Preview
Electronically
by Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
ON 9/9/2022
Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720) /s/ Nesha Gaines
By.
EIMER STAHL LLP Deputy Clerk
99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 641
San Jose, CA 95113-1605
Telephone: (408) 889-1668
Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 Case No. 22-CIV-01148
Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen
11
Family Partnership, LP; and Brian Date: September 16, 2022
12 Christopher Dunn Custodianship; Time: 9:00am
13 Dept. 21
Plaintiffs,
14 v Hon. Robert D. Foiles
15
David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt; EXHIBITS TO REPLY
16 Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC; DECLARATION OF COLLIN J.
17 SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 VIERRA IN SUPPORT OF
Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
18 Wolfe; James Justesen; Paramont SANCTIONS AGAINST
19 Woodside, LLC; and Paramont Capital, DEFENDANTS DAVID M.
LLC; BRAGG, KURTIS S. KLUDT, AND
20 SILICON VALLEY REAL
21 Defendants. VENTURES, LLC, AND
ATTORNEY RYAN VAN STEENIS
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITS TO REPLY DECLARATION OF COLLIN J. VIERRA IN SUPPORT OF
28 MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M.
BRAGG, KURTIS S. KLUDT, AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC, AND
ATTORNEY RYAN VAN STEENIS
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. Description
1 September 2, 2022 Email Thread re Informal Discovery Conference
July 10, 2022 Email Thread between C. Vierra and Paramont Defendants’
Counsel
Table of July 2022 Communications Including R. Van Steenis
July 18, 2022 Email Thread between Defendants’ Counsel and C. Vierra
August 1, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra
August 5, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra
August 5, 2022 Defendant K. Kludt’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Request for Production
August 8, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra
August 9, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra
10 August 11, 2022 Email Thread between R. Van Steenis and C. Vierra
11 August 23, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra
12 August 24, 2022 Email Thread between R. Van Steenis and C. Vierra
August 29, 2022 Defendants Gregory Davis’s, Paramont Capital, LLC’s,
13 Paramont Woodside, LLC’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of
Special Interrogatories
14 August 31, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra
15 September 2, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra
16 September 2, 2022 Email Thread between R. Van Steenis and C. Vierra
Selection of SMS Thread Produced by R. Bragg, Showing August 24, 2022 SMS
17
from D. Bragg to R. Bragg
18 K. Kludt’s March 31, 2020 Folder
Email Correspondence Produced by the Paramont Defendants Containing
19
Responsive Google Drive Links
Financial Transactions from the Moore Road LLCs’ Bank Accounts on April 1,
20
2020 and April 2, 2020, Produced by First Republic Bank
21 Text Messages Involving K. Kludt and D. Bragg Produced by C. Marchbank
Loan Agreement Regarding the Moore Road Project, Signed by K. Kludt and D.
22 Bragg, Produced by Rich Bragg
23 SVRV 387 Moore, LLC Operating Agreement shared with John Ho
24 Responsive Google Drive Links
25 October 2020 K. Kludt Notes Regarding Moore Road Project
Exhibit 1
From: Vierra, Collin
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:08 PM
To: Al-Ansari, Mina
Subject: FW: 22C1V01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.
From: IDC
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:30 PM
To: Vierra, Collin ; Ryan Van Steenis
Cc: Mark Poe ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W.
; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick
Subject: Re: 22ClV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.
| will go ahead and set the IDC for 9/27/2022 at 4PM and if the matter becomes moot parties are able to send
in an email saying that it would not be held any longer.
An Informal Discovery Conference by Zoom is set for 9/27/2022 at 4PM with Commissioner Halperin. Counsel
for the parties can appear by video or by telephone. The Zoom credentials for the conference can be found at
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/civil/dept34.php
This Conference is scheduled for 30 min.
The parties shall, jointly or separately, email correspondence to the Court at IDC@sanmateocourt.org, and
contemporaneously to all parties, an electronic letter ofno more than five (5) pages, without attachments, summarizing
the discovery dispute(s) within five (5) calendar days of this notice. It shall include on the first line (i) the case name and
number, and (ii) the date and time reserved by the parties for the Informal Discovery Conference.
Thank you,
Eresmia Ouranitsas,
Courtroom Clerk to the Honorable ErnstA. Halperin
Department 34
From: Vierra, Collin
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 1:36 PM
To: Ryan Van Steenis ; IDC
Cc: Mark Poe ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W.
; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick
Subject: RE: 22ClV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.
Ms. Ouranitsas,
If the Court does indeed resolve the motions on September 16, 2022, there will be no need for the IDC, and | will contact
the Commissioner promptly so that the IDC may be removed from the calendar. However, if an IDC will be required,
1
Plaintiffs request that it be held on September 27, 2022 (or at the Commissioner’s earliest availability if another slot
opens up, especially if a slot opens up before September 16, 2022). Thank you.
Collin Vierra =
408-889-1668
www.eimerstahl.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and
confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you
have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the
message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the
preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the
particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.
From: Ryan Van Steenis
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 1:16 PM
To: IDC ; Vierra, Collin
Cc: Mark Poe ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W.
; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick
Subject: RE: 22CIV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.
Greetings,
I represent Defendants Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, two defendants against whom Plaintiffs have
already filed their two motions to compel, requested the court expedite the hearing on said motions, which it
agreed to (and are now currently set to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on September 16, 2022), and have been opposed as
of today.
Thus, an IDC on September 27th would be moot. More importantly, Local Rule 3.700 makes clear IDCs must
come before the filing of any motions, not after. The email below was not clear on that point.
Best regards,
Ryan
Ryan van Steenis
AJAMIE LLP
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2150 | Houston TX 77002
T +1.713.860.1600 | F +1.713.860.1699 | M +1.314.749.2284
rvansteenis@ajamie.com
AJAMI Essie | LinkedIn | veard
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This electronic transmission, including any accompanying documents, contains information which may be
confidential or privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient. Use by any other party is not authorized. If you
are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, replication, distribution or use of the contents
of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me
immediately by return email.
From: IDC
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 3:07 PM
To: Vierra, Collin
Cc: Mark Poe ; Ryan Van Steenis ; Chong, Jessica
; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ernesto Aldover
; Reisch, Nick
Subject: Re: 22ClVO01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.
Good Afternoon,
| hope this finds you well and thank for your request. | actually do have 9/27 at 4PM if you would like since
there was a recent cancellation.
Would 9/27/2022 at 4Pm work for all the parties?
Eresmia Ouranitsas,
Courtroom Clerk to the Honorable ErnstA. Halperin
Department 34
From: Vierra, Collin
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:46 PM
To: IDC
Cc: Mark Poe ; Ryan Van Steenis ; Chong, Jessica
; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ernesto Aldover
; Reisch, Nick
Subject: 22ClV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.
Dear recipient:
| would like to request an IDC at the Commissioner’s earliest availability on behalf of Plaintiffs in the above-
captioned case (22-civ-01148, Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.). It currently appears that although it is more than
29 calendar days from today, the next available date is October 10 for 1 hour at 2:00pm. | would like to
reserve that time, which Plaintiffs believe should be sufficient for the issues in question (Plaintiffs believe only
45 minutes should be needed), or for the earliest acceptable time that opens up in the interim. | will follow up
with a letter discussing the issues. Thank you.
Collin Vierra
=
Eimer Stahl LLP www.eimerstahl.com
99 Almaden Blvd, Suite 642
San Jose, CA 95113-1605
Phone: 408-889-1668
Mobile: 831-917-8266
cvierra@eimerstahl.com
ee
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and
confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you
have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the
message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the
3
preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the
particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.
Ser ere oer a een snow ate. mie
Exhibit 2
From: Vierra, Collin
To: Zimmerman, Brian W.; Story, Julia
Ce: Chong, Jessica; Ernesto Aldover; Reisch, Nick
Subject: RE: Amtsen, et al v. Davis, et al
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 11:31:47 AM
Counsel,
| leave it up to you as to whether
you wish to loop Kludt’s counsel into this discussion. But
Paramont’s responses are plainly inadequate, and | do not believe there is any good faith argument
to the contrary.
Defendants’ production includes a total of 22 documents, including zero communications, diligence
documents, or financial records. The production in its entirety comprises:
Maps (2 docs)
Estimated and Final Buyer’s Statements (4 docs)
Certificates of Termination of subsidiaries (4 docs)
Closing Escrow Instructions & Settlement Statement (2 docs)
Management Change Letters (4 docs)
Operating Agreements for subsidiaries and amendments thereto (5 docs)
Paramont Capital Executive Investment Summary for the Project (1 doc)
Plaintiffs specifically requested communications about the project (RFP 1), communications with
buyers (RFP 2), and communications with the other Defendants (RFP 4). There are no email files in
this production.
Plaintiffs specifically requested all financial, accounting, and related documents for the Project (RFP
). There are none apart from buyer’s statements and settlement statements, which under no
”
reasonable definition amount to “al such documents requested.
Plaintiffs specifically requested Documents provided to and received from the other Defendants
(RFP 4). Other than the contracts mentioned above, there are none. It defies belief that Defendants
did not exchange documents during the two years of the Project, including that Paramont would not
have demanded documentation about the Project from Bragg and SVRV after taking over
management.
Plaintiffs specifically requested due diligence documents (RFP 5). There are none, despite SVRV’s
banking and accounting records indicating that Paramont was paid $20,000 in fees for due diligence
for the project. It is not plausible that Paramont—a sophisticated investor—was paid this fee but
received no documents in diligence. Indeed, to have conducted no diligence plainly would have been
a breach of fiduciary duty to Paramont’s investors.
Plaintiffs will accept for the time being Defendants’ assertion that they have no documents relating
to Plaintiffs’ investments in SVRV (RFP 6), but please note that Defendants remain obligated to
produce any such documents in their possession, custody, or control, and they have raised no
objection to this.
In general, Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are often without legal
justification. There exists no “financial privilege” in California, and California’s privacy protection is
extremely limited. It permits withholding things like Social Security Numbers and Taxpayer IDs, but
not investor names, investment quantities, or anything of that nature. It certainly does not permit
withholding Defendants’ internal financial records. If Defendants are withholding documents on this
basis, they must immediately produce them. Defendants’ redactions of the Paramont Woodside
members’ and investors’ information, including their names and amounts invested, are also
improper.
Defendants’ SRog responses are also severely inadequate.
It is implausible that the Operating Agreements describe “with particularity” all representations
made to your clients by Bragg, Kludt, and SVRV, especially given Defendants’ receipt of $20,000 as
part of due diligence (SRog 1).
Defendants’ own, minimal document productions belie their claim that the Operating Agreement
indicates “with particularity” Defendants’ understanding of others’ investments in the Project. If
Defendants stand by this response, Plaintiffs will read Defendants’ response to SRog 2 as indicating
that Defendants believed that only SVRV was investing in the Project, in the amounts of $500,000 for
its Initial Capital Contribution, and $221,000 for its Subsequent Capital Contribution (for both Moore
Road properties), and that Defendants lacked all knowledge about the investors or other details
behind SVRV’s investment. If Defendants do not agree with Plaintiffs’ characterization, they must
amend their response to answer Plaintiffs’ SRog fully.
Defendants’ response to SRog 4 does not answer the SRog with particularity, as is apparent from
na
Defendants’ use of the phrase “in short” to describe Defendants’ return” from the Project.
Defendants’ document productions do not answer this SRog with particularity, either (indeed, as
noted, Defendants’ document production does not contain the financial records sought). Defendants
must detail the amounts invested, expenses incurred, total revenues, profits received, and any other
financial information relevant to their calculation of their return on investment.
Defendants cannot avoid responding to SRog 5 by claiming that Mr. Bragg “managed the project and
hired the relevant trades and professionals.” Paramont was the majority owner in the project, and
took over management of the project long before the properties were sold. Even if Bragg was the
initial manager and did the initial hiring, if Defendants have knowledge of the information sought by
the SRog, they must describe it with particularity.
Defendants’ response to SRog 6 is not answered with particularity. If Defendants intend to respond
that they hired Ms. Marchbank to sell the lots and had no knowledge whatsoever of the process that
she used to sell the lots, they must amend their response to say so.
Defendants did not answer SRog 7 with particularity. If Defendants intend to respond that the
ntirety of the terms of their investment with the Project are contained within the four corners of
the Operating Agreements, they must confirm this. In addition, the statement that “Davis Bragg
received the earnest money deposit and additional funds in excess of $300,000 at closing” is
incomprehensible. Defendants must explain the exact amount received by Bragg, and account for
what was returned, e.g., whether it was for a commission, for a return of principal, for additional
capital contributions, etc. Defendants must provide this detail to properly answer with particularity.
Defendants’ response to SRog 8 is evasive and inadequate. Saying that Mr. Bragg secured the loan
and was required to make payments does not describe with particularity the requests that
Defendants made to Mr. Bragg or SVRV for additional funds to complete the Project. As you know,
the Operating Agreements permitted Defendants to demand Additional Capital Contributions, which
Defendants did. Defendants must identify all such requests, including the amounts requested and
from whom. Any similar requests that were not classified as Additional Capital Contributions, but
which were also made to Bragg or SVRV “regarding the need for additional funds” must also be
described with particularity.
Please also note that Defendants waived their right to assert objections by failing to timely respond
to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. CCP § 2031.300; see also CCP § 2030.290; 2033.280. Plaintiffs will
not press this issue if Defendants adequately supplement their responses and retract any objections
other than those that are both legally cognizable and reasonable. Defendants’ delay has not been
justified. | specifically asked on June 21 whether Defendants intended “to provide responses to
plaintiffs’ initial discovery requests by next Monday, June 27.” You never answered that question. |
raised my general concern about delayed discovery responses on our call in advance of the initially-
scheduled CMC, as well, and further noted my concern in Plaintiffs’ CMC statement. | notified you
after you failed to respond in time that | wanted a meet and confer regarding Defendants’ lack of
responses. It was not until the next day that you requested an extension. | granted a 10-day
”
extension to July 6 on the condition that Defendants answer Plaintiffs’ requests “in full , and stated
explicitly that this meant producing any documents and answering all Rogs, withholding only
materials or information the production of which you specifically objected to. You never raised any
concerns about responding in full by July 6.
This week, at minimum, | will be scheduling a hearing on a motion to compel and for sanctions
against the remaining Defendants. | will name you and your clients in that motion if you do not
supplement Defendants’ responses. | will note that Caifornia makes unjustified misuses of the
discovery process subject to mandatory sanctions under CCP sections 2023.030 and 2023.010.
From: Vierra, Collin
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 8:41 PM
To: Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Story, Julia
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover
; Reisch, Nick
Subject: RE: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al
Let’s plan for Monday at 1pm CST. | will send a further response before then.
From: Zimmerman, Brian W.
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Vierra, Collin ; Story, Julia
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover
; Reisch, Nick
Subject: RE: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al
[WARKING: External Email]
Collin:
am available on Monday to meet and confer. | disagree with your statements below.
From: Vierra, Collin
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 8:58 PM
To: Story, Julia
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover
; Zimmerman, Brian W.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al
[Warning] This E-mail came from an External sender. Please do not open links or attachments unless you
are sure it is trusted.
Counsel, | will follow up with detailed objections, likely on Monday, but in the meantime please
propose some times when you will be available next week for a meet and confer. Plaintiffs have
acted in good faith in giving Defendants an extension to respond to discovery even though
Defendants failed to answer Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for assurances in advance of Defendants’
discovery deadline, but nonetheless Defendants’ responses are severely deficient. If we cannot
reach a prompt resolution of these issues, Plaintiffs will file an additional motion to compel.
Collin Vierra
408-889-1668
ee
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and
confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you
have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the
message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the
preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the
particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.
From: Story, Julia
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 5:15 PM
To: Vierra, Collin
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover
; Zimmerman, Brian W.
Subject: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al
[RARNING: External Email]
Attached please find:
DEFENDANT GREGORY J. DAVIS’ OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM
INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL;
DEFENDANTS GREGORY J. DAVIS; PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC; PARAMONT WOODSIDE
LLC; SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC; SVRV 387 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES;
DEFENDANTS GREGORY J. DAVIS; PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC; PARAMONT WOODSIDE
LLC; SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC; SVRV 387 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION;
DEFENDANTS GREGORY J. DAVIS; PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC; PARAMONT WOODSIDE
LLC; SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC; SVRV 387 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
DEFENDANT PARAMONT WOODSIDE, LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES— GENERAL;
DEFENDANT SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM
INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL;
DEFENDANT SVRV 387’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM
INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL; and
DEFENDANT PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’
FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL.
A Verification is attached to each of the foregoing.
The following link contains production labeled DAVIS000001-000289:
https://spencerfane.sharefile.com/d-s53a2d820aa924222ae800145feb812b2.
Thank you.
Julia Story Legal Administrative Assistant
Spencer Fane LLP
3040 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1300] Houston, TX 77056-6560
O 713.212.2656
jstory@spencerfane.com | spencerfane.com
JESS SSI SISOS ASI OSISS SSSI SO ISSIS SSIS SS ISOS SESS SASSI SACS O SISOS ICSI SO ISI ASSIS ICI
CONFIDENTIALITY: This electronic mail trans: sion contains confidential information. The trans n
contains information that may be protected under the attorney: client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense
privilege, and/or other recognized privileges or protections under the law. The email is not intended for
transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in
error, please delete it from your system without copying or disseminating, and notify the sender by Reply e-mail or
by calling (713) 552-1234, so that our address record can be corrected.
JESS ISSO OOS EIOSI SSSI SSSI SISOS SOS SE ISSO SESS SASSI ACS SS IIS DISO ISOS IAACIASE IACI
Exhibit 3
No. Date Time Subject From To cc
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
Jessica Chong
Brian Zimmerman
Re: Ex Parte Application re
July 6, 2022 11:58 AM
Bragg, SVRV
Dave Bragg (Gmail) Collin Vierra Mark Poe
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
July 6, 2022 12:14 PM Arntsen v. Davis Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis
July 6, 2022 1:00 PM RE: Arntsen v. Davis Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis Mina Al-Ansari
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
Jessica Chong
Mark Poe
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Dave Bragg (Gmail)
July 6, 2022 3:12 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Brian Zimmerman
Collin Vierra
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Kristin Myatt
Collin Vierra
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
Jessica Chong
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Mark Poe
July 6, 2022 3:23 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Dave Bragg (Gmail) Brian Zimmerman
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Kristin Myatt
Collin Vierra
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
Jessica Chong
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Dave Bragg (Gmail)
July 6, 2022 3:30 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Kristin Myatt
Brian Zimmerman
Mark Poe
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
No. Date Time Subject From To cc
Brian Zimmerman
Collin Vierra
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Jessica Chong
July 6, 2022 3:33 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Dave Bragg (Gmail) Kristin Myatt
Mark Poe
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Brian Zimmerman
Collin Vierra
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Jessica Chong
July 6, 2022 3:36 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Kristin Myatt Dave Bragg (Gmail)
Mark Poe
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Brian Zimmerman
Jessica Chong
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte
July 6, 2022 3:38 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Collin Vierra Kristin Myatt Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Brian Zimmerman
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
Jessica Chong
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Kristin Myatt
10 July 6, 2022 3:42 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Collin Vierra
Dave Bragg (Gmail)
Mark Poe
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
No. Date Time Subject From To cc
Brian Zimmerman
Jessica Chong
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Julia Story
11 July 6, 2022 3:43 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Kristin Myatt Collin Vierra
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Julia Story
Brian Zimmerman
Jessica Chong
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Julia Story
12 July 6, 2022 3:47 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Collin Vierra Kristin Myatt
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Julia Story
Kristin Myatt
Brian Zimmerman
Dave Bragg (realsv.com)
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Jessica Chong
13 July 6, 2022 3:49 PM
Application re Bragg, SVRV
Dave Bragg (Gmail) Collin Vierra
Mark Poe
Julia Story
Mina Al-Ansari
Ryan Van Steenis
Arntsen v. Davis -- Discovery
14 July 6, 2022 7:23 PM
Requests
Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis Mina Al-Ansari
Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al.; Jessica Chong
15 July 6, 2022 8:36 PM Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
16 July 6, 2022 8:39 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
17 July 6, 2022 8:42 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
No. Date Time Subject From To cc
Mark Poe
Brian Zimmerman
18 July 6, 2022 8:56 PM Third-Party Subpoenas Collin Vierra
Jessica Chong
Ryan Van Steenis
Brian Zimmerman
Jessica Chong
19 July 6, 2022 9:04 PM Prior Party Discovery Collin Vierra
Mark Poe
Ryan Van Steenis
Mark Poe
Brian Zimmerman
20 July 7, 2022 9:38 AM RE: Third-Party Subpoenas Collin Vierra
Jessica Chong
Ryan Van Steenis
Jessica Chong
Arnsten v. Bragg; First Kludt
21 July 7, 2022 11:11 AM
Doc Production
Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman
Ryan Van Steenis
22 July 7, 2022 1:52 PM Phone Call and Voicemail Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
23 July 8, 2022 10:46 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
24 July 10, 2022 9:17 AM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
25 July 11, 2022 6:13 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
Mark Poe
Ryan Van Steenis
26 July 11, 2022 6:24 PM Discovery to Defendants Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman
Jessica Chong
Dave Bragg (Gmail)
No. Date Time Subject From To cc
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
27 July 12, 2022 10:43 AM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
238 July 12, 2022 4:39 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
Mark Poe
Ryan Van Steenis
Bragg/SVRV - Motion to
29 July 12, 2022 7:00 PM Collin Vierra Dave Bragg (Gmail) Mina Al-Ansari
Compel
Brian Zimmerman
Jessica Chong
RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong
30 July 12, 2022 8:40 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman
discovery Ryan Van Steenis
Exhibit 4
From: Vierra, Collin
To: Ryan Van Steenis; Mark Poe; Zimmerman, Brian W.
Ce: Chona, Jessica; Reisch, Nick; Ernesto Aldover
Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al.
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 12:06:05 PM
Attachments: image001.jpq.
Thanks all. I'll plan to file with /s/ sigs around 2pm PST. Below for reference is updated text per
Brian’s comment this morning.
In order to protect information produced or made available for inspection by the parties
in connection with this case, the parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel
and subject to the approval of the Court, hereby agree as follows:
1 Except pursuant to subpoena, lawful discovery request, or other lawful order, no
party to this case shall use or disclose documents or communications produced or made
available for inspection by another party to this case (except information that is publicly
available) except for purposes of this litigation, including that such documents or
communications shall not be used or disclosed for any competitive or commercial purpose.
2. Should a party be asked for any such documents or communications pursuant to
subpoena, lawful discovery request, or other lawful order, that party shall promptly notify the
party that originally produced or made available for inspection the documents or
communications requested so that the latter may have the opportunity to object to their
disclosure.
3 Nothing in this order shall limit a party’s ability to use or disclose documents or
communications that came into that party’s possession, custody, or control by means other
than a discovery request, including that such party shall not be required to provide notice of
the use or disclosure of any such documents or communications.
4 This order shall apply to documents already produced by the parties in this case.
From: Ryan Van Steenis
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 1:03 PM
To: Mark Poe ; Vierra, Collin ; Zimmerman, Brian
W.
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto
Aldover
Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al.
Those changes are good with me, and you’re authorized to e-sign the stip on my behalf so it
can be filed.
Best regards,
Ryan
Ryan van Steenis
AJAMIE LLP
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2150 | Houston TX 77002
T +1.713.860.1600 | F +1.713.860.1699 | M +1.314.749.2284
vansteenis imie.com
—
a website | LinkedIn | vcard
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This electronic transmission, including any accompanying documents, contains information
which may be confidential or privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient. Use by any
other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
disclosure, replication, distribution or use of the contents of this transmission is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by
return email.
From: Mark Poe
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:41 AM
To: Vierra, Collin ; Zimmerman, Brian W.
; Ryan Van Steenis
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto
Aldover
Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al.
Same; Kludt and | are fine with all of this.
From: Vierra, Collin
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:58 AM
To: Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Mark Poe ;
Ryan Van Steenis
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto
Aldover
Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al.
I'm fine with that.
Collin Vierra
408-889-1668
a
www.eimerstahl.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and
confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you
have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the
message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the
preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the
particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party.
From: Zimmerman, Brian W.
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:57 AM
To: Vierra, Collin ; Mark Poe ; Ryan Van Steenis
Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto
Aldover
Subject: Re: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al.
[ARKING: External Email]
| don’t know what “maintenance of this case” means. What about for “purposes of this litigation?”
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Vierra, Collin
Sent: Monday, July 18,
Preview
Electronically by Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo ON 9/9/2022 Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720) /s/ Nesha Gaines By. EIMER STAHL LLP Deputy Clerk 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 641 San Jose, CA 95113-1605 Telephone: (408) 889-1668 Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com Attorney for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 Case No. 22-CIV-01148 Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen 11 Family Partnership, LP; and Brian Date: September 16, 2022 12 Christopher Dunn Custodianship; Time: 9:00am 13 Dept. 21 Plaintiffs, 14 v Hon. Robert D. Foiles 15 David M. Bragg; Kurtis Stuart Kludt; EXHIBITS TO REPLY 16 Silicon Valley Real Ventures LLC; DECLARATION OF COLLIN J. 17 SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387 VIERRA IN SUPPORT OF Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Kevin MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR 18 Wolfe; James Justesen; Paramont SANCTIONS AGAINST 19 Woodside, LLC; and Paramont Capital, DEFENDANTS DAVID M. LLC; BRAGG, KURTIS S. KLUDT, AND 20 SILICON VALLEY REAL 21 Defendants. VENTURES, LLC, AND ATTORNEY RYAN VAN STEENIS 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBITS TO REPLY DECLARATION OF COLLIN J. VIERRA IN SUPPORT OF 28 MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG, KURTIS S. KLUDT, AND SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES, LLC, AND ATTORNEY RYAN VAN STEENIS INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 September 2, 2022 Email Thread re Informal Discovery Conference July 10, 2022 Email Thread between C. Vierra and Paramont Defendants’ Counsel Table of July 2022 Communications Including R. Van Steenis July 18, 2022 Email Thread between Defendants’ Counsel and C. Vierra August 1, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra August 5, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra August 5, 2022 Defendant K. Kludt’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Request for Production August 8, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra August 9, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra 10 August 11, 2022 Email Thread between R. Van Steenis and C. Vierra 11 August 23, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra 12 August 24, 2022 Email Thread between R. Van Steenis and C. Vierra August 29, 2022 Defendants Gregory Davis’s, Paramont Capital, LLC’s, 13 Paramont Woodside, LLC’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Special Interrogatories 14 August 31, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra 15 September 2, 2022 Email Thread between M. Poe and C. Vierra 16 September 2, 2022 Email Thread between R. Van Steenis and C. Vierra Selection of SMS Thread Produced by R. Bragg, Showing August 24, 2022 SMS 17 from D. Bragg to R. Bragg 18 K. Kludt’s March 31, 2020 Folder Email Correspondence Produced by the Paramont Defendants Containing 19 Responsive Google Drive Links Financial Transactions from the Moore Road LLCs’ Bank Accounts on April 1, 20 2020 and April 2, 2020, Produced by First Republic Bank 21 Text Messages Involving K. Kludt and D. Bragg Produced by C. Marchbank Loan Agreement Regarding the Moore Road Project, Signed by K. Kludt and D. 22 Bragg, Produced by Rich Bragg 23 SVRV 387 Moore, LLC Operating Agreement shared with John Ho 24 Responsive Google Drive Links 25 October 2020 K. Kludt Notes Regarding Moore Road Project Exhibit 1 From: Vierra, Collin Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:08 PM To: Al-Ansari, Mina Subject: FW: 22C1V01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al. From: IDC Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:30 PM To: Vierra, Collin ; Ryan Van Steenis Cc: Mark Poe ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick Subject: Re: 22ClV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al. | will go ahead and set the IDC for 9/27/2022 at 4PM and if the matter becomes moot parties are able to send in an email saying that it would not be held any longer. An Informal Discovery Conference by Zoom is set for 9/27/2022 at 4PM with Commissioner Halperin. Counsel for the parties can appear by video or by telephone. The Zoom credentials for the conference can be found at http://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/civil/dept34.php This Conference is scheduled for 30 min. The parties shall, jointly or separately, email correspondence to the Court at IDC@sanmateocourt.org, and contemporaneously to all parties, an electronic letter ofno more than five (5) pages, without attachments, summarizing the discovery dispute(s) within five (5) calendar days of this notice. It shall include on the first line (i) the case name and number, and (ii) the date and time reserved by the parties for the Informal Discovery Conference. Thank you, Eresmia Ouranitsas, Courtroom Clerk to the Honorable ErnstA. Halperin Department 34 From: Vierra, Collin Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 1:36 PM To: Ryan Van Steenis ; IDC Cc: Mark Poe ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick Subject: RE: 22ClV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al. Ms. Ouranitsas, If the Court does indeed resolve the motions on September 16, 2022, there will be no need for the IDC, and | will contact the Commissioner promptly so that the IDC may be removed from the calendar. However, if an IDC will be required, 1 Plaintiffs request that it be held on September 27, 2022 (or at the Commissioner’s earliest availability if another slot opens up, especially if a slot opens up before September 16, 2022). Thank you. Collin Vierra = 408-889-1668 www.eimerstahl.com NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party. From: Ryan Van Steenis Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 1:16 PM To: IDC ; Vierra, Collin Cc: Mark Poe ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick Subject: RE: 22CIV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al. Greetings, I represent Defendants Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, two defendants against whom Plaintiffs have already filed their two motions to compel, requested the court expedite the hearing on said motions, which it agreed to (and are now currently set to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on September 16, 2022), and have been opposed as of today. Thus, an IDC on September 27th would be moot. More importantly, Local Rule 3.700 makes clear IDCs must come before the filing of any motions, not after. The email below was not clear on that point. Best regards, Ryan Ryan van Steenis AJAMIE LLP 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2150 | Houston TX 77002 T +1.713.860.1600 | F +1.713.860.1699 | M +1.314.749.2284 rvansteenis@ajamie.com AJAMI Essie | LinkedIn | veard CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This electronic transmission, including any accompanying documents, contains information which may be confidential or privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient. Use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, replication, distribution or use of the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by return email. From: IDC Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 3:07 PM To: Vierra, Collin Cc: Mark Poe ; Ryan Van Steenis ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick Subject: Re: 22ClVO01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al. Good Afternoon, | hope this finds you well and thank for your request. | actually do have 9/27 at 4PM if you would like since there was a recent cancellation. Would 9/27/2022 at 4Pm work for all the parties? Eresmia Ouranitsas, Courtroom Clerk to the Honorable ErnstA. Halperin Department 34 From: Vierra, Collin Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:46 PM To: IDC Cc: Mark Poe ; Ryan Van Steenis ; Chong, Jessica ; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick Subject: 22ClV01148 Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al. Dear recipient: | would like to request an IDC at the Commissioner’s earliest availability on behalf of Plaintiffs in the above- captioned case (22-civ-01148, Arntsen et al. v. Davis et al.). It currently appears that although it is more than 29 calendar days from today, the next available date is October 10 for 1 hour at 2:00pm. | would like to reserve that time, which Plaintiffs believe should be sufficient for the issues in question (Plaintiffs believe only 45 minutes should be needed), or for the earliest acceptable time that opens up in the interim. | will follow up with a letter discussing the issues. Thank you. Collin Vierra = Eimer Stahl LLP www.eimerstahl.com 99 Almaden Blvd, Suite 642 San Jose, CA 95113-1605 Phone: 408-889-1668 Mobile: 831-917-8266 cvierra@eimerstahl.com ee NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the 3 preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party. Ser ere oer a een snow ate. mie Exhibit 2 From: Vierra, Collin To: Zimmerman, Brian W.; Story, Julia Ce: Chong, Jessica; Ernesto Aldover; Reisch, Nick Subject: RE: Amtsen, et al v. Davis, et al Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 11:31:47 AM Counsel, | leave it up to you as to whether you wish to loop Kludt’s counsel into this discussion. But Paramont’s responses are plainly inadequate, and | do not believe there is any good faith argument to the contrary. Defendants’ production includes a total of 22 documents, including zero communications, diligence documents, or financial records. The production in its entirety comprises: Maps (2 docs) Estimated and Final Buyer’s Statements (4 docs) Certificates of Termination of subsidiaries (4 docs) Closing Escrow Instructions & Settlement Statement (2 docs) Management Change Letters (4 docs) Operating Agreements for subsidiaries and amendments thereto (5 docs) Paramont Capital Executive Investment Summary for the Project (1 doc) Plaintiffs specifically requested communications about the project (RFP 1), communications with buyers (RFP 2), and communications with the other Defendants (RFP 4). There are no email files in this production. Plaintiffs specifically requested all financial, accounting, and related documents for the Project (RFP ). There are none apart from buyer’s statements and settlement statements, which under no ” reasonable definition amount to “al such documents requested. Plaintiffs specifically requested Documents provided to and received from the other Defendants (RFP 4). Other than the contracts mentioned above, there are none. It defies belief that Defendants did not exchange documents during the two years of the Project, including that Paramont would not have demanded documentation about the Project from Bragg and SVRV after taking over management. Plaintiffs specifically requested due diligence documents (RFP 5). There are none, despite SVRV’s banking and accounting records indicating that Paramont was paid $20,000 in fees for due diligence for the project. It is not plausible that Paramont—a sophisticated investor—was paid this fee but received no documents in diligence. Indeed, to have conducted no diligence plainly would have been a breach of fiduciary duty to Paramont’s investors. Plaintiffs will accept for the time being Defendants’ assertion that they have no documents relating to Plaintiffs’ investments in SVRV (RFP 6), but please note that Defendants remain obligated to produce any such documents in their possession, custody, or control, and they have raised no objection to this. In general, Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are often without legal justification. There exists no “financial privilege” in California, and California’s privacy protection is extremely limited. It permits withholding things like Social Security Numbers and Taxpayer IDs, but not investor names, investment quantities, or anything of that nature. It certainly does not permit withholding Defendants’ internal financial records. If Defendants are withholding documents on this basis, they must immediately produce them. Defendants’ redactions of the Paramont Woodside members’ and investors’ information, including their names and amounts invested, are also improper. Defendants’ SRog responses are also severely inadequate. It is implausible that the Operating Agreements describe “with particularity” all representations made to your clients by Bragg, Kludt, and SVRV, especially given Defendants’ receipt of $20,000 as part of due diligence (SRog 1). Defendants’ own, minimal document productions belie their claim that the Operating Agreement indicates “with particularity” Defendants’ understanding of others’ investments in the Project. If Defendants stand by this response, Plaintiffs will read Defendants’ response to SRog 2 as indicating that Defendants believed that only SVRV was investing in the Project, in the amounts of $500,000 for its Initial Capital Contribution, and $221,000 for its Subsequent Capital Contribution (for both Moore Road properties), and that Defendants lacked all knowledge about the investors or other details behind SVRV’s investment. If Defendants do not agree with Plaintiffs’ characterization, they must amend their response to answer Plaintiffs’ SRog fully. Defendants’ response to SRog 4 does not answer the SRog with particularity, as is apparent from na Defendants’ use of the phrase “in short” to describe Defendants’ return” from the Project. Defendants’ document productions do not answer this SRog with particularity, either (indeed, as noted, Defendants’ document production does not contain the financial records sought). Defendants must detail the amounts invested, expenses incurred, total revenues, profits received, and any other financial information relevant to their calculation of their return on investment. Defendants cannot avoid responding to SRog 5 by claiming that Mr. Bragg “managed the project and hired the relevant trades and professionals.” Paramont was the majority owner in the project, and took over management of the project long before the properties were sold. Even if Bragg was the initial manager and did the initial hiring, if Defendants have knowledge of the information sought by the SRog, they must describe it with particularity. Defendants’ response to SRog 6 is not answered with particularity. If Defendants intend to respond that they hired Ms. Marchbank to sell the lots and had no knowledge whatsoever of the process that she used to sell the lots, they must amend their response to say so. Defendants did not answer SRog 7 with particularity. If Defendants intend to respond that the ntirety of the terms of their investment with the Project are contained within the four corners of the Operating Agreements, they must confirm this. In addition, the statement that “Davis Bragg received the earnest money deposit and additional funds in excess of $300,000 at closing” is incomprehensible. Defendants must explain the exact amount received by Bragg, and account for what was returned, e.g., whether it was for a commission, for a return of principal, for additional capital contributions, etc. Defendants must provide this detail to properly answer with particularity. Defendants’ response to SRog 8 is evasive and inadequate. Saying that Mr. Bragg secured the loan and was required to make payments does not describe with particularity the requests that Defendants made to Mr. Bragg or SVRV for additional funds to complete the Project. As you know, the Operating Agreements permitted Defendants to demand Additional Capital Contributions, which Defendants did. Defendants must identify all such requests, including the amounts requested and from whom. Any similar requests that were not classified as Additional Capital Contributions, but which were also made to Bragg or SVRV “regarding the need for additional funds” must also be described with particularity. Please also note that Defendants waived their right to assert objections by failing to timely respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. CCP § 2031.300; see also CCP § 2030.290; 2033.280. Plaintiffs will not press this issue if Defendants adequately supplement their responses and retract any objections other than those that are both legally cognizable and reasonable. Defendants’ delay has not been justified. | specifically asked on June 21 whether Defendants intended “to provide responses to plaintiffs’ initial discovery requests by next Monday, June 27.” You never answered that question. | raised my general concern about delayed discovery responses on our call in advance of the initially- scheduled CMC, as well, and further noted my concern in Plaintiffs’ CMC statement. | notified you after you failed to respond in time that | wanted a meet and confer regarding Defendants’ lack of responses. It was not until the next day that you requested an extension. | granted a 10-day ” extension to July 6 on the condition that Defendants answer Plaintiffs’ requests “in full , and stated explicitly that this meant producing any documents and answering all Rogs, withholding only materials or information the production of which you specifically objected to. You never raised any concerns about responding in full by July 6. This week, at minimum, | will be scheduling a hearing on a motion to compel and for sanctions against the remaining Defendants. | will name you and your clients in that motion if you do not supplement Defendants’ responses. | will note that Caifornia makes unjustified misuses of the discovery process subject to mandatory sanctions under CCP sections 2023.030 and 2023.010. From: Vierra, Collin Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 8:41 PM To: Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Story, Julia Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick Subject: RE: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al Let’s plan for Monday at 1pm CST. | will send a further response before then. From: Zimmerman, Brian W. Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 5:07 PM To: Vierra, Collin ; Story, Julia Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover ; Reisch, Nick Subject: RE: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al [WARKING: External Email] Collin: am available on Monday to meet and confer. | disagree with your statements below. From: Vierra, Collin Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 8:58 PM To: Story, Julia Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover ; Zimmerman, Brian W. Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al [Warning] This E-mail came from an External sender. Please do not open links or attachments unless you are sure it is trusted. Counsel, | will follow up with detailed objections, likely on Monday, but in the meantime please propose some times when you will be available next week for a meet and confer. Plaintiffs have acted in good faith in giving Defendants an extension to respond to discovery even though Defendants failed to answer Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for assurances in advance of Defendants’ discovery deadline, but nonetheless Defendants’ responses are severely deficient. If we cannot reach a prompt resolution of these issues, Plaintiffs will file an additional motion to compel. Collin Vierra 408-889-1668 ee NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party. From: Story, Julia Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 5:15 PM To: Vierra, Collin Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Ernesto Aldover ; Zimmerman, Brian W. Subject: Arntsen, et al v. Davis, et al [RARNING: External Email] Attached please find: DEFENDANT GREGORY J. DAVIS’ OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL; DEFENDANTS GREGORY J. DAVIS; PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC; PARAMONT WOODSIDE LLC; SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC; SVRV 387 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; DEFENDANTS GREGORY J. DAVIS; PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC; PARAMONT WOODSIDE LLC; SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC; SVRV 387 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION; DEFENDANTS GREGORY J. DAVIS; PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC; PARAMONT WOODSIDE LLC; SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC; SVRV 387 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; DEFENDANT PARAMONT WOODSIDE, LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES— GENERAL; DEFENDANT SVRV 385 MOORE, LLC OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL; DEFENDANT SVRV 387’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL; and DEFENDANT PARAMONT CAPITAL, LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL. A Verification is attached to each of the foregoing. The following link contains production labeled DAVIS000001-000289: https://spencerfane.sharefile.com/d-s53a2d820aa924222ae800145feb812b2. Thank you. Julia Story Legal Administrative Assistant Spencer Fane LLP 3040 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1300] Houston, TX 77056-6560 O 713.212.2656 jstory@spencerfane.com | spencerfane.com JESS SSI SISOS ASI OSISS SSSI SO ISSIS SSIS SS ISOS SESS SASSI SACS O SISOS ICSI SO ISI ASSIS ICI CONFIDENTIALITY: This electronic mail trans: sion contains confidential information. The trans n contains information that may be protected under the attorney: client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, and/or other recognized privileges or protections under the law. The email is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or disseminating, and notify the sender by Reply e-mail or by calling (713) 552-1234, so that our address record can be corrected. JESS ISSO OOS EIOSI SSSI SSSI SISOS SOS SE ISSO SESS SASSI ACS SS IIS DISO ISOS IAACIASE IACI Exhibit 3 No. Date Time Subject From To cc Dave Bragg (realsv.com) Jessica Chong Brian Zimmerman Re: Ex Parte Application re July 6, 2022 11:58 AM Bragg, SVRV Dave Bragg (Gmail) Collin Vierra Mark Poe Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis July 6, 2022 12:14 PM Arntsen v. Davis Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis July 6, 2022 1:00 PM RE: Arntsen v. Davis Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis Mina Al-Ansari Dave Bragg (realsv.com) Jessica Chong Mark Poe RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Dave Bragg (Gmail) July 6, 2022 3:12 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Brian Zimmerman Collin Vierra Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Kristin Myatt Collin Vierra Dave Bragg (realsv.com) Jessica Chong RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Mark Poe July 6, 2022 3:23 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Dave Bragg (Gmail) Brian Zimmerman Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Kristin Myatt Collin Vierra Dave Bragg (realsv.com) Jessica Chong RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Dave Bragg (Gmail) July 6, 2022 3:30 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Kristin Myatt Brian Zimmerman Mark Poe Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis No. Date Time Subject From To cc Brian Zimmerman Collin Vierra Dave Bragg (realsv.com) RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Jessica Chong July 6, 2022 3:33 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Dave Bragg (Gmail) Kristin Myatt Mark Poe Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Brian Zimmerman Collin Vierra Dave Bragg (realsv.com) RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Jessica Chong July 6, 2022 3:36 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Kristin Myatt Dave Bragg (Gmail) Mark Poe Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Brian Zimmerman Jessica Chong RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte July 6, 2022 3:38 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Collin Vierra Kristin Myatt Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Brian Zimmerman Dave Bragg (realsv.com) Jessica Chong RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Kristin Myatt 10 July 6, 2022 3:42 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Collin Vierra Dave Bragg (Gmail) Mark Poe Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis No. Date Time Subject From To cc Brian Zimmerman Jessica Chong RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Julia Story 11 July 6, 2022 3:43 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Kristin Myatt Collin Vierra Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Julia Story Brian Zimmerman Jessica Chong RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Julia Story 12 July 6, 2022 3:47 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Collin Vierra Kristin Myatt Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Julia Story Kristin Myatt Brian Zimmerman Dave Bragg (realsv.com) RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ex Parte Jessica Chong 13 July 6, 2022 3:49 PM Application re Bragg, SVRV Dave Bragg (Gmail) Collin Vierra Mark Poe Julia Story Mina Al-Ansari Ryan Van Steenis Arntsen v. Davis -- Discovery 14 July 6, 2022 7:23 PM Requests Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis Mina Al-Ansari Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al.; Jessica Chong 15 July 6, 2022 8:36 PM Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 16 July 6, 2022 8:39 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 17 July 6, 2022 8:42 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis No. Date Time Subject From To cc Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman 18 July 6, 2022 8:56 PM Third-Party Subpoenas Collin Vierra Jessica Chong Ryan Van Steenis Brian Zimmerman Jessica Chong 19 July 6, 2022 9:04 PM Prior Party Discovery Collin Vierra Mark Poe Ryan Van Steenis Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman 20 July 7, 2022 9:38 AM RE: Third-Party Subpoenas Collin Vierra Jessica Chong Ryan Van Steenis Jessica Chong Arnsten v. Bragg; First Kludt 21 July 7, 2022 11:11 AM Doc Production Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman Ryan Van Steenis 22 July 7, 2022 1:52 PM Phone Call and Voicemail Collin Vierra Ryan Van Steenis RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 23 July 8, 2022 10:46 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 24 July 10, 2022 9:17 AM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 25 July 11, 2022 6:13 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis Mark Poe Ryan Van Steenis 26 July 11, 2022 6:24 PM Discovery to Defendants Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman Jessica Chong Dave Bragg (Gmail) No. Date Time Subject From To cc RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 27 July 12, 2022 10:43 AM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 238 July 12, 2022 4:39 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Collin Vierra Mark Poe Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis Mark Poe Ryan Van Steenis Bragg/SVRV - Motion to 29 July 12, 2022 7:00 PM Collin Vierra Dave Bragg (Gmail) Mina Al-Ansari Compel Brian Zimmerman Jessica Chong RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et Jessica Chong 30 July 12, 2022 8:40 PM al.; Kludt responses to Ps' Mark Poe Collin Vierra Brian Zimmerman discovery Ryan Van Steenis Exhibit 4 From: Vierra, Collin To: Ryan Van Steenis; Mark Poe; Zimmerman, Brian W. Ce: Chona, Jessica; Reisch, Nick; Ernesto Aldover Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al. Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 12:06:05 PM Attachments: image001.jpq. Thanks all. I'll plan to file with /s/ sigs around 2pm PST. Below for reference is updated text per Brian’s comment this morning. In order to protect information produced or made available for inspection by the parties in connection with this case, the parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel and subject to the approval of the Court, hereby agree as follows: 1 Except pursuant to subpoena, lawful discovery request, or other lawful order, no party to this case shall use or disclose documents or communications produced or made available for inspection by another party to this case (except information that is publicly available) except for purposes of this litigation, including that such documents or communications shall not be used or disclosed for any competitive or commercial purpose. 2. Should a party be asked for any such documents or communications pursuant to subpoena, lawful discovery request, or other lawful order, that party shall promptly notify the party that originally produced or made available for inspection the documents or communications requested so that the latter may have the opportunity to object to their disclosure. 3 Nothing in this order shall limit a party’s ability to use or disclose documents or communications that came into that party’s possession, custody, or control by means other than a discovery request, including that such party shall not be required to provide notice of the use or disclosure of any such documents or communications. 4 This order shall apply to documents already produced by the parties in this case. From: Ryan Van Steenis Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 1:03 PM To: Mark Poe ; Vierra, Collin ; Zimmerman, Brian W. Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto Aldover Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al. Those changes are good with me, and you’re authorized to e-sign the stip on my behalf so it can be filed. Best regards, Ryan Ryan van Steenis AJAMIE LLP 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2150 | Houston TX 77002 T +1.713.860.1600 | F +1.713.860.1699 | M +1.314.749.2284 vansteenis imie.com — a website | LinkedIn | vcard CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This electronic transmission, including any accompanying documents, contains information which may be confidential or privileged. It is intended solely for the recipient. Use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, replication, distribution or use of the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by return email. From: Mark Poe Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:41 AM To: Vierra, Collin ; Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Ryan Van Steenis Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto Aldover Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al. Same; Kludt and | are fine with all of this. From: Vierra, Collin Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:58 AM To: Zimmerman, Brian W. ; Mark Poe ; Ryan Van Steenis Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto Aldover Subject: RE: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al. I'm fine with that. Collin Vierra 408-889-1668 a www.eimerstahl.com NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message and all attachments. Legal advice contained in the preceding message is solely for the benefit of the Eimer Stahl LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other party. From: Zimmerman, Brian W. Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 5:57 AM To: Vierra, Collin ; Mark Poe ; Ryan Van Steenis Cc: Chong, Jessica ; Reisch, Nick ; Ernesto Aldover Subject: Re: Arnsten et al. v. Bragg et al. [ARKING: External Email] | don’t know what “maintenance of this case” means. What about for “purposes of this litigation?” Get Outlook for iOS From: Vierra, Collin Sent: Monday, July 18,