Preview
)—l
STEVEN B. PISER, SBN 62414
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER
2 A Professional COIporation
3
1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050
Oakland, California 94612
.
TITLED
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Telephone: (510) 835-5582
4 Facsimile: (510) 832-1717
MAR 3 0 2017
5 JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 126613
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD
6 101 Califomia Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, California 94111
7 Telephone: (415) 689—1209
8
Attorneys for
9 DBP INVESTMENTS,
a California General PaItneI'ship
10
l1
12
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14
15
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE NO. CIV538897
16 Partnership, )
)
17 Plaintiff ) SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
) MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL
l8 v. ) INTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS
) FROM KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC
19 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware )
Limited Liability Company, BUA—QUACH, ) DATE APRIL 28, 2017
an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, ) TIME 9:00 A.M.
DONG VUONG, an individual, THANI-I ) DEPT. LAw & MOTION
LAI, and DOES 1 through 10 ) TRIAL : NOVEMBER 13, 2017
)
__J
Defendants. )
l
)
|
@m—wr—IO
KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) BY FAX
l [\DMNNNNN
Limited Liability Company, )
)
l
|
Cross-C0711plainanr, )
alll\lllllllllll\lllllllllll
|
v. )
Statement
|
)‘
DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General )
Paltnership and ROES 1 through 10,
CN53889'I
Separate
l LO
\1
440220
3
SS
'
—:‘_J Cross-Defendants. )
[\3 00
)
Law Offices of
Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA
CENTER,LLC
‘
I
H} =2 C! DE 5w: unz
1. STATEMENT OF FACTS
DBP Investments and King Plaza Center LLC each own contiguous parcels that make up
‘
King Plaza Shopping Center in Daly City. A Reciprocal Basement and Operation Agreement
allows each to use the parking on the other’s parcel. DBP has one tenant, Classic Bowl. King has
(powwow-hook);-
multiple tenants, including Manila Oriental Market. Manila is owned by the individual
defendants.
Before a minor subdivision was approved in 1998, the multiple parcels were jointly
owned by DBP and Litke Properties. In 1998, the City of Daly City approved the creation of a
minor subdivision which created separate parcels. DBP owned the parcel with Classic Bowl,
Litke, the remainder of the center. As a condition of the subdivision’s approval, an easement was
required to assure the DBP parcel would have access to all of the parking spaces on the King
parcel. DBP’s parcel did not have enough parking for a bowling alley.1
With the subdivision’s approval, restrictions were imposed on loading and unloading for
Manila Market, King’s anchor tenant. The restrictions, codified in Daly City Ordinance 1255,
are:
0 Overnight parking was prohibited;
NMNNNNNNNF—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘Hl—l
0 Deliveries, loading and unloading for Manila Market Were restricted to
hours outside of 8:00 am and 7:00 pm, seven days a week;
mflmm—bwwv—‘OKOOOVGOt-DOJLOH
0 Designated employee parking was required;
0 Signs were to be posted notifying vendors of the delivery restrictions.
King’s lease with Manila Market requires the market to comply with all ordinances2 and
allows King to regulate the use of the parking in the common areas, including requiring Manila’s
employees to park in designated areas or to establish any other rules or restrictions regarding use
I
of the common area.3
In 2007, Litke sold its part of the center to King Plaza Center, LLC, a limited liability
1When the bowling alley was built, the City granted a variance from the parking requirement. Parking was
assured because of common ownership of the entire center.
2Lease section 3.03
3Lease section 15.05
Law Offices of 1
Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGA'l‘ORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA
CENTER, LLC
company owned by the Ho family. But with the Hos’ acquisition, parking became an issue. A lot
at the corner of King and Callan Streets, with about 60 spaces, has been rendered useless. It has
been rendered useless because the Hos allowed its tenant, Manila Market, to use that lot for
loading and unloading, garbage storage and long-term tractor-trailer parking. This conduct is
©00\‘IO\U'l-l>-OJ[Oi—s
prohibited by the City.
Since 2007, DBP has tried to get its neighbor to comply with the rules. King’s managers,
members of the Ho family, said they were trying to get their tenant, Manila Market, to comply.“1
After putting up with years of inaction by King, conversion by Manila of a large portion
of the common area and obstruction and interference with DBP’S easement, DBP brought this
action to enjoin defendants’ interference with its property interest.
King says it wrote letters and had communications with Manila about the upper lot. But
nothing appears to have been produced in response to an inspection demand and court
A
order.
In July of last year, DBP served its first inspection demand on King. Among other things,
King was asked to produce:
All writings reflecting any communication to Manila
Supermarket regarding use of the upper parking lot at the
corner of King and Callan.
After months of meet and confer, a motion to compel production to obtain code~
wwwwwroto'wioiai—AHHHHHHHH
compliant responses, and court order requiring King code—compliant responses and $5,000 in
_00\IO'\Ul-l>-0J[OHOKOOO\]0\UI-l>-ODIOHO
sanctions, King’s managing member, Tammy H0, swore King completed its document
production. King’s court-ordered amended response to the request said:
Responding Party objects to this request to the extent
that it seeks documents or information protected by the
attorney—client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing,
4Although Edmond Ho, told his sisters and mother he didn’t understand why DBP was complaining, as “we
have him (DEF) by the balls.” Apparently Mr. l-lo didn’t know he and his family were bound by the easement.
Law Offices of 2
Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA
CENTER, LLC
Responding Party responds as follows:
Responding Party has already produced all responsive
documents within Responding Party’s possession, custody and
control to which no objection is being made. The documents
objected to and not produced are the work product of
\OOO\lO\(fl-l>~03[0t-‘
Responding Party’s counsel, and confidential communications
with Responding Party’s counsel.
DBP’s attorney reviewed the documents. But no letters or emails to Manila’s owners
regarding the upper lot appeared to have been produced. There was one email, from 2007, sent
to the market’s manager, about scheduling a meeting. But nothing else.5
Tammy Ho, managing member of King Plaza repeatedly affirms letters and other
communications exist between King and the owners ofManila Market about Manila ’3
violation of the rules and congestion caused by loading and unloading.
Tammy Ho, King’s managing member, swore under penalty of perjury, such documents
were produced. Initially, she said, all responsive documents were not produced. But, after the
motion was filed, more were found.6
When Ms. Ho appeared in her role as the person most knowledgeable about
[\DMMNNNNMMHl—‘i—‘Hl—‘l—‘Hl—‘l—IH
communications with Manila Market about the conditions on the upper lot, she was clear:
OOQOWU'l-QOONHOKOOOflON'Cn-bwmi—IO
“QUESTION: Now, have you had communications with Manila
Supermarket regarding the use of the upper parking lot at the
corner of king and Callan?”
THE WITNESS: When are you talking about?
BY MR. PISER:
Q At anytime in your life, Ms. Ho.
A Yes.
Q Okay. Who else other than you on behalf of King Plaza
5See Piser Declaration 2:5-7.
6See request forjudicia] notice.
3
Law Offices of
Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMEN’I‘ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA
CENTER, LLC
Center had communications with the Manila Market people about
the use of the upper lot at the corner of King and Callan?
MR. ROSSI: When you say “communications,” do you
also include emails or are you just restricting it to verbal
LOOOQOWm—PCONt—t
communications?
MR. PISER: Any manner of communication known to
human kind.
THE WITNESS: If it’s only limited to face—to-face
meeting. I was the only one that have spoken with them, but - - so
let’s say after I have a face-to-face interview or when there’s
questions arise after the discussion, then I will send them letter or
some sort of an email and maybe just to the point to confirm what
V
has previously said in a meeting, and then I will tell my daughter
what is being discussed in the meeting, and then she will send
them a letter or email to confirm, which is already being said in
that meeting.
MNNNMNNNMHI—‘Hl—‘t—lb—‘t—lt—‘l—‘H
BY MR. PISER: '
Q Okay: Which - - which daughter would you tell to send
letters or emails to Manila Market?
majority of the time it’s my daughter named
OO.\IO\Cn-t>OJI\DHOkOOO\]O\O1-J>CDIOHO
A Usually a
Jeanne.
Q Jeanne is the - —
is the woman who is sitting at this table.
A Yes7
Emails produced by King refer to letters and other written communications to Manila ’s
owners, but they are nowhere to be found
Documents produced by King affirm the existence of communications with Manila about
parking issues:
7The partial deposition transcript of PMK is attached as Exhibit 3 to Piser declaration. (Emphasis added.)
4
Law Offices of
Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT Or- MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL INTERROGA'I’ORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA
CENTER, LLC
1 o On October 7, 2007, just after the center was acquired, Jeanne Ho wrote
2 Mr. DeVincenzi, a partner in DBP. Mr. DeVincenzi was concerned about
3 the parking problem at King Plaza. Sin response to Mr. DeVincenzi’s
4 cbncerns about parking, she said: “In addition, we anticipate sending out
5 letters to all the tenants to let them know that their employees are required
6 to be parking on the street or on the upper lot.”8
7 0 Delivery trucks on the upper lot was the subject of an email exchange
2
8 between Sabrina Ho, Jeanne Ho and Edmond Ho. Jeanne wrote Sabrina
9 and Edmond on Marchl 1, 2013. She said:
10 “Another issue is that Manila still has their delivery
11 trucks up on the upper parking lot when they
12 shouldn ’t be, especially on weekends. Sabrina—
13 didn 't we tell them not do to that and they agreed
before?
”
14
1 5 Less than two hours later, Sabrina responded:
16 "Delivery trucks-yes, we’ve told them before and
17 even wrote them letters. I don ’t think we ever really
”9
18 enforced after a few months.
19 But no letters were produced. Even though the Hos say there were such letters. 10
20 Manila Market’s owner, defendant Peter Quach, in response to an inspection demand
21 (only provided when DBP filed a motion to compel) swears he has no such documents.
22 In November 2016, after the owners of Manila Market were named as defendants, DBP
23 served an inspection demand. It sought:
24 All writings reflecting any communication to or from Tammy H0, Sabrina
25 H0, Edmund H0, Ronald Rossi, Madolyn Orr, or anyone purporting to act
26 on behalf of King Plaza Center, LLC regarding use of the upper parking lot
27
8Sec Ex. Ito Piser declaration.
28 9See Ex. 2to Piser declaration.
. loThe Quaches say there were no letters at all.
5
Law Offices of .
3mg" 1;. pm, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To Specmr imamoomom AND FOR s/mcnons FROM Kmo PLAZA
CENTER: LLC
)_I
at the corner Of King and Callan.
After a motion to compel was filed, Mr. Quach, owner of Manila Market responded to
the request. Under penalty of perjury, he said:
After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made
in an effort to locate the item demanded there are no
kOOOVIGCfl-P-OJLO
documents in the custody or control of Responding Party other
than Exhibit B contained herein, (Previously marked
KING00191) that answer this request.11 It is Responding
Party’s belief that no documents requested exist other than
identified. Defendant has no knowledge of who would be in
possession of the requested documents should they exist other
than Tammy HO, Sabrina Ho, Edmund HO, Ronald Rossi, or
Madalyn Orr should such document exist. Should any
documents come into the possession of Responding Party they
will be produced to asking party.
So, there are two parties, whose sworn statements regarding the existence of documents
wwwwwwwwmi—ll—‘Hl—‘l—ll—li—‘l—‘l—ll—l
appear to be contradictory.
King’s documents were not “organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in
ooflONm-hcoroHooooflmcn-bcowi—lo
the demand.”12 They appeared to be in no particular order, with frequent duplication and
documents which would appear to have a natural order, in disorder.
Informal efforts to find out what documents King contended reflected communications
with its tenant were unsuccessful.
An interrogatory was the only way to proceed.
II. RELIEF SOUGHT BY THIS MOTION
By this motion DBP seeks an order requiring an answer, without objection, to the
interrogatory. DBP also seeks reimbursement, from King, for reasonable attorney fees.
”Exhibit B is the lease.
12c.c.P. §2031.280(a)
Law Offices of 6
Steven B. Piscr SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA
CENTER, LLC
III. DISCOVERY AT ISSUE
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N O. 2:
Please IDENTIFYl3 all documents produced by YOU in response to category 6 of DBP’S
request for production of documents, which stated:
\000\IO\OI-I>OJtQ)-—\
All writings reflecting any communication to Manila Supermarket
regarding use of the upper parking lot at the corner of King and
Callan.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Responding Party .objects to this request because it seeks documents and information
protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request
because it seeks information not relevant to the dispute and which will not lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it employs this
discovery method in a manner and to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, oppression,
undue burden and expense. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it
contains subpalts, and is a compound, conjunctive question. (CCP § 2030.060(t).)
REASON TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
NMNMNNNNI—‘I—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—I
The Civil Discovery Act encourages parties to provide full disclosure ofall facts
supporting contentions.
“A party may discover its opponent's contentions as to various issues, whether the
\‘IOtm-AOJMt—IOKOOOflmm-PCDNHO
contentions relate to issues of fact or law. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 416—417, 15‘ Cal. Rptr. 119, 364
P.2d 295 (1961)) A party may also be entitled to discover the evidence supporting each such
claim or contention. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 71 Cal. 2d 276, 281—282,
78 Cal. Rptr. 481, 455 P.2d 409 (1969)) Cal. Civ. CtrmiI—Ibook. & Desktop Ref. § 21:16 (2016
’
ed.)
13The term was defined: “AS used in these interrogatories, IDENTIFY, with respect to documents, shall mean
and require that you set forth the name of the document, the date of the document, the author of the document,
[O 00 the person for whom the document was prepared, the subject matter of the document, and the present
custodian of records of the document and Bates Number of the document as produced in this action.”
7
Law Offices of
Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING pLAZA
‘
CENTER, LLC
King Plaza
Preview
)—l STEVEN B. PISER, SBN 62414 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN B. PISER 2 A Professional COIporation 3 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1050 Oakland, California 94612 . TITLED SAN MATEO COUNTY Telephone: (510) 835-5582 4 Facsimile: (510) 832-1717 MAR 3 0 2017 5 JOHN L. FITZGERALD, SBN 126613 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. FITZGERALD 6 101 Califomia Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111 7 Telephone: (415) 689—1209 8 Attorneys for 9 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General PaItneI'ship 10 l1 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 14 15 DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) CASE NO. CIV538897 16 Partnership, ) ) 17 Plaintiff ) SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ) MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL l8 v. ) INTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS ) FROM KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC 19 KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) Limited Liability Company, BUA—QUACH, ) DATE APRIL 28, 2017 an individual, SOVAN LIEN, an individual, ) TIME 9:00 A.M. DONG VUONG, an individual, THANI-I ) DEPT. LAw & MOTION LAI, and DOES 1 through 10 ) TRIAL : NOVEMBER 13, 2017 ) __J Defendants. ) l ) | @m—wr—IO KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC, a Delaware ) BY FAX l [\DMNNNNN Limited Liability Company, ) ) l | Cross-C0711plainanr, ) alll\lllllllllll\lllllllllll | v. ) Statement | )‘ DBP INVESTMENTS, a California General ) Paltnership and ROES 1 through 10, CN53889'I Separate l LO \1 440220 3 SS ' —:‘_J Cross-Defendants. ) [\3 00 ) Law Offices of Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA CENTER,LLC ‘ I H} =2 C! DE 5w: unz 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS DBP Investments and King Plaza Center LLC each own contiguous parcels that make up ‘ King Plaza Shopping Center in Daly City. A Reciprocal Basement and Operation Agreement allows each to use the parking on the other’s parcel. DBP has one tenant, Classic Bowl. King has (powwow-hook);- multiple tenants, including Manila Oriental Market. Manila is owned by the individual defendants. Before a minor subdivision was approved in 1998, the multiple parcels were jointly owned by DBP and Litke Properties. In 1998, the City of Daly City approved the creation of a minor subdivision which created separate parcels. DBP owned the parcel with Classic Bowl, Litke, the remainder of the center. As a condition of the subdivision’s approval, an easement was required to assure the DBP parcel would have access to all of the parking spaces on the King parcel. DBP’s parcel did not have enough parking for a bowling alley.1 With the subdivision’s approval, restrictions were imposed on loading and unloading for Manila Market, King’s anchor tenant. The restrictions, codified in Daly City Ordinance 1255, are: 0 Overnight parking was prohibited; NMNNNNNNNF—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘Hl—l 0 Deliveries, loading and unloading for Manila Market Were restricted to hours outside of 8:00 am and 7:00 pm, seven days a week; mflmm—bwwv—‘OKOOOVGOt-DOJLOH 0 Designated employee parking was required; 0 Signs were to be posted notifying vendors of the delivery restrictions. King’s lease with Manila Market requires the market to comply with all ordinances2 and allows King to regulate the use of the parking in the common areas, including requiring Manila’s employees to park in designated areas or to establish any other rules or restrictions regarding use I of the common area.3 In 2007, Litke sold its part of the center to King Plaza Center, LLC, a limited liability 1When the bowling alley was built, the City granted a variance from the parking requirement. Parking was assured because of common ownership of the entire center. 2Lease section 3.03 3Lease section 15.05 Law Offices of 1 Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGA'l‘ORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC company owned by the Ho family. But with the Hos’ acquisition, parking became an issue. A lot at the corner of King and Callan Streets, with about 60 spaces, has been rendered useless. It has been rendered useless because the Hos allowed its tenant, Manila Market, to use that lot for loading and unloading, garbage storage and long-term tractor-trailer parking. This conduct is ©00\‘IO\U'l-l>-OJ[Oi—s prohibited by the City. Since 2007, DBP has tried to get its neighbor to comply with the rules. King’s managers, members of the Ho family, said they were trying to get their tenant, Manila Market, to comply.“1 After putting up with years of inaction by King, conversion by Manila of a large portion of the common area and obstruction and interference with DBP’S easement, DBP brought this action to enjoin defendants’ interference with its property interest. King says it wrote letters and had communications with Manila about the upper lot. But nothing appears to have been produced in response to an inspection demand and court A order. In July of last year, DBP served its first inspection demand on King. Among other things, King was asked to produce: All writings reflecting any communication to Manila Supermarket regarding use of the upper parking lot at the corner of King and Callan. After months of meet and confer, a motion to compel production to obtain code~ wwwwwroto'wioiai—AHHHHHHHH compliant responses, and court order requiring King code—compliant responses and $5,000 in _00\IO'\Ul-l>-0J[OHOKOOO\]0\UI-l>-ODIOHO sanctions, King’s managing member, Tammy H0, swore King completed its document production. King’s court-ordered amended response to the request said: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney—client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, 4Although Edmond Ho, told his sisters and mother he didn’t understand why DBP was complaining, as “we have him (DEF) by the balls.” Apparently Mr. l-lo didn’t know he and his family were bound by the easement. Law Offices of 2 Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party has already produced all responsive documents within Responding Party’s possession, custody and control to which no objection is being made. The documents objected to and not produced are the work product of \OOO\lO\(fl-l>~03[0t-‘ Responding Party’s counsel, and confidential communications with Responding Party’s counsel. DBP’s attorney reviewed the documents. But no letters or emails to Manila’s owners regarding the upper lot appeared to have been produced. There was one email, from 2007, sent to the market’s manager, about scheduling a meeting. But nothing else.5 Tammy Ho, managing member of King Plaza repeatedly affirms letters and other communications exist between King and the owners ofManila Market about Manila ’3 violation of the rules and congestion caused by loading and unloading. Tammy Ho, King’s managing member, swore under penalty of perjury, such documents were produced. Initially, she said, all responsive documents were not produced. But, after the motion was filed, more were found.6 When Ms. Ho appeared in her role as the person most knowledgeable about [\DMMNNNNMMHl—‘i—‘Hl—‘l—‘Hl—‘l—IH communications with Manila Market about the conditions on the upper lot, she was clear: OOQOWU'l-QOONHOKOOOflON'Cn-bwmi—IO “QUESTION: Now, have you had communications with Manila Supermarket regarding the use of the upper parking lot at the corner of king and Callan?” THE WITNESS: When are you talking about? BY MR. PISER: Q At anytime in your life, Ms. Ho. A Yes. Q Okay. Who else other than you on behalf of King Plaza 5See Piser Declaration 2:5-7. 6See request forjudicia] notice. 3 Law Offices of Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMEN’I‘ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC Center had communications with the Manila Market people about the use of the upper lot at the corner of King and Callan? MR. ROSSI: When you say “communications,” do you also include emails or are you just restricting it to verbal LOOOQOWm—PCONt—t communications? MR. PISER: Any manner of communication known to human kind. THE WITNESS: If it’s only limited to face—to-face meeting. I was the only one that have spoken with them, but - - so let’s say after I have a face-to-face interview or when there’s questions arise after the discussion, then I will send them letter or some sort of an email and maybe just to the point to confirm what V has previously said in a meeting, and then I will tell my daughter what is being discussed in the meeting, and then she will send them a letter or email to confirm, which is already being said in that meeting. MNNNMNNNMHI—‘Hl—‘t—lb—‘t—lt—‘l—‘H BY MR. PISER: ' Q Okay: Which - - which daughter would you tell to send letters or emails to Manila Market? majority of the time it’s my daughter named OO.\IO\Cn-t>OJI\DHOkOOO\]O\O1-J>CDIOHO A Usually a Jeanne. Q Jeanne is the - — is the woman who is sitting at this table. A Yes7 Emails produced by King refer to letters and other written communications to Manila ’s owners, but they are nowhere to be found Documents produced by King affirm the existence of communications with Manila about parking issues: 7The partial deposition transcript of PMK is attached as Exhibit 3 to Piser declaration. (Emphasis added.) 4 Law Offices of Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT Or- MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL INTERROGA'I’ORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC 1 o On October 7, 2007, just after the center was acquired, Jeanne Ho wrote 2 Mr. DeVincenzi, a partner in DBP. Mr. DeVincenzi was concerned about 3 the parking problem at King Plaza. Sin response to Mr. DeVincenzi’s 4 cbncerns about parking, she said: “In addition, we anticipate sending out 5 letters to all the tenants to let them know that their employees are required 6 to be parking on the street or on the upper lot.”8 7 0 Delivery trucks on the upper lot was the subject of an email exchange 2 8 between Sabrina Ho, Jeanne Ho and Edmond Ho. Jeanne wrote Sabrina 9 and Edmond on Marchl 1, 2013. She said: 10 “Another issue is that Manila still has their delivery 11 trucks up on the upper parking lot when they 12 shouldn ’t be, especially on weekends. Sabrina— 13 didn 't we tell them not do to that and they agreed before? ” 14 1 5 Less than two hours later, Sabrina responded: 16 "Delivery trucks-yes, we’ve told them before and 17 even wrote them letters. I don ’t think we ever really ”9 18 enforced after a few months. 19 But no letters were produced. Even though the Hos say there were such letters. 10 20 Manila Market’s owner, defendant Peter Quach, in response to an inspection demand 21 (only provided when DBP filed a motion to compel) swears he has no such documents. 22 In November 2016, after the owners of Manila Market were named as defendants, DBP 23 served an inspection demand. It sought: 24 All writings reflecting any communication to or from Tammy H0, Sabrina 25 H0, Edmund H0, Ronald Rossi, Madolyn Orr, or anyone purporting to act 26 on behalf of King Plaza Center, LLC regarding use of the upper parking lot 27 8Sec Ex. Ito Piser declaration. 28 9See Ex. 2to Piser declaration. . loThe Quaches say there were no letters at all. 5 Law Offices of . 3mg" 1;. pm, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To Specmr imamoomom AND FOR s/mcnons FROM Kmo PLAZA CENTER: LLC )_I at the corner Of King and Callan. After a motion to compel was filed, Mr. Quach, owner of Manila Market responded to the request. Under penalty of perjury, he said: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the item demanded there are no kOOOVIGCfl-P-OJLO documents in the custody or control of Responding Party other than Exhibit B contained herein, (Previously marked KING00191) that answer this request.11 It is Responding Party’s belief that no documents requested exist other than identified. Defendant has no knowledge of who would be in possession of the requested documents should they exist other than Tammy HO, Sabrina Ho, Edmund HO, Ronald Rossi, or Madalyn Orr should such document exist. Should any documents come into the possession of Responding Party they will be produced to asking party. So, there are two parties, whose sworn statements regarding the existence of documents wwwwwwwwmi—ll—‘Hl—‘l—ll—li—‘l—‘l—ll—l appear to be contradictory. King’s documents were not “organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in ooflONm-hcoroHooooflmcn-bcowi—lo the demand.”12 They appeared to be in no particular order, with frequent duplication and documents which would appear to have a natural order, in disorder. Informal efforts to find out what documents King contended reflected communications with its tenant were unsuccessful. An interrogatory was the only way to proceed. II. RELIEF SOUGHT BY THIS MOTION By this motion DBP seeks an order requiring an answer, without objection, to the interrogatory. DBP also seeks reimbursement, from King, for reasonable attorney fees. ”Exhibit B is the lease. 12c.c.P. §2031.280(a) Law Offices of 6 Steven B. Piscr SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION To COMPEL ANSWER To SPECIAL lNTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING PLAZA CENTER, LLC III. DISCOVERY AT ISSUE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N O. 2: Please IDENTIFYl3 all documents produced by YOU in response to category 6 of DBP’S request for production of documents, which stated: \000\IO\OI-I>OJtQ)-—\ All writings reflecting any communication to Manila Supermarket regarding use of the upper parking lot at the corner of King and Callan. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Responding Party .objects to this request because it seeks documents and information protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request because it seeks information not relevant to the dispute and which will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it employs this discovery method in a manner and to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it contains subpalts, and is a compound, conjunctive question. (CCP § 2030.060(t).) REASON TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: NMNMNNNNI—‘I—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘t—I The Civil Discovery Act encourages parties to provide full disclosure ofall facts supporting contentions. “A party may discover its opponent's contentions as to various issues, whether the \‘IOtm-AOJMt—IOKOOOflmm-PCDNHO contentions relate to issues of fact or law. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County, 56 Cal. 2d 407, 416—417, 15‘ Cal. Rptr. 119, 364 P.2d 295 (1961)) A party may also be entitled to discover the evidence supporting each such claim or contention. (Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 71 Cal. 2d 276, 281—282, 78 Cal. Rptr. 481, 455 P.2d 409 (1969)) Cal. Civ. CtrmiI—Ibook. & Desktop Ref. § 21:16 (2016 ’ ed.) 13The term was defined: “AS used in these interrogatories, IDENTIFY, with respect to documents, shall mean and require that you set forth the name of the document, the date of the document, the author of the document, [O 00 the person for whom the document was prepared, the subject matter of the document, and the present custodian of records of the document and Bates Number of the document as produced in this action.” 7 Law Offices of Steven B. Piser SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY AND FOR SANCTIONS FROM KING pLAZA ‘ CENTER, LLC King Plaza