On June 13, 2022 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Roe, Jane,
and
Cica Management,
Circa Management,
Does 1 Through 50,
Reeder, Stephen,
Santiago, Chancey,
Ucr Group Llc,
for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Michael F. Creamer, Esq. (SBN 204662)
THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL F. CREAMER
P. 0. Box 17743 SUPER p I
Anaheim, CA 928 7
1 COUR‘WE’gTOFg
(714) 623-2299 BERNAnoIcggfn~A7qZ9-u
V/L
legaldocsS375(a>yahoo.com — E-Mail 01mm
FEB I j
202
\OOOQQM-bWN—i
Counsel for defendant Chancey Santiago 5V ow”
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT, CIVIL DIV.
_.
O
.....
'-‘
._.
N Jane Roe, an individual [CASE NO. CIVSB 2211821
.—A U)
plaintiff,
The Honorable Jay H. Robinson
Unlimited Jurisdiction
—-
A
Dept. 8-35
VS.
(J!
.—
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT 0F THE
—- ON UCR Group, LLC, a corporation; Circa MOTION BY DEFENDANT CHANCEY
Management, Inc., a corporation; Stephen SANTIAGO FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION
—-
fl
Reeder, an individual; Chancey Santiago, IAIVGTAElSifozLAT:ggFlfiiqllVgNRglEEclsglgNléléogR
»—-
W ?n mdmdual’ ‘md DOES 1 through 50’
FOR LESSER RELIEF 1N THE FORM 0F AN
mCIUS‘Ve, ISSUE SANCTION; DECLARATION 0F
\O
MICHAEL CREAMER
:—-
Defendants.
[J O
Date: March 18, 2024
N '—
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: S-35
NN
Date Filed: 06-13-22
N U) TrialDatc: 02-03-25
NA
N UI
N O\
N \l
N 00
CIVSB 221 1821 1
Separate Statement
Movant Chancey Santiago (hereinafier “Ms. Santiago”) respectfully submits this
separate statement and the attached declaration in support of her motion for a terminating
sanction against Plaintiff Jane Roe (hereinafier “Ms. Roe”) or for lesser relief in the form of
an issue sanction.
\OOOQO‘kII#UJN—I
This separate statement is divided into the following five (5) parts:
1. The Demand for Production and the Response by Ms. Roe Denying the
Existence of Any Documents.
2. A Description of the Documents That Were Suppressed by Ms. Roe.
3. Why Suppression Constitutes Spoliation of Evidence and Why a Terminating
Sanction is the Appropriate Remedy Thereon.
4. The Evidence That Ms. Roe Has Responsive Documents.
5. The Extreme Prejudice Resultant from the Spoliation.
6. The Evidence That The Suppression of Evidence is Part of a Scheme, as
Opposed to Inadvertent Spoliation of Evidence.
NNNNNNNNN—HHHHp—d—b—aflfl
mflom-fiwNfloomflo‘m-hWN-‘O
7. The Shifiing of the Burden of Proof.
8. The Requested Issue Sanction as Lesser Relief.
Part One — The Demand for Production and the Response by Ms. Roe Denying the
Existence of any Documents.
On June 30, 2022, Ms. Santiago propounded her first set of demands for production of
attached as Exhibit
“4” to the
documents to Plaintiff Jane Roe and a copy thereon is
declaration of Michael Creamer submitted with Ms. Santiago’s motion for a terminating
CIVSB 221 1821 2
Separate Statement
Document Filed Date
February 15, 2024
Case Filing Date
June 13, 2022
Category
Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Michael F. Creamer, Esq. (SBN 204662) THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL F. CREAMER P. 0. Box 17743 SUPER p I Anaheim, CA 928 7 1 COUR‘WE’gTOFg (714) 623-2299 BERNAnoIcggfn~A7qZ9-u V/L legaldocsS375(a>yahoo.com — E-Mail 01mm FEB I j 202 \OOOQQM-bWN—i Counsel for defendant Chancey Santiago 5V ow” SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT, CIVIL DIV. _. O ..... '-‘ ._. N Jane Roe, an individual [CASE NO. CIVSB 2211821 .—A U) plaintiff, The Honorable Jay H. Robinson Unlimited Jurisdiction —- A Dept. 8-35 VS. (J! .— SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT 0F THE —- ON UCR Group, LLC, a corporation; Circa MOTION BY DEFENDANT CHANCEY Management, Inc., a corporation; Stephen SANTIAGO FOR A TERMINATING SANCTION —- fl Reeder, an individual; Chancey Santiago, IAIVGTAElSifozLAT:ggFlfiiqllVgNRglEEclsglgNléléogR »—- W ?n mdmdual’ ‘md DOES 1 through 50’ FOR LESSER RELIEF 1N THE FORM 0F AN mCIUS‘Ve, ISSUE SANCTION; DECLARATION 0F \O MICHAEL CREAMER :—- Defendants. [J O Date: March 18, 2024 N '— Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: S-35 NN Date Filed: 06-13-22 N U) TrialDatc: 02-03-25 NA N UI N O\ N \l N 00 CIVSB 221 1821 1 Separate Statement Movant Chancey Santiago (hereinafier “Ms. Santiago”) respectfully submits this separate statement and the attached declaration in support of her motion for a terminating sanction against Plaintiff Jane Roe (hereinafier “Ms. Roe”) or for lesser relief in the form of an issue sanction. \OOOQO‘kII#UJN—I This separate statement is divided into the following five (5) parts: 1. The Demand for Production and the Response by Ms. Roe Denying the Existence of Any Documents. 2. A Description of the Documents That Were Suppressed by Ms. Roe. 3. Why Suppression Constitutes Spoliation of Evidence and Why a Terminating Sanction is the Appropriate Remedy Thereon. 4. The Evidence That Ms. Roe Has Responsive Documents. 5. The Extreme Prejudice Resultant from the Spoliation. 6. The Evidence That The Suppression of Evidence is Part of a Scheme, as Opposed to Inadvertent Spoliation of Evidence. NNNNNNNNN—HHHHp—d—b—aflfl mflom-fiwNfloomflo‘m-hWN-‘O 7. The Shifiing of the Burden of Proof. 8. The Requested Issue Sanction as Lesser Relief. Part One — The Demand for Production and the Response by Ms. Roe Denying the Existence of any Documents. On June 30, 2022, Ms. Santiago propounded her first set of demands for production of attached as Exhibit “4” to the documents to Plaintiff Jane Roe and a copy thereon is declaration of Michael Creamer submitted with Ms. Santiago’s motion for a terminating CIVSB 221 1821 2 Separate Statement