Preview
Superior Court of California F
Brett A. Gilman County of Butte
140 Yellowstone Dr. #120 7/14/2020
Chico, California 95973
Telephone: (530) 343-4318
Fax (530)343-3010
By KPeourece
Electronically FILED
puly
Attorney for Robert Adamis.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
In re the Estate of
Case No.: 16PR00091
THORSON WHALEY BAILEY.
SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
ELECTRONIC DATA AND TAGNIBLE
10 THINGS FOR INSPECTION AND/OR
COPYING.
11
Date: July 29, 2020
12 Time: 9:00 am
Dept.: Hon. Tamara Mosbarger
13
14 Robert Adamis submits the following Second Response To Dan Bailey’s Motion To
15 Compel Production of Documents Electronic Data and Tangible Things For Inspection and/or
16 Copying filed February 21, 2020 (‘Motion To Compel’).
17
Robert Adamis objects to the Motion to Compel and requests the Motion To Compel be
18
denied in its entirety for the following reasons:
19
I. Motion To Compel Does Not Comply With
20 Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345
ai
At the hearing June 23, 2020 the Honorable Judge Tamara Mosbargar ordered Dan
22
Bailey to file and serve by June 30, 2020 a separate statement pursuant to Cal Rules of Court
23
Rule 3.1345 with regard to the requests that are the subject of his Motion to Compel Production
24
25 of Documents filed February 21, 2020 (Motion to Compel).
26
27
28
1
SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL.
Dan Bailey filed on July 1, 2020 his DECLARATION OF DAN H. BAILEY, WITH
EXHIBITS, ATTACHED; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL (Declaration). This
appears to be the only document Dan Bailey has filed in support of his Motion To Compel.
Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 states in Pertinent part as follows:
Rule 3.1345 Format of discovery motions.
(a) Separate statement required. Any motion involving the content of a discovery request
or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The
motions that require a separate statement include a motion
(3) to‘compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible
things:
10 (b) Contents of separate statement. A separate statement is a separate document filed and
served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to
11 understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The
separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any
12 other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material
must not be incorporated in the separate statement by reference. The separate statement
13
must include-for each discovery request (e.g. each interrogatory, request for admissions,
14 disposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or
production is requested-the following:
15 (1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question or inspection demand.
(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers.
16 (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses,
answers, or productions as to each matter in dispute.
17
18 (a) Identification of interrogatories, demands, or requests
A motion concerning interrogatori nspection demands, or admission requests must
19 identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.
(END OF STATUTE)
20
21 In short, Rule 3.1345 requires that for each specific request for which Dan Bailey is
a9
22 compelling further responses to discovery he must; submit a separate statement for each, identify
23 each inspection demand by set and number, state the text of each inspection demand, state the
24 text of each response and objection, and state the factual and legal reasons for compelling further
25,
inspection demands and/or responses.
26
27
28
SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL.
Robert Adamis contends that Dan Bailey has failed to do any of these and has not;
provided a separate statement for each inspection demand, has not stated the text of the
inspection demands, has not stated the text of the response or objection, has not stated the factual
or legal reasons for compelling further inspection demands and/or responses.
Rule 3.1345 requires ‘The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person
is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full
response.’ Dan Bailey has failed to provide a full and complete separate statement for each
request in compliance of Rule 3.1345.
10 Attached as Ex. A are pages 1 and 11-16 of Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel Productions
ll of Documents - filed February 21, 2020.
12 Attached as Ex. B are pages | and 8-13 of Dan Bailey’s 1 Demand For Production
13
Directed To Robert T. Adamis Points And Authorities, Applicable Definitions & Terms,
14
Demands To Produce (Demand For Production of Documents).
15
Attached as Ex. C is Robert Adamis’ Response To Dan Bailey’s Request For Production
16
Of Documents.
17
18
19 Dan Bailey Fails to State the Text of Each of the Inspection Demands
20 Dan Bailey fails to provide a separate statement for each discovery request that states the
21
exact text of each of his inspection demands for which he requests further response or
22
documents.
23
In fact, the demands in Dan Baileys Motion To Compel ARE NOT the same demands as
24
in Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production of Documents.
25
26
27
28
3
SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL.
In Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel he makes thirty-two demands for production of items
(see Ex. A). The thirty-two demands are not the same as the first thirty-two Demands in Dan
Bailey’s Demand For Production For Production of Documents (see Ex. B).
It appears that the thirty-two demands in the Motion To Compel (Ex. A) are completely
new, separate, and different demands than the demands made in Dan Bailey’s Demand For
Production of Documents (Ex. B).
As an example, in Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel (Ex. A page 1 ) Demand
no. | states:
“1. Provide a copy of all communications i.e. emails, faxes, letters that document who
9 (which attorney) advised you that Mr. Ward Bailey’s ‘requests were counter to what I
10 (Robert) was advised.” (Emphasis added) (See Offer or Proof EXHIBIT 06 at pg 4, a
true and correct copy, attached and incorporated herein).
1
In Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production of Documents (Ex. B page 8) Demand 1. states:
12
‘DEMAND |. Provide copies of all notes, faxes, emails, letters and documents submitted
13
to Appraiser, Al Lotspeich, that document or support the fact that ‘Atlas American LLC
14 is a California LLC and as created as of May 1, 2012’ (See Lotspeich letter “RE:
Business Valuation for Atlas American LLC’ hereinafter (“BVAA”) dated December 3,
15: 2016, to Robert Adamis, Atlas American LLC, dba Vandal Stop Products’.
16 Not one of the thirty-two demands in Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel matches the first
17
thirty-two items in Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production of Documents.
18
As required by Rule 3.1345, Dan Bailey fails to state by separate document the text of
19
each of the inspection demands he is objecting to.
20
21
22 Text of Response or Objection
23 Dan Bailey fails to provide a separate statement for each discovery request that states the
24 text of Robert Adamis’ response and/or objection.
25
Though required by Rule 3.1345, Dan Bailey fails to provide the text for any response or
26
objection made by Robert Adamis. Nothing. For the benefit of the court the Responses have
27
28
4
SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL.
been included as Ex. C so the court can see the thoroughness of the responses and the fact that
items were objected to, however still provided to Dan Bailey.
Dan Bailey Fails To Proivde Legal and Factual Reasons For
Compelling Further Demands/Respor
5
Dan Bailey fails to provide a separate statement for each discovery request that states the
legal and factual reasons for compelling further demands or responses.
This is the most important part of the Motion To Compel. Explaining to the court and all
parties the legal and/or factual reasons the answers are not sufficient. Dan Bailey provides
10
nothing in the form of a separate statement stating the legal and factual reasons for compelling
11
further demands or responses to each of his requests.
12
13
14 IL Notice of Motion to Compel Was Not Timely Served.
15 Robert Adamis restates his argument that the Motion To Compel was not served in a
16 timely manner as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 and
17
should be denied in its entirety as argued in his Response To Motion To Compel filed May 28,
18
2020.
19
20
IIL. Additional Argument For Attorney’s Fees
21
22 Robert Adamis continues to request that Dan Bailey and Ward Bailey be responsible for
23 his attorney’s fees due to Dan Bailey’s frivolous motions, and their unfounded objections.
24
25
Conclusion
26
Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel should be denied in its entirety.
27
28
5
SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL.
ectfully $ phitted
AMMAN
yY)
N45
Brett Gi , attdrne}for Robert Adamis.
VERIFICATION
I, Robert T. Adamis, declare:
1. Tam a business partner of the decedent.
2. Ihave read the foregoing SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ELECTRONIC DATA AND TAGNIBLE THINGS FOR
10 INSPECTION AND/OR COPYING. , which is true to my own knowledge, except as to any
11 matters that may be stated on my information and belief, and to any such matters I believe them
12 to be true.
13
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
14 West Yellowstone, MT
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 14, 2020 at
15
16 Phew Lon 2.
Robert T. Adamis
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL.
Ex. A
Dan H. Bailey
6 Bristol Court '
Chico, California 95926 =
Hm. Phone: (530) 879-1752
Fax: (530) 302-9000
Email: Dan_H_Bailey@msn.com
2/21/2020
Pro Se Vs
, fr
f
to
ese
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10 In Re the Matter of Thorson Whaley Bailey: ) Case No. 16PR00091
11 ) MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
) OF DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONIC DATA
12 Dan H. Bailey, AND TANGIBLE THINGS FOR
INSPECTION AND / OR COPYING
13 Plaintiff",
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010 et seq.)
14 vs.
15 Robert T. Adamis, Judge: Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger
16 Defendant. Date: March 24, 2020
Time: 09:00 A.M.
lie Place: NC-2-Dept. TBA
18 I: NOTICE
19 To Mr. Robert T. Adamis, Interested Person-Pctitioner (“Adamis”) and to Mr. Brett
20 Gilman his attorney of record and to Mrs. Betsy Adamis, Mr. Thorson (Thor) Wade Bailey, Jon
21 Ward Bailcy, Mr. David Mahan-Public Administrator, Mr. Peter Washington-Special Counscl,
22 County of Butte and any interested persons:
23
24
25;
26
| The petitioner or other party affirming is the plaintiff and the party objecting or responding is
the defendant. (Cal Prob. Code § 1044)
69
PLAINTIFF DAN H. BAILEY MOTION TO COMPEL Page 1 of 16
form
h e t h e r in cl Jectronic
ovi ded, w
c u m e n tation pr oferencing
m: an ds th at any do
fe re nc e allowing ™
Furl her,Plai
ntiff de ate: s numbe
rs for re
s c o v e r y B ndant.
th e standart d
di
o
pr v
ov i d
ideeds b’ Td°efe
form CO ) t a i n
aS haviinng been
ee n p s
or printed d o cu nent($) shav ING
i n g ' \ de ntif y th e
C T I O WN OR COPY
Ss referen c /INSPE the infor! m
ation
3\ or cross ! R P R O D U CTION d m e of
FO receive $0!
vil. DEMAND d g es having r the
H. B a i le y a c k n o w l e
in th e pa st, howeve
a n n
aint iff D of the infor!
matio
NOTE: Pl i d e d s o m e
d i n g, w ith no
Bates
n r o v p r o v i
in fac +t be e nd lomly
d and has al (meaning ra ! h often
reques' te a t ion pi e c e m e :
e Drive whic
cu l m e n t G o o gl
this do on line with
pro viding nks poste! 4 y.
method or l, $0 ! m e by li
o m p ! et e. Additionall
by emai ially in c
y e n c e n u m bers) § ome ri ve th at has js miater t the
refe
y on & t humb-d p o o k s ' 7) and no
st rece! tl y “Co joke
d
di d no t ork and mo j n c o m p ete (clearl
g\\ l e that was
u i ck B o o ks data fi
\ || there
was a Q
pany - co’ urt Ord
er you to
th e c o m es ts th e
l e of tor” requ
al | work
ing data fi jary “Objec rnative
\l ac tu
i f f - H e i r - B e n e f i c
g by oF in the alte
a t in
Bailey Plat nt g or photo
graph
Dani jel H. sc an ni format
12 c t i o n c o pying by
b e r s in electronic
the ins p e
g Bates Nu m
p r o d u c e and per mit u m e n t s containin cad shects
to also
13 t s OF do c’ on ic sp t
strumen y electr
de c o p ies of alli da ta files and an and @
14\\ pr o v !
c. Al l Q u ick Bo o l Ks
m e n t s OF docume! nts)
DV Dor
thumb-driv Ss ame on fo
r instru sal
15|\o n C D ,
b - d r i v e (c an be
p) po rt of the appr ai
m su
D ot thu ng informa
tion js
o v i d e d on cp, DV e a c c o u n t i
16 be p r
ob. C. 1 02
1 that th
e r C a l pr
c ation und
\7 certifi © cords.
f f i c i a l ATLAS
18 js fro
m th e ©
u he follow
ing items: nt who
t i o n of er s th at docume
r produ c fax cs, le tt
Demand fo a t i on s 1.0-5 emails, to. what
!
19 l c o mmuni c counter
COPY ° f al s e
“Ee est w e r
provide a d B ailey’s 4,4 true
20\\! th at M r . W a r
. BI T. 06 , 4 P: g.
vised y o u oof. E XH
w hhii c
chh a ttoomrscy) ad
at ] (S ee O ff fer or pr
2 (w hasis add
e d
ad vit
=: sed.” [Emp
Rero t| b wae
w a sa
s r rate’ d her
ein)
22 (ob an d i n c o r p o
attac! hes d gt cks to
mak
a n d co rr ect COPY: a c c o u n t i n
23 fo yy using king the
si s a sl ang term ry r e . T y p i cal , CO! o
book : all a 1ts
24 B o o k s +9 Cook the th an they re c a r n i n g s an deflate
e better (2 mpany ‘5
Cook
7 What is ‘ nancial | results loo k a t a U in flate the co
25 acompany ‘g fi d
g financial linc
ma nip) ulatin ) ts bottom
k s in vo ve s
up o d
r o w n
26 poo to pump
expens es ! nO der
16
page 11 of
ir
oO CoMPEL
MOTION T
F F D a n i . BAILEY
PLAINTI
2. Provide all facts, documents, minutes, or references in the record, wherein Plaintiff was
told “/t/he court has already informed you, more than once, that all communications between
Robert, Judy, Al Lotspeich, and others is privileged as work product.”
Ay
3 Provide all points in law that support your position that the work product and
communications used in supporting an appraisal for the Estate, heirs and beneficiaries is
privileged.
4 All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to emails, faxes, letters and
communications of any kind as they relate to the appraisal provided to Mr. Lotspeich to support
the original or first appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspeich dated May 24, 2015. This request also
at
10 includes communications between Mr. Lotspeich (CPA) and Mr. John Schaller (Attorney
regarding
Il Law), Ms. Stephanie Marshal (CPA), Ms. Jane Dolan and / or any other professional
122 the “business valuation” or “appraisal” of Atlas American, LLC.
13 5 Provide also any ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, e.i., excel or other
that relate or refer to
14 electronic spread shect and the Quick Books data file used by Mr. Lotspcich
to
15 the first REVISED appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspeich that was used by Mr. Lotspcich
16 modify or change the report provided dated May 24, 2015.
7 6 All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to emails, faxes, Ietters and
h to
ne 18 communications of any kind as they relate to the appraisal, as provided to Mr. Lotspcic
support the original or first REVISED appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspcich; as. provided in ope:
19
20 ourt on July 01, 2019. This request also includes communications between Mr. Lotspeich
and any other
21 (CPA) and Mr. John Schaller (Attorney at Law), Ms. Stephanic Marshal (CPA)
as
22 professional regarding the “business valuation” or “appraisal” of Atlas American, LLC;
23 provided in open court on July 01.2019.
7 STORED INFORMATION, c.i., excel or other
24 Provide also any ELECTRONICALLY
to
25 electronic spread sheet and the Quick Books data file used by Mr. Lotspeich that relate or refer
26 the first REVISED appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspeich that was used by Mr. Lotspeich to
modify or change the report provided on July 01.2019 in open court.
~
PLAINTIFF DAN H. BAILEY MOTION TO COMPEL Page 12 of 16
letters and
in g but not li mi te d to emails, faxe s.
includ
All DOCUMENTS. p' cich to support
8
the ap praisa | pr ovided to Mr. Lots
ate to
any kind as they rel est also|
communications of on N
No ve mb er 13, 2019. This requ
Mr. Al Lotspe ic h
appraisal m ade by
the original or first and Mr. John Scha
ller (Attorney at
peich (CPA)
on s between Mr. Lots
includes com ) mu ni ca ti al re garding
Do la n ai nd / or any other profession
. Jane
Ma rshal (CPA), Ms
Law) Ms. Stephanie
erican, LLC.
io n” or “a pprai sal” of Atlas Am
the “business va lu at l or other
OR ED IN FO RM ATION, e.i., exce
TRONICALL Y ST
Providi lc also any ELEC ich that relate
9
or ot he r dat : a fil e used by Mr. Lotspe
k Books
sheet, an d the Quic or change the
electronic spread Lotspeict 1 to modify
ma de by Mr . Al
! raisal
or re fer to the se
cond REVISED app
Dolan.
19 ; tha t wa: s su bm itted to Ms. Jane
20
vide d November 13. account
10 report as ro em en ts fr om the opening of the
St at
ilal ble ALL PayPal
ll 10. Provide or make ava
we have a Cop! y of.
ex ce pt in g Ju ne 30. 2015 which
er 31, 2015 erating
12 thro} ugh Decemb in g co mp li ance with t he Op
s evi l de nc
ailable all document
Provide or make av including.
13 \1.
ab il it ie s of the C ompany [A TLAS]
de bts and- li
4 Agreement re
quiring *. _. known and or his'
[i nc lu di ng Th or so r 1 Whaley Bailey
es to ) Members
ita tio n, de bts and liabiliti
15 wi th ou t lim t, § 18.03)
mp an y 2°. (S ee O} perating Agreemen
Co
are cre ditors of the Operating
16 Estate] who id en ci ng co m pliance with the
ment s ev
av ailable all docu
\7 12. Provide or make come tax or
an y' s, fe de ra 1, state and local in
the Comp
uiring “/cJopies of ing
18 Agreement req re ce at ta xa bl e years.” ” (Sec Operat
, if any for the mo
st
in fo rm at io n returns and I eports
19
.01(c)) ll h the Operatin g
Agreement, § 17
20
cu me nt : s ev id en cing compliance wi
ble all do
Provide or make availa six most
21 13.
fi na nc ia ' I st at em ents, if any for the
the Company 's
Ag re em en t re quiring “/* Jo, pies s of
22
ent, § 17(¢))
cal yea rs. ” (S ee Operating Agreem the Operating
g compliance with
23 recent fis
cu me nt s ¢ yi de nc in
ailable all do
24 14. Provide 01 + make av interna’ | affairs for
Preview
Superior Court of California F Brett A. Gilman County of Butte 140 Yellowstone Dr. #120 7/14/2020 Chico, California 95973 Telephone: (530) 343-4318 Fax (530)343-3010 By KPeourece Electronically FILED puly Attorney for Robert Adamis. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In re the Estate of Case No.: 16PR00091 THORSON WHALEY BAILEY. SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ELECTRONIC DATA AND TAGNIBLE 10 THINGS FOR INSPECTION AND/OR COPYING. 11 Date: July 29, 2020 12 Time: 9:00 am Dept.: Hon. Tamara Mosbarger 13 14 Robert Adamis submits the following Second Response To Dan Bailey’s Motion To 15 Compel Production of Documents Electronic Data and Tangible Things For Inspection and/or 16 Copying filed February 21, 2020 (‘Motion To Compel’). 17 Robert Adamis objects to the Motion to Compel and requests the Motion To Compel be 18 denied in its entirety for the following reasons: 19 I. Motion To Compel Does Not Comply With 20 Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 ai At the hearing June 23, 2020 the Honorable Judge Tamara Mosbargar ordered Dan 22 Bailey to file and serve by June 30, 2020 a separate statement pursuant to Cal Rules of Court 23 Rule 3.1345 with regard to the requests that are the subject of his Motion to Compel Production 24 25 of Documents filed February 21, 2020 (Motion to Compel). 26 27 28 1 SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL. Dan Bailey filed on July 1, 2020 his DECLARATION OF DAN H. BAILEY, WITH EXHIBITS, ATTACHED; IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL (Declaration). This appears to be the only document Dan Bailey has filed in support of his Motion To Compel. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 states in Pertinent part as follows: Rule 3.1345 Format of discovery motions. (a) Separate statement required. Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion (3) to‘compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things: 10 (b) Contents of separate statement. A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to 11 understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any 12 other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated in the separate statement by reference. The separate statement 13 must include-for each discovery request (e.g. each interrogatory, request for admissions, 14 disposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the following: 15 (1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question or inspection demand. (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers. 16 (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or productions as to each matter in dispute. 17 18 (a) Identification of interrogatories, demands, or requests A motion concerning interrogatori nspection demands, or admission requests must 19 identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number. (END OF STATUTE) 20 21 In short, Rule 3.1345 requires that for each specific request for which Dan Bailey is a9 22 compelling further responses to discovery he must; submit a separate statement for each, identify 23 each inspection demand by set and number, state the text of each inspection demand, state the 24 text of each response and objection, and state the factual and legal reasons for compelling further 25, inspection demands and/or responses. 26 27 28 SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL. Robert Adamis contends that Dan Bailey has failed to do any of these and has not; provided a separate statement for each inspection demand, has not stated the text of the inspection demands, has not stated the text of the response or objection, has not stated the factual or legal reasons for compelling further inspection demands and/or responses. Rule 3.1345 requires ‘The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response.’ Dan Bailey has failed to provide a full and complete separate statement for each request in compliance of Rule 3.1345. 10 Attached as Ex. A are pages 1 and 11-16 of Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel Productions ll of Documents - filed February 21, 2020. 12 Attached as Ex. B are pages | and 8-13 of Dan Bailey’s 1 Demand For Production 13 Directed To Robert T. Adamis Points And Authorities, Applicable Definitions & Terms, 14 Demands To Produce (Demand For Production of Documents). 15 Attached as Ex. C is Robert Adamis’ Response To Dan Bailey’s Request For Production 16 Of Documents. 17 18 19 Dan Bailey Fails to State the Text of Each of the Inspection Demands 20 Dan Bailey fails to provide a separate statement for each discovery request that states the 21 exact text of each of his inspection demands for which he requests further response or 22 documents. 23 In fact, the demands in Dan Baileys Motion To Compel ARE NOT the same demands as 24 in Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production of Documents. 25 26 27 28 3 SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL. In Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel he makes thirty-two demands for production of items (see Ex. A). The thirty-two demands are not the same as the first thirty-two Demands in Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production For Production of Documents (see Ex. B). It appears that the thirty-two demands in the Motion To Compel (Ex. A) are completely new, separate, and different demands than the demands made in Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production of Documents (Ex. B). As an example, in Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel (Ex. A page 1 ) Demand no. | states: “1. Provide a copy of all communications i.e. emails, faxes, letters that document who 9 (which attorney) advised you that Mr. Ward Bailey’s ‘requests were counter to what I 10 (Robert) was advised.” (Emphasis added) (See Offer or Proof EXHIBIT 06 at pg 4, a true and correct copy, attached and incorporated herein). 1 In Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production of Documents (Ex. B page 8) Demand 1. states: 12 ‘DEMAND |. Provide copies of all notes, faxes, emails, letters and documents submitted 13 to Appraiser, Al Lotspeich, that document or support the fact that ‘Atlas American LLC 14 is a California LLC and as created as of May 1, 2012’ (See Lotspeich letter “RE: Business Valuation for Atlas American LLC’ hereinafter (“BVAA”) dated December 3, 15: 2016, to Robert Adamis, Atlas American LLC, dba Vandal Stop Products’. 16 Not one of the thirty-two demands in Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel matches the first 17 thirty-two items in Dan Bailey’s Demand For Production of Documents. 18 As required by Rule 3.1345, Dan Bailey fails to state by separate document the text of 19 each of the inspection demands he is objecting to. 20 21 22 Text of Response or Objection 23 Dan Bailey fails to provide a separate statement for each discovery request that states the 24 text of Robert Adamis’ response and/or objection. 25 Though required by Rule 3.1345, Dan Bailey fails to provide the text for any response or 26 objection made by Robert Adamis. Nothing. For the benefit of the court the Responses have 27 28 4 SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL. been included as Ex. C so the court can see the thoroughness of the responses and the fact that items were objected to, however still provided to Dan Bailey. Dan Bailey Fails To Proivde Legal and Factual Reasons For Compelling Further Demands/Respor 5 Dan Bailey fails to provide a separate statement for each discovery request that states the legal and factual reasons for compelling further demands or responses. This is the most important part of the Motion To Compel. Explaining to the court and all parties the legal and/or factual reasons the answers are not sufficient. Dan Bailey provides 10 nothing in the form of a separate statement stating the legal and factual reasons for compelling 11 further demands or responses to each of his requests. 12 13 14 IL Notice of Motion to Compel Was Not Timely Served. 15 Robert Adamis restates his argument that the Motion To Compel was not served in a 16 timely manner as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 and 17 should be denied in its entirety as argued in his Response To Motion To Compel filed May 28, 18 2020. 19 20 IIL. Additional Argument For Attorney’s Fees 21 22 Robert Adamis continues to request that Dan Bailey and Ward Bailey be responsible for 23 his attorney’s fees due to Dan Bailey’s frivolous motions, and their unfounded objections. 24 25 Conclusion 26 Dan Bailey’s Motion To Compel should be denied in its entirety. 27 28 5 SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL. ectfully $ phitted AMMAN yY) N45 Brett Gi , attdrne}for Robert Adamis. VERIFICATION I, Robert T. Adamis, declare: 1. Tam a business partner of the decedent. 2. Ihave read the foregoing SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ELECTRONIC DATA AND TAGNIBLE THINGS FOR 10 INSPECTION AND/OR COPYING. , which is true to my own knowledge, except as to any 11 matters that may be stated on my information and belief, and to any such matters I believe them 12 to be true. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 14 West Yellowstone, MT foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 14, 2020 at 15 16 Phew Lon 2. Robert T. Adamis 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 SECOND RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL. Ex. A Dan H. Bailey 6 Bristol Court ' Chico, California 95926 = Hm. Phone: (530) 879-1752 Fax: (530) 302-9000 Email: Dan_H_Bailey@msn.com 2/21/2020 Pro Se Vs , fr f to ese IN THE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 In Re the Matter of Thorson Whaley Bailey: ) Case No. 16PR00091 11 ) MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION ) OF DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONIC DATA 12 Dan H. Bailey, AND TANGIBLE THINGS FOR INSPECTION AND / OR COPYING 13 Plaintiff", (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010 et seq.) 14 vs. 15 Robert T. Adamis, Judge: Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger 16 Defendant. Date: March 24, 2020 Time: 09:00 A.M. lie Place: NC-2-Dept. TBA 18 I: NOTICE 19 To Mr. Robert T. Adamis, Interested Person-Pctitioner (“Adamis”) and to Mr. Brett 20 Gilman his attorney of record and to Mrs. Betsy Adamis, Mr. Thorson (Thor) Wade Bailey, Jon 21 Ward Bailcy, Mr. David Mahan-Public Administrator, Mr. Peter Washington-Special Counscl, 22 County of Butte and any interested persons: 23 24 25; 26 | The petitioner or other party affirming is the plaintiff and the party objecting or responding is the defendant. (Cal Prob. Code § 1044) 69 PLAINTIFF DAN H. BAILEY MOTION TO COMPEL Page 1 of 16 form h e t h e r in cl Jectronic ovi ded, w c u m e n tation pr oferencing m: an ds th at any do fe re nc e allowing ™ Furl her,Plai ntiff de ate: s numbe rs for re s c o v e r y B ndant. th e standart d di o pr v ov i d ideeds b’ Td°efe form CO ) t a i n aS haviinng been ee n p s or printed d o cu nent($) shav ING i n g ' \ de ntif y th e C T I O WN OR COPY Ss referen c /INSPE the infor! m ation 3\ or cross ! R P R O D U CTION d m e of FO receive $0! vil. DEMAND d g es having r the H. B a i le y a c k n o w l e in th e pa st, howeve a n n aint iff D of the infor! matio NOTE: Pl i d e d s o m e d i n g, w ith no Bates n r o v p r o v i in fac +t be e nd lomly d and has al (meaning ra ! h often reques' te a t ion pi e c e m e : e Drive whic cu l m e n t G o o gl this do on line with pro viding nks poste! 4 y. method or l, $0 ! m e by li o m p ! et e. Additionall by emai ially in c y e n c e n u m bers) § ome ri ve th at has js miater t the refe y on & t humb-d p o o k s ' 7) and no st rece! tl y “Co joke d di d no t ork and mo j n c o m p ete (clearl g\\ l e that was u i ck B o o ks data fi \ || there was a Q pany - co’ urt Ord er you to th e c o m es ts th e l e of tor” requ al | work ing data fi jary “Objec rnative \l ac tu i f f - H e i r - B e n e f i c g by oF in the alte a t in Bailey Plat nt g or photo graph Dani jel H. sc an ni format 12 c t i o n c o pying by b e r s in electronic the ins p e g Bates Nu m p r o d u c e and per mit u m e n t s containin cad shects to also 13 t s OF do c’ on ic sp t strumen y electr de c o p ies of alli da ta files and an and @ 14\\ pr o v ! c. Al l Q u ick Bo o l Ks m e n t s OF docume! nts) DV Dor thumb-driv Ss ame on fo r instru sal 15|\o n C D , b - d r i v e (c an be p) po rt of the appr ai m su D ot thu ng informa tion js o v i d e d on cp, DV e a c c o u n t i 16 be p r ob. C. 1 02 1 that th e r C a l pr c ation und \7 certifi © cords. f f i c i a l ATLAS 18 js fro m th e © u he follow ing items: nt who t i o n of er s th at docume r produ c fax cs, le tt Demand fo a t i on s 1.0-5 emails, to. what ! 19 l c o mmuni c counter COPY ° f al s e “Ee est w e r provide a d B ailey’s 4,4 true 20\\! th at M r . W a r . BI T. 06 , 4 P: g. vised y o u oof. E XH w hhii c chh a ttoomrscy) ad at ] (S ee O ff fer or pr 2 (w hasis add e d ad vit =: sed.” [Emp Rero t| b wae w a sa s r rate’ d her ein) 22 (ob an d i n c o r p o attac! hes d gt cks to mak a n d co rr ect COPY: a c c o u n t i n 23 fo yy using king the si s a sl ang term ry r e . T y p i cal , CO! o book : all a 1ts 24 B o o k s +9 Cook the th an they re c a r n i n g s an deflate e better (2 mpany ‘5 Cook 7 What is ‘ nancial | results loo k a t a U in flate the co 25 acompany ‘g fi d g financial linc ma nip) ulatin ) ts bottom k s in vo ve s up o d r o w n 26 poo to pump expens es ! nO der 16 page 11 of ir oO CoMPEL MOTION T F F D a n i . BAILEY PLAINTI 2. Provide all facts, documents, minutes, or references in the record, wherein Plaintiff was told “/t/he court has already informed you, more than once, that all communications between Robert, Judy, Al Lotspeich, and others is privileged as work product.” Ay 3 Provide all points in law that support your position that the work product and communications used in supporting an appraisal for the Estate, heirs and beneficiaries is privileged. 4 All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to emails, faxes, letters and communications of any kind as they relate to the appraisal provided to Mr. Lotspeich to support the original or first appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspeich dated May 24, 2015. This request also at 10 includes communications between Mr. Lotspeich (CPA) and Mr. John Schaller (Attorney regarding Il Law), Ms. Stephanie Marshal (CPA), Ms. Jane Dolan and / or any other professional 122 the “business valuation” or “appraisal” of Atlas American, LLC. 13 5 Provide also any ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, e.i., excel or other that relate or refer to 14 electronic spread shect and the Quick Books data file used by Mr. Lotspcich to 15 the first REVISED appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspeich that was used by Mr. Lotspcich 16 modify or change the report provided dated May 24, 2015. 7 6 All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to emails, faxes, Ietters and h to ne 18 communications of any kind as they relate to the appraisal, as provided to Mr. Lotspcic support the original or first REVISED appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspcich; as. provided in ope: 19 20 ourt on July 01, 2019. This request also includes communications between Mr. Lotspeich and any other 21 (CPA) and Mr. John Schaller (Attorney at Law), Ms. Stephanic Marshal (CPA) as 22 professional regarding the “business valuation” or “appraisal” of Atlas American, LLC; 23 provided in open court on July 01.2019. 7 STORED INFORMATION, c.i., excel or other 24 Provide also any ELECTRONICALLY to 25 electronic spread sheet and the Quick Books data file used by Mr. Lotspeich that relate or refer 26 the first REVISED appraisal made by Mr. Al Lotspeich that was used by Mr. Lotspeich to modify or change the report provided on July 01.2019 in open court. ~ PLAINTIFF DAN H. BAILEY MOTION TO COMPEL Page 12 of 16 letters and in g but not li mi te d to emails, faxe s. includ All DOCUMENTS. p' cich to support 8 the ap praisa | pr ovided to Mr. Lots ate to any kind as they rel est also| communications of on N No ve mb er 13, 2019. This requ Mr. Al Lotspe ic h appraisal m ade by the original or first and Mr. John Scha ller (Attorney at peich (CPA) on s between Mr. Lots includes com ) mu ni ca ti al re garding Do la n ai nd / or any other profession . Jane Ma rshal (CPA), Ms Law) Ms. Stephanie erican, LLC. io n” or “a pprai sal” of Atlas Am the “business va lu at l or other OR ED IN FO RM ATION, e.i., exce TRONICALL Y ST Providi lc also any ELEC ich that relate 9 or ot he r dat : a fil e used by Mr. Lotspe k Books sheet, an d the Quic or change the electronic spread Lotspeict 1 to modify ma de by Mr . Al ! raisal or re fer to the se cond REVISED app Dolan. 19 ; tha t wa: s su bm itted to Ms. Jane 20 vide d November 13. account 10 report as ro em en ts fr om the opening of the St at ilal ble ALL PayPal ll 10. Provide or make ava we have a Cop! y of. ex ce pt in g Ju ne 30. 2015 which er 31, 2015 erating 12 thro} ugh Decemb in g co mp li ance with t he Op s evi l de nc ailable all document Provide or make av including. 13 \1. ab il it ie s of the C ompany [A TLAS] de bts and- li 4 Agreement re quiring *. _. known and or his' [i nc lu di ng Th or so r 1 Whaley Bailey es to ) Members ita tio n, de bts and liabiliti 15 wi th ou t lim t, § 18.03) mp an y 2°. (S ee O} perating Agreemen Co are cre ditors of the Operating 16 Estate] who id en ci ng co m pliance with the ment s ev av ailable all docu \7 12. Provide or make come tax or an y' s, fe de ra 1, state and local in the Comp uiring “/cJopies of ing 18 Agreement req re ce at ta xa bl e years.” ” (Sec Operat , if any for the mo st in fo rm at io n returns and I eports 19 .01(c)) ll h the Operatin g Agreement, § 17 20 cu me nt : s ev id en cing compliance wi ble all do Provide or make availa six most 21 13. fi na nc ia ' I st at em ents, if any for the the Company 's Ag re em en t re quiring “/* Jo, pies s of 22 ent, § 17(¢)) cal yea rs. ” (S ee Operating Agreem the Operating g compliance with 23 recent fis cu me nt s ¢ yi de nc in ailable all do 24 14. Provide 01 + make av interna’ | affairs for