Preview
1 LAWRENCE D. MILLER, SBN 77448
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER 07/06/2020
2 Post Office Box 6107
San Mateo, CA 94403
3
Telephone: (650) 592-9151
4 Email: lmiller@ldmlawyer.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7
8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11
ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER, Case No. SCV-0043237
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER
13 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
v. TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
14 PROTECTIVE ORDER
TODD JARVIS, et al., etc.,
15 Date: July 17, 2020
Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
16 Dept.; 31
_____________________________________/ Complaint filed on June 1, 2018
17
18 Comes now Lawrence D. Miller who does declare the following:
19 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before the Courts of the state of
20 California, and I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiff herein;
21 2. On January 11, 2019 I caused to be served on Defendant’s counsel Plaintiff’s Request for
22 Admissions-Genuineness of Documents; Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions-Set Two; and Plaintiff’s
23 Form Interrogatories, which included Form Interrogatory 17.1.
24 3. Defendant responded to each set of discovery interposing objections. The proof of service
25 accompanying the discovery responses indicate the responses were served on February 15, 2019.
26 4. Despite my efforts and Plaintiff’s predecessor counsel, Paul Avila who had substituted in my
27 place when this case was transferred from the Santa Clara Superior Court to this Court, and my further
28 efforts when I substituted back into this case in place of Mr. Avila, I was not able to obtain supplemental
-1-
______________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372]
1 responses to Plaintiff’s discovery served on January 11, 2019 until May 29, 2020, one year and four
2 months after the discovery was originally served. I found Defendant’s supplemental responses to be
3 inadequate and engaged in further meet and confer efforts to obtain substantive factual responses to
4 Plaintiff’s initial discovery. My meet and confer efforts were initially ineffective in attempting to obtain
5 substantive factual responses. Only after I filed a motion to compel further responses, Defendant, by
6 counsel, agreed to provide further supplemental responses. In reliance on Defendant’s counsel’s
7 representation I requested the Court Clerk to take Plaintiff’s motion off calendar.
8 5. An excerpt from Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatory 17.1
9 is marked Exhibit 1, attached hereto. Defendant’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 to Request for
10 Admission No. 7 asserting Plaintiff provided Defendant with legal services “many years before 209” is
11 set forth on page number 9 at line 17.
12 6. A copy of Defendant’s counsel’s letter dated June 16, 2020 is marked Exhibit 2, attached
13 hereto. The section relevant to Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff provided legal services to the
14 Defendant over the past 20 years and referring Plaintiff’s counsel to the exhibits of Plaintiff’s deposition
15 is highlighted on page 1 for the Court’s convenience. I attended Ms. Calder’s deposition referred to in
16 Exhibit 2. Ms. Calder’s deposition testimony consumed seven hours.
17 7. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories were served on May 7, 2020. (Exhibit B to the declaration of
18 Jeffrey S. Einsohn at p. 19.) Each Special Interrogatory was drafted by me.
19 8. On June 3, 2020 Mr. Einsohn transmitted his letter of June 3, 2020, requesting a response no
20 later than the close of business June 4, 2020. (Exhibit D to the declaration of Jeffrey S Einsohn at p. 2, ¶
21 3.)
22 9. In my haste to prepare my letter of June 4, 2020 (Exhibit E to the declaration of Jeffrey S.
23 Einsohn) I mistakenly had in mind Defendant’s supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form
24 Interrogatories, which responses were received after Plaintiff’s Specials Interrogatories were served.. I
25 had intended to, and should have, referred to the difficulty I and Mr. Avila experienced in trying to obtain
26 substantive discovery responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s discovery served January 11, 2019.
27 10. I have devoted not less than 25 hours to the preparation, service, and filing of this opposition. I
28 anticipate that I will devote not less than 2 hours reviewing Defendant’s reply, if any and preparing for
-2-
______________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372]
1 oral argument and I estimate 1 hour appearing via telephone if argument occurs. My usual and customary
2 fee is $400 per hour. Based thereon it is respectfully submitted that monetary sanctions to compensate
3 Plaintiff's counsel for the preparation and appearance at the hearing on this motion in the sum of $11,200
4 is appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(h) and 2030.090(d).
5 I declare the above to be within my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I could
6 competently testify thereto.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
8 true and correct.
9 Executed on this 6th day of July, 2020 at San Mateo, California.
10 Lawrence D.
___________________________Miller
LAWRENCE D. MILLER
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
______________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372]
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
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
4 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 996-0400
5 Facsimile: (916) 668-5760
6
Attorneys for TODD JARVIS
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
11
ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER, Case No. SCV-0043237
12
Plaintiff, TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
13 v. RESPONSES TO FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
14 TODD JARVIS and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff ROBIN CALDER
18 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant TODD JARVIS
19 SET NUMBER: One (Supplemental)
20 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
21 Responding party has not fully completed investigation of the facts relating to this case, has
22 not fully completed discovery in this case and has not completed preparation for trial. All of the
23 written responses contained herein are based upon such information and documents as are currently
24 available, and specifically known, to responding party.
25 The following written responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s right to
26 produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts which responding party may later recall or
27 learn. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as
28 additional discovery is completed. The written responses herein are made in a good faith effort to
TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
1
1 under false or fraudulent pretenses and is unenforceable for a multitude of reasons. Responding
2 Party reserves the right to further supplement this response or to introduce additional
3 supporting facts at trial that are discovered or appreciated at a later date.
4 c. The parties. Responding Party reserves the right to further supplement this response or to
5 disclose additional witnesses as witnesses are identified or appreciated.
6 d. The document itself, Exhibit 1 to the RFA set one, the communications of the parties. These
7 documents are in the possession of the parties. Responding Party reserves the right to further
8 supplement this response or to identify additional documents as they are located or appreciated.
9 Set Two
10 RFA 7
11 Responding Party objects to this subpart of the form interrogatory to the extent it is
12 Propounding Party’s attempt to obtain discovery related to Jarvis v. Calder, Placer County Superior
13 Court Case No. SCV0039929 after the time for discovery has ended. Subject to and without waving
14 that objection, Responding Party responds generally as follows and advises Propounding Party to
15 review its files, pleadings, and discovery in that other case.
16 a. 7
17 b. Propounding Party provided legal services to Responding Party many years before 2009
18 although she attempted to characterize those legal services as something else, which is a major
19 issue that will be decided in Jarvis v. Calder, Placer County Superior Court Case No.
20 SCV0039929. Responding Party reserves the right to further supplement this response or to
21 introduce additional supporting facts at trial that are discovered or appreciated at a later date.
22 c. Responding Party objects pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 that preparing a listof
23 potential witnesses with relevant knowledge would necessitate the preparation or the making
24 of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of professionals that Propounding Party
25 interacted with on behalf of Responding Party before 2009, which can be determined primarily
26 from Propounding Party’s invoices.
27 d. All of the documents exchanged in Case No. SCV0039929; the deposition transcripts of both
28 parties in the action, including video and exhibits; all of Propounding Party’s work-product
TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
9
1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6:
2 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous
3 agreement and state why it is ambiguous.
4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6:
5 Responding Party objects to this form interrogatory on the ground that this case was ordered
6 transferred to Placer County. The Santa Clara Superior Court determined that this “case may not be
7 further prosecuted in any court until all fees and costs [for the transfer] have been paid. ((Code of Civ.
8 Proc. §§399(a).)” Responding Party reserves the right to all objections. Responding Party reserves
9 the right to meet and confer on any future written discovery.
10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6:
11 No.
12
PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS
13 DATED: May 29, 2020
A Professional Corporation
14
15 ____________________________________
16 PORT J. PARKER
JEFFREY S. EINSOHN
17 Attorneys for TODD JARVIS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
18
VERIFICATION
2
Calder v. Jarvis
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
4
Placer County Superior Court Case No. S-CV-0043237
5
6 I, TODD JARVIS, Defendant in the above-entitled action, do hereby declare that I have read
7 the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, based
8 on my review of the documents and/or information relevant to these responses, or my knowledge of
9 information based on non-privileged documents and/or related information referenced therein, I certify
10 that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon
0...s 11 information or belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
f
o�
::::>
12 I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
a::::
2
c
0�e 13 is true and correct.
s
<{
.x"
li?
"
14 Executed on the � day of May 2020 at .:....;r/J,'C c:,� /1.,1
,California .
...J ¢
3
::
a:::: 15
LI..J
�
�
0
£ 16 TODDJARVJt°
a::::
·a.
0
<( o
0..."'�17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VERIFICATION
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2
PARKER LAW GROUP
Parker Law Group Attorneys, A Professional Corporation
555 Capitol M a l l , Suite 1230
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 996-0400
parlawgroup.com
June 16, 2020 Jeffrey S .
Einsohn
jeff@parlawgroup.com
Via Electronic Mail
n79148@gmail.com
Lawrence D. Miller, Esq.
P.O. Box 6107
San Mateo, California 94403
Re: Calder v. Jarvis - Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV00043237
Meet and Confer Regarding Jarvis's Supplemental Responses to 17.1 and RFA 8
Dear Larry:
I am writing in response to your letter regarding Mr. Jarvis's Supplemental Responses to
Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 and R e q u e s t for A d m i s s i o n
No. 8
Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA7
The RFA asked for Jarvis to admit Calder did not provide legal services to J a rv i s
before
January 1, 2009. J a rv i s ' s
17.1 response stated that she provided legal services but
attempted to characterize those services as non-legal services. As you know, this is a
central issue in Jarvis v. Calder. You have repeatedly argued t h a t discovery for that case
should not be conducted in this c a s e .
Further, you s e e m to c o n f u s e facts with evidence.
The fact is that she started to represent him in the early 2000s. Most of the evidence that
supports that fact was laid out for Calder in excruciating detail during Calder's
deposition. I am not aware of any authority that requires Jarvis to listevery piece of
evidence or every time Calder provided legal services to J a rv i s
going back 20 years,
especially in this second action. I once again refer you to the dozens of exhibits at
C a l d e r ' s d e p o s i t i o n in w h i c h Mr.
Parker p o i n t e d o u t that C a l d e r h e l d
herself out as J a r v i s ' s
attorney, invoiced him for l e g a l work,and was p e rf o r m i n g
l e g a l work.
Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA9
Again, Ibelieve you are confusing facts with a catalogue of a l l
evidence. To the extent
you are seeking information such as reasonable rental value of property, attorneys' fees
incurred in Jarvis v. Calder, etc., that information is either not fully available or issubject
to expert testimony and thus would be premature at this time. That being said, to avoid
·
�
Lawrence D. Miller, Esq.
June 16, 2020
P a g e 2 of 3
unnecessary motion practice, Jarvis is willing to further supplement his response to this
subpart.
Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA1 1
The RFA asks Jarvis to admit a specific amount of interest. Jarvis has explained that he
c o n t e n d s the contract is legally unenforceable, which he e x p a n d e d upon in response to
From Interrogatory 50.5. You haven't raised any issue with that response. Moreover, if
C a l d e r ' s fees are r e d u c e d at a l l , t h e n the interest c a l c u l a t i o n would c h a n g e .
W h a t more
do you want here? Ifyou truly think you need to fi l e
a motion to compel because we
disagree interest is owed at a specific daily amount, then I don't know w h a t to say.
Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA12
The RFA asks Jarvis to admit he paid Calder exactly $361,191 in attorney's fees. He
explained that he paid more t h a n t h a t a m o u n t ina t t o r n e y ' s fees
over the years. There is
no request that asks him to prepare an accounting of everything he paid. First,that is
actually your c l i e n t ' s job
as the attorney. Second, itwould require a compilation from
documents in your client's possession, including all of her invoices that predated 2009,
including all of her Nexus invoices demonstrate that she was performing legal work.
Again, this is straying into Jarvis v. Calder territory.
With respect to your position that we have not i d e n t i f i e d the d o c u m e n t s t h a t would show
what was paid over the last 20 years, we identified the parties' accounting records and
Calder's invoices going back to the early 2000s which were produced in the Jarvis v.
Calder c a s e .
Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA12
The RFA asks Jarvis to admit the value of C a l d e r ' s
legal services was exactly the same as
he purported c o n t r a c t u a l fees.
Jarvis e x p l a i n e d t h a t C a l d e r b i l l e d for l e g a l work that did
not provide any value to Jarvis including the disastrous motion that get her s a n c t i o n e d
(and the appeal that followed). Also, as noted, the reasonable value of her services is
going to be subject to expert testimony. You c a n n o t seriously expect Jarvis to go l i n e
by
line through each of Calder's billing statements in response to a 17.1 request and opine
on the reasonable value of each and every entry. I would also point out that our
Supreme Court has explained, "When a law firm seeks fees in quantum meruit that itis
unable to recover under the contract because it has breached an ethical duty to its
client, the burden of proof on these or other factors lieswith the firm . . .
at least absent
e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the contractual fee will
not serve as a n appropriate measure
of quantum meruit recovery." (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M
Manufacturing Co.. Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59, 94-95.) Jarvis contends that Calder's
purported contract isinvalid or unenforceable due to ethical violations as set out in
response to other discovery a n d the motion for s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t .
It isCalder's burden
PLG
�
Lawrence D. Miller, Esq.
June 16, 2020
P a g e 3 of 3
to prove the value of her s e rv i c e s ,
not Jarvis's burden. You appear to be trying to use
discovery to shift that burden.
Jarvis will agree to provide a further s u p p l e m e n t response providing further d e t a i l ,
b u t to
the extent you are seeking some expert analysis of the value of her services, that is
obviously premature and cannot be provided at this time. Hopefully the further
s u p p l e m e n t response will satisfy your n e e d s .
R e q u e s t for Admission 8
The RFA asked Jarvis to admit he "became indebted to Plaintiff on an open book
account." Jarvis objected, inter alia, t h a t it was v a g u eas to time and u n c l e a r if the
RFA
was seeking an admission to current indebtedness. Your letter states this request asks
Jarvis to a d m i t he is currently i n d e b t e dto Plaintiff. Based on this we will interpret the RFA
as a request to admit "Defendant, Todd Jarvis, is currently indebted to Plaintiff on an
open b o o k a c c o u n t in the a m o u n t s h e is s e e k i n g in this l a w s u i t . "
We will prepare a further
s u p p l e m e n t response based on that understanding.
I understand from your e m a i l that you are planning to file a motion to compel for J u l y17.
Given that we are agreeing to provide further s u p p l e m e n t a l responses, and that the trial
date is g o i n g to be c o n t i n u e o u t c o n s i d e r a b l y ,
I w o u l d s u g g e s t you
hold your m o t i o n until
you receive the further supplemental responses. If n e c e s s a ry ,
I will agree to a further
extension of time for you to bring a motion while we work on supplemental responses.
Given the a m o u n t of detail you are d e m a n d i n g , e s p e c i a l l y with respect to N o . 9, I cannot
provide that information instantly b u t wille n d e a v o r to
do so as q u i c k l y as we
can.
Very truly yours,
ls/Jeffrey S . Einsohn
Jeffrey S. Einsohn, on b e h a l f of
Parker Law Group Attorneys, APC
PLG
1 Calder v. Jarvis, et al. Case No. 18CV329258
PROOF OF SERVICE - C.C.P. SECTIONS 1005, 1013a; 2015.5
2
I declare that:
3
I am employed in the county of San Mateo, California.
4
I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is
5 Post Office Box 6107, San Mateo, California 94403.
On July 6,, 2020, I served the:
6 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
7 on the parties in said cause, by forwarding a copy thereof on the parties in said cause by:
8 (X) First Class Mail, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail
at San Mateo, California, addressed as set forth below:
9 ( ) Priority Mail, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with Priority Postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States
mail at San Mateo, California, addressed as set forth below:
10 ( ) Express Mail, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with Express Postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States
mail at San Mateo, California, addressed as set forth below:
11 ( ) Overnight Mail, by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed overnight delivery service company envelope for delivery on the next business
day addressed as set forth below:
( ) Personal Service, by delivering a true copy thereof to the parties by delivering same to the address set forth below:
12 ( ) Facsimile Transmission, for which a written confirmation exists pursuant Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1013. Said
facsimile transmission was made on __________, at San Mateo California and transmitted to (___) ____________.
13 ( ) By Electronic Service: Complying with Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, I caused such document(s) to be electronically served
through the File&ServeExpress system for the above-entitled case to the parties on the Service List maintained on
14 File&ServeExpress’s Website for this case. Upon completion of said transmission of said documents(s), a certified receipt
is issued to the filing party acknowledging receipt by File&ServeExpress’s system. Receipt of the transmission will be
15 maintained with the original documents in our office.
(X) Be Electronic Service: Courtesy copy to the email addressed listed below.
16
17 Port Parker, Esq. Attorney for Todd Jarvis
Jeffrey S. Einsohn, Esq. Telephone: 916-996-0400
18 Parker Law Group Email: port@parlawgroup.com
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230 jeff@parlawgroup.com
19 Sacramento, CA 95815 zoila@parlawgroup.com
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and
correct and that this declaration was executed on July 6, 2020, at San Mateo, California.
21
22
Lawrence D.
____________________________Miller
Lawrence D. Miller
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
______________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372]
Preview
1 LAWRENCE D. MILLER, SBN 77448 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER 07/06/2020 2 Post Office Box 6107 San Mateo, CA 94403 3 Telephone: (650) 592-9151 4 Email: lmiller@ldmlawyer.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER, Case No. SCV-0043237 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER 13 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION v. TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 14 PROTECTIVE ORDER TODD JARVIS, et al., etc., 15 Date: July 17, 2020 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. 16 Dept.; 31 _____________________________________/ Complaint filed on June 1, 2018 17 18 Comes now Lawrence D. Miller who does declare the following: 19 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before the Courts of the state of 20 California, and I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiff herein; 21 2. On January 11, 2019 I caused to be served on Defendant’s counsel Plaintiff’s Request for 22 Admissions-Genuineness of Documents; Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions-Set Two; and Plaintiff’s 23 Form Interrogatories, which included Form Interrogatory 17.1. 24 3. Defendant responded to each set of discovery interposing objections. The proof of service 25 accompanying the discovery responses indicate the responses were served on February 15, 2019. 26 4. Despite my efforts and Plaintiff’s predecessor counsel, Paul Avila who had substituted in my 27 place when this case was transferred from the Santa Clara Superior Court to this Court, and my further 28 efforts when I substituted back into this case in place of Mr. Avila, I was not able to obtain supplemental -1- ______________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372] 1 responses to Plaintiff’s discovery served on January 11, 2019 until May 29, 2020, one year and four 2 months after the discovery was originally served. I found Defendant’s supplemental responses to be 3 inadequate and engaged in further meet and confer efforts to obtain substantive factual responses to 4 Plaintiff’s initial discovery. My meet and confer efforts were initially ineffective in attempting to obtain 5 substantive factual responses. Only after I filed a motion to compel further responses, Defendant, by 6 counsel, agreed to provide further supplemental responses. In reliance on Defendant’s counsel’s 7 representation I requested the Court Clerk to take Plaintiff’s motion off calendar. 8 5. An excerpt from Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatory 17.1 9 is marked Exhibit 1, attached hereto. Defendant’s Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 to Request for 10 Admission No. 7 asserting Plaintiff provided Defendant with legal services “many years before 209” is 11 set forth on page number 9 at line 17. 12 6. A copy of Defendant’s counsel’s letter dated June 16, 2020 is marked Exhibit 2, attached 13 hereto. The section relevant to Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff provided legal services to the 14 Defendant over the past 20 years and referring Plaintiff’s counsel to the exhibits of Plaintiff’s deposition 15 is highlighted on page 1 for the Court’s convenience. I attended Ms. Calder’s deposition referred to in 16 Exhibit 2. Ms. Calder’s deposition testimony consumed seven hours. 17 7. Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories were served on May 7, 2020. (Exhibit B to the declaration of 18 Jeffrey S. Einsohn at p. 19.) Each Special Interrogatory was drafted by me. 19 8. On June 3, 2020 Mr. Einsohn transmitted his letter of June 3, 2020, requesting a response no 20 later than the close of business June 4, 2020. (Exhibit D to the declaration of Jeffrey S Einsohn at p. 2, ¶ 21 3.) 22 9. In my haste to prepare my letter of June 4, 2020 (Exhibit E to the declaration of Jeffrey S. 23 Einsohn) I mistakenly had in mind Defendant’s supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form 24 Interrogatories, which responses were received after Plaintiff’s Specials Interrogatories were served.. I 25 had intended to, and should have, referred to the difficulty I and Mr. Avila experienced in trying to obtain 26 substantive discovery responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s discovery served January 11, 2019. 27 10. I have devoted not less than 25 hours to the preparation, service, and filing of this opposition. I 28 anticipate that I will devote not less than 2 hours reviewing Defendant’s reply, if any and preparing for -2- ______________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372] 1 oral argument and I estimate 1 hour appearing via telephone if argument occurs. My usual and customary 2 fee is $400 per hour. Based thereon it is respectfully submitted that monetary sanctions to compensate 3 Plaintiff's counsel for the preparation and appearance at the hearing on this motion in the sum of $11,200 4 is appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(h) and 2030.090(d). 5 I declare the above to be within my own personal knowledge and if called as a witness I could 6 competently testify thereto. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 8 true and correct. 9 Executed on this 6th day of July, 2020 at San Mateo, California. 10 Lawrence D. ___________________________Miller LAWRENCE D. MILLER 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- ______________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372] EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1 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 4 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 996-0400 5 Facsimile: (916) 668-5760 6 Attorneys for TODD JARVIS 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 11 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER, Case No. SCV-0043237 12 Plaintiff, TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL 13 v. RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 14 TODD JARVIS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff ROBIN CALDER 18 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant TODD JARVIS 19 SET NUMBER: One (Supplemental) 20 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 21 Responding party has not fully completed investigation of the facts relating to this case, has 22 not fully completed discovery in this case and has not completed preparation for trial. All of the 23 written responses contained herein are based upon such information and documents as are currently 24 available, and specifically known, to responding party. 25 The following written responses are given without prejudice to responding party’s right to 26 produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts which responding party may later recall or 27 learn. Responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as 28 additional discovery is completed. The written responses herein are made in a good faith effort to TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 1 1 under false or fraudulent pretenses and is unenforceable for a multitude of reasons. Responding 2 Party reserves the right to further supplement this response or to introduce additional 3 supporting facts at trial that are discovered or appreciated at a later date. 4 c. The parties. Responding Party reserves the right to further supplement this response or to 5 disclose additional witnesses as witnesses are identified or appreciated. 6 d. The document itself, Exhibit 1 to the RFA set one, the communications of the parties. These 7 documents are in the possession of the parties. Responding Party reserves the right to further 8 supplement this response or to identify additional documents as they are located or appreciated. 9 Set Two 10 RFA 7 11 Responding Party objects to this subpart of the form interrogatory to the extent it is 12 Propounding Party’s attempt to obtain discovery related to Jarvis v. Calder, Placer County Superior 13 Court Case No. SCV0039929 after the time for discovery has ended. Subject to and without waving 14 that objection, Responding Party responds generally as follows and advises Propounding Party to 15 review its files, pleadings, and discovery in that other case. 16 a. 7 17 b. Propounding Party provided legal services to Responding Party many years before 2009 18 although she attempted to characterize those legal services as something else, which is a major 19 issue that will be decided in Jarvis v. Calder, Placer County Superior Court Case No. 20 SCV0039929. Responding Party reserves the right to further supplement this response or to 21 introduce additional supporting facts at trial that are discovered or appreciated at a later date. 22 c. Responding Party objects pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 that preparing a listof 23 potential witnesses with relevant knowledge would necessitate the preparation or the making 24 of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of professionals that Propounding Party 25 interacted with on behalf of Responding Party before 2009, which can be determined primarily 26 from Propounding Party’s invoices. 27 d. All of the documents exchanged in Case No. SCV0039929; the deposition transcripts of both 28 parties in the action, including video and exhibits; all of Propounding Party’s work-product TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 9 1 FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6: 2 Is any agreement alleged in the pleadings ambiguous? If so, identify each ambiguous 3 agreement and state why it is ambiguous. 4 RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6: 5 Responding Party objects to this form interrogatory on the ground that this case was ordered 6 transferred to Placer County. The Santa Clara Superior Court determined that this “case may not be 7 further prosecuted in any court until all fees and costs [for the transfer] have been paid. ((Code of Civ. 8 Proc. §§399(a).)” Responding Party reserves the right to all objections. Responding Party reserves 9 the right to meet and confer on any future written discovery. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 50.6: 11 No. 12 PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS 13 DATED: May 29, 2020 A Professional Corporation 14 15 ____________________________________ 16 PORT J. PARKER JEFFREY S. EINSOHN 17 Attorneys for TODD JARVIS 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TODD JARVIS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE 18 VERIFICATION 2 Calder v. Jarvis 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER 4 Placer County Superior Court Case No. S-CV-0043237 5 6 I, TODD JARVIS, Defendant in the above-entitled action, do hereby declare that I have read 7 the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, based 8 on my review of the documents and/or information relevant to these responses, or my knowledge of 9 information based on non-privileged documents and/or related information referenced therein, I certify 10 that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon 0...s 11 information or belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. f o� ::::> 12 I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing a:::: 2 c 0�e 13 is true and correct. s <{ .x" li? " 14 Executed on the � day of May 2020 at .:....;r/J,'C c:,� /1.,1 ,California . ...J ¢ 3 :: a:::: 15 LI..J � � 0 £ 16 TODDJARVJt° a:::: ·a. 0 <( o 0..."'�17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 2 PARKER LAW GROUP Parker Law Group Attorneys, A Professional Corporation 555 Capitol M a l l , Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 996-0400 parlawgroup.com June 16, 2020 Jeffrey S . Einsohn jeff@parlawgroup.com Via Electronic Mail n79148@gmail.com Lawrence D. Miller, Esq. P.O. Box 6107 San Mateo, California 94403 Re: Calder v. Jarvis - Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV00043237 Meet and Confer Regarding Jarvis's Supplemental Responses to 17.1 and RFA 8 Dear Larry: I am writing in response to your letter regarding Mr. Jarvis's Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 and R e q u e s t for A d m i s s i o n No. 8 Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA7 The RFA asked for Jarvis to admit Calder did not provide legal services to J a rv i s before January 1, 2009. J a rv i s ' s 17.1 response stated that she provided legal services but attempted to characterize those services as non-legal services. As you know, this is a central issue in Jarvis v. Calder. You have repeatedly argued t h a t discovery for that case should not be conducted in this c a s e . Further, you s e e m to c o n f u s e facts with evidence. The fact is that she started to represent him in the early 2000s. Most of the evidence that supports that fact was laid out for Calder in excruciating detail during Calder's deposition. I am not aware of any authority that requires Jarvis to listevery piece of evidence or every time Calder provided legal services to J a rv i s going back 20 years, especially in this second action. I once again refer you to the dozens of exhibits at C a l d e r ' s d e p o s i t i o n in w h i c h Mr. Parker p o i n t e d o u t that C a l d e r h e l d herself out as J a r v i s ' s attorney, invoiced him for l e g a l work,and was p e rf o r m i n g l e g a l work. Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA9 Again, Ibelieve you are confusing facts with a catalogue of a l l evidence. To the extent you are seeking information such as reasonable rental value of property, attorneys' fees incurred in Jarvis v. Calder, etc., that information is either not fully available or issubject to expert testimony and thus would be premature at this time. That being said, to avoid · � Lawrence D. Miller, Esq. June 16, 2020 P a g e 2 of 3 unnecessary motion practice, Jarvis is willing to further supplement his response to this subpart. Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA1 1 The RFA asks Jarvis to admit a specific amount of interest. Jarvis has explained that he c o n t e n d s the contract is legally unenforceable, which he e x p a n d e d upon in response to From Interrogatory 50.5. You haven't raised any issue with that response. Moreover, if C a l d e r ' s fees are r e d u c e d at a l l , t h e n the interest c a l c u l a t i o n would c h a n g e . W h a t more do you want here? Ifyou truly think you need to fi l e a motion to compel because we disagree interest is owed at a specific daily amount, then I don't know w h a t to say. Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA12 The RFA asks Jarvis to admit he paid Calder exactly $361,191 in attorney's fees. He explained that he paid more t h a n t h a t a m o u n t ina t t o r n e y ' s fees over the years. There is no request that asks him to prepare an accounting of everything he paid. First,that is actually your c l i e n t ' s job as the attorney. Second, itwould require a compilation from documents in your client's possession, including all of her invoices that predated 2009, including all of her Nexus invoices demonstrate that she was performing legal work. Again, this is straying into Jarvis v. Calder territory. With respect to your position that we have not i d e n t i f i e d the d o c u m e n t s t h a t would show what was paid over the last 20 years, we identified the parties' accounting records and Calder's invoices going back to the early 2000s which were produced in the Jarvis v. Calder c a s e . Form lntegratory 1 7 . 1 /RFA12 The RFA asks Jarvis to admit the value of C a l d e r ' s legal services was exactly the same as he purported c o n t r a c t u a l fees. Jarvis e x p l a i n e d t h a t C a l d e r b i l l e d for l e g a l work that did not provide any value to Jarvis including the disastrous motion that get her s a n c t i o n e d (and the appeal that followed). Also, as noted, the reasonable value of her services is going to be subject to expert testimony. You c a n n o t seriously expect Jarvis to go l i n e by line through each of Calder's billing statements in response to a 17.1 request and opine on the reasonable value of each and every entry. I would also point out that our Supreme Court has explained, "When a law firm seeks fees in quantum meruit that itis unable to recover under the contract because it has breached an ethical duty to its client, the burden of proof on these or other factors lieswith the firm . . . at least absent e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the contractual fee will not serve as a n appropriate measure of quantum meruit recovery." (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co.. Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59, 94-95.) Jarvis contends that Calder's purported contract isinvalid or unenforceable due to ethical violations as set out in response to other discovery a n d the motion for s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t . It isCalder's burden PLG � Lawrence D. Miller, Esq. June 16, 2020 P a g e 3 of 3 to prove the value of her s e rv i c e s , not Jarvis's burden. You appear to be trying to use discovery to shift that burden. Jarvis will agree to provide a further s u p p l e m e n t response providing further d e t a i l , b u t to the extent you are seeking some expert analysis of the value of her services, that is obviously premature and cannot be provided at this time. Hopefully the further s u p p l e m e n t response will satisfy your n e e d s . R e q u e s t for Admission 8 The RFA asked Jarvis to admit he "became indebted to Plaintiff on an open book account." Jarvis objected, inter alia, t h a t it was v a g u eas to time and u n c l e a r if the RFA was seeking an admission to current indebtedness. Your letter states this request asks Jarvis to a d m i t he is currently i n d e b t e dto Plaintiff. Based on this we will interpret the RFA as a request to admit "Defendant, Todd Jarvis, is currently indebted to Plaintiff on an open b o o k a c c o u n t in the a m o u n t s h e is s e e k i n g in this l a w s u i t . " We will prepare a further s u p p l e m e n t response based on that understanding. I understand from your e m a i l that you are planning to file a motion to compel for J u l y17. Given that we are agreeing to provide further s u p p l e m e n t a l responses, and that the trial date is g o i n g to be c o n t i n u e o u t c o n s i d e r a b l y , I w o u l d s u g g e s t you hold your m o t i o n until you receive the further supplemental responses. If n e c e s s a ry , I will agree to a further extension of time for you to bring a motion while we work on supplemental responses. Given the a m o u n t of detail you are d e m a n d i n g , e s p e c i a l l y with respect to N o . 9, I cannot provide that information instantly b u t wille n d e a v o r to do so as q u i c k l y as we can. Very truly yours, ls/Jeffrey S . Einsohn Jeffrey S. Einsohn, on b e h a l f of Parker Law Group Attorneys, APC PLG 1 Calder v. Jarvis, et al. Case No. 18CV329258 PROOF OF SERVICE - C.C.P. SECTIONS 1005, 1013a; 2015.5 2 I declare that: 3 I am employed in the county of San Mateo, California. 4 I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 5 Post Office Box 6107, San Mateo, California 94403. On July 6,, 2020, I served the: 6 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 7 on the parties in said cause, by forwarding a copy thereof on the parties in said cause by: 8 (X) First Class Mail, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at San Mateo, California, addressed as set forth below: 9 ( ) Priority Mail, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with Priority Postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at San Mateo, California, addressed as set forth below: 10 ( ) Express Mail, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with Express Postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at San Mateo, California, addressed as set forth below: 11 ( ) Overnight Mail, by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed overnight delivery service company envelope for delivery on the next business day addressed as set forth below: ( ) Personal Service, by delivering a true copy thereof to the parties by delivering same to the address set forth below: 12 ( ) Facsimile Transmission, for which a written confirmation exists pursuant Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1013. Said facsimile transmission was made on __________, at San Mateo California and transmitted to (___) ____________. 13 ( ) By Electronic Service: Complying with Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, I caused such document(s) to be electronically served through the File&ServeExpress system for the above-entitled case to the parties on the Service List maintained on 14 File&ServeExpress’s Website for this case. Upon completion of said transmission of said documents(s), a certified receipt is issued to the filing party acknowledging receipt by File&ServeExpress’s system. Receipt of the transmission will be 15 maintained with the original documents in our office. (X) Be Electronic Service: Courtesy copy to the email addressed listed below. 16 17 Port Parker, Esq. Attorney for Todd Jarvis Jeffrey S. Einsohn, Esq. Telephone: 916-996-0400 18 Parker Law Group Email: port@parlawgroup.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230 jeff@parlawgroup.com 19 Sacramento, CA 95815 zoila@parlawgroup.com 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 6, 2020, at San Mateo, California. 21 22 Lawrence D. ____________________________Miller Lawrence D. Miller 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- ______________________________________________________________ DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MILLER [17372]