Preview
19CV357485
Santa Clara — Civil
R. Nguyen
Electronically Filed
Michael Tsivyan, Esq. [SBN 322003] by Superior Court of CA,
LAW OFFICES OF DEAN LLOYD
County of Santa Clara,
425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 330
on 6/25/2020 11:28 PM
Palo Alto, California 94306
Reviewed By: R. Nguyen
Telephone: (408) 887-6739 Case #19CV357485
Facsimile: (650) 328-1666 Envelope: 4512865
Email: mt.legaljaws@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10 CIVIL DIVISION
11 NATASHA DOUBSON, Case. No.: 19CV357485
12 Plaintiff NOTICE AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER
13 Vv. ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
xxxxx xxxxxxx et al.,
15 AUTHORITIES;
Defendants
16 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN;
17 PROOF OF SERVICE
18 Hearing date: th 9/3/2020
Time: 9:00 am
19
Department: 21
20 Judge: Hon. Thang N. Barrett
21 Action filed: October 25, 2019
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
NOTICE AND MOTION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 9/3 _ , 2020 at 9am_, or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard in Department 21 of the Santa Clara Superior Court, located at 161 North
First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON will, and hereby does, move
the Court to reconsider its order entered on June 16, 2020 denying Plaintiff's motion to compel
Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx (“Dr. xxxxx”) and Defendant xxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”) to
provide further responses to set one of discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff to Dr. xxxxx
on January 14, 2020, and to xxxxxxx on February 4, 2020. This motion is made pursuant to
10 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 on the grounds that new circumstances developed.
11 after the order had been issued.
12 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that during said hearing Plaintiff will, and hereby
13 does, move the Court to impose a monetary sanction against Dr. xxxxx, Dr. xxxxxxx and their
14 counsel of record, Mr. Alan L. Martini, by ordering them to pay Plaintiff at least $8,940.25 in
15 attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion to compel, the reply in support
16 thereof and the instant motion to reconsider. This request for attorney fees and costs is made
17 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h) and 2033.290(d)
18 on the grounds that Dr. xxxxx and xxxxxxx asserted unmeritorious objections without substantial
19 justification.
20 The motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities (infra 3-8), the
21 declaration of Michael Tsivyan (infra 9-11), the Appendix attached thereto (infra 12), the
22 pleadings and papers on file herein, and upon such oral and/or documentary evidence that may
23 be presented at the time of the hearing.
24
25
26
27
28
2
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Introduction
Plaintiff asks to reconsider the order denying her motion to compel Defendants
xxxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxx xxxxxxx (collectively “Defendants”) to provide further
discovery responses in light of newly emerged circumstances that involve broken promises and
deliberately misleading representations made by Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Alan L. Martini.
B. Factual and Procedural History
In January and February 2020, Plaintiff propounded discovery requests to Defendants.
On March 2,! Defendants filed a joint Motion For Protective Order (“MFPO”) asking to
10 stay discovery until this Court adjudicates their joint demurrer. Shortly thereafter Defendants
11 provided discovery responses objecting to nearly every discovery request on the basis of the
12 MFPO and on other grounds. Decl.” 2; AP? 1-103.
13 On April 17, Plaintiff simultaneously filed an opposition to the MFPO and a motion to
14 compel Defendants to provide further discovery responses (“Motion To Compel”) to Set One of
15 Form Interrogatories (“FI”), Special Interrogatories (“SI”), Requests For Admission (“RFA”)
16 and Requests For Production (“RFP”).
17 On June 1, this Court issued a tentative ruling denying the MFPO. Defendants did not
18 contest the ruling. Decl. { 4.
19 On June 3, Defendants served on Plaintiff eight sets of papers (“June 3 Papers”). Decl. {
20 5; AP 123-46. Each set asserts general objections followed by the following statement:
21 In view of the court’s denial of Responding Party’s Motion for
Protective Order on or about June 2, 2020, Responding Party agrees
22 to supplement all responses to [the discovery requests], subject to the
objections other than “unduly burdensome and oppressive (as set
23
forth in the Motion for Protective Order previously filed and
24 served).[“]
25
26
| All dates refer to the year of 2020 unless expressly stated otherwise.
27 2 “Decl.” refers to Declaration of Michael Tsivyan, infra 9-11.
3 “AP” refers to Appendix attached to Declaration of Michael Tsivyan, infra 12.
28
3
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
Id. Thereafter, at 10:48 a.m., Mr. Martini wrote a letter to Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Michael
Tsivyan, requesting to withdraw the Motion To Compel because the June 3 Papers purportedly
made the Motion To Compel moot. AP 147-48, 150.
At 11:08 a.m., Mr. Tsivyan declined to withdraw the Motion To Compel explaining that
the June 3 Papers state that Defendants withdrew the objections that were based on the MFPO,
but did not withdraw other objections that were not based on the MFPO:
[T]he discovery responses assert objections that are not based on the
motion for protective order. The Court needs to determine whether
those objections are improper and if so, whether sanctions should be
imposed. Accordingly, the motion should proceed as scheduled.
AP 150.
10
At 11:18 a.m., Mr. Tsivyan made an offer that Plaintiff would not to seek sanctions in
11
exchange for a stipulation that the Court should overrule all objections and order Defendants to
12
provide full and complete code-compliant responses, without objections, on June 19. AP 152.
13
At 11:45 a.m., Mr. Martini made a counteroffer that Defendants would provide
14
supplemental responses later that day in exchange for Plaintiff withdrawing the motion:
15
My suggestion is for you to take your motion off calendar in light of
16 the agreement to provide supplemental responses . . . . You will
receive the supplemental responses later today. Since the motion to
17
compel will become moot when we serve the supplemental
18 responses, I suggest you agree to take it off calendar... . Otherwise
I will have to file an opposition which is due today.
19 AP 153.
20
At 2:54 p.m., Mr. Tsivyan again declined to withdraw the Motion To Compel explaining
21
that once supplemental responses would be provided, Plaintiff would need some time to review
22 them and decide whether they are adequate or not. AP 153. Mr. Tsivyan noted that there would
23
be insufficient time to do so because Mr. Martini “waited until the last moment.” Jd.
24
Later that day, on June 3, Defendants filed the opposition, in which they did not defend
25
any objections, but instead represented to this Court that they would file supplemental responses
26
“in the near future, as soon as they could be prepared, but before the hearing on this motion, and
27
that therefore plaintiff's motion was moot.” AP 158:24-26, 159:2-6. On this basis Defendants
28
4
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
requested that the motion to compel be denied and no sanctions be imposed. AP 159.
On June 8, Plaintiff filed a reply (“Reply”) in support of the Motion To Compel. AP 162-
79. The Reply argues that since Defendants chose not to defend any objections, all objections,
including those that are not related to the MFPO, should be overruled. AP 166:10-23.
On June 15, this Court posted a tentative ruling denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel in
light of the fact that the June 3 Papers removed “some” objections, left “a handful of remaining,
general objections” and made “statements that xxxxxxx and Dr. xxxxx agree to supplement their
discovery responses to the FI, SI, RFA, and RPD.” AP 194:13-16.
Having reviewed the tentative ruling, Mr. Tsivyan called the Court and left a message
10 stating that Plaintiff would contest the tentative ruling. Decl. | 8. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Tsivyan
11 spoke with Mr. Martini on the telephone and informed him that Plaintiff would contest the ruling’
12 in order to let the Court know that (i) contrary to Defendants’ representations, Defendants did
13 not provide any supplemental responses “before the hearing”; and (ii) the Motion To Compel
14 was not moot because it challenged the objections that were not removed in the June 3 Papers,
15 and that without seeing the supplemental responses the Court may not presume that these
16 objections would be removed in the forthcoming supplemental responses. /d. Mr. Martini
17 represented that supplemental responses were ready and only needed verifications, and that they
18 would be provided no later than Friday, June 19. /d. Moreover, Mr. Martini specifically assured
19 Mr. Tsivyan that the supplemental responses obviated any need to contest the tentative ruling. Jd.
20 Relying on these representations, Mr. Tsivyan agreed not to contest the tentative ruling. /d.
21 Shortly thereafter, ar 4:13 p.m., Mr. Martini wrote:
22 Per our telephone conversation just now, this is to confirm my
clients' will be providing supplemental responses to the discovery no
23 later then Friday of this week, as indicated in our opposition papers.
You confirmed you would not be contesting the tentative rulings on
24
the matters set for hearing tomorrow.
25 AP 180. At 4:23 p.m., Mr. Tsivyan wrote:
26 Per our conversation, Plaintiff agreed not to contest the tentative
ruling in exchange for your promise to provide xxxxxxxxxxxxx's and
27 xxxxx xxxxxxx's supplemental responses on or before this Friday,
June 19, 2020.
28
5
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
AP 180.
On June 19, Mr. Martini provided supplemental responses for xxxxxxx only. Decl. § 9;
AP 197-259.
Later that day, Mr. Tsivyan wrote a letter (“Letter”) to Mr. Martini asking to explain why
no supplemental responses were provided for Dr. xxxxx. AP 260-61.
With respect to xxxxxxx, the Letter points out that her supplemental responses to FI 2.2,
2.7, RFA 11-13, 15, RFP 6, 8-17, 19-21, and SI 1-12, 21, 23-25, 29, 38, 47, 70-71, 73-75, 79-82
contain objections that xxxxxxx did not defend in the opposition to the Motion To Compel. AP
261. The Letter notes that the parties had already attempted to resolve these objections
10 informally. Jd. The Letter asks Mr. Martini whether he disagrees that the parties should seek
11 intervention from this Court in light of the fact that all meet and confer efforts have already been
12 exhausted. /d. The Letter also points out that xxxxxxx’s supplemental responses to RFP | and 7
13 state that the documents sought are attached whereas no attachment was provided. /d.
14 The Letter was served on Mr. Martini on June 19, 2020 by electronic notification via
15 GreenFiling. Decl. § 10. The record of GreenFiling shows that Mr. Martini read the Letter on the
16 next day, June 20, at 7:59 a.m. /d. Yet, Mr. Marini never bothered to respond. /d. § 11.
17 On June 22, Mr. Martini provided the missing documents that were supposed to be
18 attached to xxxxxxx’s supplemental responses to RFPs. /d. § 12. On June 25, Mr. Martini
19 provided Dr. xxxxx’s supplemental responses. /d. J] 13; AP 262-307. As xxxxxxx, Dr. xxxxx also
20 decided to stand on the objections that she did not defend in the opposition to the Motion To
21 Compel. These objections are asserted in Dr. xxxxx’s supplemental responses to RFA 2-7 and SI
22 3-13, 16-21, 32-33, 36. AP 263-65, 282-87, 289-90.
23 Plaintiff now asks this Court to reconsider the order denying the Motion To Compel.
24 Cc. Argument
25 A party affected by an order may, within 10 days after service of written notice of entry
26 of the order, seek reconsideration based on new facts or circumstances. § 1008(a). Here, good
27 cause exists to reconsider the Court’s order denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel in light of the
28 fact that (i) the order adopted the erroneous tentative ruling because it was not contested, and (ii)
6
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
Plaintiff did not contest the tentative ruling due to Mr. Martini’s assurances that turned out to be
false and misleading.
The Court determined that the Motion To Compel was moot based on the fact that
Defendants removed “some” objections (related to the MFPO) and left only “a handful of
remaining, general objections.” AP 194:13-14. At the time when this determination was made,
Defendants did not provide any supplemental responses, and thus the Court could not ascertain
whether Defendants would still stand on any specific objections (unrelated to the MFPO) they
asserted in the original responses. AP 1-103. The fact that Defendants ultimately decided to
stand on specific objections became known only on June 19 and June 25, i.e. well after the Court
10 had already entered the order on June 16. Had this fact been known to the Court before the
11 tentative ruling was issued, the Court would not have allowed Defendants to stand on these
12 objections because they were specifically challenged in the Motion To Compel, and yet in their
13 joint opposition Defendants chose not to defend these objections. Because this fact became
14 known only after the hearing, it was not taken into account by this Court in rendering the
15 tentative ruling and adopting it later.
16 At this time it is clear that the Court erred in denying the Motion to Compel because all
17 meet and confer efforts to resolve the objections at issue had been exhausted, and Defendants
18 chose not to defend these objections in the opposition to the Motion To Compel, thereby
19 acknowledging that these objections had no justification. The order should be modified so that
20 these objections would be overruled and Defendants would be ordered to provide, within a time
21 period set by this Court, full and complete code-compliant responses, with no objections, to
22 () FI 2.2, 2.7, RFA 11-13, 15, RFP 6, 8-17, 19-21, and SI 1-12, 21, 23-25, 29, 38,
23 47, 70-71, 73-75, 79-82 of Set One propounded to xxxxxxx; and
24 (2) RFA 2-7 and SI 3-13, 16-21, 32-33, 36 of Set One propounded to Dr. xxxxx.
25 A separate reason to modify the order is Mr. Martini’s false assurances given on June 15
26 that the supplemental responses purportedly obviated any need to contest the tentative ruling.
27 Mr. Martini knew full well that the main goal of the Motion to Compel was to remove the
28 objections unrelated to the MFPO. AP 150 (informing Mr. Martini that “the motion should
7
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
proceed as scheduled” because “the discovery responses assert objections that are not based on
the motion for protective order’). During the telephone conversation this point was specifically
discussed. Decl. 10:25-11:2. In other words, Mr. Martini intentionally did not want to provide
the supplemental responses before the hearing in order to conceal from Plaintiff and from this
Court material facts that could have otherwise affected the outcome. Thus, good cause exists to
reconsider the ruling.
In the event the Court decides to reconsider the denial of Plaintiff's request to compel
further response, the Court should also reconsider the denial of Plaintiffs request for monetary
sanctions against xxxxxxx, Dr. xxxxx and Mr. Martini sought pursuant to § 2030.300(d),
10 2031.310(h) and 2033.290(d).
11 D. Conclusion
12 In light of the above, the Court should order that within a time period set by this Court
13 () xxxxxxx provide full and complete code-compliant responses, with no objections,
14 to FI 2.2, 2.7, RFA 11-13, 15, RFP 6, 8-17, 19-21, and SI 1-12, 21, 23-25, 29, 38,
15 47, 70-71, 73-75, 79-82 of Set One;
16 (2) Dr. xxxxx provide full and complete code-compliant responses, with no
17 objections, to RFA 2-7 and SI 3-13, 16-21, 32-33, 36 of Set One;
18 @) Defendants and Mr. Martini pay $5,691.75 as requested in the Motion To
19 Compel, $1,931.75 as requested in the Reply, and $1,316.75 incurred in
20 connection with the instant motion. Decl. §¥ 14-18.
21
22 DATED: June 25, 2020
23
By: ___/s/ Michael Tsivyan
24
Michael Tsivyan, Attorney for
25 Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON
26
27
28
8
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN
I, Michael Tsivyan, declare as follows:
1 Tam an attorney at Law Offices of Dean Lloyd. In the instant action I am counsel
of record for Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON.
2 On March 2‘ and 9, Mr. Alan L. Martini provided discovery responses of
Defendants xxxxxxxxxxxxx (“Dr. xxxxx”) and xxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”). True and
correct copies of the responses are shown in the attached Appendix (“AP”) at 1-103.
3 A true and correct copy of the memorandum of points and authorities in support
of Plaintiff's motion to compel Dr. xxxxx and xxxxxxx to provide further responses (“Motion To
10 Compel”) is shown at AP 104-22. A true and correct copy of the opposition to said motion is at
11 AP 155-61. A true and correct copy of the reply in support of said motion is at AP 162-79.
12 4 On June 1, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying Dr. xxxxx’s and xxxxxxx’s
13 joint motion for protective order. Dr. xxxxx and xxxxxxx did not contest the tentative ruling.
14 5 On June 3, Mr. Martini provided eight sets of papers (“June 3 Papers”). True and
15 correct copy of the June 3 Papers is shown at AP 123-46.
16 6. True and correct copies of my communications with Mr. Martini are shown at AP
17 147-54, 180-82, 260-61.
18 i On June 15, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the Motion To Compel.
19 The parties did not contest the tentative ruling. A true and correct copy of the final order that
20 adopted the tentative ruling is shown at AP 183-96.
21 8 Having reviewed the tentative ruling, I called the Court and left a message
22 informing the Court that Plaintiff would contest the tentative ruling. Shortly thereafter, I spoke
23 with Mr. Martini on the telephone and informed him that Plaintiff would contest the ruling in
24 order to let the Court know that (i) contrary to Defendants’ representations, Defendants did not
25 provide any supplemental responses “before the hearing”; and (ii) the Motion To Compel was
26 not moot because it challenged the objections that were not removed in the June 3 Papers, and
27
28 4 All dates refer to the year of 2020 unless expressly stated otherwise.
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
that without seeing the supplemental responses the Court may not presume that these objections
would be removed. Mr. Martini represented that supplemental responses were ready and only
needed verifications, and that they would be provided no later than Friday, June 19. Mr. Martini
specifically assured me that the supplemental responses obviated any need to contest the
tentative ruling. Relying on these representations and assurances, I agreed not to contest the
tentative ruling.
9 On June 19, Mr. Martini provided supplemental responses for xxxxxxx only. True
and correct copies of these responses are shown at AP 197-259.
10. On June 19, I served on Mr. Martini and his legal assistant, Ms. Anna Obey, a
10 letter by electronic notification via GreenFiling. A true and correct copy of this letter is shown at
11 AP 260-61. On June 25, I took the following screenshot of the serving status of this letter:
12 Name Bar ID Email Address Document Status as of 06/25/2020 01:33 PM PDT
13 Martini, Alan amartini@smtlaw.com June 19, 2020 letter ‘Opened 06/20/2020 07:59 AM POT
‘Obey, Anna aobey@smtiaw.com June 19, 2020 letter ‘Opened 06/22/2020 08:26 AM POT
14
15
11. As of this writing, Mr. Martini still has not responded to the Letter.
16
12. On June 22, Mr. Martini provided the missing documents that were supposed to
17
be attached to xxxxxxx’s supplemental responses to Requests For Productions.
18
13. On June 25, Mr. Martini provided Dr. xxxxx’s supplemental responses. True and
19
correct copies of these responses are at AP 262-307.
20
14. My hourly rate is $250/hour. The rate is reasonable in light of my litigation
21
experience as an attorney, which is less than two years. My inexperience is adequately reflected
22
in the hourly rate.
23
15. The fee agreement is contingent.
24
16. The court fee for filing the instant motion is $60. The electronic service
25
provider’s fee for filing this motion is $6.75.
26
17. In connection with the instant motion, I spent more than 5.0 hours on discussing
27
the matter with the client, conducting legal research, and drafting the motion and the instant
28
10
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
declaration. In my professional opinion, the amount of time spent was reasonable and necessary
to represent the client effectively. The break-down of these hours is as follows:
Work Hours
discussing the matter with the client 0.2
legal research 0.2
drafting the notice, the memorandum, and the declarations 4.6
18. In the event the Court decides to impose a monetary sanction in connection with
the motion, the Court should award at least
5.0 x $250 = $1,250.00 in attorney fees, and $66.75 in costs.
10
I have personal knowledge of the facts stated above. If called as a witness, I could and
11
would testify competently to the foregoing in a court of law. I declare under penalty of perjury of|
12
the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
13
14
DATED: June 25, 2020
15
16
17
By:
18
Michael Tsivyan, Attorney for
19 Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
10
11
12
13
14
APPENDIX
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE
Alan L. Martini SB#77316
SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN
A Professional Corporation
1033 Willow Street
San Jose, California 95125
408) 288-9700
{
Fax: 408) 295-9900
Email: amartini@smtlaw.com
Attomeys for Defendants, xxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10 NATASHA DOUBSON, an individual, ) No. 19CV357485
1 Plaintiff, 2) DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx’S
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM
12 Vv. INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE
13 xxxxx xxxxxxx, an individual, et al. 2
14 Defendants. )
Complaint Filed: 10/25/19
15 ) First Amended Complaint: 1/6/2020
16 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Natasha Doubson
17 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, xxxxxxxxxxxxx
18 SET NUMBER: One
19 Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hereinafter “Responding Party”), pursuant to the provisions of
20 section 2030.010 et seg. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the Form
21 Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded by plaintiff Natasha Doubson, as follows:
22 GENERAL STA’
23 1 Responding Party has not completed discovery, the investigation of the facts,
24 witnesses, or documents, the analysis of available information, or the preparation for arbitration or
25 trial in this case. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses in the
26 event that any facts, documents, or other evidence may be subsequently discovered.
27 2 These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to introduce
28 facts, documents, witnesses, or other evidence that may be subsequently discovered.
DEFENDANT ROS. IE Té 'S OBJECTIO! PI IFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
3 These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to
supplement or amend these responses in the event that any information previously available to
Responding Party may have been omitted by oversight, inadvertence, or good faith error or mistake.
4. Except for the facts explicitly stated herein, no incidental or implied admissions are
intended.
5 Responding Party expressly reserves:
5.1 All objections regarding the competency, relevance, materiality, probative
value and admissibility of all information provided, documents produced and the
contents thereof;
10 5.2 All objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, unintelligibility and overbreadth.
11 6. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Responding Party regarding the
12 admissibility or relevance of any fact or document or of the truth or accuracy of any characterization
13 contained in Propounding Party’s discovery request.
14 7. These responses are signed by counsel only as to the objections set forth in the
15 tesponses. Responding Party specifically claims the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-
16 work product privilege as to each and every response set forth herein.
17 8. The fact that part or all of any discovery request has been answered should not be
18 construed to be a waiver of any objection to any discovery request.
19 Responding Party responds to each and every discovery request subject to the foregoing, and
20 each of the foregoing statements and objections is incorporated by reference into each of the
21 following responses:
22 OBJECTIONS
TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
23 RESPONSE
INTERROGATORY
TO FORM NO. LL
24 Alan L. Martini, Esq.
SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN
25 1033 Willow Street
San Jose, California 95125
26 Telephone: 408.288.9700
Attorneys of record for Responding Party
27
RESPONSE TO FO! TO!
28 @ xxxxxxxxxxxxx
IEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx’S OBJECTIONS TO INTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
RESPONSE
INTERROGATORY
TO FORM NO. 2.2:
Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5:
Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
10 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
11 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
12 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
13 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
14
15 FORM INTERROGATO 2.6:
16 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
17 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
18 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
19 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
20 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
21
22 TORY 3
23 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
24 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
25 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
26 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
27 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
28
DEFENDA\ Al OBJECTIO! ITIFF’S FORM INTERROGAT! >
PONSE TO FORM. TORY 2. .
Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.9:
Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
10 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
11 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
12 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
13 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
14
15 IN: F 2. .
16 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
17 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
18 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
19 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
20 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
21
22 0) TO! O..17.1:
23 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
24 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
25 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
26 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
27 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
28
DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1 Dated: March2, 2020 SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI,
ZENERE & GAR
2
3
ALANL. MARTINI
4 Attorney for Defendants
xxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
5 and xxxxxxxxxxxxx
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDA| JREN’S OBJECTIO! AINTIFF’S FORM I) iA’ » INE
CASE NAME: Natasha Doubson v. xxxxx xxxxxxx, et al.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 19CV357485
[CCP §§ 1012.5, 1013a and 2015.5; CRC 2008]
lam a citizen of the United States. My business address is 1033 Willow Street, San Jose,
CA 95125. 1 am employed in Santa Clara County where this service occurred. I am over the age
of 18 years and not a party to the within cause. I am readily familiar with m y emp loyer’s normal
business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing and facsimile. In
the case of mailing [other than overnight delivery], the practice is that correspondence is
deposited in the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course
of business.
On March 2, 2020, I served the within: Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx’s Objections to
Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One
on the PARTIES in said action as follows:
10
Michael Tsivyan, Esq.
11 LAW OFFICES OF DEAN LLOYD
425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 330
12 Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: 408.887.6739
13 Email: mt.legaljaws@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
15 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) Based on the court’s Local Rules ordering mandatory
e-filing of all documents for this type of case, and California Rules of Court, Rule
16 2.253(b)(1)(A), in which all parties represented by attorneys in all civil cases shall file
17
be delivered by email to the
de
and serve documents electronically (except whe: n rsonal service is required by statute or
rule and excluding ex parte applications), I cause each of the above-named documents to
ies via One Legal E-Service upload link. I did not
18 receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
19
(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I served the above-mentioned document electronically
20 on the ies listed at the email addresses above and, to the best of my knowledge, the
transmission was complete and without error in that I did not receive an electronic
21 notification to the contrary.
22
_—. (BY MAIL) I caused a true and correct copy of each document identified above to be
23 placed in a sealed envelope with first-class postage affixed. Each such envelope was
deposited for collection and mailing that same day in the ordinary course of business in the
United States mail at San Jose, California.
24
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused a true copy of each document identified above to be
25 delivered by hand to the offices of each addressee above.
26 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused a true copy of each document identified above to
be sealed in an envelope to be delivered to an overnight carrier with delivery fees provided
27 for, addressed of each addressee above.
28 (BY FACSIMILE SERVICE) I caused each of the above-named documents to be delivered
by facsimile transmission to e office at each fax number noted above at __ .m., by use of
facsimile machine telephone number (408) 295-9900. The facsimile machine use
complied with CRC §2003(3), and no error was reported by the machine. A copy of the
transmission record is attached to this declaration.
xx_ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
(FEDERAL) 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.
Dated: March 2, 2020
Orem
Annamarie Obey 7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alan L. Martini SB#77316
SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN
A Professional Corporation
1033 Willow Street
San Jose, California 95125
(408) 288-9700
f
Fax: 408) 295-9900
‘mail: amartini@smtlaw.com
Attomeys for Defendants, xxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10 NATASHA DOUBSON, an individual, No. 19CV357485
11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx’S
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS
12 Vv. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
13 xxxxx xxxxxxx, an individual, et al.
14 Defendants.
Complaint Filed: 10/25/19
15 First Amended Complaint: 1/6/2020
16 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Natasha Doubson
17 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, xxxxxxxxxxxxx
18 SET NUMBER: One
19 Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hereinafter “Responding Party”), pursuant to the provisions of
20 section 2031.010 ef seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the Request
21 for Production of Documents, Set No. One, propounded by plaintiff Natasha Doubson, as follows:
22 GENERAL TEME! BIJEC
23 1 Responding Party has not completed discovery, the investigation of the facts,
24 witnesses, or documents, the analysis of available information, or the preparation for arbitration or
25 trial in this case. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses in the
26 event that any facts, documents, or other evidence may be subsequently discovered.
27 2. These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to introduce
28
DEF! xxxxxxx PS OBJES IONS INTIF! T FORPI ICTION
DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
facts, documents, witnesses, or other evidence that may be subsequently discovered.
3 These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to
supplement or amend these responses in the event that any information previously available to
Responding Party may have been omitted by oversight, inadvertence, or good faith error or mistake.
4. Except for the facts explicitly stated herein, no incidental or implied admissions are
intended.
5 Responding Party expressly reserves:
3.1 All objections regarding the competency, relevance, materiality, probative
value and admissibility of all information provided, documents produced and the
10 contents thereof;
11 5.2 All objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, unintelligibility and overbreadth.
12 6. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Responding Party regarding the
13 admissibility or relevance of any fact or document or of the truth or accuracy of any characterization
14 contained in Propounding Party’s discovery request.
15 7. These responses are signed by counsel only as to the objections set forth in the
16 responses. Responding Party specifically claims the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney-
17 work product privilege as to each and every response set forth herein.
18 8 The fact that part or all of any discovery request has been answered should not be
19 construed to be a waiver of any objection to any discovery request.
20 Responding Party responds to each and every discovery request subject to the foregoing, and
21 each of the foregoing statements and objections is incorporated by reference into each of the
22 following responses:
23 0 CTION: T oO F Di NT!
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
NO. 1:
25 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
26 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
27 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
28
DEFENDANT. ROS. ‘OREN’S OBJECT! ‘O PLAINTIFF’S FOR PRODUCTIO!
s iT
to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
SP UEST FO! DU I 2
Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
Furthermore, the federal and state income tax returns the information contained therein is
10 privileged. (Webb v, Standard Oil Co. of California (1957) 49 C.2d 509, 513-514.)
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
12 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome
13 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously
14 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead
15 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law
16 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others.
17 Furthermore, the federal and state income tax returns the information contained therein is
18 privileged. (Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of California (1957) 49 C.2d 509, 513-514.)
19 Fe DUCTIO 2
20 Responding Party
Preview
19CV357485 Santa Clara — Civil R. Nguyen Electronically Filed Michael Tsivyan, Esq. [SBN 322003] by Superior Court of CA, LAW OFFICES OF DEAN LLOYD County of Santa Clara, 425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 330 on 6/25/2020 11:28 PM Palo Alto, California 94306 Reviewed By: R. Nguyen Telephone: (408) 887-6739 Case #19CV357485 Facsimile: (650) 328-1666 Envelope: 4512865 Email: mt.legaljaws@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 CIVIL DIVISION 11 NATASHA DOUBSON, Case. No.: 19CV357485 12 Plaintiff NOTICE AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER 13 Vv. ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; 14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND xxxxx xxxxxxx et al., 15 AUTHORITIES; Defendants 16 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; 17 PROOF OF SERVICE 18 Hearing date: th 9/3/2020 Time: 9:00 am 19 Department: 21 20 Judge: Hon. Thang N. Barrett 21 Action filed: October 25, 2019 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE AND MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 9/3 _ , 2020 at 9am_, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 21 of the Santa Clara Superior Court, located at 161 North First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON will, and hereby does, move the Court to reconsider its order entered on June 16, 2020 denying Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx (“Dr. xxxxx”) and Defendant xxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”) to provide further responses to set one of discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff to Dr. xxxxx on January 14, 2020, and to xxxxxxx on February 4, 2020. This motion is made pursuant to 10 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 on the grounds that new circumstances developed. 11 after the order had been issued. 12 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that during said hearing Plaintiff will, and hereby 13 does, move the Court to impose a monetary sanction against Dr. xxxxx, Dr. xxxxxxx and their 14 counsel of record, Mr. Alan L. Martini, by ordering them to pay Plaintiff at least $8,940.25 in 15 attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion to compel, the reply in support 16 thereof and the instant motion to reconsider. This request for attorney fees and costs is made 17 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h) and 2033.290(d) 18 on the grounds that Dr. xxxxx and xxxxxxx asserted unmeritorious objections without substantial 19 justification. 20 The motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities (infra 3-8), the 21 declaration of Michael Tsivyan (infra 9-11), the Appendix attached thereto (infra 12), the 22 pleadings and papers on file herein, and upon such oral and/or documentary evidence that may 23 be presented at the time of the hearing. 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES A. Introduction Plaintiff asks to reconsider the order denying her motion to compel Defendants xxxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxx xxxxxxx (collectively “Defendants”) to provide further discovery responses in light of newly emerged circumstances that involve broken promises and deliberately misleading representations made by Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Alan L. Martini. B. Factual and Procedural History In January and February 2020, Plaintiff propounded discovery requests to Defendants. On March 2,! Defendants filed a joint Motion For Protective Order (“MFPO”) asking to 10 stay discovery until this Court adjudicates their joint demurrer. Shortly thereafter Defendants 11 provided discovery responses objecting to nearly every discovery request on the basis of the 12 MFPO and on other grounds. Decl.” 2; AP? 1-103. 13 On April 17, Plaintiff simultaneously filed an opposition to the MFPO and a motion to 14 compel Defendants to provide further discovery responses (“Motion To Compel”) to Set One of 15 Form Interrogatories (“FI”), Special Interrogatories (“SI”), Requests For Admission (“RFA”) 16 and Requests For Production (“RFP”). 17 On June 1, this Court issued a tentative ruling denying the MFPO. Defendants did not 18 contest the ruling. Decl. { 4. 19 On June 3, Defendants served on Plaintiff eight sets of papers (“June 3 Papers”). Decl. { 20 5; AP 123-46. Each set asserts general objections followed by the following statement: 21 In view of the court’s denial of Responding Party’s Motion for Protective Order on or about June 2, 2020, Responding Party agrees 22 to supplement all responses to [the discovery requests], subject to the objections other than “unduly burdensome and oppressive (as set 23 forth in the Motion for Protective Order previously filed and 24 served).[“] 25 26 | All dates refer to the year of 2020 unless expressly stated otherwise. 27 2 “Decl.” refers to Declaration of Michael Tsivyan, infra 9-11. 3 “AP” refers to Appendix attached to Declaration of Michael Tsivyan, infra 12. 28 3 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE Id. Thereafter, at 10:48 a.m., Mr. Martini wrote a letter to Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Michael Tsivyan, requesting to withdraw the Motion To Compel because the June 3 Papers purportedly made the Motion To Compel moot. AP 147-48, 150. At 11:08 a.m., Mr. Tsivyan declined to withdraw the Motion To Compel explaining that the June 3 Papers state that Defendants withdrew the objections that were based on the MFPO, but did not withdraw other objections that were not based on the MFPO: [T]he discovery responses assert objections that are not based on the motion for protective order. The Court needs to determine whether those objections are improper and if so, whether sanctions should be imposed. Accordingly, the motion should proceed as scheduled. AP 150. 10 At 11:18 a.m., Mr. Tsivyan made an offer that Plaintiff would not to seek sanctions in 11 exchange for a stipulation that the Court should overrule all objections and order Defendants to 12 provide full and complete code-compliant responses, without objections, on June 19. AP 152. 13 At 11:45 a.m., Mr. Martini made a counteroffer that Defendants would provide 14 supplemental responses later that day in exchange for Plaintiff withdrawing the motion: 15 My suggestion is for you to take your motion off calendar in light of 16 the agreement to provide supplemental responses . . . . You will receive the supplemental responses later today. Since the motion to 17 compel will become moot when we serve the supplemental 18 responses, I suggest you agree to take it off calendar... . Otherwise I will have to file an opposition which is due today. 19 AP 153. 20 At 2:54 p.m., Mr. Tsivyan again declined to withdraw the Motion To Compel explaining 21 that once supplemental responses would be provided, Plaintiff would need some time to review 22 them and decide whether they are adequate or not. AP 153. Mr. Tsivyan noted that there would 23 be insufficient time to do so because Mr. Martini “waited until the last moment.” Jd. 24 Later that day, on June 3, Defendants filed the opposition, in which they did not defend 25 any objections, but instead represented to this Court that they would file supplemental responses 26 “in the near future, as soon as they could be prepared, but before the hearing on this motion, and 27 that therefore plaintiff's motion was moot.” AP 158:24-26, 159:2-6. On this basis Defendants 28 4 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE requested that the motion to compel be denied and no sanctions be imposed. AP 159. On June 8, Plaintiff filed a reply (“Reply”) in support of the Motion To Compel. AP 162- 79. The Reply argues that since Defendants chose not to defend any objections, all objections, including those that are not related to the MFPO, should be overruled. AP 166:10-23. On June 15, this Court posted a tentative ruling denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel in light of the fact that the June 3 Papers removed “some” objections, left “a handful of remaining, general objections” and made “statements that xxxxxxx and Dr. xxxxx agree to supplement their discovery responses to the FI, SI, RFA, and RPD.” AP 194:13-16. Having reviewed the tentative ruling, Mr. Tsivyan called the Court and left a message 10 stating that Plaintiff would contest the tentative ruling. Decl. | 8. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Tsivyan 11 spoke with Mr. Martini on the telephone and informed him that Plaintiff would contest the ruling’ 12 in order to let the Court know that (i) contrary to Defendants’ representations, Defendants did 13 not provide any supplemental responses “before the hearing”; and (ii) the Motion To Compel 14 was not moot because it challenged the objections that were not removed in the June 3 Papers, 15 and that without seeing the supplemental responses the Court may not presume that these 16 objections would be removed in the forthcoming supplemental responses. /d. Mr. Martini 17 represented that supplemental responses were ready and only needed verifications, and that they 18 would be provided no later than Friday, June 19. /d. Moreover, Mr. Martini specifically assured 19 Mr. Tsivyan that the supplemental responses obviated any need to contest the tentative ruling. Jd. 20 Relying on these representations, Mr. Tsivyan agreed not to contest the tentative ruling. /d. 21 Shortly thereafter, ar 4:13 p.m., Mr. Martini wrote: 22 Per our telephone conversation just now, this is to confirm my clients' will be providing supplemental responses to the discovery no 23 later then Friday of this week, as indicated in our opposition papers. You confirmed you would not be contesting the tentative rulings on 24 the matters set for hearing tomorrow. 25 AP 180. At 4:23 p.m., Mr. Tsivyan wrote: 26 Per our conversation, Plaintiff agreed not to contest the tentative ruling in exchange for your promise to provide xxxxxxxxxxxxx's and 27 xxxxx xxxxxxx's supplemental responses on or before this Friday, June 19, 2020. 28 5 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE AP 180. On June 19, Mr. Martini provided supplemental responses for xxxxxxx only. Decl. § 9; AP 197-259. Later that day, Mr. Tsivyan wrote a letter (“Letter”) to Mr. Martini asking to explain why no supplemental responses were provided for Dr. xxxxx. AP 260-61. With respect to xxxxxxx, the Letter points out that her supplemental responses to FI 2.2, 2.7, RFA 11-13, 15, RFP 6, 8-17, 19-21, and SI 1-12, 21, 23-25, 29, 38, 47, 70-71, 73-75, 79-82 contain objections that xxxxxxx did not defend in the opposition to the Motion To Compel. AP 261. The Letter notes that the parties had already attempted to resolve these objections 10 informally. Jd. The Letter asks Mr. Martini whether he disagrees that the parties should seek 11 intervention from this Court in light of the fact that all meet and confer efforts have already been 12 exhausted. /d. The Letter also points out that xxxxxxx’s supplemental responses to RFP | and 7 13 state that the documents sought are attached whereas no attachment was provided. /d. 14 The Letter was served on Mr. Martini on June 19, 2020 by electronic notification via 15 GreenFiling. Decl. § 10. The record of GreenFiling shows that Mr. Martini read the Letter on the 16 next day, June 20, at 7:59 a.m. /d. Yet, Mr. Marini never bothered to respond. /d. § 11. 17 On June 22, Mr. Martini provided the missing documents that were supposed to be 18 attached to xxxxxxx’s supplemental responses to RFPs. /d. § 12. On June 25, Mr. Martini 19 provided Dr. xxxxx’s supplemental responses. /d. J] 13; AP 262-307. As xxxxxxx, Dr. xxxxx also 20 decided to stand on the objections that she did not defend in the opposition to the Motion To 21 Compel. These objections are asserted in Dr. xxxxx’s supplemental responses to RFA 2-7 and SI 22 3-13, 16-21, 32-33, 36. AP 263-65, 282-87, 289-90. 23 Plaintiff now asks this Court to reconsider the order denying the Motion To Compel. 24 Cc. Argument 25 A party affected by an order may, within 10 days after service of written notice of entry 26 of the order, seek reconsideration based on new facts or circumstances. § 1008(a). Here, good 27 cause exists to reconsider the Court’s order denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel in light of the 28 fact that (i) the order adopted the erroneous tentative ruling because it was not contested, and (ii) 6 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE Plaintiff did not contest the tentative ruling due to Mr. Martini’s assurances that turned out to be false and misleading. The Court determined that the Motion To Compel was moot based on the fact that Defendants removed “some” objections (related to the MFPO) and left only “a handful of remaining, general objections.” AP 194:13-14. At the time when this determination was made, Defendants did not provide any supplemental responses, and thus the Court could not ascertain whether Defendants would still stand on any specific objections (unrelated to the MFPO) they asserted in the original responses. AP 1-103. The fact that Defendants ultimately decided to stand on specific objections became known only on June 19 and June 25, i.e. well after the Court 10 had already entered the order on June 16. Had this fact been known to the Court before the 11 tentative ruling was issued, the Court would not have allowed Defendants to stand on these 12 objections because they were specifically challenged in the Motion To Compel, and yet in their 13 joint opposition Defendants chose not to defend these objections. Because this fact became 14 known only after the hearing, it was not taken into account by this Court in rendering the 15 tentative ruling and adopting it later. 16 At this time it is clear that the Court erred in denying the Motion to Compel because all 17 meet and confer efforts to resolve the objections at issue had been exhausted, and Defendants 18 chose not to defend these objections in the opposition to the Motion To Compel, thereby 19 acknowledging that these objections had no justification. The order should be modified so that 20 these objections would be overruled and Defendants would be ordered to provide, within a time 21 period set by this Court, full and complete code-compliant responses, with no objections, to 22 () FI 2.2, 2.7, RFA 11-13, 15, RFP 6, 8-17, 19-21, and SI 1-12, 21, 23-25, 29, 38, 23 47, 70-71, 73-75, 79-82 of Set One propounded to xxxxxxx; and 24 (2) RFA 2-7 and SI 3-13, 16-21, 32-33, 36 of Set One propounded to Dr. xxxxx. 25 A separate reason to modify the order is Mr. Martini’s false assurances given on June 15 26 that the supplemental responses purportedly obviated any need to contest the tentative ruling. 27 Mr. Martini knew full well that the main goal of the Motion to Compel was to remove the 28 objections unrelated to the MFPO. AP 150 (informing Mr. Martini that “the motion should 7 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE proceed as scheduled” because “the discovery responses assert objections that are not based on the motion for protective order’). During the telephone conversation this point was specifically discussed. Decl. 10:25-11:2. In other words, Mr. Martini intentionally did not want to provide the supplemental responses before the hearing in order to conceal from Plaintiff and from this Court material facts that could have otherwise affected the outcome. Thus, good cause exists to reconsider the ruling. In the event the Court decides to reconsider the denial of Plaintiff's request to compel further response, the Court should also reconsider the denial of Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions against xxxxxxx, Dr. xxxxx and Mr. Martini sought pursuant to § 2030.300(d), 10 2031.310(h) and 2033.290(d). 11 D. Conclusion 12 In light of the above, the Court should order that within a time period set by this Court 13 () xxxxxxx provide full and complete code-compliant responses, with no objections, 14 to FI 2.2, 2.7, RFA 11-13, 15, RFP 6, 8-17, 19-21, and SI 1-12, 21, 23-25, 29, 38, 15 47, 70-71, 73-75, 79-82 of Set One; 16 (2) Dr. xxxxx provide full and complete code-compliant responses, with no 17 objections, to RFA 2-7 and SI 3-13, 16-21, 32-33, 36 of Set One; 18 @) Defendants and Mr. Martini pay $5,691.75 as requested in the Motion To 19 Compel, $1,931.75 as requested in the Reply, and $1,316.75 incurred in 20 connection with the instant motion. Decl. §¥ 14-18. 21 22 DATED: June 25, 2020 23 By: ___/s/ Michael Tsivyan 24 Michael Tsivyan, Attorney for 25 Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON 26 27 28 8 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN I, Michael Tsivyan, declare as follows: 1 Tam an attorney at Law Offices of Dean Lloyd. In the instant action I am counsel of record for Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON. 2 On March 2‘ and 9, Mr. Alan L. Martini provided discovery responses of Defendants xxxxxxxxxxxxx (“Dr. xxxxx”) and xxxxx xxxxxxx (“xxxxxxx”). True and correct copies of the responses are shown in the attached Appendix (“AP”) at 1-103. 3 A true and correct copy of the memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiff's motion to compel Dr. xxxxx and xxxxxxx to provide further responses (“Motion To 10 Compel”) is shown at AP 104-22. A true and correct copy of the opposition to said motion is at 11 AP 155-61. A true and correct copy of the reply in support of said motion is at AP 162-79. 12 4 On June 1, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying Dr. xxxxx’s and xxxxxxx’s 13 joint motion for protective order. Dr. xxxxx and xxxxxxx did not contest the tentative ruling. 14 5 On June 3, Mr. Martini provided eight sets of papers (“June 3 Papers”). True and 15 correct copy of the June 3 Papers is shown at AP 123-46. 16 6. True and correct copies of my communications with Mr. Martini are shown at AP 17 147-54, 180-82, 260-61. 18 i On June 15, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the Motion To Compel. 19 The parties did not contest the tentative ruling. A true and correct copy of the final order that 20 adopted the tentative ruling is shown at AP 183-96. 21 8 Having reviewed the tentative ruling, I called the Court and left a message 22 informing the Court that Plaintiff would contest the tentative ruling. Shortly thereafter, I spoke 23 with Mr. Martini on the telephone and informed him that Plaintiff would contest the ruling in 24 order to let the Court know that (i) contrary to Defendants’ representations, Defendants did not 25 provide any supplemental responses “before the hearing”; and (ii) the Motion To Compel was 26 not moot because it challenged the objections that were not removed in the June 3 Papers, and 27 28 4 All dates refer to the year of 2020 unless expressly stated otherwise. NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE that without seeing the supplemental responses the Court may not presume that these objections would be removed. Mr. Martini represented that supplemental responses were ready and only needed verifications, and that they would be provided no later than Friday, June 19. Mr. Martini specifically assured me that the supplemental responses obviated any need to contest the tentative ruling. Relying on these representations and assurances, I agreed not to contest the tentative ruling. 9 On June 19, Mr. Martini provided supplemental responses for xxxxxxx only. True and correct copies of these responses are shown at AP 197-259. 10. On June 19, I served on Mr. Martini and his legal assistant, Ms. Anna Obey, a 10 letter by electronic notification via GreenFiling. A true and correct copy of this letter is shown at 11 AP 260-61. On June 25, I took the following screenshot of the serving status of this letter: 12 Name Bar ID Email Address Document Status as of 06/25/2020 01:33 PM PDT 13 Martini, Alan amartini@smtlaw.com June 19, 2020 letter ‘Opened 06/20/2020 07:59 AM POT ‘Obey, Anna aobey@smtiaw.com June 19, 2020 letter ‘Opened 06/22/2020 08:26 AM POT 14 15 11. As of this writing, Mr. Martini still has not responded to the Letter. 16 12. On June 22, Mr. Martini provided the missing documents that were supposed to 17 be attached to xxxxxxx’s supplemental responses to Requests For Productions. 18 13. On June 25, Mr. Martini provided Dr. xxxxx’s supplemental responses. True and 19 correct copies of these responses are at AP 262-307. 20 14. My hourly rate is $250/hour. The rate is reasonable in light of my litigation 21 experience as an attorney, which is less than two years. My inexperience is adequately reflected 22 in the hourly rate. 23 15. The fee agreement is contingent. 24 16. The court fee for filing the instant motion is $60. The electronic service 25 provider’s fee for filing this motion is $6.75. 26 17. In connection with the instant motion, I spent more than 5.0 hours on discussing 27 the matter with the client, conducting legal research, and drafting the motion and the instant 28 10 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE declaration. In my professional opinion, the amount of time spent was reasonable and necessary to represent the client effectively. The break-down of these hours is as follows: Work Hours discussing the matter with the client 0.2 legal research 0.2 drafting the notice, the memorandum, and the declarations 4.6 18. In the event the Court decides to impose a monetary sanction in connection with the motion, the Court should award at least 5.0 x $250 = $1,250.00 in attorney fees, and $66.75 in costs. 10 I have personal knowledge of the facts stated above. If called as a witness, I could and 11 would testify competently to the foregoing in a court of law. I declare under penalty of perjury of| 12 the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 13 14 DATED: June 25, 2020 15 16 17 By: 18 Michael Tsivyan, Attorney for 19 Plaintiff NATASHA DOUBSON 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE 10 11 12 13 14 APPENDIX 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 NOTICE OF AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S ORDER ENTERED ON JUNE 16, 2020; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL TSIVYAN; PROOF OF SERVICE Alan L. Martini SB#77316 SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN A Professional Corporation 1033 Willow Street San Jose, California 95125 408) 288-9700 { Fax: 408) 295-9900 Email: amartini@smtlaw.com Attomeys for Defendants, xxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxx SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 NATASHA DOUBSON, an individual, ) No. 19CV357485 1 Plaintiff, 2) DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM 12 Vv. INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 13 xxxxx xxxxxxx, an individual, et al. 2 14 Defendants. ) Complaint Filed: 10/25/19 15 ) First Amended Complaint: 1/6/2020 16 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Natasha Doubson 17 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, xxxxxxxxxxxxx 18 SET NUMBER: One 19 Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hereinafter “Responding Party”), pursuant to the provisions of 20 section 2030.010 et seg. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the Form 21 Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded by plaintiff Natasha Doubson, as follows: 22 GENERAL STA’ 23 1 Responding Party has not completed discovery, the investigation of the facts, 24 witnesses, or documents, the analysis of available information, or the preparation for arbitration or 25 trial in this case. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses in the 26 event that any facts, documents, or other evidence may be subsequently discovered. 27 2 These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to introduce 28 facts, documents, witnesses, or other evidence that may be subsequently discovered. DEFENDANT ROS. IE Té 'S OBJECTIO! PI IFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 3 These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to supplement or amend these responses in the event that any information previously available to Responding Party may have been omitted by oversight, inadvertence, or good faith error or mistake. 4. Except for the facts explicitly stated herein, no incidental or implied admissions are intended. 5 Responding Party expressly reserves: 5.1 All objections regarding the competency, relevance, materiality, probative value and admissibility of all information provided, documents produced and the contents thereof; 10 5.2 All objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, unintelligibility and overbreadth. 11 6. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Responding Party regarding the 12 admissibility or relevance of any fact or document or of the truth or accuracy of any characterization 13 contained in Propounding Party’s discovery request. 14 7. These responses are signed by counsel only as to the objections set forth in the 15 tesponses. Responding Party specifically claims the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney- 16 work product privilege as to each and every response set forth herein. 17 8. The fact that part or all of any discovery request has been answered should not be 18 construed to be a waiver of any objection to any discovery request. 19 Responding Party responds to each and every discovery request subject to the foregoing, and 20 each of the foregoing statements and objections is incorporated by reference into each of the 21 following responses: 22 OBJECTIONS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES 23 RESPONSE INTERROGATORY TO FORM NO. LL 24 Alan L. Martini, Esq. SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN 25 1033 Willow Street San Jose, California 95125 26 Telephone: 408.288.9700 Attorneys of record for Responding Party 27 RESPONSE TO FO! TO! 28 @ xxxxxxxxxxxxx IEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx’S OBJECTIONS TO INTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE RESPONSE INTERROGATORY TO FORM NO. 2.2: Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.5: Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 10 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 11 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 12 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law 13 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. 14 15 FORM INTERROGATO 2.6: 16 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 17 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 18 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 19 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law 20 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. 21 22 TORY 3 23 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 24 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 25 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 26 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law 27 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. 28 DEFENDA\ Al OBJECTIO! ITIFF’S FORM INTERROGAT! > PONSE TO FORM. TORY 2. . Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 2.9: Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 10 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 11 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 12 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law 13 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. 14 15 IN: F 2. . 16 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 17 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 18 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 19 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law 20 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. 21 22 0) TO! O..17.1: 23 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 24 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 25 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 26 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law 27 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. 28 DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 Dated: March2, 2020 SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GAR 2 3 ALANL. MARTINI 4 Attorney for Defendants xxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 5 and xxxxxxxxxxxxx 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDA| JREN’S OBJECTIO! AINTIFF’S FORM I) iA’ » INE CASE NAME: Natasha Doubson v. xxxxx xxxxxxx, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 19CV357485 [CCP §§ 1012.5, 1013a and 2015.5; CRC 2008] lam a citizen of the United States. My business address is 1033 Willow Street, San Jose, CA 95125. 1 am employed in Santa Clara County where this service occurred. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within cause. I am readily familiar with m y emp loyer’s normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing and facsimile. In the case of mailing [other than overnight delivery], the practice is that correspondence is deposited in the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. On March 2, 2020, I served the within: Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One on the PARTIES in said action as follows: 10 Michael Tsivyan, Esq. 11 LAW OFFICES OF DEAN LLOYD 425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 330 12 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: 408.887.6739 13 Email: mt.legaljaws@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 15 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) Based on the court’s Local Rules ordering mandatory e-filing of all documents for this type of case, and California Rules of Court, Rule 16 2.253(b)(1)(A), in which all parties represented by attorneys in all civil cases shall file 17 be delivered by email to the de and serve documents electronically (except whe: n rsonal service is required by statute or rule and excluding ex parte applications), I cause each of the above-named documents to ies via One Legal E-Service upload link. I did not 18 receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 19 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I served the above-mentioned document electronically 20 on the ies listed at the email addresses above and, to the best of my knowledge, the transmission was complete and without error in that I did not receive an electronic 21 notification to the contrary. 22 _—. (BY MAIL) I caused a true and correct copy of each document identified above to be 23 placed in a sealed envelope with first-class postage affixed. Each such envelope was deposited for collection and mailing that same day in the ordinary course of business in the United States mail at San Jose, California. 24 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused a true copy of each document identified above to be 25 delivered by hand to the offices of each addressee above. 26 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused a true copy of each document identified above to be sealed in an envelope to be delivered to an overnight carrier with delivery fees provided 27 for, addressed of each addressee above. 28 (BY FACSIMILE SERVICE) I caused each of the above-named documents to be delivered by facsimile transmission to e office at each fax number noted above at __ .m., by use of facsimile machine telephone number (408) 295-9900. The facsimile machine use complied with CRC §2003(3), and no error was reported by the machine. A copy of the transmission record is attached to this declaration. xx_ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) 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. Dated: March 2, 2020 Orem Annamarie Obey 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Alan L. Martini SB#77316 SHEUERMAN, MARTINI, TABARI, ZENERE & GARVIN A Professional Corporation 1033 Willow Street San Jose, California 95125 (408) 288-9700 f Fax: 408) 295-9900 ‘mail: amartini@smtlaw.com Attomeys for Defendants, xxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxx SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 NATASHA DOUBSON, an individual, No. 19CV357485 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS 12 Vv. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 13 xxxxx xxxxxxx, an individual, et al. 14 Defendants. Complaint Filed: 10/25/19 15 First Amended Complaint: 1/6/2020 16 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Natasha Doubson 17 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, xxxxxxxxxxxxx 18 SET NUMBER: One 19 Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxxx (hereinafter “Responding Party”), pursuant to the provisions of 20 section 2031.010 ef seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the Request 21 for Production of Documents, Set No. One, propounded by plaintiff Natasha Doubson, as follows: 22 GENERAL TEME! BIJEC 23 1 Responding Party has not completed discovery, the investigation of the facts, 24 witnesses, or documents, the analysis of available information, or the preparation for arbitration or 25 trial in this case. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses in the 26 event that any facts, documents, or other evidence may be subsequently discovered. 27 2. These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to introduce 28 DEF! xxxxxxx PS OBJES IONS INTIF! T FORPI ICTION DOCUMENTS, SET ONE facts, documents, witnesses, or other evidence that may be subsequently discovered. 3 These responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to supplement or amend these responses in the event that any information previously available to Responding Party may have been omitted by oversight, inadvertence, or good faith error or mistake. 4. Except for the facts explicitly stated herein, no incidental or implied admissions are intended. 5 Responding Party expressly reserves: 3.1 All objections regarding the competency, relevance, materiality, probative value and admissibility of all information provided, documents produced and the 10 contents thereof; 11 5.2 All objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, unintelligibility and overbreadth. 12 6. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Responding Party regarding the 13 admissibility or relevance of any fact or document or of the truth or accuracy of any characterization 14 contained in Propounding Party’s discovery request. 15 7. These responses are signed by counsel only as to the objections set forth in the 16 responses. Responding Party specifically claims the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney- 17 work product privilege as to each and every response set forth herein. 18 8 The fact that part or all of any discovery request has been answered should not be 19 construed to be a waiver of any objection to any discovery request. 20 Responding Party responds to each and every discovery request subject to the foregoing, and 21 each of the foregoing statements and objections is incorporated by reference into each of the 22 following responses: 23 0 CTION: T oO F Di NT! 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 25 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 26 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 27 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 28 DEFENDANT. ROS. ‘OREN’S OBJECT! ‘O PLAINTIFF’S FOR PRODUCTIO! s iT to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. SP UEST FO! DU I 2 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. Furthermore, the federal and state income tax returns the information contained therein is 10 privileged. (Webb v, Standard Oil Co. of California (1957) 49 C.2d 509, 513-514.) 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 12 Responding Party objects to the Interrogatory on the grounds that it is (1) unduly burdensome 13 and oppressive (as set forth in the Motion for Protective Order filed and served contemporaneously 14 herewith); (2) seeks irrelevant information and documents neither relevant to nor calculated to lead 15 to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (3) invades statutory, constitutional or common law 16 privacy rights and interests of Responding Party and others. 17 Furthermore, the federal and state income tax returns the information contained therein is 18 privileged. (Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of California (1957) 49 C.2d 509, 513-514.) 19 Fe DUCTIO 2 20 Responding Party