Preview
0 Om YQ DN BF wWwNH He
YPN Yb YN YN NN NY ee ewe ew Be ee BR RB
oN DH RF Bw NHN = SO we AXA DA BR wOoNH FS
PAUL J. STEINER, ESQ. (SBN: 41117)
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL J. STEINER
275 Battery St., Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 981-6100
Fax: (415) 984-0950
Email: paul@sfpaulaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
VILAKONE KHOUNSAMNANE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
VILAKONE KHOUNSAMNANE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
APPATSARA YUKI FLAGGS aka Appatsara
Yuki Thongcharoen; DARYL
MCCHRISTIAN; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive,
Defendants.
RICHARD H. LAMBIE, Administrator for the
Estate of Flaggs,
Intervenor.
Case No.: 17CV313681
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED
ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
Date: April 7, 2020
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 8
Judge: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni
Action Filed: July 28, 2017
Trial Date) TBD
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, Plaintiff, VILAKONE KHOUNSAMNANE
provides the following Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute in Support of her Motion To
Compel Further Responses To Discovery And Request For Monetary Sanctions.
Ml
Mf
Mf
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 1]CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCS Om IY DH FF WH eH
NN NY NY YN NR NY NY He ee we Be ee
eo nN KDA FF BH FE SOwHM AAA RBH AE|Y
L REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET-ONE
A. MATTERS OF FACT
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Admit that DECEDENT and KHOUNSAMNANE were partners in the SPA business prior to
death.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be roduced, violates an
'Y oF party's p ry Pp
2
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCOD me NIN DH BF WwW NY
NN Ye NY NY N NN NY Be Be ew ewe ee eR RL
ont DH FYB NH = SO we IAA RD NH 2
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor
deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications,
Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.
3
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 1JCV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCe ND HW BF YW YH
NY N YN NY N NN NY Be Be Be Be ee oe Re KR
oN DA HA KYW YH =F SO wM KX AAR BH 2S
Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and
related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff
including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically
must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in
sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA.
Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint
in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Intervenor’s failure to respond to this
RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et
seq. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Admit that DECEDENT entered into and executed a written Partnership Agreement for the SPA
with KHOUNSAMNE executed on or about December 15, 2016.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
4
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responsesom YN DH BB YW YB He
Db NY N YN N NY NY Be He ewe ewe ew Be eR ew BL
ony Kn HFK NH = SD we I AAR DNH BS
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1 961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
5
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses0 OP YN DH BF WN
NY N NY N YN NN NY Be Be Be ew eB ee eB eB iL
oN DHF YB HF SO wM KAA ARBH BS|Y
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor
deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications,
Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.
Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and
related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff
including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically
must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in
sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA.
Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint
in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be
provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of
the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Admit that KHOUNSAMNANE owed DECEDENT a fiduciary duty because DECEDENT and
KHOUNSAMNANE were partners in the SPA business.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
6
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesSUD me IN DH BR WW
NN Yb NY YN NN NY Se Be ew ew ew Be eB Be ee
oN DHF BH = SO wMe AAA RBH G
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco ( 1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
7
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesSUD me IN DH BR WwW DY Ee
NN YN NY NR YN KY Be Be we ew ewe ewe ew ee ew
oN DU BF BH = SO we XA A RBH =
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor
deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications,
Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter,
Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and
related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff
including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically
must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in
sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA.
Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint
in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be
provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of
the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
Admit that when DECEDENT died, DECEDENT became dissociated from the SPA partnership
and that the SPA partnership dissolved as a matter of law.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
8
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses0 Oe YW DH BF wWwN
NN Ye NY YN NN DY Be Be ewe we Be eB ewe ee eB iL
oN Dn HW FY NH KF SO we rRrAA AR HH BS
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T.
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
9
Khounsamnane vy. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses0 ON DH BBW NH LE
NN YN YN NY NY KN Be Be Be ew ew ew ew we
ont DH FY NY = DOD we AKI DAA ROH BS
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor
deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications,
Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.
Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and
related matters for over two years, Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff
including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor ethically
must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in
sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA.
Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint
in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be
10.
Khounsamnane v, Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesSOD em IN DH BF WN
NN NY NY NY N NN NY Be Be ewe eH ee ee ee RD
oN DAUM BF YB YH =F SO we AAA RBH =
provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of
the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Admit that when DECEDENT died, DECEDENT'S right to participate in the management and
conduct of the SPA partnership business terminated.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
u
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesoO YN DHA BF WY He
YN N YN YN NR NY NY Be Be ewe eB eB ewe ewe eB EL
oN DH FF YB NH KF SO we AAA RSH BS
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fin. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor
deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications,
Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.
12
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesN
Cm ID DA HW BF w
10
ll
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and
related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff
including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically
must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in
sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA.
Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint
in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be
provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of
the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Admit that the buyout price of DECEDENT'S interest in the SPA is the amount that would have
been distributable to the DECEDENT on the date of dissociation.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the tight
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
13
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses0 Mm IN DH FB wW WN
10
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun vy, AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v, State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
14
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17]CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further ResponsesoO IUD HW FB WN
NN YY YN NY NY KY He Bee we ee ew Be ew iL
ot DHF BH = SO we KIA DAA RAH DS
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor
deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications,
Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.
Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and
related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff
including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically
must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in
sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA.
Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint
in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be
provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of
the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
Admit that YOU do not represent FLAGGS or any interest of FLAGGS.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Deny.
Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Deny.
Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
15
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesOo Rm NY DH FF WwW HY YE
YPN YY YN NR NN ee ewe we Be Be Be we eB
on AU BF BN =F SO we RIA AA RB wOH LS
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun vy, AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
16
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 11CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCom IN Dn BF wW NY
YPN NY NNN NNN Be ee we ee we ee He
oe ND NH FB NH = SOD we IX AA ROH HS
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Thus, Intervenor must provide a response without
interposing this objection.
Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at
issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that
justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Admit that upon DECEDENT'S death, the right to possession, control, and disposition of SPA
partnership property vested in KHOUNSAMNANE, the sole surviving partner of the SPA.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for
opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a
request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal-App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.)
Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions
(CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission.
17
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesN
Com NIN DWH B® WwW
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun y. AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fin. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
18
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses0 OP YN DH BF ww HE
NN NY N YN NN Ye He Be Be Be Be eB Ee EBL
oN DH BF BH NH = SOD we IA AA RB ONH BS
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.)
Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request
calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor
deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications,
Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.
Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and
related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff
including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically
must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in
sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA.
Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint
in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be
provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of
the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
Admit that neither YOU nor the ESTATE has any operational interest in the SPA.
INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner
can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right
to amend his response.
PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
19
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesBw N
SOU wm ID
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions,
conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request
for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests
for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP §
2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The
Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters,
complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56
Cal.2d 423, 429.)
To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the
burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the
party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting
unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is
not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an
attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully
and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun vy, AT&T
Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48
Cal.3d 300, 308.)
Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each
answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as
expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2)
Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the
matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.)
Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to
admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable
inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information
20
Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681
Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesN
SO mem NADA BR wD
NY NY NY YN NN Ye Be eB eB Be ewe ee
oN DH YW NH = SOwM AAA RAH =
known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP §
2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate
sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for
Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318,
322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why
responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith.
(Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423,
Preview
0 Om YQ DN BF wWwNH He YPN Yb YN YN NN NY ee ewe ew Be ee BR RB oN DH RF Bw NHN = SO we AXA DA BR wOoNH FS PAUL J. STEINER, ESQ. (SBN: 41117) LAW OFFICE OF PAUL J. STEINER 275 Battery St., Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-6100 Fax: (415) 984-0950 Email: paul@sfpaulaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff VILAKONE KHOUNSAMNANE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VILAKONE KHOUNSAMNANE, Plaintiff, vs. APPATSARA YUKI FLAGGS aka Appatsara Yuki Thongcharoen; DARYL MCCHRISTIAN; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. RICHARD H. LAMBIE, Administrator for the Estate of Flaggs, Intervenor. Case No.: 17CV313681 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Date: April 7, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 8 Judge: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni Action Filed: July 28, 2017 Trial Date) TBD Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1345, Plaintiff, VILAKONE KHOUNSAMNANE provides the following Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute in Support of her Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery And Request For Monetary Sanctions. Ml Mf Mf Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 1]CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCS Om IY DH FF WH eH NN NY NY YN NR NY NY He ee we Be ee eo nN KDA FF BH FE SOwHM AAA RBH AE|Y L REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET-ONE A. MATTERS OF FACT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that DECEDENT and KHOUNSAMNANE were partners in the SPA business prior to death. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be roduced, violates an 'Y oF party's p ry Pp 2 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCOD me NIN DH BF WwW NY NN Ye NY NY N NN NY Be Be ew ewe ee eR RL ont DH FYB NH = SO we IAA RD NH 2 attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications, Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. 3 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 1JCV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCe ND HW BF YW YH NY N YN NY N NN NY Be Be Be Be ee oe Re KR oN DA HA KYW YH =F SO wM KX AAR BH 2S Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA. Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that DECEDENT entered into and executed a written Partnership Agreement for the SPA with KHOUNSAMNE executed on or about December 15, 2016. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, 4 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responsesom YN DH BB YW YB He Db NY N YN N NY NY Be He ewe ewe ew Be eR ew BL ony Kn HFK NH = SD we I AAR DNH BS complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1 961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why 5 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses0 OP YN DH BF WN NY N NY N YN NN NY Be Be Be ew eB ee eB eB iL oN DHF YB HF SO wM KAA ARBH BS|Y responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications, Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA. Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that KHOUNSAMNANE owed DECEDENT a fiduciary duty because DECEDENT and KHOUNSAMNANE were partners in the SPA business. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. 6 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesSUD me IN DH BR WW NN Yb NY YN NN NY Se Be ew ew ew Be eB Be ee oN DHF BH = SO wMe AAA RBH G PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco ( 1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable 7 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesSUD me IN DH BR WwW DY Ee NN YN NY NR YN KY Be Be we ew ewe ewe ew ee ew oN DU BF BH = SO we XA A RBH = inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications, Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter, Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA. Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that when DECEDENT died, DECEDENT became dissociated from the SPA partnership and that the SPA partnership dissolved as a matter of law. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner 8 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses0 Oe YW DH BF wWwN NN Ye NY YN NN DY Be Be ewe we Be eB ewe ee eB iL oN Dn HW FY NH KF SO we rRrAA AR HH BS can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T. Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as 9 Khounsamnane vy. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses0 ON DH BBW NH LE NN YN YN NY NY KN Be Be Be ew ew ew ew we ont DH FY NY = DOD we AKI DAA ROH BS expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications, Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and related matters for over two years, Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor ethically must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA. Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be 10. Khounsamnane v, Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesSOD em IN DH BF WN NN NY NY NY N NN NY Be Be ewe eH ee ee ee RD oN DAUM BF YB YH =F SO we AAA RBH = provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that when DECEDENT died, DECEDENT'S right to participate in the management and conduct of the SPA partnership business terminated. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an u Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesoO YN DHA BF WY He YN N YN YN NR NY NY Be Be ewe eB eB ewe ewe eB EL oN DH FF YB NH KF SO we AAA RSH BS attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fin. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications, Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. 12 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesN Cm ID DA HW BF w 10 ll 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA. Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that the buyout price of DECEDENT'S interest in the SPA is the amount that would have been distributable to the DECEDENT on the date of dissociation. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the tight to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, 13 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses0 Mm IN DH FB wW WN 10 complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun vy, AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v, State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why 14 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17]CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further ResponsesoO IUD HW FB WN NN YY YN NY NY KY He Bee we ee ew Be ew iL ot DHF BH = SO we KIA DAA RAH DS responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications, Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA. Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that YOU do not represent FLAGGS or any interest of FLAGGS. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Deny. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Deny. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request 15 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesOo Rm NY DH FF WwW HY YE YPN YY YN NR NN ee ewe we Be Be Be we eB on AU BF BN =F SO we RIA AA RB wOH LS for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun vy, AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate 16 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 11CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesCom IN Dn BF wW NY YPN NY NNN NNN Be ee we ee we ee He oe ND NH FB NH = SOD we IX AA ROH HS sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Thus, Intervenor must provide a response without interposing this objection. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that upon DECEDENT'S death, the right to possession, control, and disposition of SPA partnership property vested in KHOUNSAMNANE, the sole surviving partner of the SPA. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal-App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. 17 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesN Com NIN DWH B® WwW 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun y. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fin. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why 18 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses0 OP YN DH BF ww HE NN NY N YN NN Ye He Be Be Be Be eB Ee EBL oN DH BF BH NH = SOD we IA AA RB ONH BS responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423, 430.) Here, Intervenor interposed the improper and unsupported objection that the Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Intervenor further asserts that he can neither admit nor deny this Request because as implied and as stated in his meet and confer communications, Intervenor lacks information or knowledge. Notably, Intervenor did not state in his answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. Intervenor’s response is disingenuous. Intervenor has been actively involved in this and related matters for over two years. Intervenor has received substantial discovery from Plaintiff including documents and the names and addresses of witnesses. Further Intervenor, ethically must have gathered information independently in order to draft his Complaint in Intervention, in sum, Intervenor possesses sufficient information required to provide a response to this RFA. Notably, intervenor alleges sufficient facts in his verified 850 Petition attached to the complaint in intervention to properly answer this RFA. Therefore, Plaintiff demands a further response be provided regarding the request at issue. Intervenor’s failure to respond to this RFA is a misuse of the discovery process that justifies sanctions. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010 et seq. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that neither YOU nor the ESTATE has any operational interest in the SPA. INTERVENOR’S RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. INTERVENOR’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Objection on the basis that this Request calls for a legal conclusion or opinion. Petitioner can neither admit nor deny this Request. Discovery is on-going and Petitioner reserves the right to amend his response. PLAINTIFF’S REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 19 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesBw N SOU wm ID 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Objections to requests for admission on the ground that the request calls for opinions, conclusions, and interpretations of the litigant are not proper grounds for objecting to a request for admissions (Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1488-1489.) Requests for Admission (“RFA”) are expressly allowed to ask for legal conclusions or opinions (CCP § 2033.010.) The Discovery Act places no limit on the scope of Requests for Admission. The Supreme Court approved the broad scope of requests for admission of controversial matters, complex facts, and matters of opinion. (Cembrook v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) To suffice as a valid objection, it must be supported by some factual showing and the burden of justifying any objection as a basis for not responding remains at all times with the party resisting the request. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 541; Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 460.) Additionally, asserting unsupported and meritless objections to requests that rely on evidence that does not exist or is not in the attorney or party’s possession, custody or control, or cannot be produced, violates an attorney’s ethical duties under Bus & Prof Code § 6068(d) and CRPC Rule 3.3 to act truthfully and not mislead an officer of the court; and therefore, constitutes bad faith. (Bihun vy, AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 991, fn. 5; Rodgers v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 300, 308.) Each answer in the response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits and Each answer shall: (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party; (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue; (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.” (CCP § 2033.220.) Ifa responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information 20 Khounsamnane v. Flaggs, et al., 17CV313681 Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute Re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further ResponsesN SO mem NADA BR wD NY NY NY YN NN Ye Be eB eB Be ewe ee oN DH YW NH = SOwM AAA RAH = known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter. (CCP § 2033.220(c).) The responding party is required to undertake a “good faith” effort to investigate sources reasonably available to him or her for purposes of formulating answers to Requests for Admissions. (Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 318, 322.) The California Supreme Court held that making no attempt to provide detailed reasons why responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny a request fails to constitute good faith. (Cembrook v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 423,