Party Statement: Machholz, Donald Jr vs. Cunningham Legal

On August 06, 2019 a Party Statement was filed involving a dispute between Donald Machholz, and Ascent Wealth Management, Cunningham Legal, James Cunningham, Preston Marx, for Civil-Roseville in the District Court of Placer County.

Preview
08/21/2020
1 ALISON P. BUCHANAN – BAR NO. 215710
ASHLEE N. CHERRY – BAR NO. 312731
2 HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.
60 South Market Street, Suite 1400
3 San Jose, California 95113-2396
Phone: 408.287.9501
4 Fax: 408.287.2583

5 Attorneys for Defendants
CUNNINGHAM LEGAL;
6 PRESTON MARX, III;
JAMES CUNNINGHAM; and
7 ASCENT WEALTH MANAGEMENT

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF PLACER

11 DONALD MACHHOLZ, JR., Case No. SCV0043518

12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ASHLEE N. CHERRY
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ASCENT
13 v. WEALTH MANAGEMENT’S OMNIBUS
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
14 CUNNINGHAM LEGAL, a California TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Professional Corporation; PRESTON TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS
15 MARX, III, an individual; JAMES FOR ADMISSION, REQUESTS FOR
CUNNINGHAM, an individual; ASCENT PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND
16 WEALTH MANAGEMENT, a California FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
17 inclusive, Date: September 3, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Defendants. Dept.: Law and Motion

19 Action Filed: August 6, 2019
Trial Date: January 29, 2020
20

21 I, Ashlee N. Cherry, declare as follows:
22 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am an
23 attorney with Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc., attorneys of record for Defendants
24 CUNNINGHAM LEGAL, PRESTON MARX, III, JAMES CUNNINGHAM, and ASCENT
25 WEALTH MANAGEMENT. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if
26 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration
27 in support of Defendant Ascent Wealth Management’s Omnibus Opposition to Plaintiff’s
28
3989227
-1-
DECLARATION OF ASHLEE N. CHERRY IN SUPPORT OF ASCENT WEALTH MANAGEMENT’S
OMNIBUS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Admission,

2 Requests for Production of Documents, and for Monetary Sanctions.

3 2. On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff served a first set of special interrogatories,

4 requests for admission, requests for production of documents, and form interrogatories

5 on each of the Defendants.

6 3. On April 20, 2020, my office timely served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery

7 requests on behalf of Defendant Ascent Wealth Management (“AWM”), pursuant to an

8 extension.

9 4. On May 26, 2020, Eliezer Cohen, Plaintiff’s counsel, sent my office a 29-

10 page global meet and confer letter regarding Defendants’ discovery responses. Mr.

11 Cohen demanded a response by June 1, 2020. A true and correct copy of this

12 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

13 5. On May 28, 2020, our office responded to Mr. Cohen’s correspondence to

14 inform him that we would be unable to adhere to his unilaterally-set deadline. We offered

15 to provide a substantive response by June 5, 2020, and to grant Plaintiff an extension to

16 file his motion to compel until June 15, 2020. A true and correct copy of this

17 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

18 6. On June 5, 2020, our office affirmatively agreed to supplement certain of

19 AWM’s discovery responses. We advised that we would serve these supplemental

20 responses by June 26, 2020, and to further extend Plaintiff’s deadline to file his motion to

21 compel until July 8, 2020. A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached

22 hereto as Exhibit 3.

23 7. On June 16, 2020, Mr. Cohen sent our office another meet and confer letter

24 regarding the requests that we did not agree to amend. A true and correct copy of this

25 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

26 8. On June 26, 2020, our office served supplemental discovery responses on

27 behalf of AWM. My office also served a substantive response to Mr. Cohen’s June 16,

28 2020 correspondence. In this letter, we advised that we were unwilling to supplement
3989227
-2-
DECLARATION OF ASHLEE N. CHERRY IN SUPPORT OF ASCENT WEALTH MANAGEMENT’S
OMNIBUS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 any responses beyond what we had already served, and that accordingly, the parties’

2 meet and confer efforts were satisfied. Nevertheless, we agreed to extend Plaintiff’s

3 deadline to file his motion to compel for a third time, until July 15, 2020. A true and

4 correct copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

5 9. On July 3, 2020, Mr. Cohen sent our office another meet and confer letter

6 regarding not only AWM’s supplemental discovery responses, but also requests that we

7 had already represented multiple times that we were unwilling to supplement. With

8 regard to AWM’s supplemental responses, Mr. Cohen summarily concluded that the

9 responses were “deficient” without offering authority or argument as to why they were

10 deficient. Mr. Cohen also pointed out that the supplemental responses were mis-

11 numbered. Mr. Cohen ended his letter by requesting an additional extension to file

12 Plaintiff’s motion to compel. A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached

13 hereto as Exhibit 6.

14 10. On July 10, my office responded to Mr. Cohen and advised that we would

15 serve responses with corrected numbering to alleviate any further confusion, and that we

16 were unwilling to further supplement AWM’s responses or grant an additional extension

17 for Plaintiff to file his motion to compel. A true and correct copy of this correspondence is

18 attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

19 11. That same day, Mr. Cohen contacted my office by email to request a

20 teleconference to discuss the discovery dispute, and again requested a fourth extension

21 to file his motion to compel. Mr. Cohen stated that if we were unwilling to grant his

22 request for an extension, he would “just file the notice of motions by next Wednesday and

23 the P&As later on.” A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as

24 Exhibit 8.

25 12. On July 14, 2020, although we advised that we were willing to

26 telephonically meet and confer if necessary, our office reiterated that we were unwilling to

27 grant an additional extension to Plaintiff. Please refer to Exhibit 8 attached hereto.

28
3989227
-3-
DECLARATION OF ASHLEE N. CHERRY IN SUPPORT OF ASCENT WEALTH MANAGEMENT’S
OMNIBUS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
1 13. That same day, Mr. Cohen advised that he had reserved a September 3,

2 2020 hearing date, that he would not file his moving papers until August 12, 2020,

3 and – for a third time – requested an extension to file Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Please

4 refer to Exhibit 8 attached hereto.

5 14. In response, our office declined Mr. Cohen’s request for an extension and

6 made clear that we did not agree that Plaintiff could file a Notice of Motion without any

7 supporting documents. Please refer to Exhibit 8 attached hereto.

8 15. On July 15, 2020, our office re-served AWM's supplemental responses with

9 corrected numbering. There were no substantive changes to the responses.

10 16. On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed and served three Notices (only) of Motion to

11 Compel Defendant Ascent Wealth Management’s Further Responses to Interrogatories,

12 Request for Admission, and Request for Production of Documents, and for Monetary

13 Sanctions.

14 17. One month later, on August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed and hand-served his

15 supporting memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, and declaration.

16 18. I spent approximately 9.1 hours preparing this Motion and supporting

17 papers. My billable rate on this matter is $235.00 per hour. This is a deeply discounted

18 insurance rate. My standard billable rate is $350.00 per hour. This totals $2,138.50 in

19 attorney fees preparing this Motion.

20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

21 foregoing is true and correct.

22 Executed on this August 21, 2020, at San Jose, California.

25 Ashlee N. Cherry
26

28
3989227
-4-
DECLARATION OF ASHLEE N. CHERRY IN SUPPORT OF ASCENT WEALTH MANAGEMENT’S
OMNIBUS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Exhibit 1
gb GAVRILOV
ATTORNEYS
& BROOKS
AT LAW

May 26, 2020

Sent via U.S.mail and e-mail to alison.buchanan@hogefenton.com

Alison Buchanan
Hoge Fenton
60 South Market Street, Ste. 1400
San Jose, CA 951 13

Re: Attempt to Meet and Confer re Defendants' Discovery Responses
Machholz v. Cunningham Legal, et al., Placer County Case No. SCV0043518

Dear Ms. Buchanan,

My office is in receipt of Defendant Cunningham Legal's responses to Form Interrogatories-
General, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Admission, Set One, and Requests for
Production of Documents, Set One; Defendant James Cunningham's responses to Form
Interrogatories-General, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Admission, Set One, and
Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Defendant Preston Marx's responses to Form
Interrogatories-General, Set One; in addition to Defendant Ascent Wealth Management's responses to
Form Interrogatories-General, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Admission, Set
One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Unfortunately, some of the responses are
inadequate, and certain objections are not well taken and without merit. Therefore, I am writing pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023 .01 0(i) to meet-and-confer concerning these responses and
to request that your clients further respond to the discovery as outlined below.

At the outset, a number of Defendants' responses are defective and inadequate as partial, evasive,
and/or non-responsive. Inclusion of boilerplate objections and responses without attempting to comply
with valid discovery requests is unhelpful and such responses are improper. The submission of evasive
responses to discovery requests is an abuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(f).)
Further, the assertion of unmeritorious objections to discovery requests, without substantial justification,
is likewise an abuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(e).)

Further, all your clients' responses are improperly prefaced by general objections. The general
objections encompassing all Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and
Requests for Production of Documents are improper under the Code of Civil Procedure. Each objection
raised must be stated separately and bear the same number as the interrogatory or request to which it is
directed. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.210(a)(3), 2031.210(c), 2033.210(d).) In addition, objections must
be specific and cannot be too general. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(a)(3), 2031.240(b), 2033.230(b);
Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516 - the objecting party is

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
WWW.Gavrilnvl a\/v rnm
May 26, 2020
Page 2 of 29

subject to sanctions for "boilerplate" objections.) For these reasons, the general objections encompassing
all responses are boilerplate, will be disregarded and considered unenforceable, and must
be removed.

For ease and convenience, this letter will address the issues with each set of responses separately
as set forth herein. Please provide us with amended responses, addressing the issues raised herein, via e
mail and/or U.S. Mail by June 1, 2020. If you need more time, I would be happy to grant an extension if
you are equally amenable to a commensurate extension for my client to file a motion to compel, should
such motion become necessary.

DEFENDANT CUNNINGHAM LEGAL'S DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One
Form Interrogatory No. 4.1:
At the time ofthe INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might
be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense
coverage) for the damages, claims or actions that have arisen out ofthe INCIDENT? Ifso, for each policy
state: ...(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured.

The response fails to provide all information requested by this interrogatory. Notably, the response
mistakenly omits a response to subpart (c). As such, we request that Defendant amend its response so as
to fully and completely respond to this interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).)

Form Interrogatory No. 12.1:
State the name, address, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the incident or the
events occurring immediately before or after the incident; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the
incident; (c) who heard any statements made about the incident by any individual at the scene; and (d)
who you or anyone acting on your behalf claim has knowledge of the incident.

Defendant's response is partial and vague. For instance, rather than provide a separate response for each
required subpart, the response provides one general answer. Further, while Preston Marx was identified
as a witness multiple times relating to underlying issues in response to Form Interrogato
ry No. 17.1, he is
not identified in response to any subpart in this request, making it unclear whether Defendant responded
to this interrogatory by narrowing the scope of the interrogatory. Defendant must amend this response to
provide a full and complete response and to identity which subpart each witness is responsive to.

The responding party owes a duty to respond and use a reasonable and good faith effort to provide
information as best it can. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(b), 2030.220(c).) Therefore, we request that
Defendant amend its response so as to fully and completely respond to this interrogatory. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2030.220(a).)

Ill

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
\A/\A/\A/ ftavrilnwl
3\/u mm
May 26, 2020
Page 3 of 29

Form Interrogatory No. 15.1:
Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings
andfor each: (a) state allfacts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) state
the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (c)
identify all documents and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense,
and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document.

The response fails to provide all information requested by this interrogatory. Notably, the response omits
a response to subpart (c) in relation to identifying documents in support of each affirmative defense. The
interrogatory simply requests factual information underlying defenses and denials that Defendant has
asserted in this action. It is designed to elicit which affirmative defenses are currently supported, which
lack support, and all facts, witnesses, and documents in support of such affirmative defenses. There is no
legal basis to withhold this information in discovery. This is a proper interrogatory and was developed,
crafted, and approved by the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.710.)

Defendant's response to subpart (c), in relation to the affirmative defenses, fails to identify any supporting
documents via document title or Bates label. The failure to provide such information improperly inhibits
the discovery process and prevents the Plaintiff from properly preparing the case for trial and future
discovery.

In addition, Defendant provides a partial and evasive response to subpart (a) in relation to the affirmative
defense labeled "Doctrine of Judgmental Immunity." Subpart (a) requires a statement of all facts in
support of the defense. Instead, Defendant's response simply states, "Responding Part [sic] didadvise
[sic] Donald Machholz, Sr. of such mechanisms." This is nothing more than a conclusion and fails to
provide any factual support for the contention.

Form Interrogatory No. 17.1:
Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified
admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the
request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all documents and
other tangible things that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of
the person who has each document or thing.

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
www.GavrilovLaw.com
May 26, 2020
Page 4 of 29

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is vague, evasive, and partial. As an initial matter, Defendant
failed to provide a response in relation to the denial of Request for Admission, No. 23.

Further, Defendant provides a partial and evasive response to subpart (b) in relation to multiple requests.
For instance, Request for Admission No. 14 asked Defendant to admit that Cunningham Legal took no
action in response to receiving the letter from Carol Hasenick. Defendant denied the request and, in the
corresponding response to 17.1, vaguely stated that Defendant "reviewed that letter and appropriately
determined how to proceed..." This is nothing more than a conclusion and fails to provide any factual
support for the contention, such as the steps taken in response or what Cunningham Legal "determined"
to do to "proceed."

Similarly, Request for Admission No. 27 asked Defendant to admit that it did not advise Donald Machholz
Sr. of mechanisms to mitigate a possible legal dispute regarding the validity of the trust. Defendant denied
the request, but provided no factual support for the denial. For instance, Defendant doesn't state what
type of mechanisms or advice was given to Donald Machholz Sr., and which steps were suggested to
Donald Machholz, Sr. which were not followed. Further, Defendant fails to respond to subpart (d) and
does not identify whether any documents exist in support of the denial.

Request for Admission No. 28 asked Defendant to admit its failure to obtain a certificate of independent
review was negligent. Defendant provides no factual support or documentary support in response to Form
Interrogatory No. 17.1.

Request for Admission No. 33 asked Defendant to admit Plaintiff incurred legal fees as a result of
defending the validity of the revised trust. Defendant denies this, and states in response to 17.1 that the
denial is because, "Plaintiff has failed to produce documents evidencing this position." That is false.
Plaintiff produced these invoices and payments in February 2020 in documents Bates labeled Machholz
000369-000375.

Request for Admission No. 34 asked Defendant to admit Plaintiff was required to transfer real property
assets as a result of defending the validity of the revised trust. Again, Defendant denies this, and states in
response to 17.1 that the denial is because, "Plaintiff has failed to produce documents evidencing this
position." That is false. Plaintiff produced these documents in the initial document production several
months ago.

Ill
III

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
www.GavrilovLaw.com
May 26, 2020
Page 5 of 29

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One
Special Interrogatory No. 4:
For each and every date that YOU met in person with Donald Machholz, Sr. RELATING TO the LEGAL
REPRESENTATION, IDENTIFY each and every other PERSON that was present during each such
meeting.

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is partial and evasive. For reference, in response to Special
Interrogatory No. 3, Defendant stated it met in person with Donald Machholz, Sr. on two occasions:
01/24/17 and 02/14/17. Therefore, in response to this interrogatory, Defendant is required to separately
identify persons that attended each such meeting. Instead, Defendant generally names four individuals,
making it unclear whether all four of these individuals attended both meetings or whether some attended
one and some attended another. Please clarify this information in an amended response.

In addition, no identifying information is provided for the individuals identified, making it unclear if these
are all employees of Defendant or are third parties, in which case contact information is required. Please
clarify this information.

Special Interrogatory No. 5:
For each and every date that YOU met in person with Donald Machholz, Sr. RELATING TO the LEGAL
REPRESENTATION, describe in detail any and all COMMUNICATION with Donald Machholz, Sr.

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is partial and evasive. For reference, in response to Special
Interrogatory No. 3, Defendant stated it met in person with Donald Machholz, Sr. on two occasions:
01/24/17 and 02/14/17. Therefore, in response to this interrogatory, Defendant is required to separately
describe in detail the communications from each such meeting. Instead, Defendant generally describes a
topic, making it unclear whether it was discussed at one or both meetings. Please clarify this information
in an amended response.

Further, Defendant's response failed to describe the communications in detail. Instead, it generally states,
"Don Sr. sought to disinherit Carol and Robert," without providing further information about that
discussion. Further, the response generally states, "Responding Party provided Don. Sr. with advice and
recommendations regarding how to accomplish his testamentary intent," again without providing further
information about that discussion. Defendant is required to detail these communications, and all
communications that occurred in these meetings, including, but not limited to, Don Sr.'s stated intentions,
"advice" provided to Don Sr., "recommendations" made to Don Sr., discussions about what the plan or
decision was, whether they agreed to a decision at the meeting, whether alternatives were discussed, etc.

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
www.GavrilovLaw.com
May 26, 2020
Page 6 of 29

Special Interrogatory Nos. 6-8:
List each and every date that YOU had a COMMUNICATION with Donald Machholz, Sr. (other than in
person) RELATING TO the LEGAL REPRESENTATION. For each and every such date, IDENTIFY each
and every other PERSON that was present during each such COMMUNICATION, and describe in detail
any and all COMMUNICATION with Donald Machholz, Sr.

Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are vague and non-responsive. Defendant's responses all
state, "Not applicable. Responding Party does not have record of other communications." As an initial
matter, it is non-responsive to use the phrase "Not applicable." A substantive response is required.

Further, the responses are vague. It is unclear whether Defendant is stating no other communications
occurred, or whether Defendant has no memory of other communications. The interrogatories include all
communications with Don Sr. that were not in person - including phone, letter, email, etc. An amended
response needs to clarify whether any such discussions occurred. If discussions occurred and Defendant
simply doesn't remember dates, Defendant must clarify and provide this information as well.

The responding party owes a duty to respond and use a reasonable and good faith effort to provide
information as best it can. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(b), 2030.220(c).) Therefore, we request that
Defendant amend its responses so as to fully and completely respond to these interrogatories. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2030.220(a).)

Special Interrogatory No. 12:
Describe in detail each and every COMMUNICATION that YOU had with Plaintiff Donald Machholz,
Jr., RELATING to Donald Machholz, Sr., including but not limited to the date and substance of any such
COMMUNICATION.

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is vague and evasive. As a threshold matter, Defendant fails to
provide any detail for the communication with Plaintiff on July 19, 2016. Further, the response - which
only identifies one date that Cunningham Legal spoke to Plaintiff - is contradicted by multiple other
responses to interrogatories and Defendant's document production. Please clarify whether Defendant is
stating that the only occasion that it communicated with Plaintiff was in July 2016.

Special Interrogatory No. 13:
Describe in detail each and every COMMUNICATION that YOU had with Plaintiff Donald Machholz,
Jr., RELATING to the TRUST DISPUTE, including but not limited to the date and substance of any such
COMMUNICATION.

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
www.GavrilovLaw.com
May 26, 2020
Page 7 of 29

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is vague and evasive. As a threshold matter, Defendant fails to
provide any detail for the communication with Plaintiff and fails to provide any approximate date for the
communication(s) identified. Further, the response is vague as to the number of instances in which
Defendant communicated with Plaintiff.

Special Interrogatory No. 15:
Describe in detail each and every COMMUNICATION that YOU had with Robert Machholz RELATING
to the TRUST DISPUTE, including but not limited to the date and substance of any such
COMMUNICATION.

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is non-responsive and improper. Defendant's response simply
states, "not applicable." However, a substantive response is required. The responding party owes a duty
to respond and use a reasonable and good faith effort to provide information as best it can. (Code Civ.
Proc. §§ 2030.090(b), 2030.220(c).) Therefore, we request that Defendant amend its response so as to
fully and completely respond to this interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).)

Special Interrogatory No. 17:
Describe in detail each and every COMMUNICATION that YOU had with Carol Hasenick RELATING to
the TRUST DISPUTE, including but not limited to the date and substance of any such
COMMUNICATION

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is non-responsive and improper. Defendant's response simply
states, "not applicable." However, a substantive response is required. Moreover, the response to this
interrogatory (and Special Interrogatory No. 16) is contradicted by Defendant's response to Request for
Admission No. 23. The responding party owes a duty to respond and use a reasonable and good faith
effort to provide information as best it can. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(b), 2030.220(c).) Therefore,
we request that Defendant amend its response so as to fully and completely respond to this interrogatory.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).)

Special Interrogatory No. 18:
Describe in detail each and every COMMUNICATION that YOU had with Emily Thompson RELATING
to Donald Machholz, Sr., including but not limited to the date and substance of any such
COMMUNICATION.

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
www.GavrilovLaw.com
May 26, 2020
Page 8 of 29

matters with nonclients." It is non-responsive to include the phrase, "not applicable," as a substantive
response is required.

Further, the statement that Defendant does not discuss client matters with nonclients is vague, evasive,
and non-responsive. If Defendant never communicated with Emily Thompson regarding Donald
Machholz, Sr., Defendant must clarify and so state. The responding party owes a duty to respond and use
a reasonable and good faith effort to provide information as best it can. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.090(b),
2030.220(c).) Therefore, we request that Defendant amend itsresponse so as to fully and completely
respond to this interrogatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(a).)

Special Interrogatory No. 19:
Describe in detail each and every COMMUNICATION that YOU had with Michele Machholz RELATING
to Donald Machholz, Sr., including but not limited to the date and substance of any such
COMMUNICATION

Defendant's response to this interrogatory is non-responsive, vague, evasive, and improper. Defendant's
response to the interrogatory simply states, "Not applicable. Responding Party does not discuss client
matters with nonclients." It is non-responsive to include the phrase, "not applicable," as a substantive
response is required.

Further, the statement that Defendant does not discuss client matters with nonclients isvague, evasive,
and non-responsive. Ironically, Defendant has produced documentation listing Michele Machholz as its
contact and as a client. Nevertheless, if Defendant never communicated with Michele Machholz regarding
Donald Machholz, Sr., Defendant must clarify and so state.

Special Interrogatory No. 20:
Describe in detail each and every COMMUNICATION that YOU had with Michele Machholz RELATING
to the TRUST DISPUTE, including but not limited to the date and substance of any such
COMMUNICATION.

2315 Capitol Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95816
P 916-504-0529 F 916-727-6877
www.GavrilovLaw.com
May 26, 2020
Page 9 of 29

Further, the statement that Defendant does not discuss client matters with nonclients is vague, evasive,
and non-responsive. Ironically, Defendant has produced documentation listing Michele Machholz as its
contact and as a client. Nevertheless, if Defendant never communicated with Michele Machholz regarding
the Trust Dispute, Defendant must clarify and so state.

Special Interrogatory No. 22:
If YOU performed any analysis of whether undue influence was being exerted on Donald Machholz Sr.,
prior to the execution of the REVISED

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 21, 2020

Case Filing Date

August 06, 2019

County

Parties

Ascent Wealth Management Defendant
Cunningham Legal Defendant
Donald Machholz Plaintiff
Gavrilov, Ognian A. Gavrilov Law Corporation Attorney
James Cunningham Defendant
Preston Marx Defendant
Stuart, Scott Friedlander Hoge Fenton Jones & Appel Attorney for the Defendant
Alison Buchanan Attorneys for Defendants
Ashlee Cherry Attorneys for Defendants
Daniel Spector Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Olena Likhachova Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Eliezer Cohen Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

Party Statement: Machholz, Donald Jr vs. Cunningham Legal

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties