Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571
County of Santa Barbara
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240
1/21/2021 2:21 PM
Santa Barbara, California 93101
By: Elizabeth Spann, Deputy
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 (related to Case No.
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 19CV02357)
11 Individual,
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
12 Plaintiff, JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO COMPEL
13 VS. RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 Date: January 22, 2021
through 100, Inclusive, Time: 8:45 a.m.
15 Dept: Five
Defendants.
16 Assigned for all purposes to the
Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
17 Dept: 5
Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
18 Trial Date: March 8, 2021
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON hereby Oppose
the Ex Parte Application of Defendant JESSICA BERRY to compel responses to discovery.
DECLARATION OF MARK T. COFFIN
Iam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and the attorney of record
for Plaintiffs David Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson in the above-captioned case. I
am personally familiar with the facts contained in this Declaration, and if called upon as a
witness, I could and would testify thereto.
I received Defendant Jessica Berry’s Ex Parte Application via email on January 20, 2021, but
page 3 of the Application was missing from the copy I received. Therefore, I cannot respond
10 to anything contained on page 3 for that reason.
11 Ms. Berry’s Application states that “There has been no responses or production of documents
12 from Plaintiffs,” to the Requests for Admissions — Set One, and Request for Production of
13 Documents — Set One, that she served on February 10, 2020. This statement is incorrect.
14 In February of 2020, my office received written discovery from Defendant Jessica Berry
15 directed to my client, Plaintiff David Bertrand, consisting of Form Interrogatories, Special
16 Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents.
17 In February 2020, my office also received Ms. Berry’s written discovery directed to my
18 client, Plaintiff Dorothy Churchill-Johnson, consisting of Form Interrogatories, Special
19 Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents.
20 On March 11, 2020, my office served responses, on behalf of both Mr. Bertrand and Ms.
21 Churchill-Johnson, to all of Ms. Berry’s discovery via U.S. mail, to the address she listed on
22 the front page of each discovery instrument, namely Post Office Box 541, Santa Ynez,
23 California, 93460. Upon information and belief, this is the same address that Ms. Berry had
24 listed with the Court at the time.
25 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Mr. Bertrand’s verified Response
26 to Request for Admissions, Set 1, served by mail on March 11, 2020.
27
28
2
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Ms. Churchill-Johnson’s verified
Response
to Request
for Admissions, Set 1, served by mail on March 11, 2020.
9. Attached
as Exhibit C is a true and correct
copy of Mr. Bertrand and Ms. Churchill-
Johnson's verified Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, served by mail
on March 11, 2020.
10. Attached
hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct
copy of my transmittal letter dated March
16, 2020 to Ms. Beny, enclosing a “thumb drive” containing my clients’ document
production responding to Ms. Bery’s demand. I personally delivered this letter and an
enclosed thumb drive to Ms. Bemy’s attomey Jan Kaestner
on March 16, 2020, during the
10 CMADRESS mediation before neutral Penny Clemmons, Esq., which Ms. Berry also
11 personally attended. Because of Coronavirus concems, the parties to the mediation were
12 sequestered
in separate rooms. I explained
to Mr. Kaestner that the documents contained on
13 the thumb drive pertained
to Case 19CV02429, and asked
him to deliver
the drive to her,
14 which Mr. Kaestner promised to do. Later
that same day, Mr. Kaestner commented on
15 several pages of the document production, which
he told me Ms. Berry had been reviewing.
16 11. By my calculations, the 45-day period to compel further responses prescribed
by Code of
17 Civil Procedure sections 2031.310(c) [Inspection Demands] and 2033.290(c) [Requests for
18 Admission] expired on Thursday, April 30, 2020 (after adding an additional five days for
19 mail service of the responses).
20 12. For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Bemy’s Ex Parte Application is not well taken, and should be
21 denied. Likewise, her request for discovery sanctions should be denied.
22 I declare
under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of Califomia
that the foregoing is
23 true and correct, and that this Declaration
was executed on January 21, 2021 at Santa Barbara,
24 Califomia.
25
26 Mark T. Coffin, Declarant
27
3
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
10
11
12
EXHIBIT A
13
14
15
Plaintiff David Betrand's Response to Request for Admissions,
16
Set 1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 DAVID G, BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No, 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an
11 Individual, PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
12 Plaintiff, JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
13 VS.
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES |
through 100, Inclusive,
15 Assigned for all purposes to the
Defendants. Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
16 Dept: 5
Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
17 Trial Date: No Trial Date Set
18
19
20
21
2
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, JESSICA BERRY
2
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, DAVID G. BERTRAND
2
SET NUMBER: ONE
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF DAVID G, BERTRAND'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, et seq., Plaintiff, DAVID
G. BERTRAND (“Plaintiff”) responds to the Request for Admissions, Set One served by
Defendant JESSICA BERRY (“Defendant”) as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In responding to the document requests, Plaintiff will endeavor to produce those responsive
documents presently known by or available to Plaintiff which are not privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure. However, the discovery, investigation and preparation for trial of
Defendant with respect to this action have not been completed as of the date of these responses.
10 Plaintiff anticipates that ongoing discovery and investigation may uncover documents not
ll presently known but upon which they necessarily will rely in this action. Consequently, the
12 responses contained herein are not intended to and shall not preclude Defendant from relying upon
13 documents uncovered during ongoing discovery and investigation related to this action, whether or
14 not identified or produced herein. As discovery is ongoing and continuing with respect to each of
15 the categories of documents sought by the documents requests, Plaintiff reserves the right to
16 supplement and/or amend these responses to the document requests at any time up to and including
17 trial of this action,
18
1p GENERAL OBJECTIONS
20 1 Plaintiff objects to the First Set of Requests to the extent that they call for
21 information protected by attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine and/or any
22 other applicable privilege. Any inadvertent production of such information shall not be deemed to
23 waive any privilege with respect to such information or any work product doctrine which may
24 attach thereto.
25 2 Each and every general objection above is incorporated into each response below.
26 Mt
27 ffl
28
2
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1:
ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry came to live with YOU after Angeles Roman, a woman who
worked for YOU for more than a decade, locked Jessica Berry out of her apartment in a sublet scam.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1:
Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these
objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2:
ADMIT THAT YOU worked for a US Government Agency for long enough to take a full
10 retirement from them.
ll RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2:
12 Admit.
13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3:
14 ADMIT THAT YOU instructed Jessica Berry sue one of her past landlords in small claims
<
15 court twice.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3:
17 Deny.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4:
19 ADMIT THAT after giving Jessica Berry a surprise 10-day notice to vacate her residence, on
20 the 11" day you sent paperwork to file an Unlawful Detainer action against Jessica Berry.
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4:
22 Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these
23 objections, Respondent replies: This appears to be a statement of opinion with which Respondent
24 does not agree, and therefore Denies this request.
25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5:
26 ADMIT THAT YOU have paid Jessica Berry nothing of the over $98,003 awarded to her
27 April 22, 2019 by the CA labor commissioner.
28
3
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR |
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5:
Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6:
ADMIT THAT you went to Stanford University at the same time as Jessica Berry’s
grandfather.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6:
Objection: Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks
foundation; calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is
unable to admit or deny this request due to lack of personal knowledge.
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7:
ll ADMIT THAT YOU have sued Miss Berry 3 times in Santa Barbara Superior court since the
12 surprise notice terminating her tenancy.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7:
14 Deny.
=
15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8:
16 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has never sued YOU.
17 RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8:
18 Deny.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9:
20 ADMIT THAT YOU AND/OR YOUR agents have TRIED TO GET Jessica Berry arrested
21
2 on multiple occasions.
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9:
23 Deny.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10:
25 ADMIT THAT Mark Coffin colluded with jay Valentine so that YOU would gain a
26 judgment against Jessica Berry in that Unlawful Detainer Action
27 tif
28
4
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10:
Objection: Seeks to violate the attorney-client privilege. Subject to this objection,
Respondent replies: Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11:
ADMIT THAT Mark Coffin had the court venue changed to have the Unlawful Detainer case
tried by a judge who used to work for Mark Coffin.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11:
Objection: Seeks to violate the attorney-client privilege. Subject to this objection,
Respondent replies: Deny.
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12:
11 ADMIT THAT YOU paid Mark Coffin to write the lease which YOU used to illegally evict
12 Jessica Berry.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12:
14 Objection: Secks to violate the attorney-client privilege. Subject to this objection,
15 Respondent replies: Deny.
16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13:
17 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has not seen or been given the “Demand Letter” referenced in
18 YOUR discovery multiple times as being dated October 13, 2017.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13:
20 Objection: Lack of foundation, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections,
21 Respondent replies: Deny.
22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14:
23 ADMIT THAT each of YOUR constituents provided false testimony/evidence at the labor
24 board hearing help March 2019.
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14:
26 Objection: Vague, ambiguous, lacks foundation, incomprehensible. Subject to these
27 objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
28
5.
~ PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15:
ADMIT THAT YOUR tax filing status as an INDIVIDUAL is advantageous in that it allows
for you to write off “phantom” depreciation of real property against the very real rental income that
property generates; however this status does not provide the protection of limiting your liability.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15:
Objection: Seeks to violate Respondent’s right of financial privacy, improperly calls for
information regarding Respondent’s income tax returns, calls for a legal conclusion. Respondent
will not respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16:
10 ADMIT THAT YOUR lawyer has perpetrated multiple frauds against Jessica Berry on
il YOUR behalf.
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16:
13 Deny.
14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17:
i
15 ADMIT THAT there exists an active relationship between Judy Sturgeon and YOUR lawyer
16 Mark Coffin.
17 RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17:
18 Deny.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18:
20 ADMIT THAT YOU or YOUR AGENTS have an ongoing relationship with Jay Valentine.
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18:
22 Deny.
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19:
24 ADMIT THAT YOUR AGENTS have posted multiple advertisements for housing and
25 employment which were specifically targeting Jessica Berry
26 Mf
27 Mit
28
6
PLAINTIFF DAVID G, BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19:
Objection: Vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible, lacks foundation. Subject to these
objections, Respondent replies: Respondent cannot understand this question and, on that basis,
Denies this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20:
ADMIT THAT JESSICA BERRY increased the average monthly rental income YOU
realized from YOUR property in Santa Ynez from approx. $7000/mo to approx. $17,000/mo,
increasing the resale value by approx. $2,700,000. (CAV 4.5%)
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20:
10 Objection: Calls for expert testimony, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections,
11 Respondent replies: Deny.
12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21:
13 ADMIT THAT at least half of YOUR more than $1,000,000 in rental income 2015-2017
14 came directly from the work performed by Jessica Berry.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21:
16 Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative, Subject to these objections, Respondent
17 replies: Deny.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22:
19 ADMIT THAT YOU arranged to have faux criminal charges added the the back ground
20 records of Jessica Berry, making her appear not credible.
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22:
22 Deny.
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23:
24 ADMIT THAT YOUR relative and an heir to your estate is an acting Fire Chief in Santa
25 Barbara County.
26 fi]
27 /t/
28
7
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23:
Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, seeks to violate Respondent's right of privacy.
Respondent will not respond to this question.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24:
ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry she would be repaid for the cost of YOUR food and
business expenses.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24:
Objection: Compound. Without waiving this objection, Respondent replies: Respondent
never asked Jessica Berry to pay for Respondent’s business expenses, and therefore Denies this
10 request.
11 RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25:
12 ADMIT THAT the Labor Board has Awarded Jessica Berry $98,003 on April 22, 2019, but
13 YOU have paid Jessica Berry NOTHING
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25:
15 Admit.
16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26:
17 ADMIT THAT YOU instructed YOUR associates to not talk to Jessica Berry.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26:
19 Deny.
20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27:
21 ADMIT THAT YOU provided Barbara Palomarez LMFT with free and reduced rent while
22 Palomarez advised Jessica Berry to trust YOU
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27:
24 Deny.
25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28:
26 ADMIT THAT YOU cc’ed Barbara PALOMAREZ on BUSINESS documents pertaining to
27 Jessica Berry
28
8
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28:
Objection: Lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections,
Respondent replies: Respondent has no personal knowledge of any such communication and
therefore Denies this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29:
ADMIT THAT YOU coached YOUR constituents on what specific verbiage to use when
referencing YOUR oral agreements with Jessica Berry
RESPONSE TO RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29:
Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible, argumentative. Subject
10 to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent cannot understand this question, and therefore
1 Denies this request.
12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30:
13 ADMIT THAT YOU and YOUR constituents were aware Jessica Berry is a vulnerable
14 person who suffered from PTSD
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30:
16 Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, calls for expert opinion, calls for speculation.
17 Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31:
19 ADMIT THAT YOUR inner circle of constituents (those whom provided evidence or
20 testimony at the labor board hearing and Barbara Palomarez) were aware David Bertrand intended to
21 cheat Jessica Berry
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31:
23 Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, calls for expert opinion, calls for speculation,
24 argumentative. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 32:
26 ADMIT THAT YOU testified in court that YOURS weas an employer/employce
27 relationship; in reality YOU abused YOUR position of power over Jessica Berry.
28
9
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 32:
Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these
objections, Respondent replies: This appears to be a statement of opinion with which Respondent
does not agree, and therefore Denies this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 33:
ADMIT THAT David Bertrand exposed his genitals to Jessica Berry multiple times without
Jessica Berry ever asking David Bertrand to do so.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 33:
Deny.
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 34:
ll ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry was listed as YOUR emergency contact person at Cottage
12 Hospital for multiple years.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 34:
14 Objection: Lacks foundation, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, Respondent
15 replies: Respondent is unaware of any information to support this statement, and for that reason
16 Denies this request.
17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 35:
18 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry SAVED YOUR LIFE.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 35:
20 Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible, argumentative. Subject
21 to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 36:
23 ADMIT THAT YOU have a pattern of taking in vulnerable YOUNGER INDIVIDUALS and
24 housing them in the bedroom next to YOURS with three entrances, including one which is directly
25 from YOUR bedroom, in order for YOU to take advantage of them.
26 ‘if
27 Mf]
28
10
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 36:
Objection: Request for Admission number 36 is in violation of the California Code of Civil
Procedure § 2033.030(b) because Defendant has propounded more than 35 admission requests and
has exceeded its limit. Defendant did not serve a declaration for additional discovery and Plaintiff
objects and will not respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 37:
ADMIT THAT makes YOU A PREDATOR.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 37:
Objection: Request for Admission number 37 is in violation of the California Code of Civil
10 Procedure § 2033.030(b) because Defendant has propounded more than 35 admission requests and
ll has exceeded its limit. Defendant did not serve a declaration for additional discovery and Plaintiff
12 objects and will not respond to this request.
13
14
15 DATED: March 11, 2020 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
16
By:
17 Mar! oTiin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND
18 and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ll
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
VERIFICATION
DAVID G. BERTRAND, et al. v. JESSICA BERRY
I, DAVID G. BERTRAND, declare:
Tam a party to the above-titled matter. The foregoing document entitled PLAINTIFF
DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, has been read to me and I know the contents thereof. | certify
that the responses therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon
10
my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
1
12
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
4 foregoing is true and correct.
15 Executed at FTAGpe6/Xe Kalifornia this AL aayot_ [utr Cf 2020.
16
17
18
19 DAVID G. BERTRAND
20
221
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DAVID G, BERTRAND'S VERIFICATION
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
T am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and not a party to this action. My business address is 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240, Santa
Barbara, California 93101. On March 11, 2020, I served the foregoing documents described as
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, on the interested parties in this action:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
K BY U.S. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal
Service. I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s)
at the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following our
ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and
processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
10 collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
States Postal Service at Santa Barbara, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully
11 paid.
12 BY FACSIMILE: The document(s) were served by facsimile. The facsimile transmission
was without error and completed prior to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the transmission report is
13 available upon request.
14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: The document(s) were served by overnight delivery via
OnTrac. I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s)
15 and the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for pick-up by OnTrac. I am readily
familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence on the same day
16 with this courier service, for overnight delivery.
17 VIA EMAIL: I served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail, to the
addresses as listed on the attached service list, following my employer’s business practice for
18 collection and processing of correspondence. Such electronic transmission was reported as
complete and without error on this date.
19
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct.
21
tt Sore
Executed on March 11, 2020, at Santa Barbara, California.
22
23
tA
24 Scott A. Jaske
25
26
27
28
12
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
SERVICE LIST
Address Party
Jessica Berry
JESSICA BERRY, in pro per.
P.O. Box 541
Santa Ynez, CA 93460
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRYS REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
10
11
12
EXHIBIT B
13
14
15
Plaintiff Dorothy Churchill-Johnson's Response to Request
16
for Admissions, Set 1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT B
Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No, 168571
MARK T. COFFIN, P.C.
21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone: (805) 248-7118
Facsimile: (866) 567-4028
Email: mte@markcoffinlaw.com
Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an
1 Individual, PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-
JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO
12 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S
13 VS.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
ONE
14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive,
15
Defendants. Assigned for all purposes to the
16 Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
Dept: 5
a
17 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019
Trial Date: No Trial Date Set
18
19
20
21
22
23 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, JESSICA BERRY
24 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON
25 SET NUMBER: ONE
26
27
28
I
PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, ef seq., Plaintiff
DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”) responds to the Request for Admissions, Set
One served by Defendant JESSICA BERRY (“Defendant”) as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In responding to the document requests, Plaintiff will endeavor to produce those responsive
documents presently known by or available to Plaintiff which are not privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure. However, the discovery, investigation and preparation for trial of
Defendant with respect to this action have not been completed as of the date of these responses.
10 Plaintiff anticipates that ongoing discovery and investigation may uncover documents not
i presently known but upon which they necessarily will rely in this action. Consequently, the
12 responses contained herein are not intended to and shall not preclude Defendant from relying upon
13 documents uncovered during ongoing discovery and investigation related to this action, whether or
14 not identified or produced herein. As discovery is ongoing and continuing with respect to each of
15 the categories of documents sought by the documents requests, Plaintiff reserves the right to
16 supplement and/or amend these responses to the document requests at any time up to and including
17 trial of this action.
18
19 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
20 1 Plaintiff objects to the First Set of Requests to the extent that they call for
21 information protected by attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine and/or any
22 other applicable privilege. Any inadvertent production of such information shall not be deemed to
23 waive any privilege with respect to such information or any work product doctrine which may
24 attach thereto.
25 2 Each and every general objection above is incorporated into each response below.
26 fit
27 Mf
28
2
LAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1:
ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry brought YOU flowers on multiple occasions.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1:
Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2:
ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry complimented and promoted YOUR artwork.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2:
Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous, calls for speculation.
10 Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3:
12 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry paid Ken Stein to sit with YOU while YOU were hospitalized
13 so YOU would not be alone,
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3:
15 Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation. Subject to these
16 objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is unaware of any facts to support this statement and on
17 that basis Denies the request.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4:
19 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry brought YOU a life-size giraffe during that hospital stay which
20 YOU then donated to the children’s cancer unit
221 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4:
22 Objection: Compound, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, Respondent
23 replies: Admit.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5:
25 ADMIT THAT YOU are paid an above market rate for the TYPE OF work YOU perform for
26 David Bertrand.
27 /tt
28
3
PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5:
Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6:
ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry she should be “more appreciative” of David
Bertrand
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6:
Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Respondent
replies: Admit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7:
10 ADMIT THAT YOU came to the residence after neighbors called the Sheriffs to come while
11 David Bertrand was abusing Jessica Berry
12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7:
a
13 Objection: Incomprehensible, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, argumentative. Subject
14 to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
1S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8:
16 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has never sued YOU.
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8:
18 Admit.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9:
20 ADMIT THAT YOU AND/OR YOUR agents have TRIED TO GET Jessica Berry arrested
21 on multiple occasions,
22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9:
23 Deny.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10:
25 ADMIT THAT YOU provided falsified evidence to the Labor BOARD AT THE HEARING
26 in March of 2019
27 fit
28
4
PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10:
Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11:
ADMIT THAT YOU provided false testimony to the Labor Board at the hearing in March of
2019
RESPONSE TO RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11:
Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12:
ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry was illegally evicted
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12:
11 Deny.
122 RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13:
2
13 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has not seen or been given the “Demand Letter” referenced in
14 YOUR discovery multiple times as being dated October 13, 2017
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13:
16 Objection: Lack of foundation, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections,
17 Respondent replies: Deny.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14:
19 ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry multiple times that “no one is trying to cheat”
20 Jessica Berry
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:
22 Objection: Lack of foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation. Subject to these
23 objections, Respondent replies: Admit.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15:
25 ADMIT THAT YOU WERE AWARE DAVID BERTRAND WAS GOING TO CHEAT
26 JESSICA BERRY
27 Ht]
28
5
PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE. TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY*S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15:
Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16:
ADMIT THAT YOUR lawyer has perpetrated multiple frauds against Jessica Berry on
YOUR behalf.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16:
Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17:
ADMIT THAT theft by deception is now a recognized crime.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17:
11 Objection: Lacks foundation, calls for a legal opinion, not reasonably calculated to lead to
12 the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent will not respond to this request.
13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18:
14 ADMIT THAT YOU knew Jessica Berry was a vulnerable person.
is RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18:
16 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation.
17 Subject to these objections, Respondent replies; Deny.
18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19:
19 ADMIT THAT YOU lied to Jessica Berry over a period of 10 year.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19:
21 Deny.
22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20:
23 ADMIT THAT YOU gave Jessica Berry ACCOLADES for her job performance.
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20:
25 Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, argumentative, overbroad. Subject to these
26 objections, Respondent replies: On occasion Respondent complimented Ms. Berry’s job
27 performance.
28
6
“PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21:
ADMIT THAT you kept at least 250 paintings in a storage unit
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21:
Objection: Not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls
for speculation, lacks foundation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is
unable to admit or deny this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22:
ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has assisted you for free with the transporting of your
paintings.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22:
11 Objection: Not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls
12 for speculation, lacks foundation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is
13 unable to admit or deny this request.
14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23:
1S ADMIT THAT YOU ENCOURAGED JESSICA BERRY TO TRUST DAVID
16 BERTRAND AND CONTINUE WITH HIS PLAN
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23:
18 Objection: Not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls
19 for speculation, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible. Subject to these objections,
20 Respondent replies: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request.
21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24:
22 ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry she would be repaid for the cost of DAVID
23 BERTRAND’S food and business expenses
24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24:
25 Objection: Compound, overbroad, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous. Subject to these
26 objections, Respondent replies; Unable to admit or deny. However, Ms. Berry was paid for various
27 business expenses.
28
7
PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOINSON'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25:
ADMIT THAT you told Jessica Berry multiple times David Bertrand was going to buy her a
starter home in Lompoc
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25:
Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26:
ADMIT THAT YOU “ghosted” Jessica Berry AFTER SHE WAS ILLEGALLY EVICTED
AND WRONGFULLY TERMINATED AND WITHOUT PAYMENT
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26:
10 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous. Subject to these objections,
11 Respondent replies: This is a statement of opinion to which Respondent does not agree, and
12 therefore Denies this request.
13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27:
14 ADMIT THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF DAVID BERTRANDS SEXUAL
15 PROCLIVITIES.
16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27:
17 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, Subject to these objections, Respondent
18 replies; Deny.
19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28:
20 ADMIT THAT YOU used to date David Bertrand
21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28:
22 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation. Subject to these objections, Respondent
23 replies: Admit that Respondent dated Mr. Bertrand approximately 43 years ago.
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29:
25 ADMIT THAT YOUR lifestyle in Santa Barbara is dependent on the income you receive
26 from David Bertrand.
27 Ml
28
8
PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CIURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY'S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29:
Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative. Subject to these objections, Respondent
replies: Deny.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30:
ADMIT THAT YOU were aware Jessica Berry is a vulnerable person who suffered from
PTSD
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30:
Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation.
Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny.
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31:
1 ADMIT THAT YOU were aware Jessica Berry had not been paid for many thousands of
12 dollars of David Bertrand’s business expenses.
3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31:
14 Deny.
15
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 County of Santa Barbara MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 1/21/2021 2:21 PM Santa Barbara, California 93101 By: Elizabeth Spann, Deputy Telephone: (805) 248-7118 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs, DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 (related to Case No. DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 19CV02357) 11 Individual, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 12 Plaintiff, JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL 13 VS. RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 Date: January 22, 2021 through 100, Inclusive, Time: 8:45 a.m. 15 Dept: Five Defendants. 16 Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 17 Dept: 5 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019 18 Trial Date: March 8, 2021 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY Plaintiffs DAVID BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON hereby Oppose the Ex Parte Application of Defendant JESSICA BERRY to compel responses to discovery. DECLARATION OF MARK T. COFFIN Iam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and the attorney of record for Plaintiffs David Bertrand and Dorothy Churchill-Johnson in the above-captioned case. I am personally familiar with the facts contained in this Declaration, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify thereto. I received Defendant Jessica Berry’s Ex Parte Application via email on January 20, 2021, but page 3 of the Application was missing from the copy I received. Therefore, I cannot respond 10 to anything contained on page 3 for that reason. 11 Ms. Berry’s Application states that “There has been no responses or production of documents 12 from Plaintiffs,” to the Requests for Admissions — Set One, and Request for Production of 13 Documents — Set One, that she served on February 10, 2020. This statement is incorrect. 14 In February of 2020, my office received written discovery from Defendant Jessica Berry 15 directed to my client, Plaintiff David Bertrand, consisting of Form Interrogatories, Special 16 Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents. 17 In February 2020, my office also received Ms. Berry’s written discovery directed to my 18 client, Plaintiff Dorothy Churchill-Johnson, consisting of Form Interrogatories, Special 19 Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents. 20 On March 11, 2020, my office served responses, on behalf of both Mr. Bertrand and Ms. 21 Churchill-Johnson, to all of Ms. Berry’s discovery via U.S. mail, to the address she listed on 22 the front page of each discovery instrument, namely Post Office Box 541, Santa Ynez, 23 California, 93460. Upon information and belief, this is the same address that Ms. Berry had 24 listed with the Court at the time. 25 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Mr. Bertrand’s verified Response 26 to Request for Admissions, Set 1, served by mail on March 11, 2020. 27 28 2 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Ms. Churchill-Johnson’s verified Response to Request for Admissions, Set 1, served by mail on March 11, 2020. 9. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Mr. Bertrand and Ms. Churchill- Johnson's verified Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, served by mail on March 11, 2020. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of my transmittal letter dated March 16, 2020 to Ms. Beny, enclosing a “thumb drive” containing my clients’ document production responding to Ms. Bery’s demand. I personally delivered this letter and an enclosed thumb drive to Ms. Bemy’s attomey Jan Kaestner on March 16, 2020, during the 10 CMADRESS mediation before neutral Penny Clemmons, Esq., which Ms. Berry also 11 personally attended. Because of Coronavirus concems, the parties to the mediation were 12 sequestered in separate rooms. I explained to Mr. Kaestner that the documents contained on 13 the thumb drive pertained to Case 19CV02429, and asked him to deliver the drive to her, 14 which Mr. Kaestner promised to do. Later that same day, Mr. Kaestner commented on 15 several pages of the document production, which he told me Ms. Berry had been reviewing. 16 11. By my calculations, the 45-day period to compel further responses prescribed by Code of 17 Civil Procedure sections 2031.310(c) [Inspection Demands] and 2033.290(c) [Requests for 18 Admission] expired on Thursday, April 30, 2020 (after adding an additional five days for 19 mail service of the responses). 20 12. For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Bemy’s Ex Parte Application is not well taken, and should be 21 denied. Likewise, her request for discovery sanctions should be denied. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is 23 true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on January 21, 2021 at Santa Barbara, 24 Califomia. 25 26 Mark T. Coffin, Declarant 27 3 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 10 11 12 EXHIBIT A 13 14 15 Plaintiff David Betrand's Response to Request for Admissions, 16 Set 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No. 168571 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 248-7118 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 Email: mtc@markcoffinlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 DAVID G, BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No, 19CV02429 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 11 Individual, PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT 12 Plaintiff, JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR 13 VS. ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES | through 100, Inclusive, 15 Assigned for all purposes to the Defendants. Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 16 Dept: 5 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019 17 Trial Date: No Trial Date Set 18 19 20 21 2 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, JESSICA BERRY 2 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, DAVID G. BERTRAND 2 SET NUMBER: ONE 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF DAVID G, BERTRAND'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, et seq., Plaintiff, DAVID G. BERTRAND (“Plaintiff”) responds to the Request for Admissions, Set One served by Defendant JESSICA BERRY (“Defendant”) as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In responding to the document requests, Plaintiff will endeavor to produce those responsive documents presently known by or available to Plaintiff which are not privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. However, the discovery, investigation and preparation for trial of Defendant with respect to this action have not been completed as of the date of these responses. 10 Plaintiff anticipates that ongoing discovery and investigation may uncover documents not ll presently known but upon which they necessarily will rely in this action. Consequently, the 12 responses contained herein are not intended to and shall not preclude Defendant from relying upon 13 documents uncovered during ongoing discovery and investigation related to this action, whether or 14 not identified or produced herein. As discovery is ongoing and continuing with respect to each of 15 the categories of documents sought by the documents requests, Plaintiff reserves the right to 16 supplement and/or amend these responses to the document requests at any time up to and including 17 trial of this action, 18 1p GENERAL OBJECTIONS 20 1 Plaintiff objects to the First Set of Requests to the extent that they call for 21 information protected by attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine and/or any 22 other applicable privilege. Any inadvertent production of such information shall not be deemed to 23 waive any privilege with respect to such information or any work product doctrine which may 24 attach thereto. 25 2 Each and every general objection above is incorporated into each response below. 26 Mt 27 ffl 28 2 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1: ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry came to live with YOU after Angeles Roman, a woman who worked for YOU for more than a decade, locked Jessica Berry out of her apartment in a sublet scam. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1: Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2: ADMIT THAT YOU worked for a US Government Agency for long enough to take a full 10 retirement from them. ll RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2: 12 Admit. 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3: 14 ADMIT THAT YOU instructed Jessica Berry sue one of her past landlords in small claims < 15 court twice. 16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3: 17 Deny. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4: 19 ADMIT THAT after giving Jessica Berry a surprise 10-day notice to vacate her residence, on 20 the 11" day you sent paperwork to file an Unlawful Detainer action against Jessica Berry. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4: 22 Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these 23 objections, Respondent replies: This appears to be a statement of opinion with which Respondent 24 does not agree, and therefore Denies this request. 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5: 26 ADMIT THAT YOU have paid Jessica Berry nothing of the over $98,003 awarded to her 27 April 22, 2019 by the CA labor commissioner. 28 3 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR | ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6: ADMIT THAT you went to Stanford University at the same time as Jessica Berry’s grandfather. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6: Objection: Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; lacks foundation; calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request due to lack of personal knowledge. 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7: ll ADMIT THAT YOU have sued Miss Berry 3 times in Santa Barbara Superior court since the 12 surprise notice terminating her tenancy. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7: 14 Deny. = 15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8: 16 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has never sued YOU. 17 RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8: 18 Deny. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9: 20 ADMIT THAT YOU AND/OR YOUR agents have TRIED TO GET Jessica Berry arrested 21 2 on multiple occasions. 22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9: 23 Deny. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10: 25 ADMIT THAT Mark Coffin colluded with jay Valentine so that YOU would gain a 26 judgment against Jessica Berry in that Unlawful Detainer Action 27 tif 28 4 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10: Objection: Seeks to violate the attorney-client privilege. Subject to this objection, Respondent replies: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11: ADMIT THAT Mark Coffin had the court venue changed to have the Unlawful Detainer case tried by a judge who used to work for Mark Coffin. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11: Objection: Seeks to violate the attorney-client privilege. Subject to this objection, Respondent replies: Deny. 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12: 11 ADMIT THAT YOU paid Mark Coffin to write the lease which YOU used to illegally evict 12 Jessica Berry. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12: 14 Objection: Secks to violate the attorney-client privilege. Subject to this objection, 15 Respondent replies: Deny. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13: 17 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has not seen or been given the “Demand Letter” referenced in 18 YOUR discovery multiple times as being dated October 13, 2017. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13: 20 Objection: Lack of foundation, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, 21 Respondent replies: Deny. 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14: 23 ADMIT THAT each of YOUR constituents provided false testimony/evidence at the labor 24 board hearing help March 2019. 25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14: 26 Objection: Vague, ambiguous, lacks foundation, incomprehensible. Subject to these 27 objections, Respondent replies: Deny. 28 5. ~ PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15: ADMIT THAT YOUR tax filing status as an INDIVIDUAL is advantageous in that it allows for you to write off “phantom” depreciation of real property against the very real rental income that property generates; however this status does not provide the protection of limiting your liability. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15: Objection: Seeks to violate Respondent’s right of financial privacy, improperly calls for information regarding Respondent’s income tax returns, calls for a legal conclusion. Respondent will not respond to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16: 10 ADMIT THAT YOUR lawyer has perpetrated multiple frauds against Jessica Berry on il YOUR behalf. 12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16: 13 Deny. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17: i 15 ADMIT THAT there exists an active relationship between Judy Sturgeon and YOUR lawyer 16 Mark Coffin. 17 RESPONSE TO RE UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17: 18 Deny. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18: 20 ADMIT THAT YOU or YOUR AGENTS have an ongoing relationship with Jay Valentine. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18: 22 Deny. 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19: 24 ADMIT THAT YOUR AGENTS have posted multiple advertisements for housing and 25 employment which were specifically targeting Jessica Berry 26 Mf 27 Mit 28 6 PLAINTIFF DAVID G, BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19: Objection: Vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible, lacks foundation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent cannot understand this question and, on that basis, Denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20: ADMIT THAT JESSICA BERRY increased the average monthly rental income YOU realized from YOUR property in Santa Ynez from approx. $7000/mo to approx. $17,000/mo, increasing the resale value by approx. $2,700,000. (CAV 4.5%) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20: 10 Objection: Calls for expert testimony, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, 11 Respondent replies: Deny. 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21: 13 ADMIT THAT at least half of YOUR more than $1,000,000 in rental income 2015-2017 14 came directly from the work performed by Jessica Berry. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21: 16 Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative, Subject to these objections, Respondent 17 replies: Deny. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22: 19 ADMIT THAT YOU arranged to have faux criminal charges added the the back ground 20 records of Jessica Berry, making her appear not credible. 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22: 22 Deny. 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23: 24 ADMIT THAT YOUR relative and an heir to your estate is an acting Fire Chief in Santa 25 Barbara County. 26 fi] 27 /t/ 28 7 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23: Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, seeks to violate Respondent's right of privacy. Respondent will not respond to this question. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24: ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry she would be repaid for the cost of YOUR food and business expenses. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24: Objection: Compound. Without waiving this objection, Respondent replies: Respondent never asked Jessica Berry to pay for Respondent’s business expenses, and therefore Denies this 10 request. 11 RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25: 12 ADMIT THAT the Labor Board has Awarded Jessica Berry $98,003 on April 22, 2019, but 13 YOU have paid Jessica Berry NOTHING 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25: 15 Admit. 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26: 17 ADMIT THAT YOU instructed YOUR associates to not talk to Jessica Berry. 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26: 19 Deny. 20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27: 21 ADMIT THAT YOU provided Barbara Palomarez LMFT with free and reduced rent while 22 Palomarez advised Jessica Berry to trust YOU 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27: 24 Deny. 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28: 26 ADMIT THAT YOU cc’ed Barbara PALOMAREZ on BUSINESS documents pertaining to 27 Jessica Berry 28 8 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28: Objection: Lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent has no personal knowledge of any such communication and therefore Denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29: ADMIT THAT YOU coached YOUR constituents on what specific verbiage to use when referencing YOUR oral agreements with Jessica Berry RESPONSE TO RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29: Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible, argumentative. Subject 10 to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent cannot understand this question, and therefore 1 Denies this request. 12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30: 13 ADMIT THAT YOU and YOUR constituents were aware Jessica Berry is a vulnerable 14 person who suffered from PTSD 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30: 16 Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, calls for expert opinion, calls for speculation. 17 Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31: 19 ADMIT THAT YOUR inner circle of constituents (those whom provided evidence or 20 testimony at the labor board hearing and Barbara Palomarez) were aware David Bertrand intended to 21 cheat Jessica Berry 22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31: 23 Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, calls for expert opinion, calls for speculation, 24 argumentative. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. 25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 32: 26 ADMIT THAT YOU testified in court that YOURS weas an employer/employce 27 relationship; in reality YOU abused YOUR position of power over Jessica Berry. 28 9 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 32: Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: This appears to be a statement of opinion with which Respondent does not agree, and therefore Denies this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 33: ADMIT THAT David Bertrand exposed his genitals to Jessica Berry multiple times without Jessica Berry ever asking David Bertrand to do so. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 33: Deny. 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 34: ll ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry was listed as YOUR emergency contact person at Cottage 12 Hospital for multiple years. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 34: 14 Objection: Lacks foundation, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, Respondent 15 replies: Respondent is unaware of any information to support this statement, and for that reason 16 Denies this request. 17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 35: 18 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry SAVED YOUR LIFE. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 35: 20 Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible, argumentative. Subject 21 to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 36: 23 ADMIT THAT YOU have a pattern of taking in vulnerable YOUNGER INDIVIDUALS and 24 housing them in the bedroom next to YOURS with three entrances, including one which is directly 25 from YOUR bedroom, in order for YOU to take advantage of them. 26 ‘if 27 Mf] 28 10 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 36: Objection: Request for Admission number 36 is in violation of the California Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.030(b) because Defendant has propounded more than 35 admission requests and has exceeded its limit. Defendant did not serve a declaration for additional discovery and Plaintiff objects and will not respond to this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 37: ADMIT THAT makes YOU A PREDATOR. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 37: Objection: Request for Admission number 37 is in violation of the California Code of Civil 10 Procedure § 2033.030(b) because Defendant has propounded more than 35 admission requests and ll has exceeded its limit. Defendant did not serve a declaration for additional discovery and Plaintiff 12 objects and will not respond to this request. 13 14 15 DATED: March 11, 2020 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 16 By: 17 Mar! oTiin Attorneys for Plaintiffs DAVID G. BERTRAND 18 and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ll PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE VERIFICATION DAVID G. BERTRAND, et al. v. JESSICA BERRY I, DAVID G. BERTRAND, declare: Tam a party to the above-titled matter. The foregoing document entitled PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, has been read to me and I know the contents thereof. | certify that the responses therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon 10 my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. 1 12 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the 4 foregoing is true and correct. 15 Executed at FTAGpe6/Xe Kalifornia this AL aayot_ [utr Cf 2020. 16 17 18 19 DAVID G. BERTRAND 20 221 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID G, BERTRAND'S VERIFICATION PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA T am employed in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240, Santa Barbara, California 93101. On March 11, 2020, I served the foregoing documents described as PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, on the interested parties in this action: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST K BY U.S. MAIL: This document was served by United States mail through the US Postal Service. I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for 10 collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service at Santa Barbara, California, in a sealed envelope with postage fully 11 paid. 12 BY FACSIMILE: The document(s) were served by facsimile. The facsimile transmission was without error and completed prior to 5:00 p.m. A copy of the transmission report is 13 available upon request. 14 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: The document(s) were served by overnight delivery via OnTrac. I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person(s) 15 and the address(es) above and placed the envelope(s) for pick-up by OnTrac. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence on the same day 16 with this courier service, for overnight delivery. 17 VIA EMAIL: I served the documents above on all parties via electronic mail, to the addresses as listed on the attached service list, following my employer’s business practice for 18 collection and processing of correspondence. Such electronic transmission was reported as complete and without error on this date. 19 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 20 foregoing is true and correct. 21 tt Sore Executed on March 11, 2020, at Santa Barbara, California. 22 23 tA 24 Scott A. Jaske 25 26 27 28 12 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE SERVICE LIST Address Party Jessica Berry JESSICA BERRY, in pro per. P.O. Box 541 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 PLAINTIFF DAVID G. BERTRAND’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRYS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 10 11 12 EXHIBIT B 13 14 15 Plaintiff Dorothy Churchill-Johnson's Response to Request 16 for Admissions, Set 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT B Mark T. Coffin, State Bar No, 168571 MARK T. COFFIN, P.C. 21 E. Carrillo Street, Suite 240 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 248-7118 Facsimile: (866) 567-4028 Email: mte@markcoffinlaw.com Attomeys for Plaintiff DAVID G. BERTRAND and DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 10 DAVID G. BERTRAND, an Individual, Case No. 19CV02429 DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON, an 1 Individual, PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL- JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S 13 VS. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 14 JESSICA BERRY, an Individual, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, 15 Defendants. Assigned for all purposes to the 16 Hon. Colleen K. Sterne Dept: 5 a 17 Complaint Date: May 7, 2019 Trial Date: No Trial Date Set 18 19 20 21 22 23 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, JESSICA BERRY 24 RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON 25 SET NUMBER: ONE 26 27 28 I PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, ef seq., Plaintiff DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”) responds to the Request for Admissions, Set One served by Defendant JESSICA BERRY (“Defendant”) as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In responding to the document requests, Plaintiff will endeavor to produce those responsive documents presently known by or available to Plaintiff which are not privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. However, the discovery, investigation and preparation for trial of Defendant with respect to this action have not been completed as of the date of these responses. 10 Plaintiff anticipates that ongoing discovery and investigation may uncover documents not i presently known but upon which they necessarily will rely in this action. Consequently, the 12 responses contained herein are not intended to and shall not preclude Defendant from relying upon 13 documents uncovered during ongoing discovery and investigation related to this action, whether or 14 not identified or produced herein. As discovery is ongoing and continuing with respect to each of 15 the categories of documents sought by the documents requests, Plaintiff reserves the right to 16 supplement and/or amend these responses to the document requests at any time up to and including 17 trial of this action. 18 19 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 20 1 Plaintiff objects to the First Set of Requests to the extent that they call for 21 information protected by attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine and/or any 22 other applicable privilege. Any inadvertent production of such information shall not be deemed to 23 waive any privilege with respect to such information or any work product doctrine which may 24 attach thereto. 25 2 Each and every general objection above is incorporated into each response below. 26 fit 27 Mf 28 2 LAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1: ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry brought YOU flowers on multiple occasions. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 1: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2: ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry complimented and promoted YOUR artwork. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 2: Objection: Compound, lacks foundation, vague and ambiguous, calls for speculation. 10 Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3: 12 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry paid Ken Stein to sit with YOU while YOU were hospitalized 13 so YOU would not be alone, 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 3: 15 Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation. Subject to these 16 objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is unaware of any facts to support this statement and on 17 that basis Denies the request. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4: 19 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry brought YOU a life-size giraffe during that hospital stay which 20 YOU then donated to the children’s cancer unit 221 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 4: 22 Objection: Compound, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, Respondent 23 replies: Admit. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5: 25 ADMIT THAT YOU are paid an above market rate for the TYPE OF work YOU perform for 26 David Bertrand. 27 /tt 28 3 PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 5: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6: ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry she should be “more appreciative” of David Bertrand RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 6: Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Admit. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7: 10 ADMIT THAT YOU came to the residence after neighbors called the Sheriffs to come while 11 David Bertrand was abusing Jessica Berry 12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 7: a 13 Objection: Incomprehensible, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, argumentative. Subject 14 to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. 1S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8: 16 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has never sued YOU. 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 8: 18 Admit. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9: 20 ADMIT THAT YOU AND/OR YOUR agents have TRIED TO GET Jessica Berry arrested 21 on multiple occasions, 22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 9: 23 Deny. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10: 25 ADMIT THAT YOU provided falsified evidence to the Labor BOARD AT THE HEARING 26 in March of 2019 27 fit 28 4 PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 10: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11: ADMIT THAT YOU provided false testimony to the Labor Board at the hearing in March of 2019 RESPONSE TO RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 11: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12: ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry was illegally evicted 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 12: 11 Deny. 122 RE! UEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13: 2 13 ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has not seen or been given the “Demand Letter” referenced in 14 YOUR discovery multiple times as being dated October 13, 2017 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 13: 16 Objection: Lack of foundation, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, 17 Respondent replies: Deny. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 14: 19 ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry multiple times that “no one is trying to cheat” 20 Jessica Berry 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: 22 Objection: Lack of foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation. Subject to these 23 objections, Respondent replies: Admit. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15: 25 ADMIT THAT YOU WERE AWARE DAVID BERTRAND WAS GOING TO CHEAT 26 JESSICA BERRY 27 Ht] 28 5 PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE. TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY*S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 15: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16: ADMIT THAT YOUR lawyer has perpetrated multiple frauds against Jessica Berry on YOUR behalf. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 16: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17: ADMIT THAT theft by deception is now a recognized crime. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 17: 11 Objection: Lacks foundation, calls for a legal opinion, not reasonably calculated to lead to 12 the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent will not respond to this request. 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18: 14 ADMIT THAT YOU knew Jessica Berry was a vulnerable person. is RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 18: 16 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation. 17 Subject to these objections, Respondent replies; Deny. 18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19: 19 ADMIT THAT YOU lied to Jessica Berry over a period of 10 year. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 19: 21 Deny. 22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20: 23 ADMIT THAT YOU gave Jessica Berry ACCOLADES for her job performance. 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 20: 25 Objection: Lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, argumentative, overbroad. Subject to these 26 objections, Respondent replies: On occasion Respondent complimented Ms. Berry’s job 27 performance. 28 6 “PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21: ADMIT THAT you kept at least 250 paintings in a storage unit RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 21: Objection: Not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls for speculation, lacks foundation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22: ADMIT THAT Jessica Berry has assisted you for free with the transporting of your paintings. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 22: 11 Objection: Not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls 12 for speculation, lacks foundation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Respondent is 13 unable to admit or deny this request. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23: 1S ADMIT THAT YOU ENCOURAGED JESSICA BERRY TO TRUST DAVID 16 BERTRAND AND CONTINUE WITH HIS PLAN 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 23: 18 Objection: Not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; calls 19 for speculation, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible. Subject to these objections, 20 Respondent replies: Respondent is unable to admit or deny this request. 21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24: 22 ADMIT THAT YOU told Jessica Berry she would be repaid for the cost of DAVID 23 BERTRAND’S food and business expenses 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 24: 25 Objection: Compound, overbroad, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous. Subject to these 26 objections, Respondent replies; Unable to admit or deny. However, Ms. Berry was paid for various 27 business expenses. 28 7 PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CHURCHILL-JOINSON'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25: ADMIT THAT you told Jessica Berry multiple times David Bertrand was going to buy her a starter home in Lompoc RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 25: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26: ADMIT THAT YOU “ghosted” Jessica Berry AFTER SHE WAS ILLEGALLY EVICTED AND WRONGFULLY TERMINATED AND WITHOUT PAYMENT RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 26: 10 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous. Subject to these objections, 11 Respondent replies: This is a statement of opinion to which Respondent does not agree, and 12 therefore Denies this request. 13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27: 14 ADMIT THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF DAVID BERTRANDS SEXUAL 15 PROCLIVITIES. 16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 27: 17 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, Subject to these objections, Respondent 18 replies; Deny. 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28: 20 ADMIT THAT YOU used to date David Bertrand 21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 28: 22 Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation. Subject to these objections, Respondent 23 replies: Admit that Respondent dated Mr. Bertrand approximately 43 years ago. 24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29: 25 ADMIT THAT YOUR lifestyle in Santa Barbara is dependent on the income you receive 26 from David Bertrand. 27 Ml 28 8 PLAINTIFF DOROTHY CIURCHILL-JOHNSON’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JESSICA BERRY'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 29: Objection: Lacks foundation, argumentative. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30: ADMIT THAT YOU were aware Jessica Berry is a vulnerable person who suffered from PTSD RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 30: Objection: Argumentative, lacks foundation, vague, ambiguous, calls for speculation. Subject to these objections, Respondent replies: Deny. 10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31: 1 ADMIT THAT YOU were aware Jessica Berry had not been paid for many thousands of 12 dollars of David Bertrand’s business expenses. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NO. 31: 14 Deny. 15