Preview
1
BNURARBB
Richard E. Eichenbaum, Esq. SBN 157065
CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP
51 E. Campbell Avenue, Suite 120
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 733-0100
(408) 733-0123 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LALANI NAILAU
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
LALANI NAILAU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SUSAN M. CLARKE and ALBERT K.
CLARKE and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
| LALANI NAILAU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE,
ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE
MARITAL TRUST, ROBERT M. PICKLE AS
TRUSTEE & DOES 1-25, inclusive.
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480
Case No.: 16CV299824
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DEPOSITION & PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CCP
2025.480
Date: March 5, 2019
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 9
Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
September 13, 2016
None
Case No.: 18CV321960
Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
January 18, 2018
None
CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LIL]
51 © CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 124]
CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100
PAGE 1BAURRRBK
Plaintiff LALANI NAILAU hereby replies to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Compel
Further Deposition and Produce Documents.
Defendant alleges in his Opposition that by serving a single boilerplate objection to
Plaintiff’s Notice of Taking Deposition and (27 separate) Requests for Production of Documents,
Defendant somehow created an obligation for Plaintiff to meet and confer prior to the deposition
and prior to the time Defendant failed to Produce Documents. Defendant’s argument lacks any
merit whatsoever for the following reasons:
1. Defendant provides no legal authority for the proposition that by simply serving an
objection to the Notice of Taking Deposition and Request for Production of Documents
that a duty to meet and confer arises before the deposition has even begun. Instead, the
law cited by Defendant in opposition to this motion supports Plaintiff’s position that a
meet and confer after conducting the deposition and prior to filing a motion to compel
is the proper procedure. See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.
App. 4th 1009, 1016.
to
Defendant's single, boilerplate objection served a few days before the deposition did
not address any of the particular (27 separate) Document Requests served by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, therefore, had no idea what Defendant would produce (or would not produce)
until the deposition was conducted and the issues/documents could be explored or
discussed face to face. A meet and confer prior to the deposition is not required, nor is
it practical under the circumstances. Plaintiff followed the common practice as well as
the Code of Civil Procedure by beginning the deposition, giving Defendant a chance to
comply with the Requests, and then determining what issues/documents would be
subject to further discussion with Defense counsel.
3. Plaintiff sent an email and spoke with Defense counsel following the deposition in a
good faith effort to meet and confer prior to the filing of this motion. The procedure
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDELLI
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FeAKamer ea esoenleavaraterol
PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480
PAGE 2eo Wnnrt DU fF WN
oo
- co
followed by Plaintiff is the appropriate common practice in the legal community and
complies with the Discovery Act. (See Para. 4 of Declaration of Jeff Atterbury, See
Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1016.
4, Defendant provides no legal authority for the proposition that Plaintiff’s meet and
confer afier beginning the deposition constitutes a waiver of Plaintiff's right to bring
the current Motion to Compe! Production of Documents and for Further Deposition.
IL
SINCE THE REQUESTED TRUST DOCUMENT IS A TOOL USED BY DEFENDANT IN
EURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY TO HIDE ASSETS FROM PLAINTIFF. GOOD
CAUSE EXISTS FOR COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS.
Defendant inappropriately attempts to mislead the Court by alleging that Plaintiff has no
Tight to the requested Trust documents and that no good cause exists to order production of the
Pickle Marital (aka Asset Protection) Trust. On the contrary, the Court has held that it is an abuse
of discretion not to order the documents produced when, “unlike ina situation in which a plaintiff
seeks to discover defendant’s financial status solely for the purpose of assessing a punitive
damages claim, the documents sought by petitioner here are fundamental to his case.” See
Rawnsley v. Superi i TD.) (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3rd. 89, 91.
In the current case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Robert Pickle, conspired with his
daughter, Defendant, Susan Clarke, to hide assets from Plaintiff, specifically a home at 335 Loyola
Dr., Aptos CA (‘The Property”). Exhibits C and D attached to the Declaration of Jeff Atterbury
indicate that “The Property” was transferred from Susan Clarke to her father, Robert M. Pickle
“FOR NO CONSIDERATION” after they were aware of Plaintiff’s claim herein. On that same
day, Defendant Robert M. Pickle executed a Grant Deed of The Property, in favor of the Pickle
Marital Trust. Robert Pickle testified in deposition that The Property is currently held in the
Pickle Marital Trust. (See Ex J. Declaration of Jeff Atterbury, Robert M. Pickle Depo p.38 in23-
25).
Plaintiff suspects that Defendants altered the language of the subject Trust to hide The
Property from Plaintiff. The request for the all versions of the Trust is necessary, therefore, to
determine what actions, and to what lengths, Defendants have gone to further their Conspiracy, and
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 51 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 1
PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408)733-01
PAGE 3BNR
how the Defendants’ actions can be undone. Moreover, by using the Pickle Marital Trust as a tool
in furtherance of the Conspiracy alleged by Plaintiff, Defendant has made the subject document,
| and the alterations thereto, fundamental to Plaintiff's Conspiracy case. Under the circumstances, it
would be an abuse of discretion not to order the production of the requested documents and good
cause exists to compel production of the documents. See Rawnsley v. Superior Court (Pioneer
Theaters. LTD.) (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3rd. 89, 91.
Similarly, since good cause clearly exists to compel production of the Pickle Marital (aka
Asset Protection) Trust, good cause also exists to order Robert M. Pickle to complete his
deposition so that Plaintiff can inquire about the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject
documents, any changes thereto, and the reasons or motivations for such changes.
i.
SANCTIONS
Plaintiff has set forth the grounds for sanctions against Defendant and his Counsel. It
should be further noted that Robert M. Pickle testified that the specific reason he didn’t produce the
Pickle Marital Trust was, “No request that I bring it” and “I didn’t know there was a request to
bring it.” (See Ex. H, Decl. of Jeff Atterbury, Robert M. Pickle Deposition p. 15 lines 4-10). Mr.
Pickle’s testimony tends to prove that either defense counsel did not inform his client of the
requested documents or Mr. Pickle is being less than truthful. Either way, there is no substantial
| justification for hiding the documents requested or delaying their production, and Plaintiff’s order
for the requested monetary sanctions should be granted.
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions lacks any basis whatsoever. Defendant claims
that he is entitled to sanctions for “having to oppose this motion.” The fact remains that if
Defendant would have produced the highly relevant documents as requested and/or engaged ina
good faith meet and confer process, the subject motion would not have been required. Instead,
Defense counsel indicated that he would “speak to my client.” Under the circumstances, the words
| are nothing more than an obvious delay tactic by the defense.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LL
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL fecaseneriten sspenttaai aeroiod
PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 .
PAGE 4i
Iv.
| | CONCLUSION
| Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition and
Produce Documents Pursuant to CCP § 2025.480, as well as monetary sanctions in the amount of
nun BW HN
$2,860.00 against both Defendant Robert Pickle and his Counsel of Record, Bradley Kass, Esq.
| |
DATED: February 26, 2019
8)
9
{| By:
10)|
Cl
Attorney for Plaintiff
21
27
|| PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDELLI
|| OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL S25 CAMBEL AVENUR SUE
PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480
PAGE 51 | Consolidated Case Name: Nailau v, Clarke, et al.
2 Case No.: 16CV299824 (Consolidated w/18CV321960)
\| PROOF OF SERVICE
3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address
| is 51 East Campbell Avenue, Suite 120, Campbell, CA 95008. I am employed in the county of Santa
| Clara where this service occurs. I am readily familiar with my employer’s normal business practice
for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with U.S. Postal Service, and that practice
is that the correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of
collection in the ordinary course of business.
On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the
foregoing document(s) described as:
om nH Sb
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DEPOSITION & PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480
|
10) on the parties listed below.
ll | x (BY PRIORITY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thercon fully prepaid to be placed in the
United States mail at Campbell, California.
2 xX (BY FAX) by wansmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below,
or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m.
3B | (BY HAND-DELIVERY BY COURIER SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to a same-
day courier service with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served.
14) (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight delivery carrier
| with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served.
15, (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices
| of the addressee(s).
16)| xX Other. ELECTRONIC MAIL — I caused the document(s) listed above to the email addresses set forth below,
v7 or as stated on the allached service list, on this date.
Thomas J. Murray, Esq. Attorney for Defendants,
18 Geoffrey Meisner, Esq. Susan M. Clarke and Albert K. Clarke
19) Kern, Segal & Murray
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 600
29)| San Francisco, CA 94109
| Telephone: (415) 474-1900;
21 Facsimile: (415) 474-0302
2 Bradley Kass, Esq. Altorney for Defendants,
B Kass & Kass Law Offices SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE,
1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 265 ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE
24, San Mateo, CA 94403 MARITAL TRUST, ROBERT M., PICKLE AS
Ph: 650.579.0612 TRUSTEE
5) Fx: 650.579.0760
I certify and declare under penalty of perjury, mia that the foregoing
is true and correct.
x|
Executed on: February
27)
Bi
2019
PROOF OF SERVICEDate/Time
Local ID 1
02-26-2019
4087330123
___ Broadcast Report _
Transmit Header Text
Local Name 1
09:42:25 a.m.
This document : Confirmed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size : 8.5"x11"
1
Richard E. Fichenbaum, Esy, SBN 157065
2] CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDELLP
51 E. Campbell Avenue, Suite 120
3]] Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 733-0100
41] (408) 733-0123 fax
5
Atlomeys for Plainuft
6)! LALANTNAILAU
7
y
a SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
s COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11|| LALANI NAILAU, Case No.: 16C¥299824
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
OFFOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
5B a FURTHER DEPOSITION & PRODUCE
14) SUSAN M, CLARKE and ALBERT K. Ec
:| CLARKE and DOES 1-20,
15, Date: March 5, 2019
i Defendants Time: = 900m,
Dept: 9
17 Complaint Filed: September 13, 2016
8 ‘Trinf Date: Nowe
19|| CALANTNAILAU, Case No.t 18CV321960
aa Plaintiff,
21) VS,
2]| SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE,
ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE
2]| MARITAL TRUST, ROBERT M. PICKLE AS a
gq|' TRUSTEE & DOES 1-25, inclusive. Complaint Filed January 18, 2018
i ‘Trial Date: None
Defendants.
25
3%;
zi
Bi
PLAINTIEFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ Se acai
OPrESTTON TO MOTEN TOONS. TESTS
PaGK 1
Total Pages Scanned : 6 Total Pages Confirmed : 12 - = me
No. [Job | Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line [Mode |JobType [Results
001 [730 | unknown 09:36:41 a.m, 02-26-2015 [00:03:13 6/6 1 a HS €P14400
002 [7390 | 16505790760 09:36:47 a.m, 02-26-2019 [00:01:31 6/6 1 EC HS CP26400
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send. PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system
HR: Host receive
WS: Waiting send
PR: Polled remote
MS: Mallbox save
RP: Report
FF; Fax Forward
FA; Fail
TU: Terminated by user
G3: Group3
EC: Error Correct
Preview
1 BNURARBB Richard E. Eichenbaum, Esq. SBN 157065 CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LLP 51 E. Campbell Avenue, Suite 120 Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100 (408) 733-0123 fax Attorneys for Plaintiff LALANI NAILAU SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LALANI NAILAU, Plaintiff, vs. SUSAN M. CLARKE and ALBERT K. CLARKE and DOES 1-20, Defendants. | LALANI NAILAU, Plaintiff, vs. SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE, ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE MARITAL TRUST, ROBERT M. PICKLE AS TRUSTEE & DOES 1-25, inclusive. Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 Case No.: 16CV299824 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION & PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 Date: March 5, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 9 Complaint Filed: Trial Date: September 13, 2016 None Case No.: 18CV321960 Complaint Filed: Trial Date: January 18, 2018 None CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LIL] 51 © CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 124] CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100 PAGE 1BAURRRBK Plaintiff LALANI NAILAU hereby replies to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Deposition and Produce Documents. Defendant alleges in his Opposition that by serving a single boilerplate objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Taking Deposition and (27 separate) Requests for Production of Documents, Defendant somehow created an obligation for Plaintiff to meet and confer prior to the deposition and prior to the time Defendant failed to Produce Documents. Defendant’s argument lacks any merit whatsoever for the following reasons: 1. Defendant provides no legal authority for the proposition that by simply serving an objection to the Notice of Taking Deposition and Request for Production of Documents that a duty to meet and confer arises before the deposition has even begun. Instead, the law cited by Defendant in opposition to this motion supports Plaintiff’s position that a meet and confer after conducting the deposition and prior to filing a motion to compel is the proper procedure. See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1016. to Defendant's single, boilerplate objection served a few days before the deposition did not address any of the particular (27 separate) Document Requests served by Plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, had no idea what Defendant would produce (or would not produce) until the deposition was conducted and the issues/documents could be explored or discussed face to face. A meet and confer prior to the deposition is not required, nor is it practical under the circumstances. Plaintiff followed the common practice as well as the Code of Civil Procedure by beginning the deposition, giving Defendant a chance to comply with the Requests, and then determining what issues/documents would be subject to further discussion with Defense counsel. 3. Plaintiff sent an email and spoke with Defense counsel following the deposition in a good faith effort to meet and confer prior to the filing of this motion. The procedure PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDELLI OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FeAKamer ea esoenleavaraterol PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 PAGE 2eo Wnnrt DU fF WN oo - co followed by Plaintiff is the appropriate common practice in the legal community and complies with the Discovery Act. (See Para. 4 of Declaration of Jeff Atterbury, See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1016. 4, Defendant provides no legal authority for the proposition that Plaintiff’s meet and confer afier beginning the deposition constitutes a waiver of Plaintiff's right to bring the current Motion to Compe! Production of Documents and for Further Deposition. IL SINCE THE REQUESTED TRUST DOCUMENT IS A TOOL USED BY DEFENDANT IN EURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY TO HIDE ASSETS FROM PLAINTIFF. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS. Defendant inappropriately attempts to mislead the Court by alleging that Plaintiff has no Tight to the requested Trust documents and that no good cause exists to order production of the Pickle Marital (aka Asset Protection) Trust. On the contrary, the Court has held that it is an abuse of discretion not to order the documents produced when, “unlike ina situation in which a plaintiff seeks to discover defendant’s financial status solely for the purpose of assessing a punitive damages claim, the documents sought by petitioner here are fundamental to his case.” See Rawnsley v. Superi i TD.) (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3rd. 89, 91. In the current case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Robert Pickle, conspired with his daughter, Defendant, Susan Clarke, to hide assets from Plaintiff, specifically a home at 335 Loyola Dr., Aptos CA (‘The Property”). Exhibits C and D attached to the Declaration of Jeff Atterbury indicate that “The Property” was transferred from Susan Clarke to her father, Robert M. Pickle “FOR NO CONSIDERATION” after they were aware of Plaintiff’s claim herein. On that same day, Defendant Robert M. Pickle executed a Grant Deed of The Property, in favor of the Pickle Marital Trust. Robert Pickle testified in deposition that The Property is currently held in the Pickle Marital Trust. (See Ex J. Declaration of Jeff Atterbury, Robert M. Pickle Depo p.38 in23- 25). Plaintiff suspects that Defendants altered the language of the subject Trust to hide The Property from Plaintiff. The request for the all versions of the Trust is necessary, therefore, to determine what actions, and to what lengths, Defendants have gone to further their Conspiracy, and PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 51 E. CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 1 PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 CAMPBELL, CA 95008 (408)733-01 PAGE 3BNR how the Defendants’ actions can be undone. Moreover, by using the Pickle Marital Trust as a tool in furtherance of the Conspiracy alleged by Plaintiff, Defendant has made the subject document, | and the alterations thereto, fundamental to Plaintiff's Conspiracy case. Under the circumstances, it would be an abuse of discretion not to order the production of the requested documents and good cause exists to compel production of the documents. See Rawnsley v. Superior Court (Pioneer Theaters. LTD.) (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3rd. 89, 91. Similarly, since good cause clearly exists to compel production of the Pickle Marital (aka Asset Protection) Trust, good cause also exists to order Robert M. Pickle to complete his deposition so that Plaintiff can inquire about the facts and circumstances surrounding the subject documents, any changes thereto, and the reasons or motivations for such changes. i. SANCTIONS Plaintiff has set forth the grounds for sanctions against Defendant and his Counsel. It should be further noted that Robert M. Pickle testified that the specific reason he didn’t produce the Pickle Marital Trust was, “No request that I bring it” and “I didn’t know there was a request to bring it.” (See Ex. H, Decl. of Jeff Atterbury, Robert M. Pickle Deposition p. 15 lines 4-10). Mr. Pickle’s testimony tends to prove that either defense counsel did not inform his client of the requested documents or Mr. Pickle is being less than truthful. Either way, there is no substantial | justification for hiding the documents requested or delaying their production, and Plaintiff’s order for the requested monetary sanctions should be granted. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions lacks any basis whatsoever. Defendant claims that he is entitled to sanctions for “having to oppose this motion.” The fact remains that if Defendant would have produced the highly relevant documents as requested and/or engaged ina good faith meet and confer process, the subject motion would not have been required. Instead, Defense counsel indicated that he would “speak to my client.” Under the circumstances, the words | are nothing more than an obvious delay tactic by the defense. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDE LL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL fecaseneriten sspenttaai aeroiod PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 . PAGE 4i Iv. | | CONCLUSION | Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition and Produce Documents Pursuant to CCP § 2025.480, as well as monetary sanctions in the amount of nun BW HN $2,860.00 against both Defendant Robert Pickle and his Counsel of Record, Bradley Kass, Esq. | | DATED: February 26, 2019 8) 9 {| By: 10)| Cl Attorney for Plaintiff 21 27 || PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDELLI || OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL S25 CAMBEL AVENUR SUE PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 PAGE 51 | Consolidated Case Name: Nailau v, Clarke, et al. 2 Case No.: 16CV299824 (Consolidated w/18CV321960) \| PROOF OF SERVICE 3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address | is 51 East Campbell Avenue, Suite 120, Campbell, CA 95008. I am employed in the county of Santa | Clara where this service occurs. I am readily familiar with my employer’s normal business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that the correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served a true copy of the foregoing document(s) described as: om nH Sb PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION & PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.480 | 10) on the parties listed below. ll | x (BY PRIORITY MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) with postage thercon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Campbell, California. 2 xX (BY FAX) by wansmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service list, on this date before 5:00 p.m. 3B | (BY HAND-DELIVERY BY COURIER SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to a same- day courier service with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. 14) (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) | caused such envelope(s) to be delivered to an overnight delivery carrier | with delivery fees provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. 15, (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand this date to the offices | of the addressee(s). 16)| xX Other. ELECTRONIC MAIL — I caused the document(s) listed above to the email addresses set forth below, v7 or as stated on the allached service list, on this date. Thomas J. Murray, Esq. Attorney for Defendants, 18 Geoffrey Meisner, Esq. Susan M. Clarke and Albert K. Clarke 19) Kern, Segal & Murray 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 600 29)| San Francisco, CA 94109 | Telephone: (415) 474-1900; 21 Facsimile: (415) 474-0302 2 Bradley Kass, Esq. Altorney for Defendants, B Kass & Kass Law Offices SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE, 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 265 ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE 24, San Mateo, CA 94403 MARITAL TRUST, ROBERT M., PICKLE AS Ph: 650.579.0612 TRUSTEE 5) Fx: 650.579.0760 I certify and declare under penalty of perjury, mia that the foregoing is true and correct. x| Executed on: February 27) Bi 2019 PROOF OF SERVICEDate/Time Local ID 1 02-26-2019 4087330123 ___ Broadcast Report _ Transmit Header Text Local Name 1 09:42:25 a.m. This document : Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11" 1 Richard E. Fichenbaum, Esy, SBN 157065 2] CAPUTO & VAN DER WALDELLP 51 E. Campbell Avenue, Suite 120 3]] Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 733-0100 41] (408) 733-0123 fax 5 Atlomeys for Plainuft 6)! LALANTNAILAU 7 y a SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA s COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11|| LALANI NAILAU, Case No.: 16C¥299824 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OFFOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 5B a FURTHER DEPOSITION & PRODUCE 14) SUSAN M, CLARKE and ALBERT K. Ec :| CLARKE and DOES 1-20, 15, Date: March 5, 2019 i Defendants Time: = 900m, Dept: 9 17 Complaint Filed: September 13, 2016 8 ‘Trinf Date: Nowe 19|| CALANTNAILAU, Case No.t 18CV321960 aa Plaintiff, 21) VS, 2]| SUSAN M. CLARKE, ALBERT K. CLARKE, ROBERT M. PICKLE & THE PICKLE 2]| MARITAL TRUST, ROBERT M. PICKLE AS a gq|' TRUSTEE & DOES 1-25, inclusive. Complaint Filed January 18, 2018 i ‘Trial Date: None Defendants. 25 3%; zi Bi PLAINTIEFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ Se acai OPrESTTON TO MOTEN TOONS. TESTS PaGK 1 Total Pages Scanned : 6 Total Pages Confirmed : 12 - = me No. [Job | Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line [Mode |JobType [Results 001 [730 | unknown 09:36:41 a.m, 02-26-2015 [00:03:13 6/6 1 a HS €P14400 002 [7390 | 16505790760 09:36:47 a.m, 02-26-2019 [00:01:31 6/6 1 EC HS CP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send. PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send PR: Polled remote MS: Mallbox save RP: Report FF; Fax Forward FA; Fail TU: Terminated by user G3: Group3 EC: Error Correct