Preview
1 John S. Rueppel (SBN: 267467)
Angie Lam (SBN: 244719)
2 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
3 San Francisco, California 94104
4 Telephone: (415) 693-0550
Facsimile: (415) 693-0500
5 Email: john@jkzllp.com
angie.lam@jkzllp.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7
Lisa Keith
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN THE COUNTY OF NAPA
10
11 LISA KEITH, CASE NO: 22CV001269
12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN
13 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S
v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VALLEY
14 ROCK FOUNDATION’S NOTICE OF
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LISA
15 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK KEITH’S COMPLIANCE WITH
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 DOCUMENT REQUESTS
16 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and
17 DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,
Date: December 8, 2023
18 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young
19 Dept.: B
Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
20 FAC Filed: March 8, 2023
21 Trial Date: April 2, 2024
I, Angie Lam, declare and state as follows:
22
1. I am an attorney at law in good standing, duly licensed to practice law in the State of
23
California. I am an associate at Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP and have personal knowledge of the
24
facts contained in this declaration, and if called as a witness would competently testify thereto.
25
2. My firm is the attorney of record for Plaintiff Lisa Keith (“Ms. Keith”), the responding
26
party (“Plaintiff/Responding Party”).
27
3. On September 21, 2023, our firm retained a digital forensics and eDiscovery vendor,
28
1
DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION
1 Carden Rose Inc. (“e-vendor”), to assist Ms. Keith in retrieving emails that she was not able to do on her
2 own.
3 4. When the results from the e-vendor became available, our paralegal, Ms. Carolina Ramos,
4 was unable to download the file due to incompatible software. A OneDrive link was then provided by
5 the e-vendor to download the results in a PST file. We then requested the e-vendor to convert the PST
6 file to individual email (.eml) files for review. A total of 9000+ documents were extracted by the e-
7 vendor from two of Plaintiff’s email accounts, which included ~3,200 search hits from one
8 (lisa@lisakeith.com address) of the two Plaintiff’s email accounts.
9 5. On October 16, 2023, our firm first started the review of the 9000+ documents, for
10 relevancy to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Lisa
11 Keith – Set One (“Request”).
12 6. After the review of all 9000+ documents, a total of 151 responsive objection-free
13 supplemental documents in their native file format were produced and served to the Defendant on
14 October 23, 2023.
15 7. No responsive documents were withheld based on privilege.
16 8. Ms. Keith has in good faith attempted to meet and confer with the Defendant regarding
17 their document production concerns:
18 i.) On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant in response to
19 their concerns on August 23, 2023 with respect to Plaintiff’s responses to their request
20 for production of documents and special interrogatories. The letter also provided a
21 thorough explanation as to why Ms. Keith can no longer supplement her interrogatory
22 responses any further. A true and correct copy of the letter dated August 30, 2023 is
23 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
24 ii.) On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff sent a second meet and confer letter to the Defendant
25 and their counsel to inform them that a further production is coming soon. A true and
26 correct copy of the letter dated September 26, 2023 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
27 iii.) On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff requested in her third meet and confer letter to Defendant
28 and their counsel to act reasonably and to not threaten motions and further sanctions to
2
DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION
1 deter Ms. Keith from working diligently to produce documents. A true and correct copy
2 of the letter dated October 3, 2023 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
3 iv.) On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff sent her fourth meet and confer letter in an effort to address
4 and resolve the issues raised by the Defendant. A true and correct copy of the letter dated
5 October 20, 2023 is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
6 9. I have spent more than six hours drafting the opposition and supporting papers. For our
7 work on this type of matter, my rate is $495.00 per hour, for a total of $2,970.00 (6 hours x $495.00).
8 Johnston, Kinney and Zulaica partner John S. Rueppel also spent two hours reviewing the opposition
9 and supporting papers. Mr. Rueppel’s rate is $795.00 per hour, for a total of $1590.00 (2 hours x
10 $795.00). The rates are consistent with attorneys with similar experience. Based on the foregoing,
11 Plaintiff will have incurred $4,560.00 in attorneys’ fees for opposing Defendants’ motion.
12
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under that the laws of the state of California that the foregoing
14 is true and correct.
15
16 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
17
18 Dated: November 26, 2023 By:
Angie Lam, Esq.
19 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lisa Keith
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION
Exhibit A
Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al.
Napa County Superior Court
Case No. 22CV001269
Declaration of Angie Lam in Support of Plaintiff Lisa
Keith’s Opposition to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s
Notice of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s
Compliance with Document Requests
August 30, 2023
Via First Class Mail and via Email
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com
Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com
Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al.
Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269
Meet and Confer Re Discovery Responses
Dear Mr. Tsai,
We are in receipt of your letter dated August 23, 2023 to meet and confer about Lisa Keith’s
(“Respondent”) responses to your clients’ request for production of documents and special
interrogatories. Hopefully, this letter can assuage you somewhat with respect to the Respondent’s
responses.
Regarding the Response to Production of Documents:
Pursuant to the Court-ordered deadline of August 28, 2023, Respondent will serve all
responsive documents by this date.
Regarding Responses to Valley Rock Foundation’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
7, 8, 10, 17, 28, 29, 30, 33, and 34:
For SPROG nos. 1-4, each of the interrogatory seeks to find facts that would establish the
PRESS RELEASES contained statements that are baseless, derogatory, critical, and negative
toward the Respondent. More specifically, the PRESS RELEASES contain a statement: “White
provided a full accounting of her father’s Trust and of her management of the estate, and after a
full examination, the court found no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claims.” The fact of the
matter is that the Court did not hear any evidence in the previous trust matter with respect to the
accounting or the investments of the proceeds. Nor was evidence presented by the parties in the
previous trust matter. As the Court in the previous matter only approved the parties’ settlement
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
August 30, 2023
Page 2
agreement, these are the facts that support the allegations in the FAC. CCP 2030.220(a) requires
each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the
information reasonably available to the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is
required of her from CCP 2030.220(a) and has done her best to identify the facts that she is
presently aware of. Respondent has answered SPROG Nos 1-4 to the best of her ability and is
unable to amend her Responses to these special interrogatories.
For SPROGs nos. 6, 28, 29, and 30 Respondent’s answers are not evasive nor deficient.
Respondent did not issue the PRESS RELEASES but she has identified the source that was used
by the Defendants – Cision and PR NewsWire – to issue the PRESS RELEASES. As Respondent
did not arrange for the release of the PRESS RELEASES, this is the extent of her knowledge with
respect to Defendants’ usage of Cision and PR NewsWire to release the PRESS RELEASES.
Respondent intends to subpoena the business records of Sam Singer and Associates and upon
receipt of the production from Sam Singer and Associates, Respondent will supplement her
response to SPROG Nos. 6, 28, 29, and 30 accordingly.
For SPROG nos. 7, 8, and 17, your arguments in this set of SPROGs appear to be geared toward
only your clients’ theory of the case, and not the Respondent’s. Respondent has made in good
faith, the responses to the interrogatories. CCP 2030.220(a) requires each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to
the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is required of her per CCP 2030.220(a)
and has done her best to identify the facts that she is presently aware of. Respondent, at this time,
is unable to amend her Responses to these special interrogatories,
For SPROGs nos. 10 and 34, Respondent’s answers are not evasive. During the settlement
negotiation in the previous trust action, $1,295,000 was the final amount in which all parties agreed
to settle for so that the matter will not proceed to trial. Respondent has made, in good faith, her
responses to these interrogatories. CCP 2030.220(a) requires each answer in a response to
interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to
the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is required of her per CCP 2030.220(a)
and has done her best to identify the facts that she is presently aware of. Respondent, at this time,
is unable to amend her Responses to these special interrogatories.
For SPROG no. 33, Respondent’s response is neither evasive or deficient. Based on her
knowledge, Respondent identifies the statements in the PRESS RELEASES, that are false and
misleading and thus are the basis for this action. CCP 2030.220(a) requires each answer in a
response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
August 30, 2023
Page 3
available to the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is required of her per CCP
2030.220(a) and has done her best to identify the facts that she is presently aware of. Respondent,
at this time, is unable to amend her Response to this interrogatory.
Regarding Responses to Dr. Rober White’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 6, 8, and 9:
Respondent will supplement her response to SPROG Nos. 6, 8, and 9 by September 1, 2023.
Should you need to discuss these responses in further detail, I will be more than happy to meet and
confer with you so that we may address any additional concerns that you may have.
Sincerely,
Sincerel
eelly,
John
JJohn S. Rueppel
Partner
4870-9203-2892, v. 5
Exhibit B
Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al.
Napa County Superior Court
Case No. 22CV001269
Declaration of Angie Lam in Support of Plaintiff Lisa
Keith’s Opposition to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s
Notice of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s
Compliance with Document Requests
September 26, 2023
Via First Class Mail and via Email
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com
Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com
Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al.
Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269
Meet and Confer
Dear Ms. Kizer,
Thank you for your detailed email dated September 20, 2023. We have been earnestly attempting
to comply with the Court’s order, and have kept in close contact with your firm regarding our
progress. Your email below indicates that you would rather hit new levels of stridency and threats
than meet and confer in good faith.
You assert, without explanation, that Ms. Keith has not complied with the Court’s order. We do
not agree with your assertion. The Court’s ruling, on your Motion to Compel requires Ms. Keith
to provide code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s various discovery
requests, within 10 calendar days “after lifting of the stay of the present ruling”. The Order lifting
the stay was signed on August 11, 2023, but not filed until August 15, 2023, and Ms. Keith served
her responses, without objections, on August 21, 2023. She therefore has fully complied with the
Court’s order, well in advance of the August 25th deadline. We are not sure how you determined
that the deadline was August 28, 2023; please advise. Please also identify what particular
portion(s) of the Court’s order you believe was violated by Ms. Keith’s service of the responses
without objections on August 21, 2023.
The crux of your email appears to related to Ms. Keith’s production of documents related to the
August 21, 2023 discovery responses. She has already produced some documents, and has
informed you that further production is coming soon. I will note that the Court’s order did not
specify a deadline for production of documents. If you disagree, please identify the specific portion
of the Order Granting Motion to Compel that states a deadline for production of documents.
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
September 26, 2023
Page 2
Documents are normally produced a reasonable time after responses are served, a practice your
own firm has followed in this case. I will note that your own clients have taken an inordinate
amount of time to produce
p their own documents, have sent links to purported documents we have
not been able to successfully download, and
a have generally asked for additional time when needed,
which we have generously granted.
As we have communicated to you several times over the course of the last few weeks, our client
is working diligently to produce further responsive documents. I appreciate your concern that our
“client has only now – based on the description in your email – engaged as professional e-discovery
service to assist her.” Of course, you know that use of a “professional e-discovery service” is not
required by the Code of Civil Procedure; it is an extra step our client is taking to ensure that she is
fully compliant. There was no need or responsibility to produce responsive attorney/client
privileged emails until the recent Court hearing denying our client’s motion to relieve her from
waiver of objections. We are now complying accordingly.
We asked for an extension to mid-October for production of our client’s documents; you have
stated that mid-October is unacceptable, but later you indicate that October 6, 2023 is acceptable.
Please describe the practical difference to your clients between these two time frames.
I find your suggestion that we are asking you to “participate in knowing disobedience with a Court
directive” to be alarmist in the extreme. No such request or even suggestion has been made by our
office. This paragraph smacks of trying to create a convincing paper record to punish Ms. Keith at
the next opportunity, rather than actually discuss the Court’s order or Ms. Keith’s production.
Your demands at the end of your email go far beyond what is required either under the CCP or the
Court’s order. There is no CCP requirement that we “provide you with all search terms” used, that
we identify each and every device, account, and repository that has been incorporated in the
collection process”, or that production must include “an under-oath declaration from both your
firm and your client.” (To your credit, your demand that our production be comprehensive is
merely what the CCP requires). We plan to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil
Procedure (and of course any relevant court orders) and produce documents accordingly. Your
attempt to stretch the Court’s order out of all reasonable proportion does not appear to be in good
faith.
You finally ask for an indefinite extension for a motion to compel regarding Ms. Keith’s
interrogatory responses. I can’t in good conscience agree to such an extension, as it would allow
you to file a motion to compel years after responses are served. If you would like to request a
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
September 26, 2023
Page 3
practical extension (say 30 days?) of your deadline to file such a motion (with additional extensions
possible as conditions warrant), please advise.
While your email is extreme in its tone, assertions, and demands, we will construe your letter as a
good faith attempt to meet and confer about the scope of what should be produced, in order to
avoid further motion practice. I hope that we can continue to work together amicably even when
emotions between our clients run high. I do know from experience that courts do not appreciate
(and sometimes punish) bad faith litigation tactics utilized only for the purposes of harassment and
delay. Willfully misconstruing a court order in a bid to drive up the attorney’s fees of your
opponent could be considered sanctionable practice under CCP sections 128.5 and 128.7. See for
example In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649-50): “[T]he total lack of merit of
[a pleading] is viewed as evidence that the [party] must have intended it only for delay.”
We look forward to your considered response; and hope we can agree on a reasonable deadline for
further production soon.
Best,
John
John S. Rueppel
Partner
4888-0509-6578, v. 1
Exhibit C
Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al.
Napa County Superior Court
Case No. 22CV001269
Declaration of Angie Lam in Support of Plaintiff Lisa
Keith’s Opposition to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s
Notice of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s
Compliance with Document Requests
October 3, 2023
Via First Class Mail and via Email
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com
Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com
Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al.
Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269
Meet and Confer
Dear Mr. Tsai,
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 30, 2024. Like Ms. Kizer’s earlier email on
September 20, 2023, I find the tone of this letter to be less than productive, less than frank, and
more than a little offensive. I again request that you and your clients act reasonably and avoid
dragging us into a meaningless struggle of letters and motions, while we continue to work
diligently to produce documents and request very reasonable extensions.
You have not answered my specific questions that were included in my letter dated
September 30, 2023:
x Please also identify what particular portion(s) of the Court’s order you believe was violated
by Ms. Keith’s service of the responses without objections on August 21, 2023.
x I will note that the Court’s order did not specify a deadline for production of documents. If
you disagree, please identify the specific portion of the Order Granting Motion to Compel
that states a deadline for production of documents.
x We asked for an extension to mid-October for production of our client’s documents; you
have stated that mid-October is unacceptable, but later you indicate that October 6, 2023
is acceptable. Please describe the practical difference to your clients between these two
time frames.
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
October 3, 2023
Page 2
x You finally ask for an indefinite extension for a motion to compel regarding Ms. Keith’s
interrogatory responses. I can’t in good conscience agree to such an extension, as it would
allow you to file a motion to compel years after responses are served. If you would like to
request a practical extension (say 30 days?) of your deadline to file such a motion (with
additional extensions possible as conditions warrant), please advise.
If you can, please do take the opportunity to answer these questions, as it will facilitate our
discussion. For ease of reference, I attached Ms. Kizer’s email, my letter in response, and your
letter of September 30, 2023 below.
Again, we respectfully ask for an extension to October 15, 2023. That is less than two
weeks away.
To provide you with a reasonable update, the service our client has contracted with has
searched two email accounts (her only two email accounts, to the best of my knowledge). The
service used the following search terms:
Celeste White
Robert White
Valley Rock
Napa Valley Register
Dominic Campisis
Timothy Keith
Richard Keith
Napa Valley Register article
Darlene Keith
David Keith
Roxanne Keith
Press Release
Trust
“Trust Action”
$1,295,000
“compensation for damages”
“wrongdoing as trustee”
Co-trustee
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
October 3, 2023
Page 3
Judicial review
Accounting
Non-disparagement
“thousands or tens of thousands of individuals”
“internet search engine searches”
March 202 Press Release.
The search with those search terms has identified approximately 1,624 emails. We will
review those emails for responsiveness to your document requests, and should have them reviewed
by October 20, 2023.
In case you persist in filing some sort of motion against us, I will highlight here some of
the more extreme and indefensible statements in your letter:
x “Third, your attempt to blame the Court for your failure to provide Code-compliant
responsive documents is almost beyond comprehension for an officer of the Court
to put on the record.” Nowhere in my letter do I impliedly, in any way, blame the
Court for anything. I have faith that the Court will see that for itself. If you disagree,
please identify the sentence(s) you believe “blame the Court” for our “failure”.
x “Instead, it appears that Ms. Keith intends to only now begin the process of
searching for, collecting, and producing even documents unaffected by the Order-
that is, documents Defendants requested on April 5 of this year.” In fact, as you
know, until the Court’s Order denying our Motion for Relief from Waiver, the
number of non-privileged, responsive documents in our client’s possession was
fairly small. This is because the wrongdoing in this case was via your clients’ press-
releases, which our client had no knowledge of or participation with. This is a
simple case, with a simple result: the jury will either believe the press releases could
be construed as negative about our client, or it won’t. After the Court’s order, a far
larger number of emails and documents were potentially implicated, and we are
dealing with that in good faith.
x “And, now, more than two months after the Court granted Defendants’ motion to
compel, you and your client are finally contracting with a vendor to search her
records.” No, as discussed, she did this well-before your letter dated September 30,
2023.
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
October 3, 2023
Page 4
x “Your and your client’s past conduct in this case do not presently give us great faith
in your and your client’s fidelity to pending discovery obligations.” Again, there
has been one set of discovery responses to your one set of discovery requests. We
timely served responses to those requests following the Court’s order. We are
working diligently on the responsive emails now, as described above. We have
given you a clear date by which we expect to be able to produce responsive
documents. The only other “past conduct” was defeating your demurrer earlier this
year.
Again, I believe the Court would prefer that we continue to amicably work out these issues
rather than for your client to file a patently unnecessary additional motion. Again, I ask that you
do not attempt to read terms into the Court’s Order that aren’t there, grant a reasonable extension
to provide these documents, and help the lawsuit more forward. Your clients are not going to win
this lawsuit with letters.
Again, while your letter (like Ms. Kizer’s email) is extreme in its tone, assertions, and
demands, we will construe your letter as a good faith attempt to meet and confer about the scope
of what should be produced, in order to avoid further motion practice. I hope that we can continue
to work together amicably even when emotions between our clients run high. I do know from
experience that courts do not appreciate (and sometimes punish) bad faith litigation tactics utilized
only for the purposes of harassment and delay. Willfully misconstruing a court order in a bid to
drive up the attorney’s fees of your opponent could be considered sanctionable practice under CCP
sections 128.5 and 128.7. See for example In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649-
50): “[T]he total lack of merit of [a pleading] is viewed as evidence that the [party] must have
intended it only for delay.”
We look forward to your considered response; and hope we can agree on a reasonable
deadline for further production soon.
Best,
JJohn
ohn S. Rueppel
Partner
(QFORVXUHV
From: Kizer, Kathy
To: Angie Lam
Cc: Tsai, Jeff; McCaffrey, Amanda; Perez, Christina; John Rueppel; Carolina Ramos; Patty DeOcampo; Margolis,
Emily
Subject: RE: Keith v. White
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 12:33:28 AM
Attachments: image001.png
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Angie,
We have reviewed your email. Thank you for sending us an update.
As an initial matter, we are concerned that your client has only now – based on the description in
your email – engaged a professional e-discovery service to assist with her court-ordered obligations.
As you know, the discovery requests at issue were served on April 5, 2023. Ms. Keith and your firm
were already several days in violation of the Court’s most recent August 28th deadline, and you all
remain in violation in light of today’s admission that discovery remains uncollected, unsearched, and
unproduced. We are also concerned in light of the fact that Ms. Keith signed Verifications stating she
would produce all responsive documents, and John Rueppel proclaimed her document production
complete in his September 12, 2023 letter, even though it was clear no documents were produced
from your firm, and the production was obviously incomplete (see #2 and #6 below).
As for your proposed timing, it is not acceptable. This is, in part, due to the length of time that Ms.
Keith and your firm have had to comply with your discovery obligations. These good-faith and Code-
based obligations run concurrently to both a client and her lawyer. We object to your plan to remain
in violation of the Court’s order at least through “early to mid-October” and we cannot – and will not
– as officers of the Court participate in knowing disobedience with a Court directive.
Given that Ms. Keith and your firm have failed to comply with basic discovery obligations (much less
a Court order), we require that you and your client affirmatively agree to the following with respect
to your e-discovery collection, review, and production process:
1. The collection, review, and production will include all sources of Lisa Keith’s
communications, including email, text and instant messaging (such as SMS messaging or
through other services like WhatsApp, Signal, Facebook or their equivalents), and
written documentation of any kind. You will produce all electronically stored information
(ESI) in native file format, as required by Valley Rock Foundation’s document requests.
2. The collection, review, and production of responsive records will include all relevant
custodians within Lisa Keith’s control, which notably includes her attorneys in the trust
litigation (such as Dominic Campisi) and her attorneys in the instant lawsuit (such as John
Rueppel, Evan Winet, and yourself).
3. You will provide us with the search terms (and any and all limiting factors, such as date
ranges) utilized in the collection process, including the identities of those who will be
conducting the collection and review. The search terms should include, at a minimum,
the following for the period from April 2020 to the present: press, release, newswire,
Businesswire, Napa, estate, White, Celeste, Robert, “Valley Rock”, “Bar 49”, Foundation,
Langhorne, “Rodney Stone”, settle, lawsuit, “trust action”, agreement, order, reputation,
“standing in the community”, non-disparagement, disparage, defame, defamation,
defamatory, critical, criticize, “negative toward”, baseless, frivolous, “trial on the merits”,
newspaper, article, Camille, sister, sales, revenue, income, damages.
4. You will identify each and every device, account, and repository that has been
incorporated in the collection process.
5. Production will begin no later than September 29, 2023, and will be complete – along
with an under-oath declaration from both your firm and your client – by October 6,
2023.
6. You will produce all attachments to responsive emails. (We note that the attachments
referred to in the email exchange produced on September 12, 2023 have not been
produced.) We also note that the Google Alert referenced in Ms. Keith’s interrogatory
responses was not produced. (See RFP 43)
7. Your production will be comprehensive and produce ALL responsive documents and not
just documents Ms. Keith chooses to produce.
8. You will agree to an indefinite extension for a motion to compel further responses to
Defendants’ interrogatories to avoid piecemeal discovery motions.
In the event you agree to and comply with these requirements, our clients will forego filing another
sanctions motion – both to save the expense of filing such a motion and to conserve the Court’s
time. In the event you will not agree and comply with all of the foregoing, we are then at an impasse,
and we plan to seek redress with the Court against Ms. Keith and your firm.
Regards,
Kathy
Kathleen S. Kizer
Of Counsel
T +1 415 615 6003
F +1 415 659 7303
M +1 415 994 5822
kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
DLA Piper LLP (US)
dlapiper.com
From: Angie Lam
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:58 AM
To: Kizer, Kathy
Cc: Tsai, Jeff ; McCaffrey, Amanda
; Perez, Christina ; John
Rueppel ; Carolina Ramos ; Patty DeOcampo
Subject: Keith v. White
❙EXTERNAL MESSAGE
Hello Kathy,
Regarding the set one production of documents, Ms. Keith has retained a professional e-discovery
company to retrieve e-mail communications in its native format and will be able to supplement the
production that was produced on September 12, 2023. As of today, I do not have a set time as to
when the production will be completed. I anticipate it will be early to mid-October and will try to get
the production out to you earlier, if possible.
Thanks,
Angie Lam
Associate Attorney
Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP
101 Montgomery Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Main Office 415.693.0550
Fax 415.693.0500
www.jkzllp.com
w w w . j k z l l p . c o m /espanol
Career Opportunities at JKZ LLP: https://www.jkzllp.com/about/career-opportunities/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged.
They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that
any disclosure, copying, distributing, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly
prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges
as to this communication or otherwise. (See State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App.
4th 644.) If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender. Thank you.
The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use
of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy
all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.
September 26, 2023
Via First Class Mail and via Email
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com
Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com
Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al.
Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269
Meet and Confer
Dear Ms. Kizer,
Thank you for your detailed email dated September 20, 2023. We have been earnestly attempting
to comply with the Court’s order, and have kept in close contact with your firm regarding our
progress. Your email below indicates that you would rather hit new levels of stridency and threats
than meet and confer in good faith.
You assert, without explanation, that Ms. Keith has not complied with the Court’s order. We do
not agree with your assertion. The Court’s ruling, on your Motion to Compel requires Ms. Keith
to provide code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s various discovery
requests, within 10 calendar days “after lifting of the stay of the present ruling”. The Order lifting
the stay was signed on August 11, 2023, but not filed until August 15, 2023, and Ms. Keith served
her responses, without objections, on August 21, 2023. She therefore has fully complied with the
Court’s order, well in advance of the August 25th deadline. We are not sure how you determined
that the deadline was August 28, 2023; please advise. Please also identify what particular
portion(s) of the Court’s order you believe was violated by Ms. Keith’s service of the responses
without objections on August 21, 2023.
The crux of your email appears to related to Ms. Keith’s production of documents related to the
August 21, 2023 discovery responses. She has already produced some documents, and has
informed you that further production is coming soon. I will note that the Court’s order did not
specify a deadline for production of documents. If you disagree, please identify the specific portion
of the Order Granting Motion to Compel that states a deadline for production of documents.
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
September 26, 2023
Page 2
Documents are normally produced a reasonable time after responses are served, a practice your
own firm has followed in this case. I will note that your own clients have taken an inordinate
amount of time to produce their own documents, have sent links to purported documents we have
not been able to successfully download, and have generally asked for additional time when needed,
which we have generously granted.
As we have communicated to you several times over the course of the last few weeks, our client
is working diligently to produce further responsive documents. I appreciate your concern that our
“client has only now – based on the description in your email – engaged as professional e-discovery
service to assist her.” Of course, you know that use of a “professional e-discovery service” is not
required by the Code of Civil Procedure; it is an extra step our client is taking to ensure that she is
fully compliant. There was no need or responsibility to produce responsive attorney/client
privileged emails until the recent Court hearing denying our client’s motion to relieve her from
waiver of objections. We are now complying accordingly.
We asked for an extension to mid-October for production of our client’s documents; you have
stated that mid-October is unacceptable, but later you indicate that October 6, 2023 is acceptable.
Please describe the practical difference to your clients between these two time frames.
I find your suggestion that we are asking you to “participate in knowing disobedience with a Court
directive” to be alarmist in the extreme. No such request or even suggestion has been made by our
office. This paragraph smacks of trying to create a convincing paper record to punish Ms. Keith at
the next opportunity, rather than actually discuss the Court’s order or Ms. Keith’s production.
Your demands at the end of your email go far beyond what is required either under the CCP or the
Court’s order. There is no CCP requirement that we “provide you with all search terms” used, that
we identify each and every device, account, and repository that has been incorporated in the
collection process”, or that production must include “an under-oath declaration from both your
firm and your client.” (To your credit, your demand that our production be comprehensive is
merely what the CCP requires). We plan to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil
Procedure (and of course any relevant court orders) and produce documents accordingly. Your
attempt to stretch the Court’s order out of all reasonable proportion does not appear to be in good
faith.
You finally ask for an indefinite extension for a motion to compel regarding Ms. Keith’s
interrogatory responses. I can’t in good conscience agree to such an extension, as it would allow
you to file a motion to compel years after responses are served. If you would like to request a
Kathleen S. Kizer
Jeffrey E. Tsai
DLA Piper LLP (US)
September 26, 2023
Page 3
practical extension (say 30 days?) of your deadline to file such a motion (with additional extensions
possible as conditions warrant), please advise.
While your email is extreme in its tone, assertions, and demands, we will construe your letter as a
good faith attempt to meet and confer about the scope of what should be produced, in order to
avoid further motion practice. I hope that we can continue to work together amicably even when
emotions between our clients run high. I do know from experience that courts do not appreciate
(and sometimes punish) bad faith litigation tactics utilized only for the purposes of harassment and
delay. Willfully misconstruing a court order in a bid to drive up the attorney’s fees of your
opponent could be considered sanctionable practice under CCP sections 128.5 and 128.7. See for
example In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649-50): “[T]he total lack of merit of
[a pleading] is viewed as evidence that the [party] must have intended it only for delay.”
We look forward to your considered response; and hope we can agree on a reasonable deadline for
further production soon.
Best,
John
John S. Rueppel
Partner
4888-0509-6578, v. 1
DLA Piper LLP (US)
555 Mission Street
Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
www.dlapiper.com
Jeffrey Tsai
Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com
T 415.615.6055
F 415.659.7380
September 30, 2023
John S. Rueppel
Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94101
Re: Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al. (Napa County Super. Ct. Case
No. 22CV001269) – Response to September 26, 2023, Letter
Dear Mr. Rueppel:
Thank you for your September 26, 2023, letter response to my
colleague Kathy Kizer’s September 20, 2023, email. This letter is intended as a
further good-faith attempt to bring you and your client into compliance with the
Court’s August 11, 2023, Order (“Order”) in this case. As a general matter, we are
not in a position to facilitate your continued violation of that Order. As set forth
below, we again respectfully request complete and Code-compliant production of
documents under those certain conditions outlined below in light of your continued
failure to abide by the Court’s instructions.
Relevant Background
As you know, we served straightforward requests for production on Ms.
Keith on April 5, 2023. All we seek are the Code-compliant responses to which we
are entitled—and to which we have been entitled since May 9, 2023. Though your
letter accuses Ms. Kizer of not meeting and conferring with you in good faith, the
plain record (which we would again put before the Court if we are unable to reach
resolution here) demonstrates the opposite.
We have endeavored to work with you and your client in good faith for
over five months on this discovery. The Court agreed as much in its August 11,
2023, Order, by emphasizing that, despite our extensive meet-and-confer efforts
(including what the Court described as the “collegial” extensions that we were
“under no compulsion” to offer but nonetheless extended), your client has failed
repeatedly without justification to produce all documents responsive to our requests
as required of her by the law.
J. Rueppel
September 30, 2023
Page Two
It is now nearly October and Ms. Keith’s document production is still
outstanding.
Correcting the Factual Record
Your letter is rife with factual error, which this letter will now correct.
First, as a factual matter, you and your client have not been
actively engaging with us regarding your discovery obligations. You wrote
in your letter that the parties have been in “close contact” about this document
production, and that you have communicated to us “several times over the course of
the last few weeks” that your client is working on producing documents.
Here are the actual relevant facts:
x August 11, 2023 – The Court’s Order signed August 11th lifted the stay
and gave Plaintiff ten days from that point forward to complete her
discovery responses.1
x August 21, 2023 – Plaintiff served written responses but produced no
documents.
1 Importantly, the Court’s Order did not provide an exception for documents
to be produced at a later time. Your letter’s implied suggestion that your document
production is at your unilateral discretion because the Order allegedly “did not
specify a deadline for production of documents” (emphasis in original) is mystifying.
The Court ordered your compliance in ten days following the stay’s lifting—which is
itself months after the document requests were originally propounded. (See Order
[ordering plaintiff to “serve, no later than 10 calendar days after the lifting of the
stay of the present ruling, code-compliant responses, without objection (unless
otherwise ordered), to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents – Set One,
Special Interrogatories – Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Set One”].) We
cannot prevent you from trafficking in an incredulous argument with the Court, but
we believe the Court will not indulge such an unlawful contortion of its clear Order.
J. Rueppel
September 30, 2023
Page Three
x August 23, 2023 – We sent you a letter inquiring about the missing
document production. (You eventually responded to our letter on August
30, 2023, but you did not address the document production other than to
say: “Pursuant to the Court-ordered deadline of August 28, 2023,
Respondent will serve all responsive documents by this date.”)
x August 28, 2023 – Plaintiff produced 18 documents, most of which are
already publicly available, such as press releases and filings from the
prior trust-related litigation (with the exception of screenshots of three
text messages and PDF versions of two emails, none of which were
produced in their native formats as required by Defendants’ Requests).
x August 29, 2023 – We sent you another letter identifying numerous
deficiencies in your August 28th production, including that [1] you did not
produce ESI in its native format; and [2] your production was facially
incomplete. As a courtesy (and without any obligation), we requested that
you come into compliance by September 5, 2023.
x September 5, 2023 – You did not come into compliance by September 5,
2023. Instead, your colleague Ms. Lam emailed Ms. Kizer on that date
with an admission that email communications had not—as of that time—
been obtained: “In response to Jeff Tsai’s letter dated August 29, 2023, we
are still working with our client to obtain email communications.”
(Emphasis added.) Ms. Lam requested almost four weeks for an extension
to produce documents. She did not acknowledge the ESI native format
issue.
x September 6, 2023 – We responded to your request in a letter. In denying
your request, we noted that your dilatory discovery conduct and absence of
any justification did not warrant the courtesy of any additional
extensions.
x September 12, 2023 – You provided a “supplemental” production
containing three documents (without even the email attachments
referenced therein). In your cover letter, your firm represented—as
J. Rueppel
September 30, 2023
Page Four
officers of the Court—that the production was finished: “This production
completes Respondent’s response as to Defendant Valley Rock
Foundation’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Lisa Keith
– Set One, as Served on April 5, 2023.” (Emphasis added.)
x September 19, 2023 – Your September 12th representation was false. On
September 19th, Ms. Lam—who the Court noted in its August 11th Order
likely committed perjury in this case (see Order at Ex. A, p. 13: “Plaintiff’s
counsel . . . compounds the problem by attesting, under oath, that
Plaintiff’s responses were veri
Preview
1 John S. Rueppel (SBN: 267467) Angie Lam (SBN: 244719) 2 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 3 San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 693-0550 Facsimile: (415) 693-0500 5 Email: john@jkzllp.com angie.lam@jkzllp.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 Lisa Keith 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN THE COUNTY OF NAPA 10 11 LISA KEITH, CASE NO: 22CV001269 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN 13 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VALLEY 14 ROCK FOUNDATION’S NOTICE OF CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF LISA 15 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK KEITH’S COMPLIANCE WITH FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 DOCUMENT REQUESTS 16 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, and 17 DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Date: December 8, 2023 18 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. Scott R.L. Young 19 Dept.: B Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022 20 FAC Filed: March 8, 2023 21 Trial Date: April 2, 2024 I, Angie Lam, declare and state as follows: 22 1. I am an attorney at law in good standing, duly licensed to practice law in the State of 23 California. I am an associate at Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP and have personal knowledge of the 24 facts contained in this declaration, and if called as a witness would competently testify thereto. 25 2. My firm is the attorney of record for Plaintiff Lisa Keith (“Ms. Keith”), the responding 26 party (“Plaintiff/Responding Party”). 27 3. On September 21, 2023, our firm retained a digital forensics and eDiscovery vendor, 28 1 DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION 1 Carden Rose Inc. (“e-vendor”), to assist Ms. Keith in retrieving emails that she was not able to do on her 2 own. 3 4. When the results from the e-vendor became available, our paralegal, Ms. Carolina Ramos, 4 was unable to download the file due to incompatible software. A OneDrive link was then provided by 5 the e-vendor to download the results in a PST file. We then requested the e-vendor to convert the PST 6 file to individual email (.eml) files for review. A total of 9000+ documents were extracted by the e- 7 vendor from two of Plaintiff’s email accounts, which included ~3,200 search hits from one 8 (lisa@lisakeith.com address) of the two Plaintiff’s email accounts. 9 5. On October 16, 2023, our firm first started the review of the 9000+ documents, for 10 relevancy to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Lisa 11 Keith – Set One (“Request”). 12 6. After the review of all 9000+ documents, a total of 151 responsive objection-free 13 supplemental documents in their native file format were produced and served to the Defendant on 14 October 23, 2023. 15 7. No responsive documents were withheld based on privilege. 16 8. Ms. Keith has in good faith attempted to meet and confer with the Defendant regarding 17 their document production concerns: 18 i.) On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant in response to 19 their concerns on August 23, 2023 with respect to Plaintiff’s responses to their request 20 for production of documents and special interrogatories. The letter also provided a 21 thorough explanation as to why Ms. Keith can no longer supplement her interrogatory 22 responses any further. A true and correct copy of the letter dated August 30, 2023 is 23 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 24 ii.) On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff sent a second meet and confer letter to the Defendant 25 and their counsel to inform them that a further production is coming soon. A true and 26 correct copy of the letter dated September 26, 2023 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 27 iii.) On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff requested in her third meet and confer letter to Defendant 28 and their counsel to act reasonably and to not threaten motions and further sanctions to 2 DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION 1 deter Ms. Keith from working diligently to produce documents. A true and correct copy 2 of the letter dated October 3, 2023 is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3 iv.) On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff sent her fourth meet and confer letter in an effort to address 4 and resolve the issues raised by the Defendant. A true and correct copy of the letter dated 5 October 20, 2023 is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 6 9. I have spent more than six hours drafting the opposition and supporting papers. For our 7 work on this type of matter, my rate is $495.00 per hour, for a total of $2,970.00 (6 hours x $495.00). 8 Johnston, Kinney and Zulaica partner John S. Rueppel also spent two hours reviewing the opposition 9 and supporting papers. Mr. Rueppel’s rate is $795.00 per hour, for a total of $1590.00 (2 hours x 10 $795.00). The rates are consistent with attorneys with similar experience. Based on the foregoing, 11 Plaintiff will have incurred $4,560.00 in attorneys’ fees for opposing Defendants’ motion. 12 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under that the laws of the state of California that the foregoing 14 is true and correct. 15 16 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 17 18 Dated: November 26, 2023 By: Angie Lam, Esq. 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lisa Keith 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF ANGIE LAM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LISA KEITH’S OPPOSITION Exhibit A Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al. Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269 Declaration of Angie Lam in Support of Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Opposition to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Notice of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Compliance with Document Requests August 30, 2023 Via First Class Mail and via Email Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al. Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269 Meet and Confer Re Discovery Responses Dear Mr. Tsai, We are in receipt of your letter dated August 23, 2023 to meet and confer about Lisa Keith’s (“Respondent”) responses to your clients’ request for production of documents and special interrogatories. Hopefully, this letter can assuage you somewhat with respect to the Respondent’s responses. Regarding the Response to Production of Documents: Pursuant to the Court-ordered deadline of August 28, 2023, Respondent will serve all responsive documents by this date. Regarding Responses to Valley Rock Foundation’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, 28, 29, 30, 33, and 34: For SPROG nos. 1-4, each of the interrogatory seeks to find facts that would establish the PRESS RELEASES contained statements that are baseless, derogatory, critical, and negative toward the Respondent. More specifically, the PRESS RELEASES contain a statement: “White provided a full accounting of her father’s Trust and of her management of the estate, and after a full examination, the court found no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claims.” The fact of the matter is that the Court did not hear any evidence in the previous trust matter with respect to the accounting or the investments of the proceeds. Nor was evidence presented by the parties in the previous trust matter. As the Court in the previous matter only approved the parties’ settlement Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) August 30, 2023 Page 2 agreement, these are the facts that support the allegations in the FAC. CCP 2030.220(a) requires each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is required of her from CCP 2030.220(a) and has done her best to identify the facts that she is presently aware of. Respondent has answered SPROG Nos 1-4 to the best of her ability and is unable to amend her Responses to these special interrogatories. For SPROGs nos. 6, 28, 29, and 30 Respondent’s answers are not evasive nor deficient. Respondent did not issue the PRESS RELEASES but she has identified the source that was used by the Defendants – Cision and PR NewsWire – to issue the PRESS RELEASES. As Respondent did not arrange for the release of the PRESS RELEASES, this is the extent of her knowledge with respect to Defendants’ usage of Cision and PR NewsWire to release the PRESS RELEASES. Respondent intends to subpoena the business records of Sam Singer and Associates and upon receipt of the production from Sam Singer and Associates, Respondent will supplement her response to SPROG Nos. 6, 28, 29, and 30 accordingly. For SPROG nos. 7, 8, and 17, your arguments in this set of SPROGs appear to be geared toward only your clients’ theory of the case, and not the Respondent’s. Respondent has made in good faith, the responses to the interrogatories. CCP 2030.220(a) requires each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is required of her per CCP 2030.220(a) and has done her best to identify the facts that she is presently aware of. Respondent, at this time, is unable to amend her Responses to these special interrogatories, For SPROGs nos. 10 and 34, Respondent’s answers are not evasive. During the settlement negotiation in the previous trust action, $1,295,000 was the final amount in which all parties agreed to settle for so that the matter will not proceed to trial. Respondent has made, in good faith, her responses to these interrogatories. CCP 2030.220(a) requires each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is required of her per CCP 2030.220(a) and has done her best to identify the facts that she is presently aware of. Respondent, at this time, is unable to amend her Responses to these special interrogatories. For SPROG no. 33, Respondent’s response is neither evasive or deficient. Based on her knowledge, Respondent identifies the statements in the PRESS RELEASES, that are false and misleading and thus are the basis for this action. CCP 2030.220(a) requires each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) August 30, 2023 Page 3 available to the responding party permits. Respondent has done what is required of her per CCP 2030.220(a) and has done her best to identify the facts that she is presently aware of. Respondent, at this time, is unable to amend her Response to this interrogatory. Regarding Responses to Dr. Rober White’s Special Interrogatories Nos. 6, 8, and 9: Respondent will supplement her response to SPROG Nos. 6, 8, and 9 by September 1, 2023. Should you need to discuss these responses in further detail, I will be more than happy to meet and confer with you so that we may address any additional concerns that you may have. Sincerely, Sincerel eelly, John JJohn S. Rueppel Partner 4870-9203-2892, v. 5 Exhibit B Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al. Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269 Declaration of Angie Lam in Support of Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Opposition to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Notice of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Compliance with Document Requests September 26, 2023 Via First Class Mail and via Email Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al. Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269 Meet and Confer Dear Ms. Kizer, Thank you for your detailed email dated September 20, 2023. We have been earnestly attempting to comply with the Court’s order, and have kept in close contact with your firm regarding our progress. Your email below indicates that you would rather hit new levels of stridency and threats than meet and confer in good faith. You assert, without explanation, that Ms. Keith has not complied with the Court’s order. We do not agree with your assertion. The Court’s ruling, on your Motion to Compel requires Ms. Keith to provide code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s various discovery requests, within 10 calendar days “after lifting of the stay of the present ruling”. The Order lifting the stay was signed on August 11, 2023, but not filed until August 15, 2023, and Ms. Keith served her responses, without objections, on August 21, 2023. She therefore has fully complied with the Court’s order, well in advance of the August 25th deadline. We are not sure how you determined that the deadline was August 28, 2023; please advise. Please also identify what particular portion(s) of the Court’s order you believe was violated by Ms. Keith’s service of the responses without objections on August 21, 2023. The crux of your email appears to related to Ms. Keith’s production of documents related to the August 21, 2023 discovery responses. She has already produced some documents, and has informed you that further production is coming soon. I will note that the Court’s order did not specify a deadline for production of documents. If you disagree, please identify the specific portion of the Order Granting Motion to Compel that states a deadline for production of documents. Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) September 26, 2023 Page 2 Documents are normally produced a reasonable time after responses are served, a practice your own firm has followed in this case. I will note that your own clients have taken an inordinate amount of time to produce p their own documents, have sent links to purported documents we have not been able to successfully download, and a have generally asked for additional time when needed, which we have generously granted. As we have communicated to you several times over the course of the last few weeks, our client is working diligently to produce further responsive documents. I appreciate your concern that our “client has only now – based on the description in your email – engaged as professional e-discovery service to assist her.” Of course, you know that use of a “professional e-discovery service” is not required by the Code of Civil Procedure; it is an extra step our client is taking to ensure that she is fully compliant. There was no need or responsibility to produce responsive attorney/client privileged emails until the recent Court hearing denying our client’s motion to relieve her from waiver of objections. We are now complying accordingly. We asked for an extension to mid-October for production of our client’s documents; you have stated that mid-October is unacceptable, but later you indicate that October 6, 2023 is acceptable. Please describe the practical difference to your clients between these two time frames. I find your suggestion that we are asking you to “participate in knowing disobedience with a Court directive” to be alarmist in the extreme. No such request or even suggestion has been made by our office. This paragraph smacks of trying to create a convincing paper record to punish Ms. Keith at the next opportunity, rather than actually discuss the Court’s order or Ms. Keith’s production. Your demands at the end of your email go far beyond what is required either under the CCP or the Court’s order. There is no CCP requirement that we “provide you with all search terms” used, that we identify each and every device, account, and repository that has been incorporated in the collection process”, or that production must include “an under-oath declaration from both your firm and your client.” (To your credit, your demand that our production be comprehensive is merely what the CCP requires). We plan to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure (and of course any relevant court orders) and produce documents accordingly. Your attempt to stretch the Court’s order out of all reasonable proportion does not appear to be in good faith. You finally ask for an indefinite extension for a motion to compel regarding Ms. Keith’s interrogatory responses. I can’t in good conscience agree to such an extension, as it would allow you to file a motion to compel years after responses are served. If you would like to request a Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) September 26, 2023 Page 3 practical extension (say 30 days?) of your deadline to file such a motion (with additional extensions possible as conditions warrant), please advise. While your email is extreme in its tone, assertions, and demands, we will construe your letter as a good faith attempt to meet and confer about the scope of what should be produced, in order to avoid further motion practice. I hope that we can continue to work together amicably even when emotions between our clients run high. I do know from experience that courts do not appreciate (and sometimes punish) bad faith litigation tactics utilized only for the purposes of harassment and delay. Willfully misconstruing a court order in a bid to drive up the attorney’s fees of your opponent could be considered sanctionable practice under CCP sections 128.5 and 128.7. See for example In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649-50): “[T]he total lack of merit of [a pleading] is viewed as evidence that the [party] must have intended it only for delay.” We look forward to your considered response; and hope we can agree on a reasonable deadline for further production soon. Best, John John S. Rueppel Partner 4888-0509-6578, v. 1 Exhibit C Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al. Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269 Declaration of Angie Lam in Support of Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Opposition to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Notice of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Compliance with Document Requests October 3, 2023 Via First Class Mail and via Email Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al. Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269 Meet and Confer Dear Mr. Tsai, I am in receipt of your letter dated September 30, 2024. Like Ms. Kizer’s earlier email on September 20, 2023, I find the tone of this letter to be less than productive, less than frank, and more than a little offensive. I again request that you and your clients act reasonably and avoid dragging us into a meaningless struggle of letters and motions, while we continue to work diligently to produce documents and request very reasonable extensions. You have not answered my specific questions that were included in my letter dated September 30, 2023: x Please also identify what particular portion(s) of the Court’s order you believe was violated by Ms. Keith’s service of the responses without objections on August 21, 2023. x I will note that the Court’s order did not specify a deadline for production of documents. If you disagree, please identify the specific portion of the Order Granting Motion to Compel that states a deadline for production of documents. x We asked for an extension to mid-October for production of our client’s documents; you have stated that mid-October is unacceptable, but later you indicate that October 6, 2023 is acceptable. Please describe the practical difference to your clients between these two time frames. Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) October 3, 2023 Page 2 x You finally ask for an indefinite extension for a motion to compel regarding Ms. Keith’s interrogatory responses. I can’t in good conscience agree to such an extension, as it would allow you to file a motion to compel years after responses are served. If you would like to request a practical extension (say 30 days?) of your deadline to file such a motion (with additional extensions possible as conditions warrant), please advise. If you can, please do take the opportunity to answer these questions, as it will facilitate our discussion. For ease of reference, I attached Ms. Kizer’s email, my letter in response, and your letter of September 30, 2023 below. Again, we respectfully ask for an extension to October 15, 2023. That is less than two weeks away. To provide you with a reasonable update, the service our client has contracted with has searched two email accounts (her only two email accounts, to the best of my knowledge). The service used the following search terms: Celeste White Robert White Valley Rock Napa Valley Register Dominic Campisis Timothy Keith Richard Keith Napa Valley Register article Darlene Keith David Keith Roxanne Keith Press Release Trust “Trust Action” $1,295,000 “compensation for damages” “wrongdoing as trustee” Co-trustee Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) October 3, 2023 Page 3 Judicial review Accounting Non-disparagement “thousands or tens of thousands of individuals” “internet search engine searches” March 202 Press Release. The search with those search terms has identified approximately 1,624 emails. We will review those emails for responsiveness to your document requests, and should have them reviewed by October 20, 2023. In case you persist in filing some sort of motion against us, I will highlight here some of the more extreme and indefensible statements in your letter: x “Third, your attempt to blame the Court for your failure to provide Code-compliant responsive documents is almost beyond comprehension for an officer of the Court to put on the record.” Nowhere in my letter do I impliedly, in any way, blame the Court for anything. I have faith that the Court will see that for itself. If you disagree, please identify the sentence(s) you believe “blame the Court” for our “failure”. x “Instead, it appears that Ms. Keith intends to only now begin the process of searching for, collecting, and producing even documents unaffected by the Order- that is, documents Defendants requested on April 5 of this year.” In fact, as you know, until the Court’s Order denying our Motion for Relief from Waiver, the number of non-privileged, responsive documents in our client’s possession was fairly small. This is because the wrongdoing in this case was via your clients’ press- releases, which our client had no knowledge of or participation with. This is a simple case, with a simple result: the jury will either believe the press releases could be construed as negative about our client, or it won’t. After the Court’s order, a far larger number of emails and documents were potentially implicated, and we are dealing with that in good faith. x “And, now, more than two months after the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel, you and your client are finally contracting with a vendor to search her records.” No, as discussed, she did this well-before your letter dated September 30, 2023. Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) October 3, 2023 Page 4 x “Your and your client’s past conduct in this case do not presently give us great faith in your and your client’s fidelity to pending discovery obligations.” Again, there has been one set of discovery responses to your one set of discovery requests. We timely served responses to those requests following the Court’s order. We are working diligently on the responsive emails now, as described above. We have given you a clear date by which we expect to be able to produce responsive documents. The only other “past conduct” was defeating your demurrer earlier this year. Again, I believe the Court would prefer that we continue to amicably work out these issues rather than for your client to file a patently unnecessary additional motion. Again, I ask that you do not attempt to read terms into the Court’s Order that aren’t there, grant a reasonable extension to provide these documents, and help the lawsuit more forward. Your clients are not going to win this lawsuit with letters. Again, while your letter (like Ms. Kizer’s email) is extreme in its tone, assertions, and demands, we will construe your letter as a good faith attempt to meet and confer about the scope of what should be produced, in order to avoid further motion practice. I hope that we can continue to work together amicably even when emotions between our clients run high. I do know from experience that courts do not appreciate (and sometimes punish) bad faith litigation tactics utilized only for the purposes of harassment and delay. Willfully misconstruing a court order in a bid to drive up the attorney’s fees of your opponent could be considered sanctionable practice under CCP sections 128.5 and 128.7. See for example In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649- 50): “[T]he total lack of merit of [a pleading] is viewed as evidence that the [party] must have intended it only for delay.” We look forward to your considered response; and hope we can agree on a reasonable deadline for further production soon. Best, JJohn ohn S. Rueppel Partner (QFORVXUHV From: Kizer, Kathy To: Angie Lam Cc: Tsai, Jeff; McCaffrey, Amanda; Perez, Christina; John Rueppel; Carolina Ramos; Patty DeOcampo; Margolis, Emily Subject: RE: Keith v. White Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 12:33:28 AM Attachments: image001.png [EXTERNAL] Hi Angie, We have reviewed your email. Thank you for sending us an update. As an initial matter, we are concerned that your client has only now – based on the description in your email – engaged a professional e-discovery service to assist with her court-ordered obligations. As you know, the discovery requests at issue were served on April 5, 2023. Ms. Keith and your firm were already several days in violation of the Court’s most recent August 28th deadline, and you all remain in violation in light of today’s admission that discovery remains uncollected, unsearched, and unproduced. We are also concerned in light of the fact that Ms. Keith signed Verifications stating she would produce all responsive documents, and John Rueppel proclaimed her document production complete in his September 12, 2023 letter, even though it was clear no documents were produced from your firm, and the production was obviously incomplete (see #2 and #6 below). As for your proposed timing, it is not acceptable. This is, in part, due to the length of time that Ms. Keith and your firm have had to comply with your discovery obligations. These good-faith and Code- based obligations run concurrently to both a client and her lawyer. We object to your plan to remain in violation of the Court’s order at least through “early to mid-October” and we cannot – and will not – as officers of the Court participate in knowing disobedience with a Court directive. Given that Ms. Keith and your firm have failed to comply with basic discovery obligations (much less a Court order), we require that you and your client affirmatively agree to the following with respect to your e-discovery collection, review, and production process: 1. The collection, review, and production will include all sources of Lisa Keith’s communications, including email, text and instant messaging (such as SMS messaging or through other services like WhatsApp, Signal, Facebook or their equivalents), and written documentation of any kind. You will produce all electronically stored information (ESI) in native file format, as required by Valley Rock Foundation’s document requests. 2. The collection, review, and production of responsive records will include all relevant custodians within Lisa Keith’s control, which notably includes her attorneys in the trust litigation (such as Dominic Campisi) and her attorneys in the instant lawsuit (such as John Rueppel, Evan Winet, and yourself). 3. You will provide us with the search terms (and any and all limiting factors, such as date ranges) utilized in the collection process, including the identities of those who will be conducting the collection and review. The search terms should include, at a minimum, the following for the period from April 2020 to the present: press, release, newswire, Businesswire, Napa, estate, White, Celeste, Robert, “Valley Rock”, “Bar 49”, Foundation, Langhorne, “Rodney Stone”, settle, lawsuit, “trust action”, agreement, order, reputation, “standing in the community”, non-disparagement, disparage, defame, defamation, defamatory, critical, criticize, “negative toward”, baseless, frivolous, “trial on the merits”, newspaper, article, Camille, sister, sales, revenue, income, damages. 4. You will identify each and every device, account, and repository that has been incorporated in the collection process. 5. Production will begin no later than September 29, 2023, and will be complete – along with an under-oath declaration from both your firm and your client – by October 6, 2023. 6. You will produce all attachments to responsive emails. (We note that the attachments referred to in the email exchange produced on September 12, 2023 have not been produced.) We also note that the Google Alert referenced in Ms. Keith’s interrogatory responses was not produced. (See RFP 43) 7. Your production will be comprehensive and produce ALL responsive documents and not just documents Ms. Keith chooses to produce. 8. You will agree to an indefinite extension for a motion to compel further responses to Defendants’ interrogatories to avoid piecemeal discovery motions. In the event you agree to and comply with these requirements, our clients will forego filing another sanctions motion – both to save the expense of filing such a motion and to conserve the Court’s time. In the event you will not agree and comply with all of the foregoing, we are then at an impasse, and we plan to seek redress with the Court against Ms. Keith and your firm. Regards, Kathy Kathleen S. Kizer Of Counsel T +1 415 615 6003 F +1 415 659 7303 M +1 415 994 5822 kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com DLA Piper LLP (US) dlapiper.com From: Angie Lam Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:58 AM To: Kizer, Kathy Cc: Tsai, Jeff ; McCaffrey, Amanda ; Perez, Christina ; John Rueppel ; Carolina Ramos ; Patty DeOcampo Subject: Keith v. White ❙EXTERNAL MESSAGE Hello Kathy, Regarding the set one production of documents, Ms. Keith has retained a professional e-discovery company to retrieve e-mail communications in its native format and will be able to supplement the production that was produced on September 12, 2023. As of today, I do not have a set time as to when the production will be completed. I anticipate it will be early to mid-October and will try to get the production out to you earlier, if possible. Thanks, Angie Lam Associate Attorney Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP 101 Montgomery Street Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Main Office 415.693.0550 Fax 415.693.0500 www.jkzllp.com w w w . j k z l l p . c o m /espanol Career Opportunities at JKZ LLP: https://www.jkzllp.com/about/career-opportunities/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 644.) If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender. Thank you. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you. September 26, 2023 Via First Class Mail and via Email Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com Kathy.Kizer@us.dlapiper.com Re: Lisa Keith, Plaintiff v. Celeste White, et al. Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001269 Meet and Confer Dear Ms. Kizer, Thank you for your detailed email dated September 20, 2023. We have been earnestly attempting to comply with the Court’s order, and have kept in close contact with your firm regarding our progress. Your email below indicates that you would rather hit new levels of stridency and threats than meet and confer in good faith. You assert, without explanation, that Ms. Keith has not complied with the Court’s order. We do not agree with your assertion. The Court’s ruling, on your Motion to Compel requires Ms. Keith to provide code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendant’s various discovery requests, within 10 calendar days “after lifting of the stay of the present ruling”. The Order lifting the stay was signed on August 11, 2023, but not filed until August 15, 2023, and Ms. Keith served her responses, without objections, on August 21, 2023. She therefore has fully complied with the Court’s order, well in advance of the August 25th deadline. We are not sure how you determined that the deadline was August 28, 2023; please advise. Please also identify what particular portion(s) of the Court’s order you believe was violated by Ms. Keith’s service of the responses without objections on August 21, 2023. The crux of your email appears to related to Ms. Keith’s production of documents related to the August 21, 2023 discovery responses. She has already produced some documents, and has informed you that further production is coming soon. I will note that the Court’s order did not specify a deadline for production of documents. If you disagree, please identify the specific portion of the Order Granting Motion to Compel that states a deadline for production of documents. Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) September 26, 2023 Page 2 Documents are normally produced a reasonable time after responses are served, a practice your own firm has followed in this case. I will note that your own clients have taken an inordinate amount of time to produce their own documents, have sent links to purported documents we have not been able to successfully download, and have generally asked for additional time when needed, which we have generously granted. As we have communicated to you several times over the course of the last few weeks, our client is working diligently to produce further responsive documents. I appreciate your concern that our “client has only now – based on the description in your email – engaged as professional e-discovery service to assist her.” Of course, you know that use of a “professional e-discovery service” is not required by the Code of Civil Procedure; it is an extra step our client is taking to ensure that she is fully compliant. There was no need or responsibility to produce responsive attorney/client privileged emails until the recent Court hearing denying our client’s motion to relieve her from waiver of objections. We are now complying accordingly. We asked for an extension to mid-October for production of our client’s documents; you have stated that mid-October is unacceptable, but later you indicate that October 6, 2023 is acceptable. Please describe the practical difference to your clients between these two time frames. I find your suggestion that we are asking you to “participate in knowing disobedience with a Court directive” to be alarmist in the extreme. No such request or even suggestion has been made by our office. This paragraph smacks of trying to create a convincing paper record to punish Ms. Keith at the next opportunity, rather than actually discuss the Court’s order or Ms. Keith’s production. Your demands at the end of your email go far beyond what is required either under the CCP or the Court’s order. There is no CCP requirement that we “provide you with all search terms” used, that we identify each and every device, account, and repository that has been incorporated in the collection process”, or that production must include “an under-oath declaration from both your firm and your client.” (To your credit, your demand that our production be comprehensive is merely what the CCP requires). We plan to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure (and of course any relevant court orders) and produce documents accordingly. Your attempt to stretch the Court’s order out of all reasonable proportion does not appear to be in good faith. You finally ask for an indefinite extension for a motion to compel regarding Ms. Keith’s interrogatory responses. I can’t in good conscience agree to such an extension, as it would allow you to file a motion to compel years after responses are served. If you would like to request a Kathleen S. Kizer Jeffrey E. Tsai DLA Piper LLP (US) September 26, 2023 Page 3 practical extension (say 30 days?) of your deadline to file such a motion (with additional extensions possible as conditions warrant), please advise. While your email is extreme in its tone, assertions, and demands, we will construe your letter as a good faith attempt to meet and confer about the scope of what should be produced, in order to avoid further motion practice. I hope that we can continue to work together amicably even when emotions between our clients run high. I do know from experience that courts do not appreciate (and sometimes punish) bad faith litigation tactics utilized only for the purposes of harassment and delay. Willfully misconstruing a court order in a bid to drive up the attorney’s fees of your opponent could be considered sanctionable practice under CCP sections 128.5 and 128.7. See for example In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 649-50): “[T]he total lack of merit of [a pleading] is viewed as evidence that the [party] must have intended it only for delay.” We look forward to your considered response; and hope we can agree on a reasonable deadline for further production soon. Best, John John S. Rueppel Partner 4888-0509-6578, v. 1 DLA Piper LLP (US) 555 Mission Street Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94105-2933 www.dlapiper.com Jeffrey Tsai Jeff.Tsai@us.dlapiper.com T 415.615.6055 F 415.659.7380 September 30, 2023 John S. Rueppel Johnston, Kinney & Zulaica LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94101 Re: Lisa Keith v. Celeste White, et al. (Napa County Super. Ct. Case No. 22CV001269) – Response to September 26, 2023, Letter Dear Mr. Rueppel: Thank you for your September 26, 2023, letter response to my colleague Kathy Kizer’s September 20, 2023, email. This letter is intended as a further good-faith attempt to bring you and your client into compliance with the Court’s August 11, 2023, Order (“Order”) in this case. As a general matter, we are not in a position to facilitate your continued violation of that Order. As set forth below, we again respectfully request complete and Code-compliant production of documents under those certain conditions outlined below in light of your continued failure to abide by the Court’s instructions. Relevant Background As you know, we served straightforward requests for production on Ms. Keith on April 5, 2023. All we seek are the Code-compliant responses to which we are entitled—and to which we have been entitled since May 9, 2023. Though your letter accuses Ms. Kizer of not meeting and conferring with you in good faith, the plain record (which we would again put before the Court if we are unable to reach resolution here) demonstrates the opposite. We have endeavored to work with you and your client in good faith for over five months on this discovery. The Court agreed as much in its August 11, 2023, Order, by emphasizing that, despite our extensive meet-and-confer efforts (including what the Court described as the “collegial” extensions that we were “under no compulsion” to offer but nonetheless extended), your client has failed repeatedly without justification to produce all documents responsive to our requests as required of her by the law. J. Rueppel September 30, 2023 Page Two It is now nearly October and Ms. Keith’s document production is still outstanding. Correcting the Factual Record Your letter is rife with factual error, which this letter will now correct. First, as a factual matter, you and your client have not been actively engaging with us regarding your discovery obligations. You wrote in your letter that the parties have been in “close contact” about this document production, and that you have communicated to us “several times over the course of the last few weeks” that your client is working on producing documents. Here are the actual relevant facts: x August 11, 2023 – The Court’s Order signed August 11th lifted the stay and gave Plaintiff ten days from that point forward to complete her discovery responses.1 x August 21, 2023 – Plaintiff served written responses but produced no documents. 1 Importantly, the Court’s Order did not provide an exception for documents to be produced at a later time. Your letter’s implied suggestion that your document production is at your unilateral discretion because the Order allegedly “did not specify a deadline for production of documents” (emphasis in original) is mystifying. The Court ordered your compliance in ten days following the stay’s lifting—which is itself months after the document requests were originally propounded. (See Order [ordering plaintiff to “serve, no later than 10 calendar days after the lifting of the stay of the present ruling, code-compliant responses, without objection (unless otherwise ordered), to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents – Set One, Special Interrogatories – Set One, and Form Interrogatories – Set One”].) We cannot prevent you from trafficking in an incredulous argument with the Court, but we believe the Court will not indulge such an unlawful contortion of its clear Order. J. Rueppel September 30, 2023 Page Three x August 23, 2023 – We sent you a letter inquiring about the missing document production. (You eventually responded to our letter on August 30, 2023, but you did not address the document production other than to say: “Pursuant to the Court-ordered deadline of August 28, 2023, Respondent will serve all responsive documents by this date.”) x August 28, 2023 – Plaintiff produced 18 documents, most of which are already publicly available, such as press releases and filings from the prior trust-related litigation (with the exception of screenshots of three text messages and PDF versions of two emails, none of which were produced in their native formats as required by Defendants’ Requests). x August 29, 2023 – We sent you another letter identifying numerous deficiencies in your August 28th production, including that [1] you did not produce ESI in its native format; and [2] your production was facially incomplete. As a courtesy (and without any obligation), we requested that you come into compliance by September 5, 2023. x September 5, 2023 – You did not come into compliance by September 5, 2023. Instead, your colleague Ms. Lam emailed Ms. Kizer on that date with an admission that email communications had not—as of that time— been obtained: “In response to Jeff Tsai’s letter dated August 29, 2023, we are still working with our client to obtain email communications.” (Emphasis added.) Ms. Lam requested almost four weeks for an extension to produce documents. She did not acknowledge the ESI native format issue. x September 6, 2023 – We responded to your request in a letter. In denying your request, we noted that your dilatory discovery conduct and absence of any justification did not warrant the courtesy of any additional extensions. x September 12, 2023 – You provided a “supplemental” production containing three documents (without even the email attachments referenced therein). In your cover letter, your firm represented—as J. Rueppel September 30, 2023 Page Four officers of the Court—that the production was finished: “This production completes Respondent’s response as to Defendant Valley Rock Foundation’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Lisa Keith – Set One, as Served on April 5, 2023.” (Emphasis added.) x September 19, 2023 – Your September 12th representation was false. On September 19th, Ms. Lam—who the Court noted in its August 11th Order likely committed perjury in this case (see Order at Ex. A, p. 13: “Plaintiff’s counsel . . . compounds the problem by attesting, under oath, that Plaintiff’s responses were veri