Preview
10/19/2020
1 LAWRENCE D. MILLER, SBN 77448
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER
2 Post Office Box 6107
San Mateo, CA 94403
3
Telephone: (650) 592-9151
4 lmiller@ldmlawyer.com
5 Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder
6
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. S-CV-0039929
11
12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D.
MILLER IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO
13 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER
14 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER etc., EXTENDING DEFENDANT’S TIME IN
15 WHICH TO OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF’S
Defendant. NOTICE TO DEFENDANT TO APPEAR
16 AT TRIAL.
17 Date: October 23, 2020
18 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 3
19 Complaint Filed: August 23, 2017
Trial Date: November 9, 2020
20
21 Comes now Lawrence D. Miller who does declare the following:
22 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before the Courts of the state of
23 California, and I am the attorney of record for the Defendant herein;
24 2. Plaintiff served Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Notice of Continued Deposition and Production
25 of Documents and Things of Robin Calder, a copy of which is marked Exhibit D, attached hereto. The
26 Proof of Service attached thereto indicates the Notice was served on March 2, 2020.
27 3. On behalf of Defendant, I served Defendant’s Objection to Fourth Amended Notice of
28 Continued Deposition and Production of Documents and Things of Robin Calder on March 06, 2020. A
29
1
30 _________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [File No. 20-410]
31
1 copy of Defendant’s objection is marked Exhibit E, attached hereto.
2 4. I neither intended to, nor did I waive,. Defendant’s tax return privilege except as to redacted
3 version of Defendant’s Schedules E produced at Defendant’s deposition.
4 5. I have reviewed the documents produced by CMG Mortgage. The records include excerpts of
5 Defendant’s tax returns for the tax years, 2009, 2010 and 2011 only. I did not find, and therefore
6 conclude that, the records do not include Defendant’s Schedule E for the tax year of 2011.
7 I declare the above to be within my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I could
8 competently testify thereto.
9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
10 true and correct.
11 Executed on this 19th day of October, 2020 at San Mateo, California.
Lawrence D. Miller
12
___________________________
13
LAWRENCE D. MILLER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2
30 _________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [File No. 20-410]
31
Exhibit “D”
Exhibit “E”
1 LAWRENCE D. MILLER, SBN 77448
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER
2 Post Office Box 6107
San Mateo, CA 94403
3
Telephone: (650) 592-9151
4 lmiller@ldmlawyer.com
5 Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder
6
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. S-CV-0039929
11
12 Plaintiff, OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED
NOTICE OF CONTINUED
13 v. DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS OF
14 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER etc., ROBIN CALDER
15
Defendant. Date: March 12, 2020
16 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Law Office of Lawrence D.
17 Miller
18 Complaint Filed: August 23, 2017
Trial Date: April 27, 2020
19
Defendant, Robin Calder, objects to Plaintiff’s, Todd Jarvis, Production of Documents at the
20
Deposition of Defendant as follows:
21
Request for Production No. 1.
22
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the moneys that YOU contributed towards the purchase of
23
the subject property.
24
Response to Request No. 1.
25
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
26
over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
27
(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
28
Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms
29
1
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 “DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous.
2 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
3 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
4 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
5 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request is
6 vague, unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request violates the
7 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior
8 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.)
9 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents
10 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
11 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
12 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
13 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that Defendant understands this
14 Request, Defendant will attempt to locate those documents in Defendant’s possession or under
15 Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
16 Request for Production No. 2
17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR ownership interest in the subject property.
18 Response to Request No. 2.
19 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
20 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
21 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
22 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
23 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR ownership” is overbroad and ambiguous.
24 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to
25 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
26 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
27 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
28 unintelligible and ambiguous and such documents (such as tenant leases and the escrow documents) are
29
2
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 equally available to the Plaintiff. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s
2 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47
3 Cal.App.4th 214.)
4 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
5 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
6 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
7 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
8 Subject to and without waiving the objections, and to the extent that Defendant understands the
9 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
10 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
11 Request for Production No. 3
12 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the services you provided to TODD RELATING to his
13 Houston property.
14 Response to Request No. 3.
15 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
16 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
17 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
18 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
19 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous.
20 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to
21 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
22 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
23 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
24 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s
25 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47
26 Cal.App.4th 214.)
27 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
28 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
29
3
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
2 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
3 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that Defendant understands the
4 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
5 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
6 Request for Production No. 4.
7 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR payment of any portion of the mortgage payment
8 RELATING TO the subject property.
9 Response to Request No. 4.
10 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
11 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
12 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
13 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
14 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous.
15 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to
16 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
17 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
18 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request is
19 vague, unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the
20 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior
21 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.)
22 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
23 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
24 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
25 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
26 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that Defendant understands the
27 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
28 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
29
4
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 Request for Production No. 5.
2 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR payment of any utilities RELATING TO the subject
3 property.
4 Response to Request No. 5.
5 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
6 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
7 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
8 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
9 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous.
10 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to
11 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
12 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
13 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request is
14 vague, unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the
15 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior
16 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.)
17 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
18 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
19 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
20 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
21 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that the Defendant understands the
22 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
23 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
24 Request for Production No. 6.
25 All DOCUMENTS which evidence that YOU advised TODD to consult with an attorney to
26 discuss YOUR potential ownership in the subject property, at the time that YOU claim to have acquired
27 an interest in the subject property.
28 Response to Request No. 6.
29
5
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
2 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
3 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
4 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
5 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous.
6 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
7 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
8 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
9 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
10 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s
11 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47
12 Cal.App.4th 214.)
13 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
14 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
15 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
16 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
17 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in
18 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to
19 this Request.
20 Request for Production No. 7.
21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR communications RELATING TO the subject
22 property, including with respect to your obligation, duties or the payment of the mortgage for the subject
23 property.
24 Response to Request No. 7.
25 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
26 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
27 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
28 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All
29
6
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "YOUR communications RELATING TO the subject property"
2 indiscriminately, without identifying to whom or from whom the communications were made and the
3 subject matter of the communications, are overbroad and ambiguous.
4 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
5 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
6 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
7 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
8 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request violates the
9 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior
10 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.)
11 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
12 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
13 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
14 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
15 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in
16 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to
17 this Request.
18 Request for Production No. 8.
19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when YOU first provided legal services to TODD.
20 Response to Request No. 8.
21 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
22 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
23 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
24 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All
25 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "legal services" are overbroad and ambiguous.
26 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
27 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
28 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
29
7
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
2 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s
3 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47
4 Cal.App.4th 214.)
5 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
6 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
7 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
8 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
9 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that the Defendant understands this
10 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
11 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
12 Request for Production No. 9.
13 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when YOU stopped performing legal services for TODD.
14 Response to Request No. 9.
15 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
16 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
17 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
18 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All
19 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "legal services" are overbroad and ambiguous.
20 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
21 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
22 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
23 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
24 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s
25 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47
26 Cal.App.4th 214.)
27 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
28 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
29
8
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
2 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
3 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that the Defendant understands the
4 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
5 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
6 Request for Production No. 10.
7 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments made by TODD to YOU for legal services you
8 performed for him.
9 Response to Request No. 10.
10 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
11 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
12 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
13 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
14 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "legal services" are overbroad and ambiguous.
15 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
16 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
17 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
18 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
19 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects in that the information regarding what payments
20 Plaintiff made to Defendant are equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects on the grounds the
21 Request violates the Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects,
22 Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.)
23 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents
24 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
25 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
26 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
27 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in
28 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to
29
9
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 this Request.
2 Request for Production No. 11.
3 All DOCUMENTS which evidence any disclosures made by YOU to TODD of any potential
4 conflict RELATING TO your potential ownership interest in the subject property.
5 Response to Request No. 11.
6 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
7 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
8 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
9 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All
10 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any potential conflict" are overbroad and ambiguous.
11 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
12 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
13 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
14 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
15 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects in that the information regarding what disclosures were
16 made to Plaintiff by Defendant are equally available to the Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the
17 grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis
18 Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.)
19 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents
20 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
21 are equally available to Plaintiff.
22 To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the
23 previously produced documents will not be produced again.
24 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in
25 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to
26 this Request.
27 Request for Production No. 12.
28
29
10
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any legal advice and/or legal services YOU provided to
2 TODD prior to 2005.
3 Response to Request No. 12.
4 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
5 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
6 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
7 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All
8 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any legal advice and/or legal services" are overbroad and
9 ambiguous.
10 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
11 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
12 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
13 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
14 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request violates the
15 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior
16 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) Defendant objects in that the information regarding "any legal advice
17 or legal services" to Plaintiff by Defendant are equally available to the Plaintiff.
18 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
19 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
20 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously
21 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again.
22 Subject to and without waiving the objections, and to the extent that the Defendant understands
23 the Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
24 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
25 Request for Production No. 13.
26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any disclosures you provided to TODD in connection with
27 the subject property.
28
29
11
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 Response to Request No. 13.
2 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
3 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
4 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
5 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
6 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any disclosures" from whatever source are overbroad and
7 ambiguous.
8 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
9 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
10 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
11 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
12 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s
13 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47
14 Cal.App.4th 214.) Defendant objects in that the information regarding "any disclosures" to Plaintiff by
15 Defendant are equally available to the Plaintiff.
16 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents
17 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
18 are equally available to Plaintiff.
19 To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the
20 previously produced documents will not be produced again.
21 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in
22 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to
23 this Request.
24 Request for Production No. 14.
25 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all benefits you received, deducted, claimed or took
26 in connection with the subject property, including any depreciation.
27 Response to Request No. 14.
28 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of
29
12
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
1 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court,
2 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.)
3 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All
4 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any and all benefits" are overbroad and ambiguous.
5 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome
6 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each
7 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.
8 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague,
9 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s
10 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47
11 Cal.App.4th 214.)
12 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents
13 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and
14 are equally available to Plaintiff.
15 Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request seeks records of or
16 related to Plaintiff’s tax returns. (Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 C2d 509.)
17 To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the
18 previously produced documents will not be produced again.
19 Subject to and without waiving the objections, and to the extent that the Defendant understands
20 this Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s
21 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request.
22
Dated: March 6, 2020 _________________________________
23
LAWRENCE D. MILLER
24 Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder
25
26
27
28
29
13
30 _________________________________________________
OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION
31
Preview
10/19/2020 1 LAWRENCE D. MILLER, SBN 77448 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER 2 Post Office Box 6107 San Mateo, CA 94403 3 Telephone: (650) 592-9151 4 lmiller@ldmlawyer.com 5 Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. S-CV-0039929 11 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO 13 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER 14 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER etc., EXTENDING DEFENDANT’S TIME IN 15 WHICH TO OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF’S Defendant. NOTICE TO DEFENDANT TO APPEAR 16 AT TRIAL. 17 Date: October 23, 2020 18 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 3 19 Complaint Filed: August 23, 2017 Trial Date: November 9, 2020 20 21 Comes now Lawrence D. Miller who does declare the following: 22 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before the Courts of the state of 23 California, and I am the attorney of record for the Defendant herein; 24 2. Plaintiff served Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Notice of Continued Deposition and Production 25 of Documents and Things of Robin Calder, a copy of which is marked Exhibit D, attached hereto. The 26 Proof of Service attached thereto indicates the Notice was served on March 2, 2020. 27 3. On behalf of Defendant, I served Defendant’s Objection to Fourth Amended Notice of 28 Continued Deposition and Production of Documents and Things of Robin Calder on March 06, 2020. A 29 1 30 _________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [File No. 20-410] 31 1 copy of Defendant’s objection is marked Exhibit E, attached hereto. 2 4. I neither intended to, nor did I waive,. Defendant’s tax return privilege except as to redacted 3 version of Defendant’s Schedules E produced at Defendant’s deposition. 4 5. I have reviewed the documents produced by CMG Mortgage. The records include excerpts of 5 Defendant’s tax returns for the tax years, 2009, 2010 and 2011 only. I did not find, and therefore 6 conclude that, the records do not include Defendant’s Schedule E for the tax year of 2011. 7 I declare the above to be within my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I could 8 competently testify thereto. 9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 10 true and correct. 11 Executed on this 19th day of October, 2020 at San Mateo, California. Lawrence D. Miller 12 ___________________________ 13 LAWRENCE D. MILLER 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2 30 _________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [File No. 20-410] 31 Exhibit “D” Exhibit “E” 1 LAWRENCE D. MILLER, SBN 77448 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER 2 Post Office Box 6107 San Mateo, CA 94403 3 Telephone: (650) 592-9151 4 lmiller@ldmlawyer.com 5 Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. S-CV-0039929 11 12 Plaintiff, OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED 13 v. DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS OF 14 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER etc., ROBIN CALDER 15 Defendant. Date: March 12, 2020 16 Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Law Office of Lawrence D. 17 Miller 18 Complaint Filed: August 23, 2017 Trial Date: April 27, 2020 19 Defendant, Robin Calder, objects to Plaintiff’s, Todd Jarvis, Production of Documents at the 20 Deposition of Defendant as follows: 21 Request for Production No. 1. 22 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the moneys that YOU contributed towards the purchase of 23 the subject property. 24 Response to Request No. 1. 25 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 26 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 27 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 28 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms 29 1 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 “DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous. 2 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 3 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 4 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 5 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request is 6 vague, unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request violates the 7 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior 8 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) 9 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents 10 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 11 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 12 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 13 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that Defendant understands this 14 Request, Defendant will attempt to locate those documents in Defendant’s possession or under 15 Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 16 Request for Production No. 2 17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR ownership interest in the subject property. 18 Response to Request No. 2. 19 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 20 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 21 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 22 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 23 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR ownership” is overbroad and ambiguous. 24 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to 25 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 26 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 27 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 28 unintelligible and ambiguous and such documents (such as tenant leases and the escrow documents) are 29 2 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 equally available to the Plaintiff. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s 2 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 3 Cal.App.4th 214.) 4 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 5 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 6 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 7 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 8 Subject to and without waiving the objections, and to the extent that Defendant understands the 9 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 10 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 11 Request for Production No. 3 12 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the services you provided to TODD RELATING to his 13 Houston property. 14 Response to Request No. 3. 15 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 16 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 17 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 18 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 19 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous. 20 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to 21 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 22 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 23 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 24 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s 25 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 26 Cal.App.4th 214.) 27 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 28 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 29 3 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 2 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 3 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that Defendant understands the 4 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 5 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 6 Request for Production No. 4. 7 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR payment of any portion of the mortgage payment 8 RELATING TO the subject property. 9 Response to Request No. 4. 10 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 11 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 12 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 13 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 14 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous. 15 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to 16 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 17 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 18 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request is 19 vague, unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the 20 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior 21 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) 22 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 23 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 24 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 25 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 26 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that Defendant understands the 27 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 28 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 29 4 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 Request for Production No. 5. 2 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR payment of any utilities RELATING TO the subject 3 property. 4 Response to Request No. 5. 5 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 6 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 7 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 8 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 9 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous. 10 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome to 11 Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 12 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 13 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request is 14 vague, unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the 15 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior 16 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) 17 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 18 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 19 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 20 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 21 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that the Defendant understands the 22 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 23 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 24 Request for Production No. 6. 25 All DOCUMENTS which evidence that YOU advised TODD to consult with an attorney to 26 discuss YOUR potential ownership in the subject property, at the time that YOU claim to have acquired 27 an interest in the subject property. 28 Response to Request No. 6. 29 5 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 2 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 3 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 4 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 5 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” is overbroad and ambiguous. 6 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 7 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 8 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 9 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 10 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s 11 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 12 Cal.App.4th 214.) 13 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 14 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 15 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 16 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 17 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in 18 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to 19 this Request. 20 Request for Production No. 7. 21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR communications RELATING TO the subject 22 property, including with respect to your obligation, duties or the payment of the mortgage for the subject 23 property. 24 Response to Request No. 7. 25 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 26 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 27 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 28 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All 29 6 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "YOUR communications RELATING TO the subject property" 2 indiscriminately, without identifying to whom or from whom the communications were made and the 3 subject matter of the communications, are overbroad and ambiguous. 4 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 5 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 6 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 7 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 8 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request violates the 9 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior 10 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) 11 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 12 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 13 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 14 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 15 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in 16 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to 17 this Request. 18 Request for Production No. 8. 19 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when YOU first provided legal services to TODD. 20 Response to Request No. 8. 21 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 22 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 23 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 24 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All 25 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "legal services" are overbroad and ambiguous. 26 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 27 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 28 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 29 7 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 2 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s 3 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 4 Cal.App.4th 214.) 5 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 6 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 7 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 8 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 9 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that the Defendant understands this 10 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 11 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 12 Request for Production No. 9. 13 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when YOU stopped performing legal services for TODD. 14 Response to Request No. 9. 15 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 16 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 17 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 18 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All 19 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "legal services" are overbroad and ambiguous. 20 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 21 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 22 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 23 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 24 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s 25 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 26 Cal.App.4th 214.) 27 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 28 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 29 8 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 2 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 3 Subject to and without waiving the objections, to the extent that the Defendant understands the 4 Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 5 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 6 Request for Production No. 10. 7 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments made by TODD to YOU for legal services you 8 performed for him. 9 Response to Request No. 10. 10 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 11 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 12 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 13 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 14 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "legal services" are overbroad and ambiguous. 15 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 16 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 17 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 18 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 19 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects in that the information regarding what payments 20 Plaintiff made to Defendant are equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects on the grounds the 21 Request violates the Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, 22 Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) 23 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents 24 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 25 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 26 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 27 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in 28 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to 29 9 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 this Request. 2 Request for Production No. 11. 3 All DOCUMENTS which evidence any disclosures made by YOU to TODD of any potential 4 conflict RELATING TO your potential ownership interest in the subject property. 5 Response to Request No. 11. 6 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 7 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 8 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 9 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All 10 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any potential conflict" are overbroad and ambiguous. 11 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 12 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 13 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 14 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 15 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects in that the information regarding what disclosures were 16 made to Plaintiff by Defendant are equally available to the Plaintiff. Defendant further objects on the 17 grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis 18 Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) 19 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents 20 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 21 are equally available to Plaintiff. 22 To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the 23 previously produced documents will not be produced again. 24 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in 25 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to 26 this Request. 27 Request for Production No. 12. 28 29 10 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any legal advice and/or legal services YOU provided to 2 TODD prior to 2005. 3 Response to Request No. 12. 4 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 5 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 6 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 7 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definitions of the terms “All 8 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any legal advice and/or legal services" are overbroad and 9 ambiguous. 10 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 11 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 12 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 13 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 14 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the grounds the Request violates the 15 Attorney’s work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior 16 Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.) Defendant objects in that the information regarding "any legal advice 17 or legal services" to Plaintiff by Defendant are equally available to the Plaintiff. 18 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 19 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 20 are equally available to Plaintiff. To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously 21 been produced, the previously produced documents will not be produced again. 22 Subject to and without waiving the objections, and to the extent that the Defendant understands 23 the Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 24 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 25 Request for Production No. 13. 26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any disclosures you provided to TODD in connection with 27 the subject property. 28 29 11 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 Response to Request No. 13. 2 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 3 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 4 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 5 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 6 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any disclosures" from whatever source are overbroad and 7 ambiguous. 8 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 9 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 10 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 11 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 12 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s 13 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 14 Cal.App.4th 214.) Defendant objects in that the information regarding "any disclosures" to Plaintiff by 15 Defendant are equally available to the Plaintiff. 16 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that, to the extent documents 17 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 18 are equally available to Plaintiff. 19 To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the 20 previously produced documents will not be produced again. 21 Subject to and without waiving the objections, Defendant will produce those documents in 22 Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to 23 this Request. 24 Request for Production No. 14. 25 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all benefits you received, deducted, claimed or took 26 in connection with the subject property, including any depreciation. 27 Response to Request No. 14. 28 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds the “DEFINITION OF TERMS” consists of 29 12 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31 1 over 4 pages making this Request unduly burdensome. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v Superior Court, 2 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216.) 3 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of the terms “All 4 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” and "any and all benefits" are overbroad and ambiguous. 5 Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request is unduly burdensome 6 to Defendant in that the Request fails to describe each individual item or to reasonably particularize each 7 category of items subject to this Request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. 8 Superior Court, (2017) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216.) Defendant objects on the grounds the Request is vague, 9 unintelligible and ambiguous. Defendant objects on the grounds the Request violates the Attorney’s 10 work product privilege. (C.C.P. § 2018.030; Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 11 Cal.App.4th 214.) 12 Responding Party further objects to this Request on the grounds that to the extent documents 13 responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the Request is burdensome and harassing and 14 are equally available to Plaintiff. 15 Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds that the Request seeks records of or 16 related to Plaintiff’s tax returns. (Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 C2d 509.) 17 To the extent documents responsive to this Request have previously been produced, the 18 previously produced documents will not be produced again. 19 Subject to and without waiving the objections, and to the extent that the Defendant understands 20 this Request, Defendant will produce those documents in Defendant’s possession or under Defendant’s 21 control that Defendant is able to identify as responsive to this Request. 22 Dated: March 6, 2020 _________________________________ 23 LAWRENCE D. MILLER 24 Attorney for Defendant, Robin Calder 25 26 27 28 29 13 30 _________________________________________________ OBJECTION TO FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION 31