Preview
F Superior Court of California F
DAVID R. GRIFFITH, ESQ. (SBN- 170172)
JAMESON E.P. SHEEHAN, ESQ. (SBN 327287) County of Butte
GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP
1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3 11/12/2020
Chico, California 95928
Telephone: (530) 812-1000 Kim) | cl
Facsimile: (530) 809-1093 By Deputy
6 ctronically D
Email: david@davidgriffithlaw.com
jameson@griffithandhorn.com
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant,
RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY
8
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
11
WAYNE A. COOK, Trustee of the Case No. 20CV00905
Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust
12 Dated 12/29/98, DECLARATION OF DAVID R.
GRIFIFTH IN SUPPORT OF
Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONES TO INSPECTION
14
vs. DEMANDS AND TO AWARD
15 MONESTARY SANCTIONS
EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually;
and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F.
NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST Dated November 8, 1998;
DOES 1 through 10,
18
Defendants.
19
20 Date: December 16, 2020
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Time: 9:00 a.m.
21 Dept.: TBA
22
I, DAVID R. GRIFIFTH, declare
23
1. | am the attorney of record herein for Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE
24 CULLEY and make this declaration in support of Cross-Defendant’s motion to compel Cross-
25 Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, an individual person, and his representatives JOHN
26
DENTON and as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and as successor trustee of
i:
DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, to
provide further responses to Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 6, a
misnumbered duplicate 6, and 7 through 15, served herein on June 29, 2020, without objections,
and to award monetary sanctions.
2. On June 29, 2020, Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY served by mail
upon Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually, and as Trustee of THE
EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, Request
for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Numbers 1 through 15. The request contained a
definition for the Responding Party as follows:
B. “YOU” and YOUR” means and refers to Cross-Complainant EDWARD
F, NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST
0
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 and anyone acting
li on his behalf including, without limitation, John Denton as Conservator of the
Estate of Edward F. Niderost and John Denton as Successor Trustee of the
Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998.
A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”.
14
3. The responses to the subject discovery were originally due 30, plus five days for
15
mailing, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§§ 1013(a), 2031.260(a) and 2016.050, which was|
16
Sunday August 2, 2020, so then falling to the next court day of August 3, 2020.
4. On August 21, 2020, counsel for Cross-Complainant, Sara Knowles, advised me that
18 she needed an additional extension of time to respond to the discovery until Monday August 24,
19 2020, which was granted, but no responses were received.
20 5. On September 15, 2020, I had my office reach out to counsel for Cross-Complainant,
Sara Knowles, by email to see if we could get responses to the subject discovery to avoid court
21
intervention and there was no response.
22
6. On October 15, 2020, JOHN DENTON, as the Conservator of the Estate of Cross-
23
Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, and as the Successor Trustee of THE EDWARD F.
24 NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served deficient
25 responses to the subject discovery. There is no know conservatorship of the person of Cross-
26 Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST and said Cross-Complainant as an individual person has
2
DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
1 never provided any responses to the subject discovery. A true and correct copy is attached
hereto as Exhibit “2”.
The documents produced consist of 14 pages as follows:
Pages 1-3 _ Chico Enterprise Record, New Article, “Landmark Miller
Mansion Has been Sold”
Page 4 Letter from Knowles dated June 26, 2020 to tenants.
Pages 5-6 Order in Conservatorship dated June 4, 2020
Pages 7-8 Order in Conservatorship dated June 17, 2020
Pages 9-10 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 4, 2020
Pages 11-14 - Email Chain dated May 15, 2020 to June 15, 2020 between
Mr. Lushanko and Mrs. Knowles.
10
7. On October 16, 2020, I sent a meet and confer letter to attorney Knowles outlining
11
the deficient responses and requesting amended and further responses. A true and correct copy is|
12 attached hereto as Exhibit “3”.
13 8. On October 28, 2020, I sent another meet and confer communication to attorney
14 Knowles requesting a response to the meet and confer of October 16, 2020.
9. On October 28, 2020, Mrs. Knowles responded to me advising that she could get
1:
back to me by November 6, 2020.
16
10. At the time of filing this motion, there still has been no response from Mrs. Knowles.
17
11. Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY has reasonably incurred the sum
18 of $1,830.00 to bring this motion as follows:
19 Date Professional Services Rendered Hrs. Rate Amount
2¢ 11/11/2020 Preparation of Notice of Motion. .25 $350.00 $ 87.50
11/11/2020 Preparation of Memorandum of
21
Points and Authorities. 1.75 $350.00 $612.50
22
11/11/2020 Preparation of Griffith Declaration 25 $350.00 $ 87.50
23
11/11/2020 Preparation of Separate Statement 2.75 $350.00 $962.50
24 Subtotal $1,750.00
25 09/22/2020 Motion Filing Fee $80.00
26
TOTAL $1,830.00
3
DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
forgoing is true and correct of my own personal knowledge and that I have signed this
declaration in Chico, California, on the date set forth below.
4 DATED: November 12, 2020. By? >
DAVID R. GRIFFITH
10
a1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the within action; my business address is1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico,
California 95928.
On this date, I served the foregoing document described as:
DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION
DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
Said document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a
Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Raymond L. Sandelman, Esq.
Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP Attorney at Law
1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225
10 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95926
Email: sknowles@Chicolawyer.com Email: Raymond@sandelmanlaw.com
11
Larry Lushanko, Esq.
12
1241 E. Mission Road
Fallbrook, CA 92028
13
Email: office@lushankolaw.com
14
15
I am familiar with our firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
with postage thereon fully prepaid at Chico, California in the ordinary course of business. Iam
17
aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation
date or postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in
this declaration.
18
_ X_ (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Chico, California. The envelope was
19
mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid to the person at the address set forth above.
20 xX (By Electronic Mail) Such document was delivered by electronic mail to the persons at
the addresses set forth above.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
22 is true and correct. I further declare that I made the service set forth herein on the date set forth
below.
23
Executed on November (2 , 2020, at Chico, California.
24
25 By: foe
Steven Chamberlin
26
5
DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS
Exhibit “1”
DAVID R. GRIFFITH, ESQ. (SBN- 170172)
JAMESON E.P. SHEEHAN, ESQ. (SBN 327287)
GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP
1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3
Chico, California 95928
Telephone: (530) 812-1000
Facsimile: (530) 809-1093
Email: david@davidgriffithlaw.com
jameson@griffithandhorn.com
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant,
RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10 WAYNE A. COOK, Trustee of the Case No. 20CV00905
Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust
11 Dated 12/29/98, REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND
COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND
12 Plaintiff, THINGS
13 vs.
14 EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually
and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F.
15 NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST Dated November 8, 1998;
16 DOES 1 through 10,
17 Defendants.
18
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
19
20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY
21 (Sued herein as Gene Culley)
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually
23 and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST
24 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998
25 SET NO.: ONE
26 TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT EDWARD F, NIDEROST, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
27 TRUSTEE OF THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED
28 NOVEMBER 8, 1998 AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD HEREIN:
Request for Production of Documents
Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY (sued herein as Gene Culley) requests
that Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD
F, NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, produce and permit the
inspection and copying the documents described herein.
The production, inspection and copying of said writings is to take place at the offices of
GRIFFITH & horn, LLP, located at 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico, California 95928, within
thirty (30) days from the date of service of this demand, extended by five (5) days, if served by
regular United States Mail. Each document produced will be reviewed, duplicated by use of a
copy machine, and returned without destruction of the document or permanent alteration. The
10 responding party may, if desired, provide legible copies to the requesting party’s attorney of record
11 at the place and date indicated in lieu of providing the originals for inspection and copying.
12 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
13 FOR RESP' NDING TO INSPECTION DEMANDS
14 The responding party is directed to take note of the statutory rules required for responding
15 to the below referenced inspection demands as follows:
16 1, Nature and Form of Response to Inspection Demand. Pursuant to Code of Civil
17 Procedure § 2031.210, the content and form of response, should be as follows:
18 (a) The party to whom an inspection demand has been directed shall respond
19 separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:
20 1 A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for
21 inspection and any related activities.
22 A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the
23 demand for inspection of a particular item or category of item.
24 3 An objection to the particular demand.
25 (b) In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the case,
26 there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number, and the identity of the
27 demanding party.
28 (c) Each statement of compliance, each representation, and each objection in the
Request for Production of Documents 2
response shall bear the same number and be in the same sequence as the corresponding item or
category in the demand, but the text of that item or category need not be repeated.
2. Statement of Compliance in Full or in Part. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
§2031.220, “[a] statement that the party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will
comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity
demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the
demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no
objection is being made will be included in the production.”
3. Statement of Inability to Comply. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230,
10 “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm
11 that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that
12 demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular
13 item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has
14 never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The
15 statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or
16 believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”
17 4. Statements Regarding Demand that is Objectionable in Whole or in Part.
18 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240, a statements regarding a demand that is
19 objectionable in whole or in part shall be made as follows:
20 (a) If only part of an item or category of item in an inspection demand is objectionable,
21 the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability
22 to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.
23 (b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category
24 of item, the response shall do both of the following:
25 ay Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or land falling
26 within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being
27 made.
28 Q) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If
Request for Production of Documents
an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked
shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information
sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with
Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.
5. Signing Statement to Demand. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.250,
signing the response to an inspection demand should be made as follows:
(a) The party to whom the demand for inspection is directed shall sign the response
under oath unless the response contains only objections.
(b) If that party is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or
10 governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath
11 on behalf of that party. If the officer or agent signing the response on behalf of that
12 party is an attorney acting in that capacity for a party, that party waives any lawyer-
13 client privilege and any protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing
14 with Section 2018.010) during any subsequent discovery from that attorney
15 concerning the identity of the sources of the information contained in the response.
16 (©) The attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an
17 objection.
18 6. Form in Which Documents to Be Produced; Organization; Translation; Expense.
19 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280, the form in which documents are to be
20 produced and the translation or expenses related to same is as follows:
21 (a) Any documents produced in response to an inspection demand shall either be
22 produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to
23 correspond with the categories in the demand.
24 (b) If necessary, the responding party at the reasonable expense of the demanding
25 party shall, through detection devices, translate any data compilations included in the demand into
26 reasonably usable form.
27 DEFINITIONS
28 For purposes of these Production and Inspection Demands, the following terms shall be
Request for Production of Documents
construed to include the following:
A "WRITING" as used herein means a “writing” as defined by California Evidence
Code Section 250 as being “...handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing,
photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording
upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words,
pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of
the manner in which the record has been stored.”
B. “YOU” and YOUR” means and refers to Cross-Complainant EDWARD F.
NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE
10 LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 and anyone acting on his behalf including, without
ll limitation, John Denton as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost and John Denton as
12 Successor Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998.
13 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
14 REQUEST NO. 1. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
15 out to readable form) showing communications by and between YOU and Cross-Defendant
16 Randall Eugene (“Gene”) Culley.
17 UEST NO. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
18 out to readable form) showing communications by and between YOU and Wayne A. Cook.
19 REQUEST NO. 3. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
20 out to readable form) showing any communications by and between YOU and John Denton.
21 REQUEST NO. 4. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
22 out to readable form) showing any communications by and between YOU and Lawrence Patterson.
23 REQUEST NO. 5. Any WRITING (including without limitation medial records, charts,
24 or mental health records, emails, text or electronically stored images printed out to readable form)
25 showing that Edward F. Niderost suffered from any cognitive disorder at any time in February
26 2020.
27 REQUEST NO. 6. Any WRITING (including without limitation medial records, charts,
28 or mental health records, emails, text or electronically stored images printed out to readable form)
Request for Production of Documents 5
showing that Edward F. Niderost suffered from any cognitive disorder at any from January 1, 2018
to present.
REQUEST NO. 6. Any WRITING showing the investment holdings of Edward F.
Niderost individually and/or as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 in February 2019.
REQUEST NO. 7. Any WRITING showing the net worth of Edward F. Niderost
individually and/or as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
Dated November 8, 1998 in February 2019.
REQUEST NO. 8. Any WRITING showing the gross income of Edward F. Niderost and
10 his wife in 2018.
11 REQUEST NO. 9. Any WRITING showing the gross income of Edward F. Niderost and
12 his wife in 2017.
13 REQUEST NO. 10. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
14 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley holding himself out as the personal assistant to Edward
15 F, Niderost.
16 REQUEST NO. 11. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
17 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley assisting Edward F. Niderost with any real estate
18 purchase.
19 REQUEST NO. 12. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
20 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley assisted or induced Edward F. Niderost to enter into any
21 transaction with Lawrence Patterson.
22 REQUEST NO. 13. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
23 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley had actual knowledge of the value of any assets
24 purchased by Edward F. Niderost from Lawrence Patterson.
25 REQUEST NO. 14. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
26 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley assisted or induced Edward F. Niderost to enter into any
27 transaction with Wayne Cook.
28 Mf
Request for Production of Documents
REQUEST NO. 15. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed
out to readable form) showing communications by and between YOU and Bill Chance.
GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP
DATED: JunéZ , 2020. By
CDS
DAVID R. GRIFFITH,
Attorney for Cross-Defendant,
RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY
(Sued herein as Gene Culley)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Request for Production of Documents
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico,
California 95928. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Raymond L. Sandelman, Esq.
Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP Attorney at Law
1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225
Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95926
Email: sknowles@Chicolawyer.com Email: Raymond@sandelmanlaw.com
Said document was served on the interested or parties in this action by placing a true
copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted below. | am familiar with our
10 firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it
11 hi
would be de; osited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully
prepaid at C) ico, California in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the
fa
|, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or Stage meter date is
more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration.
12
X__ (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Chico, California. The envelope
13
was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid to the person at the adddress set forth above.
14
(By Facsimile) I sent this document via facsimile, number(s) as listed above.
15
__X_ (By Electronic Mail) Such document was delivered by electronic mail to the
16 persons at the addresses set forth above, with prior consent.
(By Express Mail/Overnight Delivery) I delivered this document to a driver
17 authorized by the express services carrier to receive such documents in a package designated by the
express service carrier with delivery fees paid and addressed to the person set forth above at the
18 address last given by that person for purpose of effectuating service in this matter and with
direction for delivery of the document to that person at that address on the next business day.
19 (By Personal Service) I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the
addresses set forth above. Delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally, or (b) by leaving the
20 documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney
being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
22) true and correct. I further declare that I made the service set forth herein on the date
set forth
below.
23
Executed on June Z a ; 2020, at Chico, California.
24
25 B
STEVEN CHAMBERLIN
26
27
28
Request for Production of Documents
Exhibit “2”
Sara M. Knowles (SBN 216139)
LELAND, MORRISSEY & KNOWLES tip
1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6
Chico, CA 95928
Telephone: (530) 342-4500
Facsimile: (530) 345-6836
Attorney for Conservator John Denton for Defendant and
Cross-Complainant Edward F. Niderost, Individually and as
Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust
Dated November 8, 1998
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
10 COUNTY OF BUTTE
11
WAYNE A. COOK; TRUSTEE OF THE CASE NO. 20CV00905
12 WAYNE A. COOK 1998 FAMILY TRUST
DATED 12/29/98 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
13 INSPECTION AND COPYING OF
Plaintiff, DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
14
Vv.
15
EDWARD F. NIDEROST, INDIVIDUALLY
16 AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE EDWARD F.
NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
17 DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1998, DOES 1
THROUGH 10,
18
Defendants.
19
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
20
21
22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY
23 (Sued herein as Gene Culley)
24 RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually
25 and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST
26 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998
27 SET NUMBER: ONE
28
1
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO, ONE
Responding Party, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2031.020, et seq., of the
California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to Cross-Defendant Randall Eugene
Culley’s Request for Inspection and Copying of Documents and Things, Set No. One, as follows:
Responding Party is pursuing its investigation and analysis of the facts and law relating to
this case and has not completed its discovery or preparation for trial. Therefore, the responses
set forth herein are given without prejudice to Responding Party's right to produce any
subsequently discovered facts or to add, modify, or otherwise change or amend the responses
herein. The information hereinafter set forth is true and correct to the best knowledge of
Responding Party as of this date, and is subject to correction for inadvertent errors, mistakes or
10 omissions. These responses are based on information presently available to Responding Party.
11 Responding Party reserves the right to use at trial or deposition or in support of or in
12 opposition to any motion any and all evidence heretofore or hereafter produced by parties in this
13 action or by third persons. To the extent that Responding Party identifies certain writings or
14 delineates any facts, it does so without prejudice to establish at a later date any additional facts
15 that may be contained within or discovered as a result of any subsequently-discovered facts or
16 any additional investigation and discovery.
17 Inadvertent production of privileged information by Responding Party is not a waiver of
18 any applicable privilege. Production of any evidence or information does not waive any trial
19 | objection, including but not limited to, relevancy and/or to the admission of such information in
20 | evidence.
21 | RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
22 No such documents are known to the responding party, despite a reasonable and diligent
23 search, save and except correspondence from responding party’s counsel, which is in the
24 possession of the propounding party.
25 The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward
26 F. Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost
27 Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent
28 search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost,
2
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO. ONE
individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
No such documents are known to the responding party, despite a reasonable and diligent
search, save and except correspondence from responding party’s counsel, which is in the
possession of the propounding party.
The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward
F, Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost
Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent
search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost,
10 individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost
11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:
12 No such documents are known to the responding party, despite a reasonable and diligent
13 search, save and except correspondence from responding party’s counsel, which is in the
14 possession of the propounding party.
15 The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward
16 F. Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost
17 Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent
18 search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost,
19 individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost
RESPON: TO 4:
21 Responsive documents known to the responding party, after a reasonable and diligent
22 search, will be produced.
23 The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward
F. Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost
25 Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent
26 search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost,
27 individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost.
3
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO. ONE
i
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:
Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at
this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search.
Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at
this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search.
Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
10 Such information is not currently available to this Responding Party. Discovery and
11 investigation are ongoing and this information has been requested. To the extent that such
12 information can be obtained, it will be provided.
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
14 No such document exists, to the best of the Responding Party’s knowledge.
15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
16 Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at
17 this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search.
18 Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist.
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9:
Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at
21 this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search.
Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist.
23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10:
Such written materials will be produced.
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11;
26 Such written materials will be produced.
27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
No such documents are known to this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent
4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO, ONE
search.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
No such documents are known to this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent
search.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14:
No such documents are knowr
to this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent
search.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15:
No such documents are knownto this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent
10 search.
11
12 LELAND, MORRISSEY & KNOWLES tir
13
14
15
Dated:October 15, 2020
Qing
Me Urerle
Attorney for Conservator John Denton for
Defendant and Cross-Complainant Edward F.
16 Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward
F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated
17 November 8, 1998
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO. ONE
VERIFICATION
1, John Denton, am the temporary conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and the
successor
trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust dated November 8, 1998
in this
proceeding. I have read the Response to Request for Inspection and Copying of Documents and
Things, Set No. One and verify the ccntents thereof. I have personal knowledge of the facts therein
sieaS, cree Ss 67 Shade Dice liege on taramiations ad belek and ae to onl Facts, FEeliowe em
to be true.
1 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the
40 foregoing
is true and correct.
i1 Executed this \7 “day of October, 2020 at Chico, California.
12
13
14 John
15
16
WT
18 |
19}
27
28
VERIFICATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Sarah Vercruysse, declare:
3 Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of Butte County, State of California.I
am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1660
4 | Humboldt Road, Suite 6, Chico, CA 95928.
5| document
Iam familiar with the practices of Leland, Morrissey & Knowles, ip whereby each
is placed in an envelope, the envelope is sealed, the is placed
6 || thereon and the sealed envel is placed in the office mail rece; le. Bac day's anall i
collected and deposited in a .S. mailbox at or before the close of each day’s business.
On the date shown below,
I caused to be served the Response to Request for Inspection
and Copying of Documents and Things, Set One by:
x MAIL; Placed in the United States mail at Chico, California
10 RaymondL. Sandelman, Esq. Larry Lushanko, Esq.
196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225 1241 E. Mission Road
11
Chico, CA 95926-2284 Fallbrook, CA 92028
Raymond@sandelmanlaw.com office@lushankolaw.com
David R. Griffith
Jameson E.P. Sheehan
14 Griffith
Hom & Sheeban, LLP
1530 Humboldt Rd., Suite 3
Chico, CA 95928
david@davidgriffithlaw.com
16
17
Se eo aea a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-
18 com to the persons at the e-mail addresses
listed in the Service List iid not tees ve, wahiteeremsonable tine-alter tis
19 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
PERSONAL SERVICE: Delivery by hand to the addressee.
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: Using Federal Express overnight mail addressed as
follows:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed on October 15, 2020. at Chico, California.
Bae
eect
=
Proof of Service
Exhibit “3”
LAW OFFICES.
GRIFFITH HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP
Of Counsel:
ALAN E. BURCHETT
DAVID R. GRIFFITH 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3
david@davidgriffithlaw.com 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 4
Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95928
www.gtiffithandhorn.com T 530.342.0079
ADAM M. HORN
adam@adamhornlaw.com F 530.892.8405
T 530.812.1000 alan@burchettlaw.net
JAMESON E.P. SHEEHAN F 530.809.1093 www.burchettlaw.net
jameson@griffithandhorn.com
October 16, 2020
Via Email: sknowles@Chicola er.com
Sara M. Knowles, Esq.
Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP
1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6
Chico, CA 95928
Re: Cook vs. Niderost, et al.
Dear Sara:
J am in receipt of the responses of Mr. Niderost to our request for Inspection of
Documents, Set One, served June 29, 2020. The responses are evasive and nonresponsive as
more specifically discussed below. This is very disappointing when you and your client have
taken three and a half months to prepare and provide the responses.
As a prelude to the discussion of the inadequate responses, I note the following outlining
you and your client’s obligations to conform the responses to applicable law.
Scope of Discovery. The scope of permissible discovery is very broad [Children’s Hospital
Central California v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1260, 1276]. Any party may
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter
involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action if the
matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence [Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010].
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 or category
of item by any of the following [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a)]:
. A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying
by the date set for inspection under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030 (c).
. A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection
of a particular item or category of item.
Sara M. Knowles, Esq.
Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP
October 16, 2020
Page Two
. An objection to the demand.
Good Faith Obligation. A party must make a good faith effort in obtaining documents
responsive to the request. [Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 CA4th
1496, 1505]
“T]he responding party must obtain and disclose information from sources under its
control (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 CA3d at 782), as well as information in the possession of
its counsel (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 CA2d 6, 11...)” (CJER, California Judges
Benchbook: Civil Proceedings Discovery (2d ed, 2012) section 18.32, p 294; Regency Health
Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4" 1496, 1504).
Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth in answering written interrogat
Preview
F Superior Court of California F DAVID R. GRIFFITH, ESQ. (SBN- 170172) JAMESON E.P. SHEEHAN, ESQ. (SBN 327287) County of Butte GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3 11/12/2020 Chico, California 95928 Telephone: (530) 812-1000 Kim) | cl Facsimile: (530) 809-1093 By Deputy 6 ctronically D Email: david@davidgriffithlaw.com jameson@griffithandhorn.com Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY 8 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 11 WAYNE A. COOK, Trustee of the Case No. 20CV00905 Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust 12 Dated 12/29/98, DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFIFTH IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONES TO INSPECTION 14 vs. DEMANDS AND TO AWARD 15 MONESTARY SANCTIONS EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually; and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998; DOES 1 through 10, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Date: December 16, 2020 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. Time: 9:00 a.m. 21 Dept.: TBA 22 I, DAVID R. GRIFIFTH, declare 23 1. | am the attorney of record herein for Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE 24 CULLEY and make this declaration in support of Cross-Defendant’s motion to compel Cross- 25 Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, an individual person, and his representatives JOHN 26 DENTON and as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and as successor trustee of i: DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, to provide further responses to Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1 through 6, a misnumbered duplicate 6, and 7 through 15, served herein on June 29, 2020, without objections, and to award monetary sanctions. 2. On June 29, 2020, Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY served by mail upon Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually, and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, Request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, Numbers 1 through 15. The request contained a definition for the Responding Party as follows: B. “YOU” and YOUR” means and refers to Cross-Complainant EDWARD F, NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST 0 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 and anyone acting li on his behalf including, without limitation, John Denton as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost and John Denton as Successor Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”. 14 3. The responses to the subject discovery were originally due 30, plus five days for 15 mailing, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§§ 1013(a), 2031.260(a) and 2016.050, which was| 16 Sunday August 2, 2020, so then falling to the next court day of August 3, 2020. 4. On August 21, 2020, counsel for Cross-Complainant, Sara Knowles, advised me that 18 she needed an additional extension of time to respond to the discovery until Monday August 24, 19 2020, which was granted, but no responses were received. 20 5. On September 15, 2020, I had my office reach out to counsel for Cross-Complainant, Sara Knowles, by email to see if we could get responses to the subject discovery to avoid court 21 intervention and there was no response. 22 6. On October 15, 2020, JOHN DENTON, as the Conservator of the Estate of Cross- 23 Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, and as the Successor Trustee of THE EDWARD F. 24 NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, served deficient 25 responses to the subject discovery. There is no know conservatorship of the person of Cross- 26 Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST and said Cross-Complainant as an individual person has 2 DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS 1 never provided any responses to the subject discovery. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “2”. The documents produced consist of 14 pages as follows: Pages 1-3 _ Chico Enterprise Record, New Article, “Landmark Miller Mansion Has been Sold” Page 4 Letter from Knowles dated June 26, 2020 to tenants. Pages 5-6 Order in Conservatorship dated June 4, 2020 Pages 7-8 Order in Conservatorship dated June 17, 2020 Pages 9-10 - Order in Conservatorship dated June 4, 2020 Pages 11-14 - Email Chain dated May 15, 2020 to June 15, 2020 between Mr. Lushanko and Mrs. Knowles. 10 7. On October 16, 2020, I sent a meet and confer letter to attorney Knowles outlining 11 the deficient responses and requesting amended and further responses. A true and correct copy is| 12 attached hereto as Exhibit “3”. 13 8. On October 28, 2020, I sent another meet and confer communication to attorney 14 Knowles requesting a response to the meet and confer of October 16, 2020. 9. On October 28, 2020, Mrs. Knowles responded to me advising that she could get 1: back to me by November 6, 2020. 16 10. At the time of filing this motion, there still has been no response from Mrs. Knowles. 17 11. Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY has reasonably incurred the sum 18 of $1,830.00 to bring this motion as follows: 19 Date Professional Services Rendered Hrs. Rate Amount 2¢ 11/11/2020 Preparation of Notice of Motion. .25 $350.00 $ 87.50 11/11/2020 Preparation of Memorandum of 21 Points and Authorities. 1.75 $350.00 $612.50 22 11/11/2020 Preparation of Griffith Declaration 25 $350.00 $ 87.50 23 11/11/2020 Preparation of Separate Statement 2.75 $350.00 $962.50 24 Subtotal $1,750.00 25 09/22/2020 Motion Filing Fee $80.00 26 TOTAL $1,830.00 3 DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct of my own personal knowledge and that I have signed this declaration in Chico, California, on the date set forth below. 4 DATED: November 12, 2020. By? > DAVID R. GRIFFITH 10 a1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico, California 95928. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as: DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS Said document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Raymond L. Sandelman, Esq. Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP Attorney at Law 1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225 10 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95926 Email: sknowles@Chicolawyer.com Email: Raymond@sandelmanlaw.com 11 Larry Lushanko, Esq. 12 1241 E. Mission Road Fallbrook, CA 92028 13 Email: office@lushankolaw.com 14 15 I am familiar with our firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for 16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Chico, California in the ordinary course of business. Iam 17 aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration. 18 _ X_ (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Chico, California. The envelope was 19 mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid to the person at the address set forth above. 20 xX (By Electronic Mail) Such document was delivered by electronic mail to the persons at the addresses set forth above. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 22 is true and correct. I further declare that I made the service set forth herein on the date set forth below. 23 Executed on November (2 , 2020, at Chico, California. 24 25 By: foe Steven Chamberlin 26 5 DECLARATION OF DAVID R. GRIFFITH IN SUPPORT MOTIONTO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS AND TO AWARD MONETARY SANCTIONS Exhibit “1” DAVID R. GRIFFITH, ESQ. (SBN- 170172) JAMESON E.P. SHEEHAN, ESQ. (SBN 327287) GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3 Chico, California 95928 Telephone: (530) 812-1000 Facsimile: (530) 809-1093 Email: david@davidgriffithlaw.com jameson@griffithandhorn.com Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 WAYNE A. COOK, Trustee of the Case No. 20CV00905 Wayne A. Cook 1998 Family Trust 11 Dated 12/29/98, REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND 12 Plaintiff, THINGS 13 vs. 14 EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. 15 NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998; 16 DOES 1 through 10, 17 Defendants. 18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. 19 20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY 21 (Sued herein as Gene Culley) 22 RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually 23 and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST 24 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 25 SET NO.: ONE 26 TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT EDWARD F, NIDEROST, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 27 TRUSTEE OF THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED 28 NOVEMBER 8, 1998 AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD HEREIN: Request for Production of Documents Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY (sued herein as Gene Culley) requests that Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F, NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998, produce and permit the inspection and copying the documents described herein. The production, inspection and copying of said writings is to take place at the offices of GRIFFITH & horn, LLP, located at 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico, California 95928, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this demand, extended by five (5) days, if served by regular United States Mail. Each document produced will be reviewed, duplicated by use of a copy machine, and returned without destruction of the document or permanent alteration. The 10 responding party may, if desired, provide legible copies to the requesting party’s attorney of record 11 at the place and date indicated in lieu of providing the originals for inspection and copying. 12 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 13 FOR RESP' NDING TO INSPECTION DEMANDS 14 The responding party is directed to take note of the statutory rules required for responding 15 to the below referenced inspection demands as follows: 16 1, Nature and Form of Response to Inspection Demand. Pursuant to Code of Civil 17 Procedure § 2031.210, the content and form of response, should be as follows: 18 (a) The party to whom an inspection demand has been directed shall respond 19 separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: 20 1 A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for 21 inspection and any related activities. 22 A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the 23 demand for inspection of a particular item or category of item. 24 3 An objection to the particular demand. 25 (b) In the first paragraph of the response immediately below the title of the case, 26 there shall appear the identity of the responding party, the set number, and the identity of the 27 demanding party. 28 (c) Each statement of compliance, each representation, and each objection in the Request for Production of Documents 2 response shall bear the same number and be in the same sequence as the corresponding item or category in the demand, but the text of that item or category need not be repeated. 2. Statement of Compliance in Full or in Part. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.220, “[a] statement that the party to whom an inspection demand has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” 3. Statement of Inability to Comply. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230, 10 “[a] representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection shall affirm 11 that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that 12 demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular 13 item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has 14 never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The 15 statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or 16 believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” 17 4. Statements Regarding Demand that is Objectionable in Whole or in Part. 18 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240, a statements regarding a demand that is 19 objectionable in whole or in part shall be made as follows: 20 (a) If only part of an item or category of item in an inspection demand is objectionable, 21 the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability 22 to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category. 23 (b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection of an item or category 24 of item, the response shall do both of the following: 25 ay Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, or land falling 26 within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being 27 made. 28 Q) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If Request for Production of Documents an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. 5. Signing Statement to Demand. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.250, signing the response to an inspection demand should be made as follows: (a) The party to whom the demand for inspection is directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections. (b) If that party is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or 10 governmental agency, one of its officers or agents shall sign the response under oath 11 on behalf of that party. If the officer or agent signing the response on behalf of that 12 party is an attorney acting in that capacity for a party, that party waives any lawyer- 13 client privilege and any protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing 14 with Section 2018.010) during any subsequent discovery from that attorney 15 concerning the identity of the sources of the information contained in the response. 16 (©) The attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an 17 objection. 18 6. Form in Which Documents to Be Produced; Organization; Translation; Expense. 19 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280, the form in which documents are to be 20 produced and the translation or expenses related to same is as follows: 21 (a) Any documents produced in response to an inspection demand shall either be 22 produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to 23 correspond with the categories in the demand. 24 (b) If necessary, the responding party at the reasonable expense of the demanding 25 party shall, through detection devices, translate any data compilations included in the demand into 26 reasonably usable form. 27 DEFINITIONS 28 For purposes of these Production and Inspection Demands, the following terms shall be Request for Production of Documents construed to include the following: A "WRITING" as used herein means a “writing” as defined by California Evidence Code Section 250 as being “...handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.” B. “YOU” and YOUR” means and refers to Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE 10 LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 and anyone acting on his behalf including, without ll limitation, John Denton as Conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost and John Denton as 12 Successor Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998. 13 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 14 REQUEST NO. 1. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 15 out to readable form) showing communications by and between YOU and Cross-Defendant 16 Randall Eugene (“Gene”) Culley. 17 UEST NO. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 18 out to readable form) showing communications by and between YOU and Wayne A. Cook. 19 REQUEST NO. 3. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 20 out to readable form) showing any communications by and between YOU and John Denton. 21 REQUEST NO. 4. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 22 out to readable form) showing any communications by and between YOU and Lawrence Patterson. 23 REQUEST NO. 5. Any WRITING (including without limitation medial records, charts, 24 or mental health records, emails, text or electronically stored images printed out to readable form) 25 showing that Edward F. Niderost suffered from any cognitive disorder at any time in February 26 2020. 27 REQUEST NO. 6. Any WRITING (including without limitation medial records, charts, 28 or mental health records, emails, text or electronically stored images printed out to readable form) Request for Production of Documents 5 showing that Edward F. Niderost suffered from any cognitive disorder at any from January 1, 2018 to present. REQUEST NO. 6. Any WRITING showing the investment holdings of Edward F. Niderost individually and/or as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 in February 2019. REQUEST NO. 7. Any WRITING showing the net worth of Edward F. Niderost individually and/or as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 in February 2019. REQUEST NO. 8. Any WRITING showing the gross income of Edward F. Niderost and 10 his wife in 2018. 11 REQUEST NO. 9. Any WRITING showing the gross income of Edward F. Niderost and 12 his wife in 2017. 13 REQUEST NO. 10. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 14 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley holding himself out as the personal assistant to Edward 15 F, Niderost. 16 REQUEST NO. 11. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 17 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley assisting Edward F. Niderost with any real estate 18 purchase. 19 REQUEST NO. 12. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 20 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley assisted or induced Edward F. Niderost to enter into any 21 transaction with Lawrence Patterson. 22 REQUEST NO. 13. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 23 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley had actual knowledge of the value of any assets 24 purchased by Edward F. Niderost from Lawrence Patterson. 25 REQUEST NO. 14. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed 26 out to readable form) showing Mr. Culley assisted or induced Edward F. Niderost to enter into any 27 transaction with Wayne Cook. 28 Mf Request for Production of Documents REQUEST NO. 15. Any WRITING (including without limitation emails or text printed out to readable form) showing communications by and between YOU and Bill Chance. GRIFFITH, HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP DATED: JunéZ , 2020. By CDS DAVID R. GRIFFITH, Attorney for Cross-Defendant, RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY (Sued herein as Gene Culley) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Request for Production of Documents PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3, Chico, California 95928. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Raymond L. Sandelman, Esq. Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP Attorney at Law 1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95926 Email: sknowles@Chicolawyer.com Email: Raymond@sandelmanlaw.com Said document was served on the interested or parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted below. | am familiar with our 10 firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it 11 hi would be de; osited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at C) ico, California in the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of the fa |, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or Stage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration. 12 X__ (By Mail) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Chico, California. The envelope 13 was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid to the person at the adddress set forth above. 14 (By Facsimile) I sent this document via facsimile, number(s) as listed above. 15 __X_ (By Electronic Mail) Such document was delivered by electronic mail to the 16 persons at the addresses set forth above, with prior consent. (By Express Mail/Overnight Delivery) I delivered this document to a driver 17 authorized by the express services carrier to receive such documents in a package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid and addressed to the person set forth above at the 18 address last given by that person for purpose of effectuating service in this matter and with direction for delivery of the document to that person at that address on the next business day. 19 (By Personal Service) I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses set forth above. Delivery was made (a) to the attorney personally, or (b) by leaving the 20 documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 22) true and correct. I further declare that I made the service set forth herein on the date set forth below. 23 Executed on June Z a ; 2020, at Chico, California. 24 25 B STEVEN CHAMBERLIN 26 27 28 Request for Production of Documents Exhibit “2” Sara M. Knowles (SBN 216139) LELAND, MORRISSEY & KNOWLES tip 1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 Chico, CA 95928 Telephone: (530) 342-4500 Facsimile: (530) 345-6836 Attorney for Conservator John Denton for Defendant and Cross-Complainant Edward F. Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 10 COUNTY OF BUTTE 11 WAYNE A. COOK; TRUSTEE OF THE CASE NO. 20CV00905 12 WAYNE A. COOK 1998 FAMILY TRUST DATED 12/29/98 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR 13 INSPECTION AND COPYING OF Plaintiff, DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 14 Vv. 15 EDWARD F. NIDEROST, INDIVIDUALLY 16 AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 17 DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1998, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 18 Defendants. 19 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION 20 21 22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant RANDALL EUGENE CULLEY 23 (Sued herein as Gene Culley) 24 RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant EDWARD F. NIDEROST, individually 25 and as Trustee of THE EDWARD F. NIDEROST 26 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Dated November 8, 1998 27 SET NUMBER: ONE 28 1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO, ONE Responding Party, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2031.020, et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to Cross-Defendant Randall Eugene Culley’s Request for Inspection and Copying of Documents and Things, Set No. One, as follows: Responding Party is pursuing its investigation and analysis of the facts and law relating to this case and has not completed its discovery or preparation for trial. Therefore, the responses set forth herein are given without prejudice to Responding Party's right to produce any subsequently discovered facts or to add, modify, or otherwise change or amend the responses herein. The information hereinafter set forth is true and correct to the best knowledge of Responding Party as of this date, and is subject to correction for inadvertent errors, mistakes or 10 omissions. These responses are based on information presently available to Responding Party. 11 Responding Party reserves the right to use at trial or deposition or in support of or in 12 opposition to any motion any and all evidence heretofore or hereafter produced by parties in this 13 action or by third persons. To the extent that Responding Party identifies certain writings or 14 delineates any facts, it does so without prejudice to establish at a later date any additional facts 15 that may be contained within or discovered as a result of any subsequently-discovered facts or 16 any additional investigation and discovery. 17 Inadvertent production of privileged information by Responding Party is not a waiver of 18 any applicable privilege. Production of any evidence or information does not waive any trial 19 | objection, including but not limited to, relevancy and/or to the admission of such information in 20 | evidence. 21 | RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: 22 No such documents are known to the responding party, despite a reasonable and diligent 23 search, save and except correspondence from responding party’s counsel, which is in the 24 possession of the propounding party. 25 The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward 26 F. Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost 27 Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent 28 search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost, 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO. ONE individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: No such documents are known to the responding party, despite a reasonable and diligent search, save and except correspondence from responding party’s counsel, which is in the possession of the propounding party. The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward F, Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost, 10 individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost 11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: 12 No such documents are known to the responding party, despite a reasonable and diligent 13 search, save and except correspondence from responding party’s counsel, which is in the 14 possession of the propounding party. 15 The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward 16 F. Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost 17 Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent 18 search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost, 19 individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost RESPON: TO 4: 21 Responsive documents known to the responding party, after a reasonable and diligent 22 search, will be produced. 23 The Responding Party does not have access or control of all communications of Edward F. Niderost, individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost 25 Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998, but has conducted a reasonable and diligent 26 search of those documents he was able to access that belonged to of Edward F. Niderost, 27 individually or Edward F. Niderost, former Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost. 3 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO. ONE i RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search. Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search. Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: 10 Such information is not currently available to this Responding Party. Discovery and 11 investigation are ongoing and this information has been requested. To the extent that such 12 information can be obtained, it will be provided. 13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: 14 No such document exists, to the best of the Responding Party’s knowledge. 15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: 16 Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at 17 this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search. 18 Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist. 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Responding Party is conservator of Estate, not the person and such materials are not, at 21 this time, available to the Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search. Responding Party has no knowledge that any documents responsive to this request exist. 23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Such written materials will be produced. 25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11; 26 Such written materials will be produced. 27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: No such documents are known to this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent 4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO, ONE search. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: No such documents are known to this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: No such documents are knowr to this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent search. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: No such documents are knownto this Responding Party, despite a reasonable and diligent 10 search. 11 12 LELAND, MORRISSEY & KNOWLES tir 13 14 15 Dated:October 15, 2020 Qing Me Urerle Attorney for Conservator John Denton for Defendant and Cross-Complainant Edward F. 16 Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated 17 November 8, 1998 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS, SET NO. ONE VERIFICATION 1, John Denton, am the temporary conservator of the Estate of Edward F. Niderost, and the successor trustee of the Edward F. Niderost Revocable Living Trust dated November 8, 1998 in this proceeding. I have read the Response to Request for Inspection and Copying of Documents and Things, Set No. One and verify the ccntents thereof. I have personal knowledge of the facts therein sieaS, cree Ss 67 Shade Dice liege on taramiations ad belek and ae to onl Facts, FEeliowe em to be true. 1 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 40 foregoing is true and correct. i1 Executed this \7 “day of October, 2020 at Chico, California. 12 13 14 John 15 16 WT 18 | 19} 27 28 VERIFICATION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Sarah Vercruysse, declare: 3 Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of Butte County, State of California.I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1660 4 | Humboldt Road, Suite 6, Chico, CA 95928. 5| document Iam familiar with the practices of Leland, Morrissey & Knowles, ip whereby each is placed in an envelope, the envelope is sealed, the is placed 6 || thereon and the sealed envel is placed in the office mail rece; le. Bac day's anall i collected and deposited in a .S. mailbox at or before the close of each day’s business. On the date shown below, I caused to be served the Response to Request for Inspection and Copying of Documents and Things, Set One by: x MAIL; Placed in the United States mail at Chico, California 10 RaymondL. Sandelman, Esq. Larry Lushanko, Esq. 196 Cohasset Road, Suite 225 1241 E. Mission Road 11 Chico, CA 95926-2284 Fallbrook, CA 92028 Raymond@sandelmanlaw.com office@lushankolaw.com David R. Griffith Jameson E.P. Sheehan 14 Griffith Hom & Sheeban, LLP 1530 Humboldt Rd., Suite 3 Chico, CA 95928 david@davidgriffithlaw.com 16 17 Se eo aea a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e- 18 com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List iid not tees ve, wahiteeremsonable tine-alter tis 19 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was PERSONAL SERVICE: Delivery by hand to the addressee. OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: Using Federal Express overnight mail addressed as follows: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 15, 2020. at Chico, California. Bae eect = Proof of Service Exhibit “3” LAW OFFICES. GRIFFITH HORN & SHEEHAN, LLP Of Counsel: ALAN E. BURCHETT DAVID R. GRIFFITH 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 3 david@davidgriffithlaw.com 1530 Humboldt Road, Suite 4 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95928 www.gtiffithandhorn.com T 530.342.0079 ADAM M. HORN adam@adamhornlaw.com F 530.892.8405 T 530.812.1000 alan@burchettlaw.net JAMESON E.P. SHEEHAN F 530.809.1093 www.burchettlaw.net jameson@griffithandhorn.com October 16, 2020 Via Email: sknowles@Chicola er.com Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP 1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6 Chico, CA 95928 Re: Cook vs. Niderost, et al. Dear Sara: J am in receipt of the responses of Mr. Niderost to our request for Inspection of Documents, Set One, served June 29, 2020. The responses are evasive and nonresponsive as more specifically discussed below. This is very disappointing when you and your client have taken three and a half months to prepare and provide the responses. As a prelude to the discussion of the inadequate responses, I note the following outlining you and your client’s obligations to conform the responses to applicable law. Scope of Discovery. The scope of permissible discovery is very broad [Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1260, 1276]. Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence [Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010]. 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 or category of item by any of the following [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a)]: . A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying by the date set for inspection under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030 (c). . A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection of a particular item or category of item. Sara M. Knowles, Esq. Leland, Morrisey & Knowles, LLP October 16, 2020 Page Two . An objection to the demand. Good Faith Obligation. A party must make a good faith effort in obtaining documents responsive to the request. [Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 CA4th 1496, 1505] “T]he responding party must obtain and disclose information from sources under its control (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 CA3d at 782), as well as information in the possession of its counsel (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 CA2d 6, 11...)” (CJER, California Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings Discovery (2d ed, 2012) section 18.32, p 294; Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4" 1496, 1504). Parties, like witnesses, are required to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in answering written interrogat