Party Discovery: IN THE MATTER OF THE KATHRYN C. QVALE MARITAL TRUST DATED 1-31-2006

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                894332

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092
jkeker@kvn.com

WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884
whraunig@kvn.com

BENJ. BERKOWITZ - # 244441
bberkowitz@kvn.com

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Tel: (415) 391-5400

Fax: (415) 397-7188

MYERS URBATSCH P.C.

PETER 8. MYERS - # 115113
psmyers@miyersurbatsch.com
MATTHEW R. MRAULE - # 263433
mmraule@myersurbatsch.com

625 Market Street, 4" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94015

Tel: (415) 896-1500

Fax: (415) 979-0761

Attorneys for Petitioners and Respondents
BRUCE H, QVALE, FAMILY TRUSTEE AND
RESPONDENT LAURA HIURA

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JAN 22 2015

Clerk of the Court
BY: NOELIA RIVERA
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case No, PTR-13-297016

In the Matter of the

Kathryn C, Qvale Exempt Marital Trust,
dated January 31, 2006

Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually and as
trustee

vs.

Bruce H. Qvale, Laura Hiura, and Does 1-10

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS
MATHESON IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS WITH ATTACHED

EXHIBITS A THROUGH CC
Date: = March 18, 2015

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Dept.: Probate, Room 204
Judge: Hon, Andrew Y.S. Cheng
[Date approved by Rosie]

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON I/S/O MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
Case Nos, PTR-13-297016, PIR-13-297017, PTR-13-2971431]| In the Matter of the Case No. PTR-13-297017
2|| Kathryn C. Qvale Nonexempt Marital Trust,
3 dated January 31, 2006
4||" Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually and as
trustee
5
vs.
6
7 Bruce H. Qvale, Laura Hiura, and Does 1-10
8 Tn the Matter of the . Case No. PTR-13-297143
Kjell H. Qvale Survivor’s Trust, dated
9|| February 27, 2005
10
Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually and as
11 |] trustee
12 vs.
13 || Bruce H. Qvale, Laura Hiura, and Does 1-10
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON I/S/O MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

3 Case Nos, PTR-13-297016, PTR~13-297017, PTR-13-297143

894332894332,

Oo me ND HW BF Bw we

Nn N YN YN KN eee —
BNRRRPBEBE BEER RBDE THATS

I, Briggs Matheson, declare:

1 1am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California (State Bar No.
291287), and am an associate with the law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP, counsel for
Respondents Brace H. Qvale, Family Trustee and Laura Hiura (collectively, “Respondents”), in
the above-captioned matter. 1 submit this declaration in support of Respondents’ Motion to
Compel Production of Documents. Except where expressly stated, I have knowledge of the facts
set forth herein, and if called to testify as a witness thereto, could do so competently under oath.

2. On October 9, 2014, Respondents served on Petitioner Miles Jeffrey Qvale (“Jeff”)
their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”). That same day, Respondents
also served on Jeff their First Set of Requests for Admission, Special Interrogatories, and Form
Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of Respondents’ first set of RFPs is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.

3. On November 10, 2014, Jeff served his objections and responses to Respondents”
First Set of RFPs. Jeff served his objections and responses to Respondents’ Requests for
Admission, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories the same day. A true and correct
copy of Jeff's responses to Respondents’ RFPs is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4, On November 24, 2014, Respondents’ counsel sent a letter to Jeffs counsel
requesting a telephonic meet-and-confer to discuss Jeff’s objections and responses to
Respondents’ first set of discovery requests. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct
copy of that meet and confer letter,

5. After receiving no response, Respondents’ counsel emailed Jeff’s counsel on
December 2, 2014 to again request a meet-and-confer call to discuss Jeff's objections and
responses to Respondents’ discovery requests. The next day, December 3, 2014, Jeff's counsel,
Naznin Challa, responded by email to schedule a meet-and-confer call for December 4, 2014. A
true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

6. On December 4, 2014, Respondents’ counsel contacted Jeff's counsel by
telephone to meet and confer regarding Respondents’ discovery requests and Jeff's objections and

responses. During the call, Jeff’s counsel agreed to produce documents responsive to
1

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON I/S/O MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
Case Nos, PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143894332

Respondents’ RFPs Nos. 1 through 9, following a reasonable and diligent search, and that Jeff
would not withhold documents based on his objections except: (1) documents protected by
privilege; (2) documents protected by a right to privacy, (3) pleadings in the present litigation, or
(4) documents that Jeff has already produced in this litigation. Jeff's counsel also agreed to
produce documents responsive to RFP No. 10 after Respondents’ counsel clarified that this
request seeks all documents concerning the January 2013 family meeting that Jeff attended, and
not just documents distributed or circulated at that meeting.

7. During the December 4, 2014 meet-and-confer call, the parties agreed that Jeff
would make his production of documents on a rolling basis, beginning the week of December 15,
2014. Jeff also agreed to provide supplemental responses to Respondents’ discovery requests on
December 17, 2014. The parties agreed to a mutual exchange of privilege logs on January 13,
2015. Finally, the parties agreed to extend Respondents’ deadline to move to compel responses to
their discovery requests until January 16, 2015.

8. On December 8, 2014, Respondents’ counsel sent Ms. Challa a letter to follow up
on their December 4 meet-and-confer call, and to confirm the parties’ positions and advance the
parties’ conversation regarding Respondents’ discovery requests and Jeff's responses. A true and
correct copy of Respondents’ counsel’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

9, Ms. Challa responded with a letter to Respondents’ counsel on December 12,
2014. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Ms. Chalia’s December 12
letter.

10. On December 17, 2014, Jeff served his Supplemental Responses to Respondents’
first set of RFPs, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

11. | On December 19, 2014, Jody-R. Schnell, Litigation Paralegal to Jeffs counsel,
sent a letter to Respondents’ counsel enclosing a DVD that contained Jeffs first production of
documents. A true and correct copy of Ms. Schnell’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

12. On December 22, 2014, Respondents served Jeff with their Second Set of

Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), a true and correct copy of which is attached

hereto as Exhibit I.
2
DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON I/S/O MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143894332

io Om YN A HA FF wN &

Y NM NY N WN RK YD] Be Be Be ee ee ek
ou A hw FON F&F SOD we A DAA PB YW YH SF GS

13. On January 6, 2015, Respondents’ counsel emailed Ms, Challa to request a meet-
and-confer call to discuss Jeff's production of documents. Ms. Challa responded the following
day, and the parties scheduled a call for January 9, 2015. A true and correct copy of this email
correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

14. The parties met and conferred telephonically on January 9, 2015. During that call,
Ms. Chaila confirmed that on January 13, Jeff would produce a privilege log identifying the
documents and communications he was withholding on the basis of privilege. Ms. Challa also
confirmed that Jeff would make his final production of documents on January 16, 2015. The
parties also agreed to further meet and confer on January 14, 2015 to discuss Jeffs document
production.

15. On January 13, 2015, I emailed Ms. Challa to memorialize the parties’ January 9,
2015 meet-and-confer call, and to confirm the parties’ positions regarding Jeffs document.
production. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit K. I did not
receive a written response to my email.

16. That same day, January 13, Jeff served Respondents with his initial privilege log.
A true and correct copy of Jeff’s initial privilege log is attached hereto as Exhibit L, which has
been annotated by hand by Respondents’ counsel to include row numbers along the left-hand side
of the log for each row/entry.

17. The parties? respective counsel again met and conferred telephonically on January
14, 2015. During that call, my colleague, Abhishek Bajoria, and I discussed with Ms. Challa our
concerns regarding Jeff's initial privilege log—namely, that it did not include any entries prior to
March 31, 2014, such as communications between Jeff and his counsel Peter Muhs. Ms. Challa
confirmed during that call that Jeff would provide a supplemental privilege log on January 16,
2015, along with Jeff’s final production of documents. Later that evening, Ms. Challa sent
Respondents’ counsel an email confirming the parties’ agreement to extend the deadline for
Respondents to move to compel responses to their RFPs to January 22, 2015. A true and correct
copy of Ms, Challa’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit M. ,

18. On January 16, 2015, Jeff served his supplemental privilege log. A true and
3

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON I/S/O MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143894332,

Com IN DN A Rw NY

YN NM YN N NY NR KR DH wm
en AU BF Bw NH fF SBD RF a HH PF WY NHN KF TS

correct copy of Jeff's supplemental privilege log is attached hereto as Exhibit N, which has been
annotated by hand by Respondents’ counsel to include row numbers along the left-hand side of
the log for each row/entry,

19. During the night of January 16 and early morning of January 17, 2015, Jody
Schnell emailed Respondents’ counsel Jeff's next and purportedly final production of documents.
Ms. Schnell stated in her first of several emails that Jeff would deliver a DVD containing the
produced documents io Respondents’ counsel on January 20, 2015. A true and correct copy of
Ms. Schnell’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit O.

20. The parties’ respective counsel met and conferred telephonically again on January
20, 2015. During that call, Ms. Challa stated that it was the policy of her law firm not to include
attomey-client communications withheld on the basis of privilege in a privilege log. Ms. Challa
explained that based on that policy, Jeff’s supplemental privilege log of January 16, 2015, did not
include prelitigation communications between Jeff and his counsel, including Peter Muhs, which
Jeff has withheld on the basis of privilege. Later than day, Respondents’ counsel emailed Ms.
Challa to confirm the parties’ understanding of each other’s positions with respect to Jeff's
privilege logs. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit P. Ms. Challa
did not respond to that email.

21. On January 21, 2015, Jeff served his Responses to Respondents’ Second Sct of
Requests for Production of Documents, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit Q.

22. That same day, January 21, the partics met and conferred to discuss Jeff's
responses to Respondents’ second set of RFPs. During that call, Jeff’s counsel indicated that Jeff
would produce responsive, nonprivileged documents in his possession, custody, and control, and
that he would likely provide a supplemental privilege log for withheld privileged
communications.

23. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Jordan Rose, dated July 17, 2014.

24, Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
: 4

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON I/S/Q MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
. DOCUMENTS
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143894332,

oe We DA WH FB WY eH

N NM N NN NR NM DBE ee Re eee Oe
on A A BF & NS = SDS oO woe WA AH BD YN HF SO

Donald Endo, dated July 28, 2014.

25. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
deposition of Miles Jeffrey Qvale, taken July 8, 2014.

26. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
deposition of Richard Pimentel, taken January 7, 2015 and January 8, 2015.

27. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of an August 2, 2011
memorandum introduced as exhibit 179 in the deposition of Richard Pimentel, taken January 7,
2015. :

28. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of a June 8, 2013 email
chain between Richard Pimentel and Jeff, produced to Respondents by Pimentel and bates
stamped PIM04769,

29. Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of the Consent to Serve as
Independent Trustee of the Kathryn C. Qvale Exempt and Nonexempt Marital Trusts, signed by
Ron Malone, and dated March 25, 2014, along with true and correct copies of the Court’s March
14, 2014 Orders appointing Mr, Malone an independent trustee of the Kathryn C. Qvale Exempt
and Nonexempt Marital Trusts,

30. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpt
from an email string between Ron Malone and Warren Braunig, dated August 13, 2014.

31. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpt
from an email string between Ron Malone and Warren Braunig, dated October 21, 2014.

32. Attached hereto as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of a letter from John
Keker to Ron Malone, dated January 14, 2015.

33. Attached hereto as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of an email from Ron
Malone to John Keker, dated January 19, 2015.

34. Attached hereto as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of a September 30, 2011
email exchange among Peter Muhs, Jordan Rose, and Don Endo, previously produced in this
litigation by Respondent Qvale Auto Group, and bates-stamped QAG50015992-94.

35. On July 2, 2014, Respondents obtained an initial set of documents from Jeff
5

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON I/S/O MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
CUMENTS
Case Nos, PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143894332

Co wm YN A WH BF YN

we NYRR RN NR KR Kee we He eB Be Se Be Be
& 39 FA BO H8 fF F Be AAA ESE FS

pursuant to a deposition and document subpoena. A true and correct copy of a letter sent by Jody
Schnell enclosing discs containing those documents is attached hereto as Exhibit DD.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true

and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 22, 2014 in San Francisco,

[iim (From

BRIGGS MATHESON

6

DECLARATION OF BRIGGS MATHESON 1/S/O MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143EXHIBIT A867489.01

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092
jkeker@kvn.com

WARREN A, BRAUNIG - # 243884
wbraunig@kvn.com

BENJAMIN BERKOWITZ - # 244441
bberkowitz@kvn.com

ABHISHEK BAJORIA - # 255294
abajoria@kvn.com

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Tel: (415) 391-5400

Fax; (415) 397-7188

MYERS URBATSCH P.C.

PETER S, MYERS - #115113
psmyers@miyersurbatsch.com
MATTHEW R, MRAULE - # 263433
mmraule@myersurbatsch.com

625 Market Street, 4" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94015

Tel: (415) 896-1500

Fax: (415) 979-0761

Attorneys for Petitioners and Respondents

BRUCE H. QVALE, FAMILY TRUSTEE AND

RESPONDENT LAURA HIURA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

In the Matter of the

Kathryn C. Qvale Exempt Marital Trust,
dated January 31, 2006

Case No. PTR-13-297016

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
MILES JEFFREY QVALE

Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually and as
trustee

VS.

Bruce H. Qvale, Laura Hiura, and Does 1-10

in the Matter of the

Kathryn C. Qvale Nonexempt Marital Trust,

dated January 31, 2006

Case No. PTR-13-297017

1

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143867489.01

Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually and as
trustee

vs,

Bruce H. Qvale, Laura Hiura, and Does 1-10

In the Matier of the Case No. PTR-13-297143

Kjell H. Qvale Survivor’s Trust, dated
February 27, 2005

Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually and as
trustee

vs.

Bruce H. Qvale, Laura Hiura, and Does 1-10

2

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143867489.01

Oo Oe MD HW RB BW YD

NY NR YPN YB YN YD me me beth
e 27 Ah B&H = SF Fe QU AA SEH BS

PROPOUNDING PARTY: BRUCE H. QVALE, LAURA HIURA

RESPONDING PARTY: MILES JEFFREY QVALE

SET NUMBER: ONE (1)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 ef seg., Respondents BRUCE H.
QVALE and LAURA HIURA request that Petitioner MILES JEFFREY QVALE produce for
inspection and copying the documents and things set forth below that are in his possession,
custody, or control, or in the possession, custody, or control of his attorneys, agents, accountants,
or independent contractors, investigators, and any person acting on his behalf, at the offices of
Keker & Van Nest LLP, 633 Battery St., San Francisco, CA 94111, or another place as may be

mutually agreed upon by the parties, within thirty (30) days of the service of these document

requests.
DEFINITIONS
1. “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean a writing, as defined in Evidence

Code Section 250, and includes without limitation the original or a copy of handwriting,
typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any
tangible thing, any form of COMMUNICATION or representation, including letters, words,
pictures, memoranda, reports, studies, calendar or diary entries, telephone conversations and
conferences, summaries, records of any conferences or meetings (including lists of persons
attending meetings or conferences), text messages, emails, instant messages, opinion letters,
drafts, notes, graphs, charts, spreadsheets, tabulations, analyses, statistical or informational
accumulations, accounting records of any kind, computer disks, sounds, or symbols, or
combinations of them, any electronically stored information and any record thereby created,
regardless of the manner in which the DOCUMENT has been stored, including, but not limited

to, electronic storage.
2. “CONCERNING?” shall mean referring to, alluding to, responding to, relating to,

connected with, commenting on, in respect of, involving, about, regarding, discussing, showing,

3

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143867489.01

Dn wu Be BN

evidencing, describing, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, in connection with, pertaining to, and
constituting. A DOCUMENT or COMMUNICATION may concern a certain person or subject
without that person being the sole or even significant topic of that DOCUMENT or
COMMUNICATION.

3. “ESTATE PLAN” shall mean any exercise of the power of appointment held by
Kjeli H. Qvale with respect to the Kathryn C. Qvale Exempt Marital Trust, including but not
limited to the exercise executed by Kjell H. Qvale on January 30, 2013, any exercise of the power
of appointment held by Kjell H. Qvale with respect to the Kathryn C. Qvale Nonexempt Marital
Trust, including but not limited to the exercise executed by Kjell H. Qvale on January 30, 2013,
any amendment or restatement of the 2002 Restatement of the Trust Agreement for the Kjell and
Kathryn Qvale Family Trust dated June 2, 1983, including but not limited to the Amended and
Restated Declaration of Trust for the Kjell H. Qvale Survivor's Trust executed on January 30,
2013, and any execution of a will or codicil, including but not limited to the Second Codicil to

December 5, 2002 Will of Kjell H. Qvale executed on October 10, 2012.

4. “YOU?” shall mean Petitioner Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually or as trustee for
any trusts; and any and all of his present or former agents, representatives, and anyone else acting

or purporting to act on his behalf.

5. “COMMUNICATION” or “COMMUNICATIONS” shall mean every manner or
means of disclosure, transfer, or exchange of information, whether orally, by DOCUMENT, or in
any other manner, and whether face to face, or by telephone, mail, email, computer, personal

delivery, text message, or otherwise.

6. “2013 TRUST DOCUMENTS?” shall refer to the January 30, 2013 instruments
executed by Kjell H. Qvale, specifically: an Exercise of Power of Appointment as to the
Nonexempt Marital Trust; an Exercise of Power of Appointment as to the Exempt Marital Trust;

and an Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust for the Survivor's Trust.

7. “2012 REDEMPTION AGREEMENT™ shall refer to the September 1, 2012 Stock

Redemption Agreement attached as Exhibit A to Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Petition for Conveyance
4

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR~13-297143867489.01

Oo Oe YN DH RF BW NY

NN NN ND NR RDN mm eat
& 2A A BF 8H = SF 6Ce AREA EBH eS

of Property Belonging to Trust; for Damages and Other Relief for Financial Elder Abuse, filed in
S.F. Superior Court, Case No. PTR-13-297016.

8. “PERSON?” shall mean any natural person, firm, entity, corporation, partnership,
proprietorship, joint venture, other form of organization or arrangement, and government and
government agency of every nature or type.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. YOU are required to produce all DOCUMENTS that are in YOUR actual or
constructive possession, custody, or control or in the possession, custody, or control of YOUR
attorneys, accountants, representatives, agents or anyone else acting on YOUR behalf. YOU are
requested to make a diligent search of YOUR records and other papers and materials maintained
in any form, including on any computers, in e-mail accounts, phone records, flash drives, hard
drives, CD’s or DVD’s, whether in YOUR possession or the possession of YOUR attorneys,
accountants, representatives, agents or anyone else acting on your behalf, YOU are also
requested to produce DOCUMENTS in the form in which they are kept in the usual course of

business, or to organize and label them to correspond with the categories in this request.

2. Any request for “All DOCUMENTS?” should be read and interpreted to include
“All COMMUNICATIONS?” as well.

3, If YOU cannot respond to a DOCUMENT request fully, after a diligent attempt to
attain the requested information, YOU must answer the DOCUMENT request to the extent
possible, specify the portion of the DOCUMENT request YOU are unable to answer, and provide

whatever information YOU have regarding the unanswered portion.

4. To the extent a document has already been produced by YOU in this litigation,

YOU are not obligated to re-produce it for purposes of responding to these document requests,

5. In the event that any DOCUMENT called for by the requests has been destroyed,

lost, discarded, returned or is otherwise no longer in YOUR possession, custody or control, YOU

5

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143867489,01

mw UD

so

10
lt
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

shall identify such document as completely as possible, and shall specify the date of disposal of
the DOCUMENT, the manner of disposal, the reason for disposal, the person authorizing the
disposal, and the person disposing of the DOCUMENT.

6. In the event any information is withheld on a claim of attorney-client privilege,
work product doctrine or any other privilege, or based on the existence of a binding protective
order precluding production, YOU shall provide a privilege log which includes at least the
following information: the nature of the information contained in the withheld DOCUMENT; the
date of the DOCUMENT; its source and subject matter; the author, sender, recipient and anyone
copied on the DOCUMENT containing that information; any authority which YOU assert
supports any claim of privilege; and any additional information such as would enable the

privilege claim to be adjudicated.

7. Wherever it is necessary to bring within the scope of these requests

DOCUMENTS that might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope:
i) The words “and” and “or” shall be construed both disjunctively and
conjunctively;
ii) The words “any” and “all” shail be construed to mean “any, each, every,
and all;”
iii) The singular shall include the plural and vice versa;
iv) The words “include(s)” and “including” shall be construed to mean

“without limitation.”

8. All DOCUMENTS should be produced as single-page TIFF image files, with
multi-page text, metadata and load files; or as native files (pst, .xis, .pdf, etc). Excel spreadsheets
should always be produced in native format, whether or not they are also provided as TIFF
images. When DOCUMENTS in their native format are in color, the TIFF image files should also
be in color. All DOCUMENTS should include all associated metadata, including without
limitation and as applicable: the date on which an email was sent; the date(s) on which a

document or email was obtained, created, modified, accessed, deleted, copied, moved or saved;
6

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143867489.01

the author of an e-mail message (“from” field); the primary recipient(s) of an e-mail message
(“to” field); other recipients of an e-mail message (“cc” and “bec” fields); the subject line of an e-
mail message; the title of a DOCUMENT; the author(s) of a DOCUMENT; the file name and file
path of a DOCUMENT; the file type; and all other embedded or associated data RELATING TO
the DOCUMENT or e-mail. E-mail communications should be produced along with any
attachments to those communications. DOCUMENTS should be produced on a hard drive, flash

drive, disc, or other electronic storage medium.

9. Except as defined above, all words and phrases used in these requests for
production shall be given their standard, everyday meaning. The absence of multiple nouns and
verbs to describe a thing or an activity should not be deemed a reason for avoiding production.

Any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of production.

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to the First Set of Special

Interrogatories to Miles Jeffrey Qvale, served on October 9, 2014.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 2:
All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the ESTATE PLAN.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON CONCERNING the

ESTATE PLAN.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
AH DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the 2013 TRUST DOCUMENTS,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON conceming the 2013 TRUST
DOCUMENTS,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the 2012 REDEMPTION AGREEMENT.

7

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos, PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143867489,01

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON CONCERNING the 2012

REDEMPTION AGREEMENT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON, including but not limited to
any doctor, medical professional, psychologist, psychiatrist, hired caregiver or household
employee, CONCERNING Kjell 1. Qvale’s mental capacity, from January 1, 2010 to the time of
his death.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 9:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING business transactions between YOU and Kjell H.
Qvale, whether individually or as trustee for any trust, from January 1, 2010 to the time of Kjell’s
death, including but not limited to any loans, gifts, or purchase, sales or transfers of assets.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the family meeting YOU attended that took place in

January 2013.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 11:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any transaction YOU have entered into as co-trustee
of the Kathryn C. Qvale Exempt Marital Trust dated January 31, 2006, Kathryn C. Qvale
Nonexempt Marital Trust dated January 31, 2006, or the Kjell H. Qvale Survivor’s Trust, dated
February 27, 2005.

Dated: October 9, 2014 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

By: | ) ff Be

WARREN A. BRAUNIG—~

Attorneys for Petitioners and Respondents
BRUCE H. QVALE, FAMILY TRUSTEE
AND RESPONDENT LAURA HIURA

8

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MILES JEFFREY QVALE
Case Nos. PTR-13-297016, PTR-13-297017, PTR-13-297143EXHIBIT BoC mW ND A BR RH YD om

bent
°

Dominic J. Campisi (SBN 63326)
deampisi@ele-law.com

Andrew Zabronsky, (SBN 115339)
azabronsky@ele-law.com

Naznin Bomi Challa, (SBN 220898)
nchalla@ele-law.com

EVANS, LATHAM & CAMPISI
One Post Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 421-0288
Facsimile: (415) 421-0464

Attorneys for Miles Jeffrey Qvale
Individually and as Trustee

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

In the Matter of the

Kathryn C. Qvale Exempt Trust,
dated January 31, 2006

Miles Jeffrey Qvale, individually and as trustee,

vs.

Bruce H. Qvale, Laura Hiura, and Does 1-10

Propounding Party:
Responding Party:
Set No.: One

Ne te a ee

Case No. PTR-13-297016
{Consolidated with Case No.s PTR-13-
297017 and PTR-13-297143}

MILES JEFFREY QVALE’S
RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

Bruce H. Qvale and Laura Hiura

Miles Jeffrey Qvale, Individually and as Co-Family Trustee

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set
Of Requests For Production of Documents

Case No. PTR-13-297016eo me I DW BF BW YN

NR ON NN RR RNR DR mmm
ae QA aA BB BN =-§ Se wea DA BRB WN =

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210 et seq., Miles Jeffrey
Qvale (“Responding Party” or “Jeff”) hereby submits his responses to Bruce H. Qvale (“Bruce”)
and Laura Hiura (“Hiura”) (collectively, “Propounding Parties”) First Set of Request For
Production of Documents to Miles Jeffrey Qvale (“Production Request”).

PRELIMINARY RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO RESPONDING
PARTY’S ENTIRE RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION REQUESTS
Responding Party asserts his Preliminary Response and Objections to the Production
Request. The Preliminary Response and Objections are incorporated into each response below as if

they were fully repeated therein, even if not specifically referred to in a particular response. The
enumeration of a particular Preliminary Response and Objection in response to any specific
Request made in Propounding Parties’ Production Request is not intended to be exclusive, and does
not limit the applicability of each Preliminary Response and Objection to each Request.

Any answer, objection or lack of objection to any Request made in Propounding Parties’
Production Request is not, and shali not be deemed as, an admission that Responding Party has the
information or the documents requested. The responses provided below by Responding Party are
primarily based on an inquiry of available documents that Responding Party has in his possession,
custody or control. Many of the documents and facts requested below are in the Propounding
Parties’ possession, custody and control and have not yet been provided to Responding Party,
despite repeated informal and formal Requests. Responding Party’s investigation into these matters
is continuing, and it reserves its right to proffer additional information as appropriate.

Further:

1. Responding Party objects to each Production Request to the extent it seeks
information protected by the attorney-client privilege (including the common-interest doctrine), the
attomey work product doctrine, or similar privileges. Responding Party’s responses will exclude
any post-litigation communications protected by the attorney-client privilege or post-litigation
workproduct protected by the attorney workproduct doctrine. To the extent Responding Party
provides any information falling within the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

doctrine, or similar privileges, Responding Party does not waive the applicable privilege/objection.

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set Case No. PER-13-297016
Of Requests For Production of Documents
“deS22 em I DH &® WN

Inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, in whole or in part, is not intended as a waiver of
any applicable privilege.

2. Responding Party generally objects to each Production Request to the extent it seeks
information which is confidential or proprietary in nature, or which constitutes protected information.
of the Responding Party. Responding Party further objects to the extent that the information sought
in Propounding Parties’ Production Request seck sensitive financial information, as the disclosure of
such information would violate Responding Party’s or third parties’ right to privacy.

3. The fact that Responding Party has answered or objected to any Request or part
thereof shall not be taken as an admission that Responding Party accepts or admits the existence of
any facts set forth or assumed by such Request and that such response or objection constitutes
admissible evidence, The fact that Responding Party has answered part or all of any Request is not
intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by Responding Party of all or any part of any
objection to the Requests.

4. Responding Party generally objects to each Request to the extent it seeks
information outside its possession, custody or control, including, but not limited to, information
regarding or relating to third-parties.

5. Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this response at an appropriate
future time, but is not obligated to do so. Responding Party has not completed its investigation of
the facts relating to this case and has not received all of the information and documents it has
sought from Propounding Parties. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such
information and documents which are presently available to and specifically known to the
Responding Party and all of the responses contained herein disclose only those contentions which
presently occur to Responding Party.

6. Responding Party objects to each and every Request to the extent such Requests
seek information that is already or should be in Propounding Parties’ possession, custody or control
or that is publicly available or from other sources that are more convenient and less burdensome

and expensive.

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set Case No. PTR-13-297016
Of Requests For Production of Documents
3.Coe WD AR RB YN

MM RP RY KR NY DB QB mt
eI AA BF OH SF S Owe AINA A BDH Se S

7. Responding Party objects to each and every Request to the extent that the definitions
provided purport to impose obligations, or extend, modify, or alter Responding Party’s obligations
beyond the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure and which are therefore unduly burdensome.
Responding Party will only comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, the rules
of this Court, or as mutually agreed to by counsel for the parties.

8. Responding Party objects to the definition of “OQCUMENT” as overbroad and
vague and therefore unjustly burdensome and oppressive in that it includes “all electronic media on
which information has been stored or recorded” as unduly burdensome. Responding Party also
objects to the definition of “DOCUMENT” to the extent it includes all communications which may
seek production of information that is protected by the right of privacy, the attorney client
privilege, attorney work product privilege or any such similar privileges. Responding Party further
objects to this definition insofar as the definition purports to impose obligations, or extend, modify,
or alter his obligations beyond the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure and which are therefore
unduly burdensome.

9. Responding Party objects to the definition of “COMMUNICATION’/
“COMMUNICATIONS” as overbroad, vague and unjustly burdensome in that it seeks documents
regarding oral communications and “any transmittal of information.” The definition is also
overbroad and therefore unjustly burdensome in that it may seek production of information that is
protected by the right of privacy, the attorney client privilege, attorney work product privilege or
any such similar privileges. Responding Party further objects to this definition insofar as the
definition purports to impose obligations, or extend, modify, or alter his obligations beyond the
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure and which are therefore unduly burdensome.

10. Responding Party objects to the definition of “PERSON?” insofar as it may seek
production of information that is protected by the right of privacy, the attorney client privilege,
attorney work product privilege or any such similar privileges.

J1. Responding Party objects to the Instructions as overbroad and unduly burdensome
insofar as they violate section 2031.030(c) of the California Code of Civil Procedure which

requires that “[e]ach demand in a set shall be separately set forth.”

Miles Jeffrey Qvaie’s Responses To First Set Case No, PTR-13-297016
Of Requests For Production of Documents,Oo Oe IN DA NW Bw N

PNM RY RM BY NR NR RD wm ee
ee QU A UW BF BS & SO hw a DH PB WKH S&S

12. Responding Party objects to Instruction No. | as overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Responding Party will not search phone records, flash drives, CD’s or DVD’s, computers, email
accounts that are no longer in use or that Responding Party does not believe contains relevant
information.

13. Responding Party objects to Instruction No. 2 to the extent it applies to oral
communications.

14. Responding Party objects to Instructions No. 6-7 in that it imposes a broader set of
requirements than those imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure, or any applicable local rules or
orders in this case.

15. Responding Party objects to Instruction No. 8 in that it imposes a broader set of
requirements than those imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure, or any applicable local rules or
orders in this case and is therefore unduly burdensome. Responding Party will produce any
responsive documents in pdf format but is willing to meet and confer with Propounding Parties
regarding this instruction.

16. Responding Party has already produced documents in this litigation regarding either
the same or similar Requests. Responding Party will not re-produce such documenis here.
Responding Party may, but is not required to produce documents that have already been produced
by other parties and non-parties in this litigation bearing those individuals or companies Bates Nos.

17. Responding Party objects to each and every Request to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information which is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

18. Responding Party objects to each and every Request insofar as it is unduly broad,
burdensome, oppressive, without reasonable limitation in time or scope, and which is beyond the
proper scope of discovery.

19. Responding Party objects to the date Requested for the production of documents.
Responding Party will meet and confer with Propounding Parties in good faith to determine and

appropriate and reasonable date for the production of documents.

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set Case No, PTR-13-297016,
Of Requests For Production of Documents
5.Co OM YN DA BF WN

VM NY MRM YN RK NY ee em eR Oe Oe
eS IU A A FF BS &— SO whe AY Dw BF Bw HY eB Oo

In addition to, and without waiving any of the foregoing Preliminary Response and
Objections, each of which applies to each and every one of the individual responses set forth below
and is incorporated by reference therein, Responding Party responds as follows:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to the First Set of Special Interrogatories
to Miles Jeffrey Qvale, served on October 9, 2014.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
here. In addition to the Preliminary Responses and Objections above, Responding Party objects to
each Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege (including
the common-interest doctrine), the attorney work product doctrine, or similar privileges.
Responding Party objects to the term “identified” as vague and ambiguous. As Propounding
Parties are aware, there has been discovery pending against them, or their agents, for months for
which no information has been forthcoming, as such, discovery and investigation are still
continuing. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that
is either a matter of public record or is equally (and in some instances only) available to the
Propounding Parties from its own or its agents’ files, public sources or from other third parties, or
has already been provided to the Propounding Parties, or is already in their possession, custody or
control.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the Preliminary Responses and
Objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party agrees to produce such
documents that are found to be in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control after a
reasonably diligent search and good faith inquiry.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the ESTATE PLAN.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Responses and Objections as if fully set forth

here. In addition to the Preliminary Responses and Objections above, Responding Party objects to

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set Case No, PTR-13-297016
Of Requests For Production of DocumentsCe I DA HW FW Ye

MN BN NY YQ NR DD meme
e232 AA FO NH &§ Seo ey IBA DHA FE WN SK

each Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege (including
the common-interest doctrine), the attorney work product doctrine, or similar privileges. As
Propounding Parties are aware, there has been discovery pending against them, or their agents, for
months for which no information has been forthcoming, as such, discovery and investigation are
still continuing. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
that is either a matter of public record or is equally (and in some instances only) available to the
Propounding Parties from its own or its agents’ files, public sources or from other third parties, or
has already been provided to the Propounding Parties, or is already in their possession, custody or
control,

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the Preliminary Responses and
Objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party agrees to produce such
documents that are found to be in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control after a
reasonably diligent search and good faith inquiry.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON CONCERNING the ESTATE
PLAN.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
here. In addition to the Preliminary Responses and Objections above, Responding Party objects to
each Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege (including
the common-interest doctrine), the attorney work product doctrine, or similar privileges. As
Propounding Parties are aware, there has been discovery pending against them, or their agents, for
months for which no information has been forthcoming, as such, discovery and investigation are
still continuing. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
that is either a matter of public record or is equally (and in some instances only) available to the
Propounding Parties from its own or its agents’ files, public sources or from other third parties, or
has already been provided to the Propounding Parties, or is already in their possession, custody or

control. Responding Party objects to this Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set Case No. PTR-13-297016
Of Requests For Production of DocumentsCD me NY DH RB WN

not limited in scope. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it is seeking
documents regarding oral communications.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the Preliminary Responses and
Objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party agrees to produce such
documents that are found to be in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control after a
reasonably diligent search and good faith inquiry.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 4:
Ali DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the 2013 TRUST DOCUMENTS.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
here. In addition to the Preliminary Responses and Objections above, Responding Party objects to
each Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege (including
the common-interest doctrine), the attorney work product doctrine, or similar privileges. As
Propounding Parties are aware, there has been discovery pending against them, or their agents, for
months for which no information has been forthcoming, as such, discovery and investigation are
still continuing. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
that is either a matter of public record or is equally (and in some instances only) available to the
Propounding Parties from its own or its agents” files, public sources or from other third parties, or
has already been provided to the Propounding Parties, or is already in their possession, custody or
control.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the Preliminary Responses and
Objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party agrees to produce such
documents that are found to be in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control after a
reasonably diligent search and good faith inquiry.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON concerning the 2013 TRUST
DOCUMENTS.
fit

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set "Case No, PTR-13-297016
Of Requests For Production of DocumentsOC hm BDH PB WN

tt bak
=

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Responses and Objections as if fully set forth

here. In addition to the Preliminary Responses and Objections above, Responding Party objects to
each Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attomey-client privilege (including
the common-interest doctrine), the attorney work product doctrine, or similar privileges. As
Propounding Parties are aware, there has been discovery pending against them, or their agents, for
months for which no information has been forthcoming, as such, discovery and investigation are
still continuing. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
that is either a matter of public record or is equally (and in some instances only) available to the
Propounding Parties from its own or its agents’ files, public sources or from other third parties, or
has already been provided to the Propounding Parties, or is already in their possession, custody or
control. Responding Party objects to this Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is
not limited in scope. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it is seeking
documents regarding oral communications.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the Preliminary Responses and
Objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party agrees to produce such
documents that are found to be in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control after a
reasonably diligent search and good faith inquiry.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING the 2012 REDEMPTION AGREEMENT.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

Responding Party incorporates its Preliminary Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
here. In addition to the Preliminary Responses and Objections above, Responding Party objects to
each Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege (including
the common-interest doctrine), the attorney work product doctrine, or similar privileges. As
Propounding Parties are aware, there has been discovery pending against them, or their agents, for
months for which no information has been forthcoming, as such, discovery and investigation are

still continuing. Responding Party further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information

Miles Jeffrey Qvale’s Responses To First Set Case No. PTR-13-297016
Of Requests For Production of DocumentsOo Oe UN DH BF BN

10

that is either a matter of public record or is equally (and in some instances only) available to the
Propounding Parties from its own or its agents’ files, public sources or from other third parties, or
has already been provided to the Propounding Parties, or is already in their possession, custody or
control.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the Preliminary Responses and
Objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party agrees to produce such
documents that are found to be in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control after a
reasonably diligent search and good faith inquiry.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7:

All COMMUNICA