Motion to Compel Discovery with Sanctions in HOWARD/FIRST PROPERTY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED VS. PAUL HEMMING ET AL| Trellis.Law

On August 07, 2015 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Hemming, Wendy, Howard First Property, Llc, A Delaware Limited, and 55 Natoma Llc, 55 Natoma Llc, A Washington Limited Liability, Does 1 To 50, Inclusive, Hemming, Paul, Hemming, Wendy, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 || Randy Sullivan, Esq. (SBN 229326)

Dylan R. Williams, Esq. (SBN282123) ELECTRONICALLY
2 || PATTON & SULLIVAN LLP

6600 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 250 eee

Pleasanton, California 94566-8058 County of San Francisco

925-600-1800 Phone

925-600-1802 Fax Oe ipriaeaat

randy@pattonsullivan.com BY:MADONNA CARANTO.
Deputy Clerk

dylan@pattonsullivan.com

Attorneys for Defendants

PAUL HEMMING, WENDY HEMMING and
55 NATOMA LLC

Attorneys for Cross-Complainant

3 || WENDY HEMMING, an individual, and
WENDY HEMMING, individually and on

9 || behalf of the derivative claims of PANTHEON

IW wn f w&

SF, LLC
10
i SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCSICO
13 || HOWARD/FIRST PROPERTY, LLC, a Case No. CGC 15-547246
Delaware limited liability company, [Unlimited Jurisdiction]
PART. 2.
a Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF DYLAN WILLIAMS
15 IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-
v. COMPLAINANT WENDY HEMMING’S
16 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
PAUL HEMMING, an individual; RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
17 || WENDY HEMMING, an individual; 55 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
NATOMA LLC, a Washington limited FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
1g || liability company; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, DATE: Fas A 0) b
19 TME:
Es Defendants. DEPT.: aan Chon How hi Ka }
Complaint Filed: August 7, 2015
1 Cross-Complaint Filed: October 30, 2015
FAC-Complaint Filed: November 23, 2015
22
AND RELATED CROSS ACTION.
23

24 || 1, DYLAN WILLIAMS, declare as follows:
25 1. Tam an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all of the courts of the
26 || State of California, and am an Associate Attorney in the law firm of Patton & Sullivan LLP,

27 || counsel of record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Wendy Hemming (“Ms. Hemming”).

VATION & SULLIVAN LLP
HeaSetergis CA DECLARATION OF DYLAN WILLIAMS JN SUPPOR'T OF DEPFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANT WENDY HEMMING’S MOTION 1]
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS28

PATTON se SULLIVAN LLP
PLEASANTON, CA,

2. I make this declaration. in support of the Cross-Complainants’ Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“Document Requests”),
and for Monetary Sanctions. Unless so qualified, I have personal knowledge of the facts as
stated herein, and could and would competently testify thereto if called to do so.

3. Ms. Hemming served the Document Requests upon Howard/First on November
25,2015. The Document Requests include 232 categories of documents related to the properties,
parties, and agreements at the center of this lawsuit. The basic documents requested in the
Document Requests are needed to defend against Plaintiff's claims, investigated the Hemmings’
claims, identify Doe Defendants, and calculate damages, among other things. A true and correct
copy of the Document Requests is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

4. Howard/Fitst served its initial responses (“Initial Responses”) to the Document
Requests on March 2, 2016. In its initial responses, Howard/Virst uses the same boilerplate
objection in response to all 232 document request. Howard/First also objects on grounds
requests for basic documents related to the properties at issue are not relevant, and that basic
terms used in requests are vague and ambiguous. Based on these objections Howard/First
initially refused to comply with 46 of the 232 requests. Further, even where Howard/First
appeared to initially comply with requests, it was unclear based on its response whether
responsive documents were being withheld. Finally, Howard/First initially produced no
documents in response to the Document Requests. A true and correct copy of Howard/First’s
initial responses to the Document Requests is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

5. On March 21, 2016 I sent counsel for Howard/First a meet and confer letter
regarding its defective responses to Wendy Hemming’s Requests for Production of Documents,
Set One. The meet and confer letter requested that Howard/F! irst withdraw its meritless
objections—including Howard/First’s boilerplate objection, Howard/First’s objections that
documents related to 524 Howard Street and 530 Howard Stréet are not relevant, and
Howard/First’s objection that basic terms used in the requests are vague and ambiguous. The

meet and confer letter also requested that Howard/First respond to the requests in good faith, and

‘DECLARATION OF DYLAN WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANT WENDY HEMMING’S MOTION 2,
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS.

|
|a nw

PATTON &e SULLIVAN LLP
PLEASANTON, CA.

produce responsive documents. A true and correct copy of the March 21, 2016 meet and confer
letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

6. Howard/First never formally responded to the March 21, 2016 meet and confer
letter with regard to the Document Requests, or explained its use of meritless objections, and
refusal to produce relevant documents. Rather, Howard/First responded by producing
documents in response to some of the requests, and amending its written responses with
Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“Supplemental
Responses”). Howard/First’s Supplemental Responses, however, do not resolve the defects
identified in the March 21, 2016 meet and confer letter—including Howard/First’s meritless
objections and refusal to produce basic documents. To the contrary, the Supplemental
Responses contain more meritless objections, and comply with fewer requests than the initial
responses, Whereas Howard/First initially refused to comply with 46 of the 232 document
requests, in its Supplemental Responses it refuses to comply with 98 of the document requests.
A true and correct copy of the Supplemental Responses is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

7. On August 17, 2016 I sent Howard/First a second meet and confer letter regarding
Howard/First’s refusal to correct the previously identified defects, and-the new defects within the
Supplemental Responses. A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as
Exhibit 5, On August 19, 2016 I received a phone call from Theodore Senet (“Mr. Senet”),
counsel for Howard/First, regarding the second meet and confer letter. Mr. Senet represented
that he was unable to discuss the substance of the meet and confer letter because he had not
reviewed it, but that his associate Michele Ellison would be available to discuss after returning
from vacation the following week. Since this phone call, counsel for Howard/First has not
responded with any further phone call or written correspondence in response to the August 17,

2016 meet and confer letter. Nor has Howard/First served any further amended supplemental

-responses or documents.

8. Ihave spent approximately 12 hours preparing this motion to compel and
supporting documents. | expect to spend an additional 4 hours preparing a reply brief in the

event Howard/First opposes this motion, and an additional 2 hours preparing for and attending a

DECLARATION OF DYLAN WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANT WENDY HEMMING’S MOTION 3
70 COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

]
:
|
2
228

PATTON & SULLIVAN LLP
PLRASANTON, CA

hearing on the matter. My hourly rate for this case is $195 per billable hour. Therefore, I
anticipate that my client will incur $3,510 in attorney’s fees in having to bring this motion to
compel.

9, | anticipate that my client will incur $60 in fees for filing of this motion to
compel.

10. The parties agreed in writing to extend the deadline to file this motion until
September 12, 2016.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12"" day of September, 2016, in Pleasanton,

California.

DYLAN WILLIAMS

DECLARATION OF DYLAN WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANT WENDY HEMMING’S MOTION 4

PO) COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONSEXHIBIT 2Gipps GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

SOU em HDR RB WYN YE

ee
nb =

Theodore L, Senet, Esq. (CSB # 082788)
tsenet@gibbsgiden.com

Luke N. Eaton, Esq. (CSB # 280387)
Ineaton@gibbsgiden.com

GIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER
SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

1880 Century Park East, 12" Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-1621

Telephone (310) 552-3400 Fax (310) 552-0805

Attorneys for Plaintiff
HOWARD/FIRST PROPERTY, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE

HOWARD/FIRST PROPERTY, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company

Plaintiff,

Vv.

PAUL HEMMING, an individual; WENDY
HEMMING, an individual; 55 NATOMA.
LLC. a Washington Limited Liability
COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,

Case No.: CGC 15-547246
Assigned to the Hon. Judge
Dept.

(Unlimited Jurisdiction]

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT
WENDY I[EMMING TO PLAINTIFF
HOWARD/FIRST PRIORITY, LLC
(SET ONE)

Defendants.
Filing Date: August 7, 2015
PROPOUNDING PARTY: WENDY HEMMING
RESPONDING PARTY: HOWARD/FIRST PRIORITY, LLC

SET NO.: ONE (1)

TO DEFENDANT WENDY HEMMING AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Plaintiff HOWARD/FIRST PRIORITY, LLC (“Responding Party”) hereby responds

to the Requests for Documents, Set No. One propounded by Propounding Patty Defendant

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

resaaist

|
{
:GiBBs GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

—

Ce YE DAA Bw LN

WENDY HEMMING (“Propounding Party”), pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2030.010 et seq., as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is
subject to all appropriate objections which would require the exclusion of any statement
contained herein if the request were asked or if the answer were made by a witness present
and testifying in court. All objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at the
time of trial.

Responding Party has not completed his own investigation and discovery in this
matter. The responses herein below to each document request are made fo the best of
Responding Party’s present knowledge, information and belief. The Responding Party
reserves the right to use in this litigation, including, but not limited to, the right to introduce
as evidence at trial or any other proceeding or hearing, any documents which may be
responsive to one or more of the first set of Request for Production that may be developed,
discovered, and or otherwise obtained by the Responding Party subsequent to the date of
these responses.

‘The responses herein below to each document production request are based upon
responsive documents which are in the possession, custody or control of the Responding
Party. The fact that a response indicates that certain documents will be produced does not
constitute a representation that any such documents actually exist and/or that any such
documents are currently in the Responding Party’s possession, custody or control. Such
statements indicate only that the Responding Party will make a good faith effort to assist
Propounding Party in locating the documents responsive to that request.

This preliminary statement is incorporated herein by reference to each of the answers
as if stated in full.
if
Mt

Mt
2

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE
reseantGiBBs GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

owe NDR BR WN

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting the purchase price YOU paid to purchase the $24

HOWARD STREET PROPERTY, including, but not limited to, the purchase and sale

agreement.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence, Responding Party objects to this request on grounds thal it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it secks
information regarding the property located at 524 HOWARD STREET, which is not relevant
to the subject matter of the litigation. Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the
request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “YOU.”

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
ALL appraisals or valuations of the 524 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.

3
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

vaseataGiBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

CoO Oe IN DH BR WH WY

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the sight to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 3:
ALL DOCUMENTS calculating or stating an estimated residual land value for the

524 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3;

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as

required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this

request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,

oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
4

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE
Les84t4.)GIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

Coe NIN DH FWD

excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party, Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine,

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

ALL design plans, schematics, land plans, or development plans for the 524

HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to Icad to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

sosanid |GIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

COU RP NDR Hw eB wD

grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Parly will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
ALL business plans for the development of the 524 HOWARD STREET

PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it secks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party, Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks
information regarding the property located at 524 HOWARD STREET, which is not relevant

to the subject matter of the litigation. Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the

6
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

{sseaid_GIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

See ae
Cm NDA BF Be HY KF DO wea HI DU FWD

yD
S

request is vaguc, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “business
plans.”

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
ALL DOCUMENTS teflecting ANY entitlements that have been secured for the

development of the 524 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY,
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it secks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprictary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks
information regarding the property located at 524 HOWARD STREET, which is not relevant
to the subject matter of the litigation. Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the
request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term
“entitlements.”

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

7
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

1os8at¢_tGIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

Co WP DNDN FF WN

NN NY Yee eB oe
S 8B 2S SeRAABDEBHSLS

24
25
26
27
28

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

ALL design plans, schematics, land plans, or development plans prepared prior to
April, 2014 that involve an assembled development of the 524 HOWARD STREET
PROPERTY and the 530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 7:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents, Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right 10 privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Pasty objects to this request on the basis that it seeks
information regarding the property located at 524 HOWARD STREET and the property
located at 530 HOWARD STREET, which are not relevant to the subject matter of the
litigation, Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the request is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “assembled development.”

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NGO. 8:
ALL design plans, schematics, land plans, or development plans prepared after April,
8

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

rosaana_tG1ppS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

oe wm N DU Rw NY

2014 that involve an assembled development of the $24 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY
and the 530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks
information regarding the property located at 524 HOWARD STREET and the property
located at 530 HOWARD STREET, which are not relevant to the subject matter of the
litigation. Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the request is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “assembled development.”

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting ANY submittals or applications for entitlements for
the 524 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY, which were prepared from April, 2014 to the

present,

"RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

16sEae

'Gipps GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

Ce ADAH BW HN Mm

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 9:

Responding Party objects fo this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting ANY business plan involving the development of the

524 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY, along with the 530 HOWARD STREET

PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as

10 7
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

rosea)GIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITIBRODT LLP

cD eI DH FF WD

required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party, Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprictary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11;
ALL DOCUMENTS calculating or stating an estimated residual land value for the

530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

osuGipps GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

Coa NDA FW NHN

excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party, Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it secks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks
information regarding the property located at 530 HOWARD STREET, which is not relevant
to the subject matter of the litigation. Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the
request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term
“estimated residual land value.”

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
ALL DOCUMENTS teflecting ANY financial pro formas RELATING TO the

development of the 530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes

12 oe

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

Tosti

|
|GiBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

Ce NDR FF WN

RPM YY YN RNY NY Se Be Be Be Se Se eB ee
eI DA &F BK K= SD ee RADA KR BH S&S

upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

pro formas.”
Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting ANY business plan RELATING TO the development

of the 530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Responding Party objects fo this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents, Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

13
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

roseatatGIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

Coe IN DAH eB wH

request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “business

”

plan.
Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
ALL DOCUMENTS wherein YOU calculated YOUR rate of return on a potential

purchase or investment in the 530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize cach category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks
information regarding the property located at 530 HOWARD STREET, which is not relevant
to the subject matter of the litigation, Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the
request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the terms “YOU,”

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

yose4i4GIBBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

So em INAH Bw

“YOUR?” and “rate of return.”
Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ANY offers made to purchase the 530
HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 15:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that il is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 203.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents, Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it secks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request,

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

wosuaie 1Gipps GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WiTTBRODT LLP

oOo eI DAH FF WW

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS exchanged

between YOU and Henry Koo RELATING TO the 530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 203 1.010, Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence, Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS exchanged

16
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

16521141GBS GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

SOD em NKR RH BW NY |

between YOU and One Timberlake Inc. RELATING TO the 530 HOWARD STREET

PROPERTY.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party, Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS exchanged

between YOU and Chad Mitchells RELATING TO the 530 HOWARD STREET

PROPERTY.

17
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO. ONE

16584141G1sBs GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

SD FUDD NIN DH FWY

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents, Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it secks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Patty will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS exchanged

between YOU and Henry Koo RELATING TO Wendy Hemming.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as

18
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

16584441Gress GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

COD eG N KDA BR WN

required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the request is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “YOU.” Responding
Party further objects on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to
time.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS exchanged

between YOU and One Timberlake Inc. RELATING TO Wendy Hemming.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize cach category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and

excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this

19
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

sesGipps GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITYBRODT LLP

wo we NAW PF WN

yb N Bw NY Bw NY NY Ye Se BH ke we oe
e2an kB GOS FF SSW BAAEBE AS

request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine.

Additionally, Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the request is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “YOU.” Responding Party
further objects on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to time.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS exchanged

between YOU and Chad Mitchells, RELATING TO Wendy Hemming.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad and fails to reasonably particularize each category of documents requested as
required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. Responding Party objects to this
request and the Request for Production of Documents on grounds that it is burdensome,
oppressive and harassing because Defendant sets forth an unreasonable, unjustified and
excessive amount of requests for documents. Responding Party further objects to this
request on grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on grounds that it infringes
upon the right to privacy of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on
grounds that it seeks confidential commercial information, trade secret information,
proprietary business information and/or information which is protected from disclosure by

the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine,

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET NO, ONE

toseaiaGrsps GIDEN LOCHER TURNER SENET & WITTBRODT LLP

owe ND A BF WN

Additionally, Responding Party also objects on the grounds that the request is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome and oppressive as to the term “YOU.” Responding Party
further objects on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous and overbroad as to time.

Based upon the forgoing objections, the Responding Party will not comply with this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
ALL of YOUR COMMUNICATIONS, including email and text messaging,

RELATED TO the potential acquisition of the 530 HOWARD STREET PROPERTY,
including those by Adam Tartakovsky, Casey Klein, Sonny Kahn, Bruce Menin, and Russell
Galbut.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad and fuils to reasonably particularize eac

Case Info

Judge

Teri L. Jackson Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 13, 2016

Case Filing Date

August 07, 2015

County

Parties

55 NATOMA LLC Defendant
55 NATOMA LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY Defendant
CRESCENT HEIGHTS, INC. Cross Defendant
DOES 1 TO 50, INCLUSIVE Defendant
HEMMING, PAUL Defendant
HEMMING, WENDY Cross Complainant
HEMMING, WENDY Defendant
HOWARD/FIRST PROPERTY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED Cross Defendant
HOWARD/FIRST PROPERTY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED Plaintiff
KAHN, SONNY Cross Defendant
ROES 1-50, INCLUSIVE Cross Defendant
SENET, THEODORE L Attorney
SENET, THEODORE L Attorney for the Plaintiff
SF PARCEL F, LLC Cross Defendant
SULLIVAN, RANDY Attorney
SULLIVAN, RANDY Attorney for the Defendant
TARTAKOVSKY, ADAM Cross Defendant
Dylan Williams Attorneys for Defendants
Michele Ellison Attorney
Ralph Kokka Attorneys for Defendants
Jessica Moore Attorney
Luke Eaton Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SARAH HOWES Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Caitlin Connell Attorney
Sarah Sigman Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Discovery: HOWARD/FIRST PROPERTY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED VS. PAUL HEMMING ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties