Motion-Secondary: Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth

On August 23, 2017 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Todd Jarvis, and Robin Calder, Todd Jarvis, for Civil-Roseville in the District Court of Placer County.

Preview
1 Port J. Parker (SBN 179256)
Jeffrey S. Einsohn (SBN 260150)
2 PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
3
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230 10/26/2020
4 Sacramento, CA 95815
Telephone: (916) 996-0400
5 Facsimile: (916) 668-5760
6
Attorneys for TODD JARVIS
7

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
11
GROUP
555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814

TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. SCV0039929
12
Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX
13 v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME TO MOVE TO
LAW

14 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER, aka ROBIN COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODNO CALDER, ROBIN CALDER, DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL; DECLARATION
15 ROBIN ELIZABETH GOODNO CALDER, OF JEFFREY S. EINSOHN
PARKER

and ROBIN GOODNO
16
Defendant. Date: October 27, 2020
17 Time: 8:00 a.m.
Dept.: 42
18

19 Complaint Filed: August 23, 2017
Current Trial Date: November 9, 2020
20

21 I. INTRODUCTION
22 This Opposition is submitted without the benefit of having seen Calder’s Ex Parte Application.
23 Although Calder already knew she was going to bring this petition on October 22, and said so in an
24 email to counsel, the papers have not been provided as of 1 pm on October 26 when this Opposition
25 was finalized.
26 This is Robin Calder’s third contested ex parte application in the collective disputes between
27 Calder and Todd Jarvis in as many months. In August 2020, after Calder had opposed Jarvis’s motion
28 for summary judgment in the Calder v. Jarvis matter (Case No. S-CV-0043237.) and after reply papers

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
1
1 had been filed, Calder file an ex parte application to file more objections and an additional declaration
2 in opposition to summary judgment. Then, Calder filed an ex parte application in this case so she
3 could file belated objections to a notice to appear with records that had been served six (6) months
4 earlier. Now Calder has filed an ex parte application to shorten time to move to compel Jarvis to bring
5 some 33 documents to trial, even though Jarvis objected in writing to bringing most of those
6 documents to trial nearly two (2) months ago. Calder has once again created her own purported
7 justification for a shorted-time motion (less than 2 weeks before trial), through her own delay.
8 II. RELEVANT FACTS
9 On January 9, 2018, Jarvis served requests for production on Calder. (Einsohn Decl. Ex. A.)
10 Included in those requests was a demand for “ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR ownership
11 interest in the subject property.” On February 27, 2018, Calder served responses agreeing to produce
GROUP
555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814

12 responsive documents. (Einsohn Decl. Ex. B.) On December 12, 2019, before the discovery deadline
13 in early 2020, Jarvis served a supplemental request asking that Calder supplement her response.
LAW

14 (Einsohn Decl. Ex. C.) She did not supplement. (Einsohn Decl. ¶5.)
15 On August 28, 2020, Calder served a notice to appear at trial on Jarvis requesting that he bring
PARKER

16 some 21 documents or categories of documents to trial. (Einsohn Decl. Ex. D.) Notably, many, if not
17 most, of these documents were never produced. However, Calder described the documents with such
18 precision that it was clear she had the document all along and intended to rely on them to try to prove
19 her ownership. For example, Request No. 4 was “That certain September 1, 2013 email time stamped
20 8:02 PM by Plaintiff Todd Jarvis to Shanti Dev, Cevilia Dev and robincalderlaw@comcast.net a cc:
21 to toddjarvis@comcast.net bearing the subject line, “Re: Premises at 1869 Park Avenue, San Jose,
22 CA.” Jarvis served timely objections on September 4, 2020 pointing out, inter alia, that Calder was
23 trying to use a notice to appear to bring in documents she intended to rely on but refused to produce
24 in discovery. (Einsohn Decl. Ex. E.)
25 Calder did not seek to compel production. Instead, she waited until October 5, 2020, a full
26 month later, and then served a “First Amended Notice to Appear” that asked for even more documents
27 Calder clearly already possess and failed to properly disclose in discovery. (Einsohn Decl. Ex. F.) In
28 fact, she attached copies of several of the documents to her notice demonstrating that she had those

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
2
1 documents. Once again, Jarvis objected. (Einsohn Decl. Ex. G.) On October 22, 2020, at 11:24 am,
2 Calder’s counsel sent an email attaching a 15 page letter and demanding that Jarvis stipulate to the
3 authenticity of the documents in the First Amended Notice to Appear and giving Jarvis until 3 pm the
4 following day to respond. He also stated that he was going to seek immediate ex parte relief. (Einsohn
5 Decl. Ex. H.)
6 Given the incredibly short deadline imposed by Calder, Jarvis’s counsel responded by letter
7 proposing that the parties avoid unnecessary motion practice and present their notice to appear disputes
8 to the trial judge in connections with motions in limine (which are likely to moot much of Calder’s
9 request). (Einsohn Decl. Ex. I.) Calder’s counsel did not respond and has not provided his ex parte
10 papers. (Einsohn Decl. ¶13.)
11 III. THERE IS NO GOOD CAUSE
GROUP
555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814

12 A shortened time motion requires good cause. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1300.) Demanding that
13 an opposing party bring documents you want to use at trial, but you failed to disclose in discovery, so
LAW

14 as to circumvent discovery, is not good cause. Waiting until the last possible moment to file a motion
15 when you are aware opposing party objects to that tactic and provided written objections two months
PARKER

16 earlier is not good cause. There is no justification for forcing the opposing party to litigate what is
17 essentially a discovery motion the week before trial when he is trying to prepare his case. It is the
18 epitome of prejudice and extremely disruptive to the trial preparation process.
19 IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
20 As to the relief Calder has requested, Jarvis believes it should be denied. To the extent that the
21 Court is even considering granting any relief, Jarvis is of the opinion that this is a matter properly
22 decided by the trial judge.
23 Jarvis has already filed a motion in limine to exclude documents that Calder refused to produce
24 in discovery. If that motion is granted, the trial judge will likely not view an attempt by Calder to
25 circumvent the order by moving to compel Jarvis to bring those documents for her. Thus, it is likely
26 that motion in limine alone will moot what Calder is attempting to do here. Additionally, the trial
27 judge will have read the trial briefs and be much more familiar with what evidence is and is not relevant
28 for this court trial.

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
3
1 Further, Jarvis’s counsel has an extremely impacted schedule leading up to the trial, including
2 multiple court ordered mediations in other matters, witnesses to prepare, exhibits to finalize, motion
3 in limine to oppose, etc. Forcing counsel to litigate a motion to compel with 33 some separate
4 document demands will require finding time in between other scheduled activities. If Calder files her
5 motion on October 27, 2020, at minimum, Jarvis should be granted until November 5, 2020 to file an
6 opposition with Calder waiving reply. The matter should then be considered, if at all, by the trial judge
7 in connection with motions in limine at trial.
8

9
PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS
10 DATED: October 26, 2020
A Professional Corporation
11
GROUP
555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814

12
____________________________________
13 PORT J. PARKER
JEFFREY S. EINSOHN
LAW

14
Attorneys for TODD JARVIS
15
PARKER

17 DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. EINSOHN

18 I, Jeffrey S, Einsohn, declare:
19 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and am an
20 attorney at the law firm Parker Law Group Attorneys, APC, attorneys of record for the Plaintiff Todd
21 Jarvis (“Jarvis”) in the above-captioned case.
22 2. I make this declaration from my own personal knowledge and from the records kept in
23 the ordinary course of business by my law firm, except as to those matters stated on information and
24 belief, and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
25 3. A true and correct copy of Jarvis’s January 9, 2018 Requests for Production to Robin
26 Calder (“Calder”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
27 4. A true and correct copy of Calder’s February 27, 2018 Responses to the Request for
28 Production is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
4
1 5. A true and correct copy of Jarvis’s December 12, 2019 supplemental request asking
2 that Calder supplement her response is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Calder did not supplement.
3 6. A true and correct copy of Calder’s August 28, 2020 notice to appear at trial served on
4 Jarvis requesting that he bring some 21 documents or categories of documents to trial is attached hereto
5 as Exhibit D.
6 7. Many, if not most, of the documents Calder demanded Jarvis bring to trial were never
7 produced. However, Calder described the documents with such precision that it was clear she had the
8 document all along and intended to rely on them.
9 8. Jarvis served timely objections on September 4, 2020 pointing out, inter alia, that
10 Calder was trying to use a notice to appear to bring in documents she intended to rely on but refused
11 to produce in discovery. A true and correct copy of Jarvis’s September 4, 2020 objection are attached
GROUP
555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814

12 as Exhibit E.
13 9. Calder did not seek to compel production. Instead, she waited until October 5, 2020, a
LAW

14 full month later, and then served a “First Amended Notice to Appear” that asked for even more
15 documents Calder clearly already possess and failed to properly disclose in discovery. A true and
PARKER

16 correct copy of her “First Amended Notice to Appear” is attached as Exhibit F.
17 10. Once again, Jarvis objected. A true and correct copy of Jarvis’s objections to the First
18 Amended Notice to Appear is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
19 11. On October 22, 2020, at 11:24 a.m., Calder’s counsel sent an email attaching a 15-page
20 letter. The email gave a deadline to respond by 3 p.m. the following day and stated that Calder was
21 going to seek immediate ex parte relief. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit H.
22 12. Given the incredibly short deadline imposed by Calder, Jarvis’s counsel responded by
23 letter proposing that the parties avoid unnecessary motion practice and present their notice to appear
24 disputes to the trial judge in connections with motions in limine (which are likely to moot much of
25 Calder’s request). A true and correct copy of Jarvis’s counsel’s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
5
1 13. Calder’s counsel did not respond and has not provided his ex parte papers as of the time
2 this opposition was finalized on October 26, 2020.
3 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
4 is true and correct. Executed on October 26, 2020 at Sacramento, California.
5

6
___________________________
7 JEFFREY S. EINSOHN
8

11
GROUP
555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814

13
LAW

15
PARKER

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
6
EXHIBIT “A”
1 Port J. Parker (SBN 179256)
Mmjan Hajimirzaee (SBN 283593)
2 PARKER TURNER ALBRIGHT, PC
301 University Avenue, Suite 150
3
Sacramento, CA 95825
4 Telephone: (916) 379-7988
Facsimile: (916) 379-7970
5
Attorneys for TODD HENRY JARVIS
6

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. SCV0039929
11
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
12 V. FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
DEFENDANT ROBIN CALDER
13 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER, aka ROBIN
GOODNO CALDER, ROBIN CALDER,
14 ROBIN ELIZABETH GOODNO CALDER,
and ROBIN GOODNO
15
Defendant.
16

17
18 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff TODD JARVIS

19 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant ROBIN CALDER

20 SET NUMBER: One

21 DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections

22 2031.010, et seq. that you produce and permit inspection and copying of the documents and/or

23 inspection, photographing, testing and smupling of other tangible things described below. You are

24 hereby requested to produce documents within thirty (30) days after service of this Request for

25 Production of Documents. The place of the inspection shall be: Pat'ker Turner Albright, PC, 301

26 University Avenue, Suite 150, Sacramento, CA 95825.

27 III

28 III

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
ROBIN CALDER

1
1 In accordance with section 2031.260 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Responding Party must

2 provide a verified written response by the same date. Unless specified otherwise, the documents and

3 information requested must include not only those in your possession, but also all documents known

4 or in the possession of your attorneys, agents, employees, and/or investigators. All documents

5 withheld on the basis of privilege should be identified with your responses in a separately served

6 privilege log, indicating the date, author, recipient, description (without disclosure of substance) of

7 the document and any/all privileges being asserted.

8 Please take further notice that if you withhold any information or documents responsive to

9 these requests, you may be forever ba1Ted and precluded from relying on, using, or referring to any

10 of said infmmation or documents in any proceeding relating to the instant action. (SeeA&M Records,

11 Inc. v. Heilman (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 554,567; Dwyer v. Crocker Nat'/ Bank(1987) 194 Cal. App.3d

12 1418, 1432.)

13 Please take further notice that Propounding Party herein expressly reserves the right, should

14 Responding Party fail to comply with this request, to seek a Court Order requiring a complete

15 compliance with this request, which motion may include the right to inspect any and all

16 ELECTRONIC DATA and ELECTRONIC MEDIA stored on any server, network, hard drive, or

17 other storage device.

18 DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following section consists of definitions to be used for the purpose of answering these

20 Requests for Production of Documents in a complete and thorough manner. Please review these

21 definitions carefully.

22 A. The te1m "ELECTRONIC DATA" shall mean information of all kinds created,

23 maintained and/or utilized by COMPUTERS and/or NETWORKS, including all non-identical

24 copies of such infmmation. ELECTRONIC DATA includes, but is not limited to, software (whether

25 private, commercial or work-in-progress), programming notes or instructions, and input and/or output

26 used or produced by any software or utility (including electronic mail messages and all iufonnation

27 referencing or relating to such messages anywhere on a COMPUTER or a NETWORK, word

28 processing documents and all infmmation stored in connection with such documents, electronic

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
ROBIN CALDER

2
1 spreadsheets, databases including all records and fields and structural information, charts, graphs and

2 outlines, arrays of information and all other information used or produced by any software), operating

3 systems, source code of all types, programming languages, linkers and compliers, peripheral drivers,

4 PIF files, batch files, any and all ASCII files, and any and all miscellaneous files and/or FILE

5 FRAGMENTS,. regardless of the MEDIA on which they reside and regardless of whether such

6 ELECTRONIC DATA consists of an ACTIVE FILE, DELETED FILE or FILE FRAGMENT.

7 ELECTRONIC DATA includes any and all info1mation stored on computer memories, had disks,

8 floppy disks, CD-ROM drives, Bernoulli Box drives and their equivalent, magnetic tape of all types,

9 microfiche, punched cards, punched tape, computer chips, including, but not limited to, EPROM,

10 PROM, RAM and ROM, or on or in any other vehicle for digital data storage and/or transmittal.

11 ELECTRONIC DATA also includes the file, folder tabs and/or containers and labels appended to,

12 or associated with, any physical storage device associated with the infmmation described above.

13 B. The term "ACTIVE FILE" shall mean and refer to any file of ELECTRONIC

14 DATA that can be utilized by a COMPUTER in any manner without modification and/or re-

15 construction. An ACTIVE FILE is any file of ELECTRONIC DATA, that has not been erased or

16 otherwise destroyed and/or damaged and which is readily visible to the operating system and/or the

17 software with which it was created.

18 C. The te1ms "ARCHIVE" and/or "BACKUP" shall mean and refer to any processes

◊◊◊ 19 for coping and storage, whether temporary or pe1manent, of ELECTRONIC DATA m a

20 COMPUTER or a NETWORK, other than ACTIVE FILES in on-line storage. The term

21 "BACKUP" shall mean and refer to all processes used with the purpose of maintaining a copy of

22 ELECTRONIC DATA so that such data can be restored if the p1jmary copies thereof are lost or

23 damaged, or with the purpose of keeping a record of ELECTRONIC DATA on a COMPUTER or

24 a NETWORK at a given point or several given points in time. The te1ms "ARCHIVE" and

25 "ARCHIVING" shall mean and refer to any process for maintaining ELECTRONIC DATA off-

26 line, whether referred to as an archive, dump, purge or any other te1ms, and also to any process or

27 procedure for storage of ELECTRONIC MEDIA which is not in current use on a COMPUTER or a

28 NETWORK

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
ROBIN CALDER

3
1 D. The term "COMPUTER" shall include, but is not limited to, microcomputers (also

2 known as personal computers), laptop computers, portable computers, notebook computers, palmtop

3 computers, personal digital assistants, minicomputers and mainframe computers.

4 E. The te1m "DATA" shall be equivalent to the te1m "ELECTRONIC DATA" as

5 defined herein.

6 F. The term "DELETED FILE" shall mean and refer to any file of ELECTRONIC

7 DATA that has been erased or deleted from the ELECTRONIC MEDIA on which it resided. A

8 DELETED FILE includes any file of ELECTRONIC DATA whose File Allocation Table (FAT)

9 entry has been modified to indicate such data as being deleted and/or which is not readily visible to

10 the operating system and/or the software with which it was created.

11 G. The terms "FILE FRAGMENT" and "FRAGMENTARY FILE" shall mean and

12 refer to any file of ELECTRONIC DATA that exists as a subset of an original ACTIVE FILE. A
~
,..:- 13 FILE FRAGMENT may be an ACTIVE FILE or DELETED FILE. The cause of fragmentation
:c
(!)
i:i2 14 resulting in the FRAGMENTARY FILE can include, but is not limited to, manual intervention,
...'%
a::,

15 electronic surges, and/or physical defects on ELECTRONIC MEDIA.
""
w
z 16 H. The te1m "NETWORK" shall mean and refer to any hardware and/or software
""'::-
::,
17 combination that com1ects two or more COMPUTERS together and which allows such
""w
:.,:
18 COMPUTERS to share and/or transfer digital signals between them. For the purposes of this
""
<(
,,_
◊◊◊ 19 definition, the connection between or among the COMPUTERS need not be either physical or direct

20 (i.e., wireless NETWORKS utilizing radio frequencies and data sharing via indirect routes utilizing

21 modems and phone company facilities). In addition, there need not be a central file or data server or

22 a central network operating system in place (i.e.,peer-to-peer NETWORKS and NETWORKS

23 utilizing a mainframe host to facilitate DATA transfer). The ability to share DATA is the key factor.

24 I. The te1ms "ELECTRONIC MEDIA" and "MEDIA" shall mean and refer to any

25 magnetic, optical or other storage device used to record ELECTRONIC DATA. ELECTRONIC

26 MEDIA storage devices may include, but are not limited to, computer memories, hard disk drives,

27 floppy diskettes, CD-ROM disks, Bernoulli Box drives and their equivalent, magnetic tape of all

28 types, microfiche, punched cards, punched tape, computer chips, including, but not limited to

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
ROBIN CALDER

4
1 EPROM, PROM, RAM and ROM, or on or in any other vehicle for digital data storage and/or

2 transmittal.
3 J. "PERSON" means natural persons, as well as firms, proprietorships, associations,

4 partnerships, corporations, exchanges, sponses, and every other type of organization or entity;

5 K. AND" shall mean "OR" and "OR" shall mean "AND" as necessary to call for the

6 broadest possible answer.

7 L. "ALL" includes the word "ANY" and vice versa.

8 M. "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" includes without limitation any "writing" as

9 defined under Evidence Code §250, any written, typed, printed, recorded, or graphic matter, however

10 preserved, produced or re-produced, of any type or description, regardless of origin or location,

11 including without limitation any binder, procedure manual, cover note, certificate, letter,

12 correspondence, record, table, chart, analysis, graphic, schedule, report, test, study memorandum,
~
,..: 13 note, list, diary, log, calendar, telex, message (including, but not limited to inter-office and intra office
:c
0
ii2 14 communications, either by electronic mail or any other medium), questionnaire, bill, purchase order,
"'... 15 shipping order, contract, memorandum of contract, agreement, assignment, license, certificate,

02 14 information by physical delivery (for example, U.S. Postal Services, courier service, messenger
....
"'
<( service), AND/OR delivery via a device (for example, computers, personal digital assistants, "smart
...
A

LIJ
15

...z
::,
16 phones", electronic tablets, facsimile machines) and evidence of any exchange of information

...
I;:- 17 including, without limitation, correspondence with attachments and/or enclosures thereto; letters with

...
LIJ
~
18 attachments and/or enclosures thereto; memoranda with attachments thereto; transmittals with
<(
D..
◊◊◊ 19 attachments and/or enclosures thereto; facsimile transmissions; electronic mail ("E-MAIL") and

20 attachments thereto; notes of telephone conversations; notes of face-to-face meetings; notes of face-

21 to-face conferences; voice-mail transcriptions; transcriptions of conferences; transcriptions of

22 meetings; and/or notes of video-conferencing.

23 Q. "IDENTIFY" means to describe a DOCUMENT with such pmiicularity as YOU

24 would require in a motion to produce (either by batestamp number, or by a description of the

25 document, date, author, and recipient), or to provide the name, address and telephone number of a

26 person.

27 R. "YOU" or "YOUR" shall mean and include the defendant in this action ROBIN

28 CALDER and her directors, officers, managers, agents, employees, insurance companies, or ANY

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
ROBIN CALDER

6
1 PERSON acting OR purporting to act on her behalf.

2 S. "TODD" shall mean and include TODD HENRY JARVIS, individually, as co-general

3 partner of JARVIS PROPERTIES, LP, as a trustee of THE 1986 JARVIS IRREVOCABLE TRUST,

4 as a trustee of THE 1987 JAMES A.P. JARVIS REVOCABLE TRUST FIBIO ISSUE OF JAMES

5 ALVIN JARVIS, as a trustee of THE 1987 MARJORIE TODD JARVIS REVOCABLE TRUST

6 FIBIO ISSUE OF JAMES ALVIN JARVIS and as Trustee of the JARVIS ADMINISTRATION

7 TRUST, or as a beneficiary of the JARVIS REPLACEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST.

8 T. "Sub,iect Property" shall mean the real property commonly known as 1869 Park

9 Avenue, San Jose, California 95126, and more patiicularly described as APN 274-04-028.

10 u. "Houston Property" shall mean the real property commonly known as 11762

11 Riverview Drive, Houston, Texas 77077, and more particularly described as LT 9 BLK 1 Epernay

12 Sec 2.

13 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

15 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the moneys that YOU contributed towm·ds the purchase

16 of the subject prope1iy.

17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

18 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR ownership interest in the subject propmiy.

19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

20 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the assistance YOU provided to TODD RELATING to

21 his Houston Prope1iy.

22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

23 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR payment of any pmiion of the mmigage payment

24 RELATING TO the subject property.

25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR payment of any utilities RELATING TO the

27 subject prope1iy.

28 III

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
ROBIN CALDER

7
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

2 All DOCUMENTS which evidence that YOU advised TODD to consult with an attorney to discuss

3 YOUR potential ownership in the subject property, at the time that YOU claimed to have acquired

4 an interest in the subject property.

5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

6 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when YOU first provided legal services to TODD.

7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

8 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when YOU stopped performing legal services for

9 TODD.

10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

11 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments made by TODD to YOU for legal services you

12 perfonned for him.
~
,-: 13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
:c
Cl
14 All DOCUMENTS which evidence any disclosmes made by YOU to TODD of any potential
....~
<(
A
15 conflict RELATING TO YOUR potential ownership interest in the subject property.
""
w
z 16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
""'::-
::,
17 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the legal services YOU provided to TODD.
""
w
~
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
""
<(
.,_
YOUR federal income tax returns for 2002 tln·ough the present.

20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

21 YOUR individual state income tax returns for 2002 through the present.

22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

23 All federal tax returns filed on behalf of Nexus Real Estate Consulting from 2002 tln·ough the

24 present.

25 III

26 III

27 III

28 III

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
ROBIN CALDER

8
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

2 All state tax returns filed on behalf of Nexus Real Estate Consulting from 2002 tln·ough the

3 present.

6 DATED: January 8, 2018

8
PORT J'.PARKER
9 MARJAN HAJIMIRZAEE
Attorneys for Todd Hemy Jarvis
10

12
~
,_- 13
:i:
l!)
ii< 14
"'
-'
~ 15
0::
w
z
0::
16
::,
';:' 17
0::
w
ll.:
0:: 18

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 11:21 AM
To: Jeffrey S. Einsohn; Port J. Parker; Zoila Perez
Subject: Jarvis v Calder; Defendant's First Amended Notice to Appear at Trial; Meet and Confer Letter
Attachments: LL20410.1005.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

J eff/Port:
Attached is my letter of this date regarding Defendant's First Amended Notice to Compel Attendance Before Court and
for Production of Documents at trial. Due to the November 9, 2020 trial date, I would greatly appreciate your efforts to
review and respond to the attached letter by no later than 3:00 PM on October 23, 2020. The letter requests a reply by.
In the meantime, I intend to give notice of an ex parte hearing on Monday, October 26, 2020 at 8:00 AM seeking an
order shortening time for service and filing of a motion to compel production of the documents that are the subject of a
letter. In the event we are able to resolve the issue of authentication of the documents described in the First Amended
Notice. I intend to withdraw notice of the ex parte hearing.
May I kindly hear from you at your earliest opportunity?

LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER
Post Office Box 6107
San Mateo, CA 94403
650‐592‐9151

This email transmission, including any attachments, may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney
work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance, dissemination or distribution by others or
forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply e‐mail or telephone, delete this message, and destroy all copies of the message immediately. Thank you
in advance for your cooperation.

1
EXHIBIT “I”
PARKER LAW GROUP
Parker Law Group Attorneys, A Professional Corporation
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 996-0400
parlawgroup.com

October 23, 2020 Jeffrey S. Einsohn
jeff@parlawgroup.com

Via Electronic Mail
lmiller@ldmlawyer.com

Lawrence D. Miller, Esq.
P.O. Box 6107
San Mateo, California 94403

Re: Jarvis v. Calder – Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0039929

Larry,

This responds to your October 22, 2020 letter regarding yet another threatened ex parte
on behalf of Ms. Calder.

Your ex parte applications have gotten completely out of hand and are doing nothing
but wasting everybody’s time and resources, including those of your own client. I hope
she knows how wasteful you are being with her resources jockeying for some preserved
tactical advantage. We are extremely concerned with your blatant abuse of both trial
subpoenas and notices to appear for the purposes of seeking to backdoor discovery or
admissibility of evidence. We continue to be deeply troubled by your representation that
you have somehow obtained documents from various third parties, many if not all of
which were never disclosed, through trial subpoenas. It is unbelievable that you directed
those witnesses to then deliver documents to you rather than the court, that you have
possession of those documents, which you admitted to us over the telephone, and that
you purport to know what was allegedly produced. You and your client have clearly
misused the trial subpoena process and done so in an attempt to circumvent the
discovery cut-off and fundamental, basic due process.

With respect to the notice to appear at trial to Mr. Jarvis, Ms. Calder had documents she
claims are relevant and important to this dispute, specifically with respect to the issue of
ownership of the subject property, which she never disclosed in discovery despite
agreeing to produce them. (See Request for Production No. 2) By doing that, she denied
Mr. Jarvis the opportunity to depose her or third parties about those documents or to
prepare to properly address them at trial. Now, you are trying to use a notice to appear
and trial subpoenas to backdoor documents that should rightfully be excluded for lack
of prior disclosure. To the extent that a few of the documents were produced by Ms.
1 COURT: Superior Court of California, County of Placer
2 CASE NO.: SCV0039929
CASE NAME: Jarvis v. Calder
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
4

5 I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the County of Sacramento. My business
address is 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230; Sacramento, California 95814. I am over the age of 18 years
6 and not a party to the above-entitled action.

7 I am familiar with PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS, APC’s practice whereby each
document is placed in an envelope, the envelope is sealed, the appropriate postage is placed thereon
8 and the sealed envelope is placed in the office mail receptacle. Each day's mail is collected and
9 deposited in a U.S. mailbox at or before the close of each day’s business.

10 On the date indicated below, I served the within:

11 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME TO MOVE TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
12
AT TRIAL; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. EINSOHN
13
X E-MAIL ---
14 on the person(s)/entity(ies) listed below based on a court order or an agreement of the parties
to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
15 service addresses listed below:
16
Lawrence D. Miller
17 Law Office of Lawrence D. Miller
P.O. Box 6107
18 San Mateo, CA 94403
Telephone: (650) 59

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 26, 2020

Case Filing Date

August 23, 2017

County

Parties

Avilla, Paul Steven McPharlin et al LLP Attorney
Carcione, Joseph W. Jr. Attorneys for Defendants
Hajimirzaee, Marjan Parker Law Group Attorney
Miller, Lawrence David Law Office of Lawrence D. Miller Attorneys for Defendants
Miller, Lawrence David Law Office of Lawrence D. Miller Attorney for the Defendant
Parker, Port James Parker Law Group Attorney
Parker, Port James Parker Taylor Law Group, PC Attorney
Robin Calder Appellant
Robin Calder Defendant
Todd Jarvis Plaintiff
Todd Jarvis Respondent
Jeffrey Einsohn Attorney
Joshua Henderson Attorneys for Defendants
Bruce Lymburn Attorney
Sheri Damon Attorney
Matthew Gross Attorney
Peter Cianchetta Attorney
David Finkelstein Attorney
Peter Levy Attorney
James Cilley Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Garth Pickett Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties