Motion to Compel Discovery in Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 vs Edward f Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998| Trellis.Law

On April 22, 2020 a Hearing was filed involving a dispute between Edward F Niderost, Individually And As Trustee Of The Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, Patterson, Lawrence, Wayne A Cook, Trustee Of The Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12 29 98, Wayne A Cook, Trustee Of The Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12 29 98, and Edward F Niderost, Individually And As Trustee Of The Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property in the District Court of Butte County.

Preview
DAVrD R. GRTFFITH, ESQ. (SBN- 170t72)
1
JAMESON E.p. SHEEHAN, ESQ. (SBN 327287)
z
GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP
1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3 11/12/2020
3 Chico, California 9 5928
Telephone: (530) I 12-1 000
4 Facsimile: (530) 809-1 093
Email : david@davidgriffithlaw.com
5 j ameson@ griffithandhorn. com
6
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant,
1 RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY

I
THE SUPEzuOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10

11 WAYNE A. COOK, Trustee of the ) Case No. 20CV00905
Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust )
I2 Dated 12129198, ) SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
) SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
13 Plaintiff, FRUTHER RESPONSES TO
)
) INSPECTION DEMANDS AND
L4
VS. ) AWARD MONETATRY SANCTIONS
15 )
EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually; )
I6 and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. )
NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING )
r'7 TRUST Dated November 8, 1998; )
DOES I through 10, )
1B
)
Defendants )
I9
)
20 ) Date: December 16,2020
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
2L ) Dept.: TBA
22
Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY submits this Separate Statement of in
23
support of the motion to compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually,
24 and as his successor Trustee, JOHN DENTORN, as successor trustee of THE EDWARD F.

25 NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, and as Conservator of
26
the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, to respond to provide further responses to Request for

1
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. I through 6, and a misnumbered 6 [sic], and 7 through

15, served herein on June 29,2020, without objections, and to award monetary sanctions. As
2
required under Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345, this statement provides information relating to the
3
demands and responses at issue in the motion, as follows:
4
The Subiect Discovery and Responses
5
On June 29,2020, Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY served by mail
6 upon Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually, and as Trustee of THE

'7 EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, Request

I for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Numbers 1through 15. The request contained a

definitions as follows:
9
A. "WRITING" as used herein means a "writing" as defined by California
10
Evidence Code Section 250 as being "...handwriting, typewriting, printing,
11
photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile,
L2 and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication

13 or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination

I4 thereof and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has
been stored."
15
B. "YOIJ" and YOUR" means and refers to Cross-Complainant EDWARD
I6
F. NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST
I1 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 and anyone acting
1B on his behalf including, without limitation, John Denton as Conservator of the

79 Estate of Edward F. Niderost and John Denton as Successor Trustee of the

20
Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998.

a1 [see Griffrth Decl. ]2; and Exhibit "l"l
On October 15,2020, JOHN DENTON, as the Conservator of the Estate of Cross-
)t
Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, and as the Successor Trustee of THE EDWARD F.
23
NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served responses to the
24 subject discovery. There is no know conservator ship of the person of Cross-Complainant

25 EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST and said cross-Complainant has never provided any responses to the

26
subject discovery.

2
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 The documents produced consist of 14 pages as follows:

2
Pages 1-3 Chico Enterprise Record, New Article, "Landmark Miller
Mansion Has been Sold"
3
Page 4 - Letter from Knowles dated June 26,2020 to tenants.
4
Pages 5-6 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 4,2020
5
Pages 7-8 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 17,2020
6 Pages 9-10 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 4,2020

1 Pages lI-I4 - Email Chain dated May 15, 2020 to June 15, 2020 between
Mr. Lushanko and Mrs. Knowles.
8

[see Griffith Decl. fl 6, Exhibit 2]
9
Real Part in Interest
10
Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST filed the above-entitled cross-action
11
herein on June 12,2020, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST
I2 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998.
1)
AJ On June 4,2020, in the currently unrelated matter of In re the Conservatorship of
Edward F. Niderost, Butte County Superior Court Cas20PR00l22,this Court entered an order
I4
appointing , JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and as
15
successor trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated
16
November 8, 1998.
I1 Neither Cross-Complainant nor his legal counsel have ever filed and served an amended
1B or supplemental pleading to change the designation of the real party in interest.

19 Oblieation for Responding party and Counsel to

20
Provide Complete and Straightforward Responses.
(1) Scope of Discovery. The scope of permissible discovery is very broad fChildren's
2I
Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross o.fCol. (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1260, 127 61. Any
22
party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject
23
matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action
24 the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to

25 the discovery of admissible evidence [Code Civ. Proc. $ 2017.010].

26
ilt
3
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 (2) Content of Response to Inspection Demands. The party to whom a demand for
inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling, has been directed must respond separately to each item
2

or category of item by any of the following [Code Civ. Proc. $ 2031.210(a)]:
3 r d statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for
4
inspection, copying by the date set for inspection under Code Civ. Proc. $
t
J

2031.030 (c).
6
a A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand
1

for inspection of a particular item or category of item.
I
ô . An objection to the demand.

10 (3) Good Faith Oblieation. A party must make a good faith effort in

11 obtaining documents responsive to the request. Health Services, Inc. v.
fRegency
12
Superior Court (1998) 64 CA4th 1496, 15051
13
"[T]he responding party must obtain and disclose information from
1-4
sources under its control (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 CA3d at782), as well as
15
informationinthepossessionof itscounsel(Smithv. SuperiorCourt (1961) 189
I6
71
CA2d 6, II. . .)" (CJER, California Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings

18 Discovery (2ded,2012) section 18.32,p294; Regency Health Services, Inc. v.

19 Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496,1504).

20 Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and
2I
nothing but the truth in answering written interrogatoúes. (Hunter v. International
22
Systems & Control Corp. (W.D. }úo. 1972) 56 F.R.D. 617,631.) V/here the
23
question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the
24
information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, aparty may not provide
25

26 deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit

4
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
questions. (In Re Professional Hockey Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa. I974 63
1

2
F.R.D. 64t,650-654.)

3 Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771,782.

4 (4) Partial or Incomplete Information Provided. Verification of the answer

5
is in effect a declaration that the party has disclosed all information which is available to
6
him. If only partial answers can be supplied, the answer should reveal all information
7
then available to the party. If a person cannot furnish details, he should set forth the

efforts made to secure the information. He cannot plead ignorance to information which
9

can eb obtained from sources under his control. (See Cal. Civil Discovery Practice,
10

11 supra, $ 8.48; DelMeo, Cal. Deposition and Discovery Practice, supra, 9.01(41);4A

72 Moore's Federal Practice, Ç 33.26; Milner v. Nationsl School of Health Technology (8.

13 D. Pa. 1977) 73 F.R.D. 628,632; Harlem River Con. Co., Inc. v. Associated G. Of
74
Harlen, Ízc. (S.D.N.Y 1974) 64 F.R.D. 459,463.)
15
(5) See my documents not proper. "[I]tis not proper to answer by stating,
16
ooSee
"See my deposition," my Pleadings," or See the financial statement." (Deyo v.
I1
Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App . 3d 77 I, 7 83-784).
18

I9
(6) Representation of Inability to Comply. A representation of inability to

20 comply with a particular demand for inspection must do the following [Code Civ. Proc. $

27 203r.2301:

22 . Affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an
23
effort to comply with the demand.
24
. Speciff whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or
25
category of item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced,
26

5
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control
1

2
of the responding party.

3 ' Specif'the name and address of any natural person or organization known

4 or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or control of the item or

5
category of item.
6
Inspection Demands and Responses Verbatim and Statement of Reasons
1
for Comnellins Resnonses
8

9
REOUEST N(l. I. '4ny
IVRIII}{G (including wifhout limitation cmails or text printed

o$t to readäble form) showing communications by and tætwee* YOLj and Cross-Defendant
10
Raridall Eugerr {*Cene'} Culley.
11
RESFO]TISE TO RfJOT,IEST !TO. I:
12 No st¡ch docr¡nents arìc krro*¡ ro thc rcsponding party, dcspitc a re¡son¡blc and diligent

13
scarch, savc a¡¡d cxc€pt corres¡ron&rrce from responüing party's Gounscl, çt¡ich ig in tbc
¡rcrrscssionof the propoudiog party.
74
Tb ResÞoding Pafy doc¡ ¡rot h¡vc aoocss or çontrol of all communications of Edrr¡ard
15 individually or Êdward
F'. Nidr:¡ost, F- Nidcrosr, former 'frustoe of tlp Edr¡'a¡d F. Niderost
Revocable Living Trrst Darod Novembcr t, ¡99t, tx¡¡ has conducæd a ressorable and rtiligent
I6
scarth of tftoec docuncnts tre was able to access t$at belonged rc of &lward F- Niderosç
I1 t
RT-SPON$E. TO REQUTST FOn INSPECTTOî¡ ÂHD OT IÌÛCUMENTS TIITHCS.SET¡¡O. OT*E
18 ^XT'

2T
indiviôulty or l.iwa¡d F- Nidcrost" fclurcrTn¡stcc of thc Ëdward F. Nidcrr¡st

22
Reasons Why Further Response is necessary.
23
The current response is evasive and nonresponsive. Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.
24
NIDEROST, an individual person, has never served a response to the subject discovery. JOHN
.E
DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and as successor trustee of

26 EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served

6
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1
evasive and noncompliant response on October 15, 2020.

Code Civ. Proc. $ 2031.280 [aJ states that:
2
"Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a
3
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified
4
with the specific request number to which the documents respond."
5
The Responding Party did not provide a response in conformance with Code Civ. Proc.
6 $$ 2031.280 (aJ identiffing the documents produced to a specific request.

1 None of the L4 pages of documents produced are responsive to the demand.

I There is no indication that the responding party will comply or explanation for why the
responding part is unable to comply in conformance with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 2031.2I0, and
9
2031.230. The representation that Mr. Niderost andlor his designated representatives do not
10
have control of "all" communications between Mr. Niderost and Mr. Culley lacks explanation.
11
Why does Mr. Niderost and/or his designated representatives lack such control?
L2 The Responding Party does not speci$ whether the inability to comply is because the

13 particular item or category ofitem has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost,

I4 misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of
the responding party. The Responding Party does not speciSr the name and address of any
15
natural person or organization known or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or
I6
control of the item or category of item.
I1 Under the circumstances, the Court should compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.
1B NIDEROST, an individual person, to provide a complete and straightforward response without

1_9 objection, or in the alternative, order JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward
F. Niderost, and as Successor Trustee, to provide a complete and straightforward response in
20
compliance with comply with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 2031.2T0,and2031.230,2031.280 (a), as
27
applicable, without obj ection.
22
IIIOUESI'N0. 2. Any WIìITING (including without linritation emails or tcxt printcd

23 out to rcadable form) showing comnlunicalions hy and betwecn YOIJ and Wayne A. Cook.

7
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AV/ARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
RESPIONSE TO REOUEST NO.2:
1
No s¡rch documcars a¡e known to tlæ rcsponding party, despitc a rc¡son¿blc md diligent
2
seaæh, save snd cxccp concspodencc fiom nrsponding part¡r's counscl, tririch is in the
3 posscssion of the propoundrng party.

4 Thc Rcspøtding Party docs not havc accc*s or c{x¡lro¡ ofall commr¡nications of &lward

5
F. Nidcrq ildividually or Edw¡rd F. Niderost, former Trus¡ee of thc Edwa¡d F. Niderost

Revocable Living Trust Datcd Novcmbcr 8, I99t, br¡t b¡scodtrtcd ¡ ¡e¡son¡ble ard diligent
6
search of thosc documea¡s he was ¡bþ to aocess tbat bclongcd to of Edward F. Nidcrost,
1
individually or Edws¡d F. Nidffocl, fømcr Tnutcc of tlr Edn¡ad F. N¡dcrost

Reasons \ilhy Further Response is necessary.
o

10 The current response is evasive and nonresponsive. Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.

NIDEROST, an individual person, has never served a response to the subject discovery. JOHN
11
DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and as successor trustee of
1,2
EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served
13
evasive and noncompliant response on October 15,2020.
L4 (a) states
Code Civ. Proc. $ 2031.280 that:
15 "Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a

I6 demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified
with the specific request number to which the documents respond."
71
The Responding Party did not provide a response in conformance with Code Civ. Proc.
1B
$$ 2031.280 (a) identifying the documents produced to a specific request,
I9
None of the 14 pages of documents produced are responsive to the demand.
20
There is no indication that the responding party will comply or explanation for why the
27 responding part is unable to comply in conformance with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 203I.2I0, and

22 2031.230. The representation that Mr. Niderost andlor his designated representatives do not

have control of "all" communications between Mr. Niderost and Mr. Cook lack explanation.
23
Why does Mr. Niderost and/or his designated representatives lack such control?
24
The Responding Party does not speciff whether the inability to comply is because the
25
particular item or category ofitem has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost,
26

I
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AV/ARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of
the responding party. The Responding Party does not specify the name and address of any
2
natural person or organization known or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or
3
control of the item or category of item.
4
Under the circumstances, the Court should compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.
5
NIDEROST, an individual person, to provide a complete and straightforward response without
6 objection, or in the alternative, order JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward

7 F. Niderost, and as Successor Trustee, to provide a complete and straightforward response in

I compliance with comply with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 2031.210, and2031.230,2031.280 (a), as

applicable, without obj ection.
9

10 REOUIST NO. 3. Any WRJTNG {including without limitation emails or text printed

11 out to rcadable form) showing any communications by and bstween YOU and John Denton.

R,F^SPONSE TO REOUFST NO, 3:
12
No st¡ch docr¡n¡erts arc known to thc æryonding party, dcspiæ a ¡casonablc and diligert
13
search. s¡vc and cxcqil corrcspondcncc f¡qn rcspording ¡nrt¡r's corürsel, n{rich is in the
14 posscssion of thc propounding paly.
15 'lte Rsponding Party docs not bave aoc¡ess or conbol of ¡ll cqnm¡¡nicatiom of Edwa¡d

16 F. Nidcrcsç individully or lìdwa¡d F. Nidcrcst" fomrer Tn¡stee of thc lidrya¡d F- Ni&rost
Revoc¿ble Living'Irust Datcd lrlovcmbcr 8, 1998, but has csrductod a reasonsble ard diligcnt
1-1

s¿arch of tl¡osc documcnts hc wss able to æcess thæ belonged !o of Edwa¡d F. Niderosr.
18
individually or Edward F. Nidæsf, fom¡er Tn¡stcc of tlæ Ëdwa¡d F. ttirterost
19
Reasons Why Further Response is necessary.
20

2L The current response is evasive and nonresponsive. Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.

22 NIDEROST, an individual person, has never served a response to the subject discovery. JOHN
DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and as successor trustee of
23
EDV/ARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served
24
evasive and noncompliant response on October 15, 2020.
25

9
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 Code Civ. Proc. $ 2031.280 (a) states that:
"Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a
2
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified
3
with the specific request number to which the documents respond."
4
The Responding Party did not provide a response in conformance with Code Civ. Proc.
5
$$ 2031.280 [a) identifiiing the documents produced to a specific request.
6 None of the 14 pages of documents produced are responsive to the demand.

7 There is no indication that the responding party will comply or explanation for why the
responding part is unable to comply in conformance with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 203I.210, and
B

2031.230. The representation that Mr. Niderost and/or his designated representatives do not
9
have control of "all" communications between Mr. Niderost and Mr. Denton lacks explanation.
10
V/hy does Mr. Niderost andlor his designated representatives lack such control?
11
The Responding Party does not speci$ whether the inability to comply is because the
I2 particular item or category of item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost,

13 misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of
14
the responding party. The Responding Party does not speciff the name and address of any

natural person or organization known or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or
1tr
L)
control of the item or category of item.
1"6
Under the circumstances, the Court should compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.
L1
NIDEROST, an individual person, to provide a complete and straightforward response without
1B objection, or in the alternative, order JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward

19 F. Niderost, and as Successor Trustee, to provide a complete and straightforward response in

20
compliance with comply with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 2031.210, and2031.230,2031.280 (a), as

applicable, without obj ection.
2L

22 REOUE$T NO.4. Any WRITINû (including without limitation emails or texl printed

a) oul lo readable form) showing any communications by and betrveen YOtl and Lawrcnce Parerson.

atr
.J

10
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
RESPOIISE TO REIOTJEST NO. d:
1
Responsive &cumcnts knovm to thc rcspøding F¡ty, ¡ñcr a rcasonable and d¡liSgtrt
2
scarch, willbc producÊd"
3
T}lc Responding Pany doæ not h¡vc aoccss or cont¡ol of all communications of Btq,trd
4 F. Nide¡osL irdividully or Edward F. Nidcrosú, forurer Tr¡¡ste€ of the Ldyr¿ld F. l-liderost

5 Ræocablc Living Tn¡st Datcd Novcmbcr 8, 1998, but has cordre¡cd a ¡casonablc a¡rd dili¡cnt

search of tl¡osc&cumsrlr he was able CI aosess tløt bclongd to of lìdwsrd F. Nidcm¡t,
6
ituúividually or Rlurud F.Ni&roct formcr Trustce of thc Ednra¡d F. Nidcrost
'7

8 Reasons Why Further Response is necessary.

9
The current response is evasive and nonresponsive. Cross-Complainant EDV/ARD F.
10
NIDEROST, an individual person, has never served a response to the subject discovery. JOHN
11 DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and as successor trustee of

I2 EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served

evasive and noncompliant response on October 15, 2020.
13
Code Civ. Proc. $ 2031.280 [a) states that:
74
"Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a
i5
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified
76
with the specific request number to which the documents respond."
L1 The Responding Party did not provide a response in conformance with Code Civ. Proc.

1B $$ 2031.280 (a) identifying the documents produced to a specific request.

79
The one four page email chain between Mrs. Knowles and Mr, Lushanko (attorney
for Mr. Patterson) may be responsive, but we do not know if they are the only responsive
20
documents, if some are lost, destroyed, or in the possession of others without a compliance
21
response.
22
There is no indication that the responding party will comply or explanation for why the
23 responding part is unable to comply in conformance with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 203L210, and
24 2031.230. The representation that Mr. Niderost or his designated representatives do not have

25
control of "all" communications between Mr. Niderost and Mr. Patterson lacks explanation.

V/hy does Mr. Niderost andlor his designated representatives lack such control?
26

11
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AV/ARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 The Responding Party does not specifu whether the inability to comply is because the
particular item or category of item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost,
2
misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of
3
the responding party. The Responding Party does not speciff the name and address of any
4
natural person or organization known or believed by the party to have possession, custody, or
5
control of the item or category of item.
6 Under the circumstances, the Court should compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.

1 NIDEROST, an individual person, to provide a complete and straightforward response without

objection, or in the alternative, order JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward
F. Niderost, and as Successor Trustee, to provide a complete and straightforward response in
o
compliance with comply with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 2031.210, and2031.230,2031.280 (aJ, as
10
applicable, without obj ection.
11
REOUEST NO.5. Any \YRITING (irnluding without limitation mdial rcrords, charts,
72
or mental health rccord$, emails, text orelcctronically stord images printod out to rcadablc foru)
13
showing that Edward F. lrliderost suffcrrd from any cognitive disorder at âny time in !'cbruary
L4
2020.
15
RE,SFONSE TO REOIJEST NO. 5:
16 napoding Puty is conscrva¡ùr of Es¡aac, nod úc pcrcon and srh mderials ¡ú? noû, at

1-1 lhis timc, ar¡ail¡blcto tIæ Responding Party, dcspitc a reasomblc ard dilþm search.

Rcspondiry Party has m kmwledge that any docr¡ments rcsponsive !o th¡s rcqr€rtexist-
18

L9 Reasons Why Further Response is necessary.

20
Mr. Niderost alleged in his Cross-Complaint atparagraph2 that he suffered from
2I
and unknown cognitive disorder as follows:
22

L2
SEPARATE STATEEMNT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
DISCOVERY AND AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1
2. Cross-Compl¡innnt tunod E3 in the montb of May 2020. Cross-Conrplainalt

suffrrs ûom an unknowu oognitive disorder or condition and is iacapable ofmanrging hir ovm
2
affairs and ¡sscts. During thc tlmcs rcfcrøcod hcrcia Cross{omplai¡rsnt r,vas m¡niod
and atill is
3
to Yolanda Nidqost ('Mrs. NidemslI. From Dccambø 2019 úrougù April of 2020, Mn.
4
Nidcroot w¡s in her country of orígin, Chilc, and u¡ablc tÕ rst¡rn to thc Unitcd Statc¡ dus lo
t
J
COVID- 19 ravcl ba¡rs. Mrs. Niderost s¡raks English as a iocond languagc. Crom-Complainf

6 iluring the timec referencsd herein, was wlnenrhle to heing takcn nrlv¡ntnge of.
ancl is

1 The current response is evasive and nonresponsive. Mr. Niderost and/or his designated

I representatives fail to explain why they are unable to comply. Mr. Niderost andlor his
o
designated representatives state they have no knowledge that such category of records exist?
10
How is that? Did Mr. Niderost and/or his designated representatives make a diligent search and
11
a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply?
I2
Under the circumstances, the Court should compel Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.
13
NIDEROST, an individual person, to provide a complete and straightforward response without
14

15 objection, or in the alternative, order JOHN DENTORN, as Conservator of the Estate of Edward

1,6 F. Niderost, and as Successor Trustee, to provide a complete and straightforward response in

I1 compliance with comply with Code Civ. Proc. $$ 2031.210, and2031.230,2031.280 (a), as

18
applicable, without obj ection.
19
REOTJEST N(). ó. Any WRI'I'ING (including without limitation medial rccords, chafts.
20 rr mcntal hcalth rccords, emails, texl or electronically slored images printcd out to ¡eadable forn)

2L
Rcgucst for Production of Þocuments 5

24
showing that Edward F. Niderost sufferc

Case Info

Judge

Mosbarger, Tamara L Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 03, 2021

Case Filing Date

April 22, 2020

County

Parties

Chance, William Cross Defendant
Chance, William Cross Defendant
Cook, Wayne A Cross Defendant
Cook, Wayne A Cross Defendant
Cook, Wayne A. Cross Defendant
Culley, Gene Cross Defendant
Culley, Gene Cross Defendant
Edward f Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998 Cross Complainant
Edward f Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998 Defendant
Edward f Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998 Cross Complainant
Edward f Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998 Defendant
Griffith, David Richard Attorney
John Denton, as Successor Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998 Cross Defendant
John Denton, as Successor Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998 Cross Defendant
Knowles, Sara M Attorney
Knowles, Sara M Attorney for the Defendant
Knowles, Sara M Attorney
Knowles, Sara M Attorney for the Defendant
LeClerc, Raoul J Attorney
LeClerc, Raoul J Attorney
Lushanko, Larry Gene Attorney
Lushanko, Larry Gene Attorney
Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company Cross Defendant
Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company Cross Defendant
Patterson, Lawrence Cross Complainant
Patterson, Lawrence Cross Defendant
Patterson, Lawrence Cross Complainant
Patterson, Lawrence Cross Defendant
Sandelman, Raymond Louis Attorney
Sandelman, Raymond Louis Attorney for the Plaintiff
Sandelman, Raymond Louis Attorney
Sandelman, Raymond Louis Attorney for the Plaintiff
Starrett, Amy Elizabeth Attorney
Starrett, Amy Elizabeth Attorney
Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/ Cross Defendant
Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 Cross Defendant
Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 Plaintiff
Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 Cross Defendant
Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 Plaintiff
Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 Cross Defendant
Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 Plaintiff
Williams, Erwin Cross Defendant
Williams, Erwin Cross Defendant
David Griffin Attorney
Brittney Lushanko-Bartlett Attorneys for Defendants
John Kelley Attorney
Sara Mostafa-Ray Attorney
Steven Knowles Attorney
Andrew Morrissey Attorney
William Goines Attorneys for Defendants
Breeanna Brewer Attorneys for Defendants
Richard Wirtz Attorney
Spencer Hugret Attorney
Krista Sabin Attorney
Robert Nolan Attorneys for Defendants
Karley Buckley Attorneys for Defendants
Stephen Garcia Attorney
Jameson Sheehan Attorney

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

Hearing: Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 vs Edward f Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties