media interaction and/or postings, and face-to-face conversations. This includes communications in which the recipient is included on an email even if not sent directly to him or her. F The term “ALL” means any and all. G The “LAWSUIT” shail refer to Santa Barbara Superior Court case #20CV04132. 10 H. “EVIDENCE” means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented 11 to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact (Evidence Code § 140). 12 I “RECORDINGS” as used herein shall refer to audio and/or visual recording of a <2 BR SE5S< 13 person’s voice and/or visual images as well as any transcription of same. no 3g pee 14 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS EES weQ< a 1S during the last eight (8) years. Su< Ens This os 16 14. ALL WRITINGS related to medical evaluations of ROSEMARY FREE LEAHY. 17 includes but is not limited to examinations, reports, notes, tests, test results regarding her 18 during the last eight (8) years. 19 15. ALL RECORDINGS of PATRICK LEAHY during the last eight (8) years. 20 16 ALL RECORDINGS of ROSEMARY FREE during the last eight (8) years. 21 17. ALL EVIDENCE that YOU have regarding any allegations in the COMPLAINT as against 22 CHANNE COLES. 23 Dated: September 7, 2023 McCARTHY & KROES 24 25 By: bhi, Mage R. Chris Kroes 26 Attorneys for Defendants: CHANNE COLES, THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, 27 a California corporation 28 4 Notice to Produce Case Name: Sellars v. Leahy, et al. Case No.: 20CV04132 PROOF OF SERVICE Tam employed in the county of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years of age and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 125 E. Victoria Street, Suite A, Santa Barbara, California. On the date set forth below, I served the foregoing documents entitled: DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS on all interested parties in said action by: __X_ (MAIL) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope for each 10 person(s) named below, addressed as set forth immediately below the respective name(s), with postage thereon fully prepaid as first-class mail. I deposited the same in 11 a mailing facility regularly maintained by the United States Post Office for the mailing 12 of letter(s) at my above-stated place of business. <2 gag geo S< av 13 (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a as sealed envelope, designated by Federal Express, for each person(s) named below, nee 14 addressed as set forth immediately below the respective name(s). Such envelope ZOog EBs BOS sea 15 was deposited in a Federal Express receptacle prior to the pick-up time, on the Sui Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis ; Lini Elias Wheelock Subject: RE: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery Thank you David. And you are correct, the discovery cannot be used in the demurrer. From: David J. Tappeiner Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 10:22 PM To: Chris Kroes Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis ; Lini Elias Wheelock Subject: Re: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery Chris: My apologies. With moving firms and then getting hit with Covid again about 3 weeks ago, it’s been challenging. | believe | can get the responses to you by Monday. | don’t think the discovery matters for purposes of the demurrer? David David J. Tappeiner | Partner RIMON PC david.ta einer rimonlaw.com 701 Anacapa St., Suite B Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Please note: | often dictate my emails and replies to emails. As such, please forgive any typos. If my email is unclear, please let me know immediately. Thank you. From: Chris Kroes Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 1:53:14 PM To: David J. Tappeiner Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis ; Lini Elias Wheelock Subject: RE: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery David: On September 7, 2023, our office propounded form interrogatories and a demand for production of documents upon you in the above referenced case. To date, we have not received any responses, and they are long overdue, despite your assertion that you would get them to us weeks ago. All objections have now been waived. Please provide full and complete responses without objections within the next five (5) days. If you fail to do so, we will have to bring a motion to compel. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Chris Kroes Exhibit 3 From: Chris Kroes Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 7:13 AM To: David J. Tappeiner Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis ; Lini Elias Wheelock Subject: RE: Sellars v. Coles. Overdue responses to discovery David: | am still waiting on the discovery responses which you promised to provide us. Chris Exhibit 4 From: David J. Tappeiner Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:18 AM To: Chris Kroes Cc: Esmeralda Murillo; Amanda Lopez-Solis; Lini Elias Wheelock Subject: RE: Overdue discovery Hi Chris: lam very sorry. This Covid has punished me. | am going to get this to you today. David From: Chris Kroes Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 7:09 AM To: David J. Tappeiner Cc: Esmeralda Murillo ; Amanda Lopez-Solis ; Lini Elias Wheelock Subject: Overdue discovery David: | have been more than patient in waiting for the discovery which is long overdue. You have told me on at least two prior occasions that you will have them for me “by Monday” or words to this effect, but | still don’t have them. Clearly this discovery is not a priority for you. You are not leaving me a whole lot of choice but to bring a motion to compel. | would prefer not to do so. Chris PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL I, the undersigned, declare: Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is 125 E. Victoria St, Ste. A Santa Barbara, California 93101 On the date set forth below, I served the following: HANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES by placing true copies thereof in our office scanner, scanning the document and transmitting the document via electronic mail to those addresses as follows: 10 11 COUNSEL FOR Plaintiffs: Counsel for Defendants PATRICIA WOLLUM David J. Tappeiner and SUSAN OLDS 12 Gregory K. Sabo <2 auZ david@dtlawpartners.com geo DT LAW PARTNERS, LLP David A. Napper 5< as 13 125 E. Victoria Street, Suite I Gabriella L. Sternfeld as Santa Barbara, California 93101 Issa Mikel me< 14 ea Chapman & Glucksman ZQ< <>a 15 11900 West Olympic Bivd., Ste. 800 ai < Los Angeles, CA 90064-0704 zag a< 16 imikel@cgdrlaw.com slahijaniha@cgdrlaw.com 17 Defendant in PRO PER: Patrick Leahy 18 961 Randolph Road 19 Santa Barbara, CA 93111 20 At the time of the transmission, I was over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. The 21 machine used for said transmission complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251, and said 22 transmission was reported complete and without error. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 24 true and correct and that this declaration is executed at Santa Barbara, California, on the date hereinafter 25 set forth. 26 /s/ DATED: November 2\ , 2023 ESMERALDA MURILLO 27 28 9 CHANNE COLES’ & THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF R. CHRIS KROES