Preview
1 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ESQ., SBC # 39081
Law Offices Of George P. Eshoo & Associates
2 702 Marshall Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063
3 (w) (650) 364-7030
(f) (650) 364-7033
4 (e) georgeeshoo@aol.com
5 GEORGE P. ESHOO,
Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, pro se
6
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
9 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ) Case No. 21-CIV-06208
Plaintiff, ) Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo)
10 v. ) Related action: BC691736 (Los Angeles)
)
11 SYED ALI HUSAIN; KHURSHEED ) DECLARATION OF GEORGE P. ESHOO IN
HUSAIN; and DOES 1 - 20, inclusive ) OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL
12 ) DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO
Defendants. )
13 _________________________________ ) Hearing (PTC): May 20, 2024 (3PM)
SYED ALI HUSAIN and KHURSHEED ) Trial (5 Days): June 10, 2024 (2PM)
14 HUSAIN, )
Cross-Complainants, ) Action filed: Nov. 17, 2021
15 v. ) First Amended Complaint: March 2, 2022
) Cross-Complaint filed: Sept. 12, 2022
16 GEORGE ESHOO and ROES 1 through 100, ) Supplemental Complaint (Sub; KAH): May 22, 2023
Inclusive, ) Assigned for All Purposes to
17 Cross-Defendants ) The Hon. Jeffrey R. Finigan, Dept. 24 (2-F)
/
18 //
19
I, GEORGE P. ESHOO, declare:
20
1. I am the Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant in the above-captioned action. This action was
21
originally filed against Syed Ali Husain and Khursheed Husain. Syed Ali Husain passed away on
22
December 15, 2022 and his wife was brought in as his successor in interest by way of a
23
Supplemental Complaint.
24
2. I am respectfully opposing Defendant Khursheed Husain's Ex Parte Application for an Order
25
Shortening Time to Compel my deposition.
26
3. This action has been pending since November 17, 2021. Defendants propounded written
27
discovery on me on October 18, 2022 (Form and Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production
28
ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO
ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 1
Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles)
1 of Documents and Request for Admissions). I responded to all of the written discovery in detail,
2 including production of documents at trial. By contrast, I had to file a motion to compel responses
3 by Khursheed Husain and obtain a court order before she would provide discovery responses.
4 4. On August 26, 2022, defendants served a Notice of Deposition on me, for deposition to be
5 held on September 16, 2022. A notice was also sent for the deposition of my wife, Regina Eshoo,
6 who is not a party to this action. No Deposition Subpoena was served on Regina Eshoo. Attached
7 hereto and marked Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition and Production
8 of Documents served on me on August 26, 2022.
9 5. I served Objections to each Notice of Deposition on September 8, 2022. Attached hereto and
10 marked Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Objections that I served on attorney Craig Smith
11 on September 8, 2022.
12 6. Husain's attorney, Craig Smith, did not contact me regarding the date of the deposition or
13 any other matters raised in the Objections. Attorney Smith did not meet and confer on the
14 objections and basically did nothing, thereby dropping the matter.
15 7. Then, Smith served new Notices of Deposition on April 24, 2024 for depositions scheduled
16 on May 7, 2024 -- very close to the pretrial conference. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit C is a
17 true and correct copy of the second Notice of Deposition with a Request for Production of
18 substantially the same document, served on me on April 24, 2024. A Notice of Deposition was also
19 served on my wife, Regina Eshoo, again without a Deposition Subpoena. It does not appear that
20 Defendant is seeking an order shortening time to compel Regina Eshoo's deposition.
21 8. Objections to the second Notice of Deposition were served on April 30, 2024. Attached
22 hereto and marked Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Objections that I served on April 30,
23 2024.
24 9. There were various grounds for objection, importantly the fact that under Code of Civil
25 Procedure § 2025.480 and Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123,
26 defendant had 60 days to compel the depositions after objections had been raised to the first Notice
27 of Deposition. Husain failed to do so, and now his successor in interest cannot serve a new Notice
28 of Deposition. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 the right to compel is waived
ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO
ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 2
Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles)
1 since the deposition was not compelled within 60 days of the original deposition. I served a valid
2 Objection to the second Notice of Deposition, and defendant has no right to compel the deposition.
3 10. Moreover, there is no legal basis "for an order that all testimony of George Eshoo be
4 excluded." This has been repeatedly raised in the Ex Parte document, in order to intimidate me.
5 (a) First, I cannot be prevented from testifying because I have already provided full and
6 complete responses to all written discovery, which set out my case. Hence, there is no prejudice to
7 the defendant if I have not been deposed.
8 (b) Second, there can be no evidence sanction unless there has been disobedience of a prior
9 order compelling deposition. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(h) states:
h) If that party or party-affiliated deponent then fails to obey an order compelling
10
attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that
11
are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or
12
a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010)
13
against that party deponent or against the party with whom the deponent is
14
affiliated. In lieu of, or in addition to, this sanction, the court may impose a
15
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against
16
that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in
17
favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the
18
deponent's testimony would be taken pursuant to that order. …"
19
Dismissal may be ordered as a sanction only after the court has ordered the party to comply
20
with the requested discovery, and the party has had an opportunity to comply with the court order,
21
but failed to do so (see Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d
22
1579, 1583; Conservatorship of G.H. (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 1435). Without a prior order
23
compelling attendance at deposition, there can be no evidence sanction precluding me from
24
testifying at trial.
25
This is just another attempt by attorney Craig Smith to mislead the Court and intimidate me by
26
making this frivolous request that my testimony should be excluded, since: (a) I have already
27
28
ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO
ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 3
Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
EXHIBIT A
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO
ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 5
Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles)
1 CRAIG R. SMITH (State Bar No. 180338)
SMITH LAW FIRM
2 A Professional Law Corporation
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 760
3 Woodland Hills, California 91367
Telephone: (818) 703-6057
4 Facsimile: (818) 703-6058
email: csmith@smithlf.com
5
Attorneys for Defendant SYED ALI HUSAIN
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
10 GEORGE P. ESHOO ) Case No: 21-CIV-06208
) ____________________________________
11 ) ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE
) ROBERT D. FOILES
12 Plaintiff, ) DEPT. 21
)
13 vs. ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE
) ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
14 SYED ALI HUSAIN and DOES 1-100, ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
inclusive, )
15 )
)
16 Defendants. )
)
17
18 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff SYED ALI HUSAIN will take the deposition of
20 REGINA ESHOO upon oral examination, under oath, before a Notary Public/ Shorthand Court
21 Reporter, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §2025.010, as follows:
22 DATE: September 16, 2021
TIME: 2:00 P.M.
23 PLACE: 1310 Rollins Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
24
If for any reason the taking of said depositions are not completed on said date, the taking
25
of said depositions will be continued from day to day until completed.
26
27
28 -1-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 The depositions will be recorded stenographically and may also be recorded by audio and
2 video technology.
3 If the deponents require the services of an interpreter, notice should be given to
4 Claimants’ counsel within ten (10) days of the deposition date, designating a specific language or
5 dialect.
6 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the deponent is required to produce at the
7 time and place of the deposition, documents and things more fully described in Exhibit "A"
8 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
9
10 DATED: August 26, 2022 SMITH LAW FIRM
A Professional Law Corporation
11
12 By: __________________________________
CRAIG R. SMITH
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Syed Ali Husain and
Khursheed Husain
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -2-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 EXHIBIT A
2 INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
3 For purposes of this document production, the following definitions shall apply:
4 1. YOU, YOUR shall include the Responding Party, and her employers agents,
5 attorneys, representatives, and/or any other person acting on or purporting to act on behalf of the
6 responding party.
7 2. CONCERN, CONCERNS, CONCERNING shall mean relating to, referring to,
8 describing, containing, recording, alluding to, responding to, commenting upon, discussing,
9 showing, disclosing, explaining, mentioning, analyzing, constituting, comprising, evidencing,
10 setting forth, summarizing or characterizing, either directly or indirectly.
11 3. “COMPLAINT” shall mean the Complaint filed in this case.
12 4. “COMMUNICATION” or “COMMUNICATIONS” shall include any and all
13 transmittal of information whether oral or written.
14 5. "WRITING” or “WRITINGS” mean “writing” as defined by California
15 Evidence Code § 250, which includes all written, recorded, or graphic materials of every kind,
16 including, but not limited to, any book, pamphlet, binder, periodical, letter, memorandum,
17 telegram, report, intraoffice or interoffice communication, handwritten or other notes, working
18 papers, transcription, drafts, account, ledger, application, permit specification design, engineering
19 plan, chart, paper, study, survey, index, tape, disk, photograph, lab report, data sheet, data
20 processing card, computer printout, computer program ad data files, microfilm, microfiche,
21 correspondence, mailers, ledger cards, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone
22 records, drawings and charts and other data compilations. The term "other data compilations"
23 includes information stored in, or accessible through computer or other information retrieval
24 systems, whether or not in hard copy form, together with instructions and other materials
25 necessary to use or interpret such data compilations. If more than one copy of a document exists
26 and if as a result of handwritten editions and notations, or for any other reason, the copies are not
27
28 -3-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 identical, produce each unidentical copy. If the complete original is not available, then a
2 complete copy should be produced with any portion of the original which is available.
3 6. "And" and "or" are intended to have both conjunctive and disjunctive meanings,
4 so as to be inclusive of any WRITINGS that otherwise may be excluded from production.
5 7. To the extent the WRITINGS requested herein are not produced as they are kept
6 in the usual course of business, then as to each WRITINGS produced, organize and label the
7 documents to correspond with the categories in this demand as required by Section 2031.280 (a)
8 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
9 8. The use of the singular includes the plural, and the use of the plural includes the
10 singular, so as to be inclusive of any WRITING that otherwise may be excluded from
11 production.
12 9. The use of the present tense includes the past tense, and the use of the past tense
13 includes the present tense, so as to be inclusive of any WRITINGS that otherwise may be
14 excluded from production.
15 10. The singular name and masculine gender as used herein shall include the plural
16 and feminine or neuter, so as to be inclusive of any WRITINGS that otherwise may be excluded
17 from production.
18 11. If any WRITINGS requested herein is withheld pursuant to an objection based
19 upon privilege, please identify each WRITING for which the privilege is claimed and state:
20 (1) the type of WRITING (letter, report, memorandum, etc.), including any
21 title or identifying number thereon;
22 (2) its date of origin or preparation;
23 (3) the name of its authority or originator;
24 (4) the name of its addressee, if any;
25 (5) the name of all recipients of any copy of such document;
26 (6) a brief summary of its substance; and
27
28 -4-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 (7) the factual and legal basis upon which a privilege is claimed.
2 12. If any WRITING requested herein was in YOUR possession, custody or control,
3 but has since been destroyed, lost, misplaced, or stolen, and is no longer in YOUR possession,
4 custody or control, for each WRITING, please provide the following:
5 (1) The type of WRITING (letter, report, memorandum, etc.), including any
6 title or identifying number thereon;
7 (2) its date of origin or preparation;
8 (3) the name of its author or originator;
9 (4) the name of its addressee, if any;
10 (5) the name of all recipients of any copy of such WRITINGS;
11 (6) a brief summary of its substance;
12 (7) the time period during which the WRITING was in YOUR possession,
13 custody or control;
14 (8) the name and address of any person or entity who to the best of YOUR
15 knowledge has a copy of the WRITING;
16 (9) the date or approximate time the WRITING was destroyed, lost,
17 misplaced or stolen; and
18 (10) the reason for disposition, loss, destruction, discarding, or unavailability of
19 the WRITING.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1.
22 All WRITINGS CONCERNING that certain Settlement Agreement and Release
23 attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all
24 emails, all memoranda and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request.
25
26
27
28 -5-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2.
2 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish that Syed Ali Husain agreed to the
3 interlinated changes made to that certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit
4 A to the First Amended Complaint.
5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 3.
6 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and anyone else CONCERNING that certain
7 Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint,
8 including but not limited to all emails, notes, voice mails, memoranda and all other WRITINGS
9 responsive to this Request.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4.
11 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Craig Smith CONCERNING that
12 certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended
13 Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda and all other
14 WRITINGS responsive to this Request.
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 5.
16 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and REGINA ESHOO CONCERNING that
17 certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended
18 Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda and all other
19 WRITINGS responsive to this Request.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 6.
21 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 34
22 of the First Amended Complaint that Syed Ali Husain “made the representations knowing
23 that they were false and with the intention of inducing Plaintiff Eshoo to sign the Settlement
24 Agreement and Release.”
25
26
27
28 -6-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 7.
2 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 34
3 of the First Amended Complaint that “At the time the Settlement Agreement and Release was
4 signed, Defendants Husain and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, had no intention of making a payment to
5 Plaintiff from the proceeds of settlement received from the Wasau Business Insurance Company
6 case, and intended to conceal the fact that monies had been received from settlement of that
7 case.”
8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 8.
9 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 35
10 of the First Amended Complaint that “In reliance on Defendants Husain and Does 1 - 10,
11 inclusive's promise to pay $75,000 in three installments with the final installment to be made
12 within ten days of receipt of funds from the settlement of the Wasau Business Insurance
13 Company case.”
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 9.
15 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation in the First Amended
16 Complaint that George Eshoo suffered any damages as alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -7-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 21550 Oxnard
4 Street, Suite 760, Woodland Hills, California 91367.
5 On August 26, 2022, I served the following document(s) described as NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
6 DOCUMENTS on all interested parties to this action, as follows:
7 : by placing 9 the original : a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed
as follows:
8
George P Eshoo
9 702 Marshall St.
Suite 500
10 Redwood City, California 94063
Tel: 650.364.7030
11 Fax: 650.364.7033
georgeeshoo@aol.com
12
: BY MAIL: By placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as above, and
13 placing it for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily
familiar with our office’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
14 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid at, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware
15 that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16
: BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6,
17 this document was electronically served to the email address listed herein.
18 9 BY EXPRESS MAIL: I caused such envelope to be delivered by Overnite Express to the
addressee(s) listed in the attached Service List.
19
9 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
20 addressee(s) listed in the Service List.
21 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose
direction the service was made.
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
23 foregoing is true and correct.
24 Executed August 26, 2022 at Woodland Hills, California.
25
26 CRAIG R. SMITH
27
28 -8-
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
EXHIBIT B
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO
ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 6
Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles)
1 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ESQ., SBC # 39081
Law Offices Of George P. Eshoo & Associates
2 702 Marshall Street, Suite 500
3 Redwood City, CA 94063
(w) (650) 364-7030
4 (f) (650) 364-7033
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6 GEORGE P. ESHOO,
In pro per
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
9
GEORGE P. ESHOO ) Case No. 21CIV06208
10 Plaintiff, )
vs. ) OBJECTION BY GEORGE P. ESHOO
11 TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND
)
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
12 SYED ALI HUSAIN; KHURSHEED HUSAIN ) DOCUMENTS
and DOES 1-20 inclusive, )
13 ) Date: September 16, 2022
Defendant ) Time: 10.00 a.m.
14
_________________________________ / Place: 1310 Rollins Rd.
15 // ) Burlingame, CA 94010
)
16 ) Assigned for All Purposes to
) The Hon. Robert D. Foiles, Dept. 21
17
)
18 /
19 TO: Defendants SYED ALI HUSAIN and KHURSHEED HUSAIN and to their
20 attorney of record herein:
21 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff GEORGE P. ESHOO hereby
22 objects to the document captioned "Notice of Deposition of George Eshoo and
23 Request for Production of Documents" scheduled on September 16, 2021 at 2:00
24 p.m., on the following grounds:
25
1. The Deposition Notice is defective, ambiguous and unintelligible and does
26
not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §2025.220(a)(3). That section requires the
27
notice to set forth the name of each deponent, and the address and telephone
28
number, if known, of any deponent who is not a party to the action." Although the
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 1
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
caption of the document states that the deposition is that of George Eshoo, the notice
2
at page 1, lines 19-20 state that Plaintiff SYED ALI HUSAIN "will take the deposition
3
of REGINA ESHOO upon oral examination. SYED ALI HUSAIN is not the Plaintiff in
4
this action. He is the defendant. Moreover, it cannot be ascertained from the notice
5
whether the deposition scheduled is that of Plaintiff George Eshoo, or of Regina
6
Eshoo, a non-party. Further, the term "Responding Party" is not specifically defined.
7
8 However, and at page 3, line 4, the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" are defined as
9 "Responding Party and her employers, agents, etc." This would lead to the
10 presumption that the deposition is that of REGINA ESHOO, "her" and not George
11 Eshoo. Since it cannot be ascertained whether the deposition notice seeks the
12 deposition of George Eshoo, or REGINA ESHOO, the Notice fails to provide
13 adequate notice of deposition; and neither George Eshoo nor REGINA ESHOO will
14 be appearing at the deposition.
15 2. Defendants have not met and conferred and unilaterally scheduled the date
16 for Regina Eshoo and/or George Eshoo's deposition. Neither Plaintiff George P,
17
Eshoo, nor Regina Eshoo, are available on September 16, 2022 at 2.00 p.m.
18
3. If the deposition notice purports to depose REGINA ESHOO as set forth at
19
page 1, lines 19-20, Regina Eshoo is the wife of Plaintiff George P. Eshoo. Under the
20
privilege of one spouse not to testify against the other, set out in Evidence Code
21
§970 et seq., a married person has a privilege not to testify against his or her spouse
22
in any proceeding, and a privilege not be called as a witness by the adverse party in
23
a proceeding to which his or her spouse is a party [Evid. Code §§970, 971].
24
Evidence Code §970 states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a
25
married person has a privilege not to testify against his spouse in any proceeding."
26
27 Evidence Code §971 states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married
28 person whose spouse is a party to a proceeding has a privilege not to be called as a
witness by an adverse party to that proceeding without the prior express consent of
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 2
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
the spouse having the privilege under this section unless the party calling the spouse
2
does so in good faith without knowledge of the marital relationship." Defendants and
3
their attorney are well aware that Regina Eshoo is the wife of George P. Eshoo. They
4
have not sought testimony of Regina Eshoo "in good faith without knowledge of the
5
marital relationship." George P. Eshoo, a party, does not consent to testimony in this
6
action by his wife. Regina Eshoo has a privilege not to be called as a witness in this
7
8 case.
9 4. The notice of deposition and request for documents was not personally
10 served upon either Plaintiff, George P. Eshoo, nor upon Regina Eshoo. Rather, the
11 notice and request were only served by email. Plaintiff Eshoo never has, and never
12 will, agree to electronic service as per CCP §1010.6 (2)(A) (ii).
13 Based on the foregoing, neither George Eshoo, nor Regina Eshoo, will be
14 appearing at any scheduled deposition.
15 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
16 Whether the Notice of Deposition is for the deposition of George P. Eshoo, or of
17
REGINA ESHOO, the latter as set forth in the body of the Notice, objection is made
18
as follows to each Request:
19
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
20
All WRITINGS CONCERNING that certain Settlement Agreement and Release
21
attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all
22
drafts, all emails, all memoranda and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request.
23
OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
24
Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
25
Request for Production on the following grounds:
26
27 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
28 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 3
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
and documents.
2
2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
3
the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
4
attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
5
and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith.
6
Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide
7
8 any responsive documents.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
10 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish that Syed Ali Husain agreed to the
11 interlinated changes made to that certain Settlement Agreement and Release
12 attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint.
13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
14 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
15 Request for Production on the following grounds:
16 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
17
any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
18
to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
19
and documents.
20
2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
21
the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
22
attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
23
and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith.
24
Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide
25
any responsive documents.
26
27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 3:
28 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and anyone else CONCERNING that certain
Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 4
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
Complaint, including but not limited to all emails, notes, voice mails, memoranda and
2
all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request.
3
OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
4
Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
5
Request for Production on the following grounds:
6
1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
7
8 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
9 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
10 and documents.
11 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
12 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
13 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
14 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith.
15 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide
16 any responsive documents.
17
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4:
18
All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Craig Smith CONCERNING that
19
certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First
20
Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda
21
and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request.
22
OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
23
Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
24
Request for Production on the following grounds:
25
1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
26
27 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
28 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
and documents.
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 5
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
2
the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
3
attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
4
and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith.
5
3. The documents would be covered by the attorney work-product privilege.
6
Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide
7
8 any responsive documents.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 5:
10 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and REGINA ESHOO CONCERNING that
11 certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First
12 Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda
13 and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request.
14 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
15 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
16 Request for Production on the following grounds:
17
1.This Request is vague, unintelligble and ambiguous in that it cannot be
18
ascertained to whom it is directed and YOU is defined as "her."
19
2. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
20
any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
21
to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
22
and documents.
23
3. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
24
the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
25
attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
26
27 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith.
28 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide
any responsive documents.
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 6
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 6.
2
All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph
3
34 of the First Amended Complaint that Syed Ali Husain “made the representations
4
knowing that they were false and with the intention of inducing Plaintiff Eshoo to sign
5
the Settlement Agreement and Release.”
6
OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
7
8 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
9 Request for Production on the following grounds:
10 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
11 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
12 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
13 and documents.
14 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
15 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
16 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
17
and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith.
18
Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide
19
any responsive documents.
20
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 7.
21
All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph
22
34 of the First Amended Complaint that “At the time the Settlement Agreement and
23
Release was signed, Defendants Husain and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, had no intention
24
of making a payment to Plaintiff from the proceeds of settlement received from the
25
Wasau Business Insurance Company case, and intended to conceal the fact that
26
27 monies had been received from settlement of that case.”
28 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 7
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
Request for Production on the following grounds:
2
1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
3
any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
4
to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
5
and documents.
6
2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
7
8 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
9 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
10 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith.
11 Correspondence was repeatedly sent to Craig Smith seeking information on
12 the Wausau and Liberty Mutual settlement, based on the agreement that
13 $25,000 would be paid from the proceeds of that settlement. No response was
14 ever provided leading to the conclusion that Husain and Smith intended to
15 conceal the settlement.
16 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide
17
any responsive documents.
18
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 8:
19
All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph
20
35 of the First Amended Complaint that “In reliance on Defendants Husain and Does
21
1 - 10, inclusive's promise to pay $75,000 in three installments with the final
22
installment to be made within ten days of receipt of funds from the settlement of the
23
Wasau Business Insurance Company case.”
24
OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
25
Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
26
27 Request for Production on the following grounds:
28 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide
any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 8
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1
to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony
2
and documents.
3
2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
4
the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants'
5
attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody
6
and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. The
7
8 settlement placed on the record, the agreement signed by Husain, the
9 Request for Dismissal provided after the second installment was paid, and the
10 fact that Craig Smith filed it with the Court; the repeated requests for
11 information relating to the settlement, inter alia, establish elements of fraud.
12 The documents are in attorney Craig Smith's possession.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 9:
14 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation in the First Amended
15 Complaint that George Eshoo suffered any damages as alleged in the First Amended
16 Complaint.
17
OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
18
Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this
19
Request for Production on the following grounds:
20
1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide any
21
testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating to
22
authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony and
23
documents.
24
2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because
25
many of the documents, including the transcript of settlement proceedings, the
26
27 settlement agreement, etc., that are being requested are equally available to
28 Defendants. Defendants' attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in
his possession, custody and control and they are available to the Defendants
OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 9
DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208]
1 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ESQ., SBC # 39081
Law Offices Of George P. Eshoo & Associates
2 702 Marshall Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063
3 (w) (650) 364-7030
4 (f) (650) 364-7033
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
GEORGE P. ESHOO
6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
8
9 GEORGE P. ESHOO ) Case No. 21CIV06208
Plaintiff, ) Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo)
vs. ) Related action: BC691736 (Los Angeles)
10
)
11 SYED ALI HUSAIN; KHURSHEED ) PROOF OF SERVICE
HUSAIN and DOES 1-20 inclusive, )
12 ) Depositions Noticed 8/26/22: 10AM Sept.
Defendant ) 16, 2022 at 1310 Rollins Rd., Burlingame
13 CA 94010
_________________________________ )
// ) Informal Disc. Conf: Sept. 13, 2022
14 Case Mgmt Conf Date: Oct. 5, 2022
)
15 ) First Amended Complaint: March 2, 2022
) Action filed: Nov. 17, 2021
16 )
) Assigned for All Purposes to
17 / The Hon. Robert D. Foiles, Dept. 21
18 I, Regina Hannah Eshoo, am a citizen of the United States. My business address is
19 702 Marshall St, Suite 500, Redwood City CA 94063. I am employed in the County of San
20 Mateo where this service occurs. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
cause within. I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing
21
of mail in this office. That in the ordinary course of business said document would be
22
deposited with the US Postal Service in Redwood City on that same day. I understand
23 that service shall be presumed invalid upon motion of a party served if the postal
24 cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is more than one postal day after
25 the date of deposit for mailing contained on this affidavit.
On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of
26
the foregoing document(s) described as the following:
27
1-OBJECTION BY REGINA ESHOO TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST
28 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND
PROOF OF SERVICE FOR ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208]
1
1 2- OBJECTION BY GEORGE P. ESHOO TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
2
_X_ (By Mail) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed
3 in the United States mail at Redwood City, CA.
_X_ (By Email) I caused said document(
Preview
1 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ESQ., SBC # 39081 Law Offices Of George P. Eshoo & Associates 2 702 Marshall Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 3 (w) (650) 364-7030 (f) (650) 364-7033 4 (e) georgeeshoo@aol.com 5 GEORGE P. ESHOO, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, pro se 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 9 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ) Case No. 21-CIV-06208 Plaintiff, ) Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo) 10 v. ) Related action: BC691736 (Los Angeles) ) 11 SYED ALI HUSAIN; KHURSHEED ) DECLARATION OF GEORGE P. ESHOO IN HUSAIN; and DOES 1 - 20, inclusive ) OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL 12 ) DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO Defendants. ) 13 _________________________________ ) Hearing (PTC): May 20, 2024 (3PM) SYED ALI HUSAIN and KHURSHEED ) Trial (5 Days): June 10, 2024 (2PM) 14 HUSAIN, ) Cross-Complainants, ) Action filed: Nov. 17, 2021 15 v. ) First Amended Complaint: March 2, 2022 ) Cross-Complaint filed: Sept. 12, 2022 16 GEORGE ESHOO and ROES 1 through 100, ) Supplemental Complaint (Sub; KAH): May 22, 2023 Inclusive, ) Assigned for All Purposes to 17 Cross-Defendants ) The Hon. Jeffrey R. Finigan, Dept. 24 (2-F) / 18 // 19 I, GEORGE P. ESHOO, declare: 20 1. I am the Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant in the above-captioned action. This action was 21 originally filed against Syed Ali Husain and Khursheed Husain. Syed Ali Husain passed away on 22 December 15, 2022 and his wife was brought in as his successor in interest by way of a 23 Supplemental Complaint. 24 2. I am respectfully opposing Defendant Khursheed Husain's Ex Parte Application for an Order 25 Shortening Time to Compel my deposition. 26 3. This action has been pending since November 17, 2021. Defendants propounded written 27 discovery on me on October 18, 2022 (Form and Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production 28 ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 1 Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles) 1 of Documents and Request for Admissions). I responded to all of the written discovery in detail, 2 including production of documents at trial. By contrast, I had to file a motion to compel responses 3 by Khursheed Husain and obtain a court order before she would provide discovery responses. 4 4. On August 26, 2022, defendants served a Notice of Deposition on me, for deposition to be 5 held on September 16, 2022. A notice was also sent for the deposition of my wife, Regina Eshoo, 6 who is not a party to this action. No Deposition Subpoena was served on Regina Eshoo. Attached 7 hereto and marked Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition and Production 8 of Documents served on me on August 26, 2022. 9 5. I served Objections to each Notice of Deposition on September 8, 2022. Attached hereto and 10 marked Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Objections that I served on attorney Craig Smith 11 on September 8, 2022. 12 6. Husain's attorney, Craig Smith, did not contact me regarding the date of the deposition or 13 any other matters raised in the Objections. Attorney Smith did not meet and confer on the 14 objections and basically did nothing, thereby dropping the matter. 15 7. Then, Smith served new Notices of Deposition on April 24, 2024 for depositions scheduled 16 on May 7, 2024 -- very close to the pretrial conference. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit C is a 17 true and correct copy of the second Notice of Deposition with a Request for Production of 18 substantially the same document, served on me on April 24, 2024. A Notice of Deposition was also 19 served on my wife, Regina Eshoo, again without a Deposition Subpoena. It does not appear that 20 Defendant is seeking an order shortening time to compel Regina Eshoo's deposition. 21 8. Objections to the second Notice of Deposition were served on April 30, 2024. Attached 22 hereto and marked Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Objections that I served on April 30, 23 2024. 24 9. There were various grounds for objection, importantly the fact that under Code of Civil 25 Procedure § 2025.480 and Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 26 defendant had 60 days to compel the depositions after objections had been raised to the first Notice 27 of Deposition. Husain failed to do so, and now his successor in interest cannot serve a new Notice 28 of Deposition. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 the right to compel is waived ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 2 Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles) 1 since the deposition was not compelled within 60 days of the original deposition. I served a valid 2 Objection to the second Notice of Deposition, and defendant has no right to compel the deposition. 3 10. Moreover, there is no legal basis "for an order that all testimony of George Eshoo be 4 excluded." This has been repeatedly raised in the Ex Parte document, in order to intimidate me. 5 (a) First, I cannot be prevented from testifying because I have already provided full and 6 complete responses to all written discovery, which set out my case. Hence, there is no prejudice to 7 the defendant if I have not been deposed. 8 (b) Second, there can be no evidence sanction unless there has been disobedience of a prior 9 order compelling deposition. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(h) states: h) If that party or party-affiliated deponent then fails to obey an order compelling 10 attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that 11 are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or 12 a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 13 against that party deponent or against the party with whom the deponent is 14 affiliated. In lieu of, or in addition to, this sanction, the court may impose a 15 monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against 16 that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in 17 favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the 18 deponent's testimony would be taken pursuant to that order. …" 19 Dismissal may be ordered as a sanction only after the court has ordered the party to comply 20 with the requested discovery, and the party has had an opportunity to comply with the court order, 21 but failed to do so (see Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 22 1579, 1583; Conservatorship of G.H. (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 1435). Without a prior order 23 compelling attendance at deposition, there can be no evidence sanction precluding me from 24 testifying at trial. 25 This is just another attempt by attorney Craig Smith to mislead the Court and intimidate me by 26 making this frivolous request that my testimony should be excluded, since: (a) I have already 27 28 ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 3 Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 EXHIBIT A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 5 Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles) 1 CRAIG R. SMITH (State Bar No. 180338) SMITH LAW FIRM 2 A Professional Law Corporation 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 760 3 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone: (818) 703-6057 4 Facsimile: (818) 703-6058 email: csmith@smithlf.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant SYED ALI HUSAIN 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 GEORGE P. ESHOO ) Case No: 21-CIV-06208 ) ____________________________________ 11 ) ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE ) ROBERT D. FOILES 12 Plaintiff, ) DEPT. 21 ) 13 vs. ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ) ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR 14 SYED ALI HUSAIN and DOES 1-100, ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS inclusive, ) 15 ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 18 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff SYED ALI HUSAIN will take the deposition of 20 REGINA ESHOO upon oral examination, under oath, before a Notary Public/ Shorthand Court 21 Reporter, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §2025.010, as follows: 22 DATE: September 16, 2021 TIME: 2:00 P.M. 23 PLACE: 1310 Rollins Road Burlingame, CA 94010 24 If for any reason the taking of said depositions are not completed on said date, the taking 25 of said depositions will be continued from day to day until completed. 26 27 28 -1- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 The depositions will be recorded stenographically and may also be recorded by audio and 2 video technology. 3 If the deponents require the services of an interpreter, notice should be given to 4 Claimants’ counsel within ten (10) days of the deposition date, designating a specific language or 5 dialect. 6 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the deponent is required to produce at the 7 time and place of the deposition, documents and things more fully described in Exhibit "A" 8 attached hereto and incorporated herein. 9 10 DATED: August 26, 2022 SMITH LAW FIRM A Professional Law Corporation 11 12 By: __________________________________ CRAIG R. SMITH 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Syed Ali Husain and Khursheed Husain 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 EXHIBIT A 2 INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 3 For purposes of this document production, the following definitions shall apply: 4 1. YOU, YOUR shall include the Responding Party, and her employers agents, 5 attorneys, representatives, and/or any other person acting on or purporting to act on behalf of the 6 responding party. 7 2. CONCERN, CONCERNS, CONCERNING shall mean relating to, referring to, 8 describing, containing, recording, alluding to, responding to, commenting upon, discussing, 9 showing, disclosing, explaining, mentioning, analyzing, constituting, comprising, evidencing, 10 setting forth, summarizing or characterizing, either directly or indirectly. 11 3. “COMPLAINT” shall mean the Complaint filed in this case. 12 4. “COMMUNICATION” or “COMMUNICATIONS” shall include any and all 13 transmittal of information whether oral or written. 14 5. "WRITING” or “WRITINGS” mean “writing” as defined by California 15 Evidence Code § 250, which includes all written, recorded, or graphic materials of every kind, 16 including, but not limited to, any book, pamphlet, binder, periodical, letter, memorandum, 17 telegram, report, intraoffice or interoffice communication, handwritten or other notes, working 18 papers, transcription, drafts, account, ledger, application, permit specification design, engineering 19 plan, chart, paper, study, survey, index, tape, disk, photograph, lab report, data sheet, data 20 processing card, computer printout, computer program ad data files, microfilm, microfiche, 21 correspondence, mailers, ledger cards, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone 22 records, drawings and charts and other data compilations. The term "other data compilations" 23 includes information stored in, or accessible through computer or other information retrieval 24 systems, whether or not in hard copy form, together with instructions and other materials 25 necessary to use or interpret such data compilations. If more than one copy of a document exists 26 and if as a result of handwritten editions and notations, or for any other reason, the copies are not 27 28 -3- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 identical, produce each unidentical copy. If the complete original is not available, then a 2 complete copy should be produced with any portion of the original which is available. 3 6. "And" and "or" are intended to have both conjunctive and disjunctive meanings, 4 so as to be inclusive of any WRITINGS that otherwise may be excluded from production. 5 7. To the extent the WRITINGS requested herein are not produced as they are kept 6 in the usual course of business, then as to each WRITINGS produced, organize and label the 7 documents to correspond with the categories in this demand as required by Section 2031.280 (a) 8 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 9 8. The use of the singular includes the plural, and the use of the plural includes the 10 singular, so as to be inclusive of any WRITING that otherwise may be excluded from 11 production. 12 9. The use of the present tense includes the past tense, and the use of the past tense 13 includes the present tense, so as to be inclusive of any WRITINGS that otherwise may be 14 excluded from production. 15 10. The singular name and masculine gender as used herein shall include the plural 16 and feminine or neuter, so as to be inclusive of any WRITINGS that otherwise may be excluded 17 from production. 18 11. If any WRITINGS requested herein is withheld pursuant to an objection based 19 upon privilege, please identify each WRITING for which the privilege is claimed and state: 20 (1) the type of WRITING (letter, report, memorandum, etc.), including any 21 title or identifying number thereon; 22 (2) its date of origin or preparation; 23 (3) the name of its authority or originator; 24 (4) the name of its addressee, if any; 25 (5) the name of all recipients of any copy of such document; 26 (6) a brief summary of its substance; and 27 28 -4- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 (7) the factual and legal basis upon which a privilege is claimed. 2 12. If any WRITING requested herein was in YOUR possession, custody or control, 3 but has since been destroyed, lost, misplaced, or stolen, and is no longer in YOUR possession, 4 custody or control, for each WRITING, please provide the following: 5 (1) The type of WRITING (letter, report, memorandum, etc.), including any 6 title or identifying number thereon; 7 (2) its date of origin or preparation; 8 (3) the name of its author or originator; 9 (4) the name of its addressee, if any; 10 (5) the name of all recipients of any copy of such WRITINGS; 11 (6) a brief summary of its substance; 12 (7) the time period during which the WRITING was in YOUR possession, 13 custody or control; 14 (8) the name and address of any person or entity who to the best of YOUR 15 knowledge has a copy of the WRITING; 16 (9) the date or approximate time the WRITING was destroyed, lost, 17 misplaced or stolen; and 18 (10) the reason for disposition, loss, destruction, discarding, or unavailability of 19 the WRITING. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1. 22 All WRITINGS CONCERNING that certain Settlement Agreement and Release 23 attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all 24 emails, all memoranda and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request. 25 26 27 28 -5- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2. 2 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish that Syed Ali Husain agreed to the 3 interlinated changes made to that certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit 4 A to the First Amended Complaint. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 3. 6 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and anyone else CONCERNING that certain 7 Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, 8 including but not limited to all emails, notes, voice mails, memoranda and all other WRITINGS 9 responsive to this Request. 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4. 11 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Craig Smith CONCERNING that 12 certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended 13 Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda and all other 14 WRITINGS responsive to this Request. 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 5. 16 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and REGINA ESHOO CONCERNING that 17 certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended 18 Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda and all other 19 WRITINGS responsive to this Request. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 6. 21 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 34 22 of the First Amended Complaint that Syed Ali Husain “made the representations knowing 23 that they were false and with the intention of inducing Plaintiff Eshoo to sign the Settlement 24 Agreement and Release.” 25 26 27 28 -6- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 7. 2 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 34 3 of the First Amended Complaint that “At the time the Settlement Agreement and Release was 4 signed, Defendants Husain and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, had no intention of making a payment to 5 Plaintiff from the proceeds of settlement received from the Wasau Business Insurance Company 6 case, and intended to conceal the fact that monies had been received from settlement of that 7 case.” 8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 8. 9 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 35 10 of the First Amended Complaint that “In reliance on Defendants Husain and Does 1 - 10, 11 inclusive's promise to pay $75,000 in three installments with the final installment to be made 12 within ten days of receipt of funds from the settlement of the Wasau Business Insurance 13 Company case.” 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 9. 15 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation in the First Amended 16 Complaint that George Eshoo suffered any damages as alleged in the First Amended Complaint. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and am not a party to the within action; my business address is 21550 Oxnard 4 Street, Suite 760, Woodland Hills, California 91367. 5 On August 26, 2022, I served the following document(s) described as NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 6 DOCUMENTS on all interested parties to this action, as follows: 7 : by placing 9 the original : a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: 8 George P Eshoo 9 702 Marshall St. Suite 500 10 Redwood City, California 94063 Tel: 650.364.7030 11 Fax: 650.364.7033 georgeeshoo@aol.com 12 : BY MAIL: By placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as above, and 13 placing it for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with our office’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for 14 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware 15 that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 16 : BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6, 17 this document was electronically served to the email address listed herein. 18 9 BY EXPRESS MAIL: I caused such envelope to be delivered by Overnite Express to the addressee(s) listed in the attached Service List. 19 9 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the 20 addressee(s) listed in the Service List. 21 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 23 foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed August 26, 2022 at Woodland Hills, California. 25 26 CRAIG R. SMITH 27 28 -8- ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ESHOO AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 EXHIBIT B 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ESHOO DECL IN OPP TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPO OF PLTF ESHOO ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 6 Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo); Related Action: BC691736 (Los Angeles) 1 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ESQ., SBC # 39081 Law Offices Of George P. Eshoo & Associates 2 702 Marshall Street, Suite 500 3 Redwood City, CA 94063 (w) (650) 364-7030 4 (f) (650) 364-7033 5 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 GEORGE P. ESHOO, In pro per 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 9 GEORGE P. ESHOO ) Case No. 21CIV06208 10 Plaintiff, ) vs. ) OBJECTION BY GEORGE P. ESHOO 11 TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 12 SYED ALI HUSAIN; KHURSHEED HUSAIN ) DOCUMENTS and DOES 1-20 inclusive, ) 13 ) Date: September 16, 2022 Defendant ) Time: 10.00 a.m. 14 _________________________________ / Place: 1310 Rollins Rd. 15 // ) Burlingame, CA 94010 ) 16 ) Assigned for All Purposes to ) The Hon. Robert D. Foiles, Dept. 21 17 ) 18 / 19 TO: Defendants SYED ALI HUSAIN and KHURSHEED HUSAIN and to their 20 attorney of record herein: 21 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff GEORGE P. ESHOO hereby 22 objects to the document captioned "Notice of Deposition of George Eshoo and 23 Request for Production of Documents" scheduled on September 16, 2021 at 2:00 24 p.m., on the following grounds: 25 1. The Deposition Notice is defective, ambiguous and unintelligible and does 26 not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §2025.220(a)(3). That section requires the 27 notice to set forth the name of each deponent, and the address and telephone 28 number, if known, of any deponent who is not a party to the action." Although the OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 1 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 caption of the document states that the deposition is that of George Eshoo, the notice 2 at page 1, lines 19-20 state that Plaintiff SYED ALI HUSAIN "will take the deposition 3 of REGINA ESHOO upon oral examination. SYED ALI HUSAIN is not the Plaintiff in 4 this action. He is the defendant. Moreover, it cannot be ascertained from the notice 5 whether the deposition scheduled is that of Plaintiff George Eshoo, or of Regina 6 Eshoo, a non-party. Further, the term "Responding Party" is not specifically defined. 7 8 However, and at page 3, line 4, the terms "YOU" and "YOUR" are defined as 9 "Responding Party and her employers, agents, etc." This would lead to the 10 presumption that the deposition is that of REGINA ESHOO, "her" and not George 11 Eshoo. Since it cannot be ascertained whether the deposition notice seeks the 12 deposition of George Eshoo, or REGINA ESHOO, the Notice fails to provide 13 adequate notice of deposition; and neither George Eshoo nor REGINA ESHOO will 14 be appearing at the deposition. 15 2. Defendants have not met and conferred and unilaterally scheduled the date 16 for Regina Eshoo and/or George Eshoo's deposition. Neither Plaintiff George P, 17 Eshoo, nor Regina Eshoo, are available on September 16, 2022 at 2.00 p.m. 18 3. If the deposition notice purports to depose REGINA ESHOO as set forth at 19 page 1, lines 19-20, Regina Eshoo is the wife of Plaintiff George P. Eshoo. Under the 20 privilege of one spouse not to testify against the other, set out in Evidence Code 21 §970 et seq., a married person has a privilege not to testify against his or her spouse 22 in any proceeding, and a privilege not be called as a witness by the adverse party in 23 a proceeding to which his or her spouse is a party [Evid. Code §§970, 971]. 24 Evidence Code §970 states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a 25 married person has a privilege not to testify against his spouse in any proceeding." 26 27 Evidence Code §971 states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married 28 person whose spouse is a party to a proceeding has a privilege not to be called as a witness by an adverse party to that proceeding without the prior express consent of OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 2 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 the spouse having the privilege under this section unless the party calling the spouse 2 does so in good faith without knowledge of the marital relationship." Defendants and 3 their attorney are well aware that Regina Eshoo is the wife of George P. Eshoo. They 4 have not sought testimony of Regina Eshoo "in good faith without knowledge of the 5 marital relationship." George P. Eshoo, a party, does not consent to testimony in this 6 action by his wife. Regina Eshoo has a privilege not to be called as a witness in this 7 8 case. 9 4. The notice of deposition and request for documents was not personally 10 served upon either Plaintiff, George P. Eshoo, nor upon Regina Eshoo. Rather, the 11 notice and request were only served by email. Plaintiff Eshoo never has, and never 12 will, agree to electronic service as per CCP §1010.6 (2)(A) (ii). 13 Based on the foregoing, neither George Eshoo, nor Regina Eshoo, will be 14 appearing at any scheduled deposition. 15 OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 16 Whether the Notice of Deposition is for the deposition of George P. Eshoo, or of 17 REGINA ESHOO, the latter as set forth in the body of the Notice, objection is made 18 as follows to each Request: 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 20 All WRITINGS CONCERNING that certain Settlement Agreement and Release 21 attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all 22 drafts, all emails, all memoranda and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request. 23 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 24 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 25 Request for Production on the following grounds: 26 27 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide 28 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 3 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 and documents. 2 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 3 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 4 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 5 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. 6 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide 7 8 any responsive documents. 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 10 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish that Syed Ali Husain agreed to the 11 interlinated changes made to that certain Settlement Agreement and Release 12 attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint. 13 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 14 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 15 Request for Production on the following grounds: 16 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide 17 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating 18 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony 19 and documents. 20 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 21 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 22 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 23 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. 24 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide 25 any responsive documents. 26 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 3: 28 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and anyone else CONCERNING that certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 4 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 Complaint, including but not limited to all emails, notes, voice mails, memoranda and 2 all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request. 3 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 4 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 5 Request for Production on the following grounds: 6 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide 7 8 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating 9 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony 10 and documents. 11 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 12 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 13 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 14 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. 15 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide 16 any responsive documents. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4: 18 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Craig Smith CONCERNING that 19 certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First 20 Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda 21 and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request. 22 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 23 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 24 Request for Production on the following grounds: 25 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide 26 27 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating 28 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony and documents. OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 5 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 2 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 3 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 4 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. 5 3. The documents would be covered by the attorney work-product privilege. 6 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide 7 8 any responsive documents. 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 5: 10 All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and REGINA ESHOO CONCERNING that 11 certain Settlement Agreement and Release attached as Exhibit A to the First 12 Amended Complaint, including but not limited to all drafts, all emails, all memoranda 13 and all other WRITINGS responsive to this Request. 14 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 15 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 16 Request for Production on the following grounds: 17 1.This Request is vague, unintelligble and ambiguous in that it cannot be 18 ascertained to whom it is directed and YOU is defined as "her." 19 2. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide 20 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating 21 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony 22 and documents. 23 3. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 24 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 25 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 26 27 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. 28 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide any responsive documents. OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 6 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 6. 2 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 3 34 of the First Amended Complaint that Syed Ali Husain “made the representations 4 knowing that they were false and with the intention of inducing Plaintiff Eshoo to sign 5 the Settlement Agreement and Release.” 6 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: 7 8 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 9 Request for Production on the following grounds: 10 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide 11 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating 12 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony 13 and documents. 14 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 15 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 16 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 17 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. 18 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide 19 any responsive documents. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 7. 21 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 22 34 of the First Amended Complaint that “At the time the Settlement Agreement and 23 Release was signed, Defendants Husain and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, had no intention 24 of making a payment to Plaintiff from the proceeds of settlement received from the 25 Wasau Business Insurance Company case, and intended to conceal the fact that 26 27 monies had been received from settlement of that case.” 28 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 7 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 Request for Production on the following grounds: 2 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide 3 any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating 4 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony 5 and documents. 6 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 7 8 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 9 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 10 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. 11 Correspondence was repeatedly sent to Craig Smith seeking information on 12 the Wausau and Liberty Mutual settlement, based on the agreement that 13 $25,000 would be paid from the proceeds of that settlement. No response was 14 ever provided leading to the conclusion that Husain and Smith intended to 15 conceal the settlement. 16 Neither George Eshoo nor Regina Eshoo will appear at deposition nor provide 17 any responsive documents. 18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 8: 19 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation contained on paragraph 20 35 of the First Amended Complaint that “In reliance on Defendants Husain and Does 21 1 - 10, inclusive's promise to pay $75,000 in three installments with the final 22 installment to be made within ten days of receipt of funds from the settlement of the 23 Wasau Business Insurance Company case.” 24 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: 25 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 26 27 Request for Production on the following grounds: 28 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide any testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 8 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 to authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony 2 and documents. 3 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 4 the documents requested are equally available to Defendants. Defendants' 5 attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody 6 and control and they are available to the Defendants through Craig Smith. The 7 8 settlement placed on the record, the agreement signed by Husain, the 9 Request for Dismissal provided after the second installment was paid, and the 10 fact that Craig Smith filed it with the Court; the repeated requests for 11 information relating to the settlement, inter alia, establish elements of fraud. 12 The documents are in attorney Craig Smith's possession. 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 9: 14 All WRITINGS which YOU contend establish the allegation in the First Amended 15 Complaint that George Eshoo suffered any damages as alleged in the First Amended 16 Complaint. 17 OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 18 Plaintiff George P. Eshoo, and Regina Eshoo, a non-party, object to this 19 Request for Production on the following grounds: 20 1. As the wife of George P. Eshoo, Regina Eshoo is not required to provide any 21 testimony against her husband and that might include testimony relating to 22 authenticity of documents. The spousal privilege is applicable to testimony and 23 documents. 24 2. This Request is overboard, oppressive, and unduly burdensome because 25 many of the documents, including the transcript of settlement proceedings, the 26 27 settlement agreement, etc., that are being requested are equally available to 28 Defendants. Defendants' attorney Craig Smith has all responsive documents in his possession, custody and control and they are available to the Defendants OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 9 DOCUMENTS (REGINA ESHOO) OR GEORGE ESHOO) [SAN MATEO 21 CIV06208] 1 GEORGE P. ESHOO, ESQ., SBC # 39081 Law Offices Of George P. Eshoo & Associates 2 702 Marshall Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 3 (w) (650) 364-7030 4 (f) (650) 364-7033 5 Attorney for Plaintiff GEORGE P. ESHOO 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 8 9 GEORGE P. ESHOO ) Case No. 21CIV06208 Plaintiff, ) Underlying action: 17CIV03349 (San Mateo) vs. ) Related action: BC691736 (Los Angeles) 10 ) 11 SYED ALI HUSAIN; KHURSHEED ) PROOF OF SERVICE HUSAIN and DOES 1-20 inclusive, ) 12 ) Depositions Noticed 8/26/22: 10AM Sept. Defendant ) 16, 2022 at 1310 Rollins Rd., Burlingame 13 CA 94010 _________________________________ ) // ) Informal Disc. Conf: Sept. 13, 2022 14 Case Mgmt Conf Date: Oct. 5, 2022 ) 15 ) First Amended Complaint: March 2, 2022 ) Action filed: Nov. 17, 2021 16 ) ) Assigned for All Purposes to 17 / The Hon. Robert D. Foiles, Dept. 21 18 I, Regina Hannah Eshoo, am a citizen of the United States. My business address is 19 702 Marshall St, Suite 500, Redwood City CA 94063. I am employed in the County of San 20 Mateo where this service occurs. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause within. I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing 21 of mail in this office. That in the ordinary course of business said document would be 22 deposited with the US Postal Service in Redwood City on that same day. I understand 23 that service shall be presumed invalid upon motion of a party served if the postal 24 cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is more than one postal day after 25 the date of deposit for mailing contained on this affidavit. On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of 26 the foregoing document(s) described as the following: 27 1-OBJECTION BY REGINA ESHOO TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST 28 FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND PROOF OF SERVICE FOR ESHOO VS HUSAIN [SAN MATEO 21CIV06208] 1 1 2- OBJECTION BY GEORGE P. ESHOO TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 2 _X_ (By Mail) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed 3 in the United States mail at Redwood City, CA. _X_ (By Email) I caused said document(