Preview
RICHARD |. WIDEMAN, Esq. [SB#41185] ELECTRONICALLY FILED
JONATHAN D. WIDEMAN, Esq. [SB#274526] Superior Court of California
Frederik’s Court # 232 County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
485 Alisal Road
7/17/2018 9:02 AM
Solvang, CA 93463
By: Sarah Sisto, Deputy
Phone: (805)245-8916 Fax (805)688-9424
riwlaw@gmail.com
jonathanwideman@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ANACAPA DIVISION
It
12 JACQUELINE MISHO dba MISHO )
LAW GROUP ) Case No.: 18CV01749
13
2 ) [Judge Pauline Maxwell]
Plaintiff,
14
VS.
} EXHIBIT A ~ D TO MISHO
15
< ) DECLARATION IN REPLY TO
CATHERINE ANN (“CAT”) CORA,
) OPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR
16 CAT CORA INC., ET AL,
) ATACHMENT
17 Defendants. )
a) [ Hear —, AM, Dept. 6]
18
a
19
Dated: July 16, 2018
20
221
22
22
2
wets
ICHARD I. WIDEMAN. Esq.
JONATHAN D. WIDEMAN, Esq.
\
Attorneys for Jacqueline Misho dba Misho Law Group
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS A — D TO MISHO DECLARATION
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “A”
Misho Law Group
Jacqueline Misho, CFLS 111 West Micheltorena Street, Suite 210
Sarah B. Orr, CFLS Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Carolyn A. Diacos (805) 968-3405
jmisho@misholaw.com
February 23, 2016
Allan S. Morton
Fell Marking Abkin Montgomery Granet & Raney, LLP VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
222 E st Carrillo Street, Suite 400
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2142
Re: Marriage of Cora
Dear Allan:
This will respond to yours of February 18, 2016.
As you know, we have just substituted into the case and are getting up to speed. |
understand that hundreds, if not thousands of documents have been produced pursuant to your
previous requests and that now you are requesting additional historical documents dating back to
2012. In that connection, | have a copy of the document you sent to Sarah Gower entitled
“Requested Documents from Catherine Cora.”
It is my understanding that virtually all of the documents that are on the list were supplied
for the years 2014 and 2015. It seems to me that those documents would be most relevant to a
determination of my client’s cashflow. | have not seen any judicial officer in Santa Barbara go
back four(4) years for purposes of a cashflow analysis. Will you agree to limit your client’s
request to the year 2013? Again, perhaps you can enlighten me, but it seems that 2012 would be
too remote in time to be relevant.
With respect to Item 9 on the list of documents requested, would you be kind enough to
advise to how “documents evidencing the salary and job responsibiliti s of Catherine Cora’s
business managers” are relevant? Given the fact that we are now post-separation and Cat Cora’s
income is her separate property, | am not certain I understand how or why documents reflecting
the job responsibilities and salary of her business managers is relevant to her cashflow
Ina similar vein, I simply do not see how thousands of emails between Cat Cora and her
business managers are relevant to any issue with which this case is concerned. The fact that your
client refuses to sign a Confidentiality Agreement is inexplicable, other than indicating a desire
on her part to publish the materials. That is of great concern given the confidential financial
Allan S. Morton
February 23, 2015
page two
information and sensitive business-related information contained therein. Frankly, I see no valid
reason why your client would refuse to sign a Confidentiality Agreement other than a desire to
improperly disseminate the information and thus potentially damage my client and her business
relationships. In addition, I believe you were advised in prior correspondence that some of the
emails you seek pertain to a lawsuit in which the parties are bound by a Confidentiality
Agreement. Again, | am unclear as to your client’s reason for refusing to respect the confidential
ature of the documents and information she seeks. In the event your client serves discovery
seeking the documents, we reserve Cat’s right to object on all applicable grounds, including, but
not limited to the comments and observations in this and other correspondence you were sent
regarding this issue.
We understand that after the Petition was filed and the Automatic Temporary Restraining
Orders were in place, your client surreptitiously removed in excess of $20,000 from a joint
account to which both parties had access and placed those funds in an account under her sole
management and control. Please advise as to the current location of the funds and whether your
client will stipulate to return them to status quo by either redepositing them into the account from
which they were taken or providing our client with the same access she previously had so that
the funds may be monitored by both parties. In addition, in correspondence dated October 28,
2015, Mr. Roberts noted that Jennifer unilaterally changed the password to the Schwab account,
to which both parties had access previously, He requested that your client provide the new
password and login ID so that Cat could access the account information, as she had previously
been able to. Did you ever respond to that request? I was not able to find one.
I note that neither party has served a Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure. Please
advise as to when your client will be in a position to exchange PDDs, which we request occur
within the next two(2) weeks.
Finally, | inquire as to whether your client is interested in a Voluntarily Settlement
Conference, something that we would encourage once both partics have exchanged Preliminary
Declarations of Disclosure. Please advise as to whether Jennifer will agree to attend a Voluntary
Settlement Conference with a retired judicial officer and if so, whom you might suggest to
conduct it.
! look forward to working with you to resolve the issues presented by this case in a cost
efficient manner.
Very truly yours,
JA UELINE MISHO.
JM/sk
ce: Catherine Cora
EXHIBIT “B”
EXHIBIT “B”
EXHIBIT “B”
FELL, MARKING, ABKIN, MONTGOMERY, GRANET & RANIY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 EAST CARRILLO STREET, FOURTH FLOOR
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
TELEPHONE (805) 963-0755 + FACSIMILE (805) 985-7237
——
DOUGLAS E FELL MICHAEL 0, HELLMAN
PHILIP W. MARKING. ALLAN5. MORTON
JOSHUA P. RABINOWITZ JESSICA M. BURNS
JOSEPH D. ABKIN JENNIFER GILLON DUFFY CLARK A. LAMMERS:
FREDERICK W. MONTGOMERY DAVID J. TAPPEINER
CRAIG 8, GRANET COUNSEL
GAMBLE T. PARKS JAME! DAVIDSON
JAM\E FORREST RANEY MARK A, DEPACO
WRITER'S EMA
AMORTCN@FMAM.CCV
CEICHEIED FAMILY CAW SPECIAI IST
By THE STATE IAB OF CALHOEMA
BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZA “IDS
February 26, 2016
Via E-mail Only
Jacqueline Misho
Misho Law Group
111 West Micheltorena St., Ste. 210
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Re: Marriage of Cora
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No.: 15FL02036
Dear Jacquie:
This is in response to your letter to me of February 23, 2016, which was sent to me on the
evening of February 23. It appears that you have thoroughly reviewed the communications
between Hollister & Brace and me. | also sent you copies of some of the numerous e-mails and
letters that have been exchanged. Therefore, I will be brief.
No, we will not limit our document request to 2013. A copy of Mr. Warsavsky’s
document list was enclosed. These documents which are in the custody of Barbara Karrol of
Provident Financial Management, are community records. Jennifer has as much right to access
these records as Catherine. Asa courtesy to Paul Roberts and Sarah Berkus, I had previously
directed my requests through thir office. Moreover, Catherine also has a fiduciary duty to
produce these records,
With regard to the e-mails and the request that my client and I execute a stipulation for
a
protective order, this has been thoroughly discussed in my communications with Sarah.
You are
quite well aware of my position. There has been no showing whatsoever that any particula
r
document among the 2,294 e-mails, which are now in your possession, have any confident
ial
Jacqueline Misho
Misho Law Group
February 26, 2016
Page 2
information justifying a protective order. The request was for a blanket protectiv
e order with
regard to documents that Hollister & Brace had not even reviewed. Moreover, there is no basis
in fact for the supposition, or indeed the accusation, that my client would misuse
any of the
contents. Rather, the fact that such a big deal has been made about these e-mails feeds suspicio
n
that Catherine has something to hide and that transactions were occurring behind Jennifer'
s back.
All this was done at a time prior to separation and while Barbara Karrol had aconfidential
relationship with both Catherine and Jennifer. If you client wants a protective order,
she will
have to justify it to the Court.
With regard to the settlement agreement between Catherine and the former business
manager whose name is Mark Johnson, with Align Entertainment, as you
know, Sarah informed
me that the settlement agreement has a confidentiality clause. I had asked Sarah what she wanted
me to sign. She did not get back to me, as evidently it was at this point that Catherine
engaged
your firm. Ifyou want me to sign some kind of confidentiality agreement with respect
to shiy
document, please provide a copy for my review. This settlement agreement created an ongoing
liability of the community. ‘Therefore, it is important that a copy be provided.
Finally, with regard to the Schwab account wherein my client deposited communi
ty
funds, | am providing you concurrently herewith copies of the account statements from October
27, 2015, when the account was opened, through December 31, 2015. There is not 3 January
2016 account statement available at this time. Jennifer removed these funds because she was
fearful that Catherine would cut her off financially and because she needed funds for payment
of
attorney’s fees. 1 so informed Paul Roberts. Catherine suffers no prejudice by this account
remaining in Jennifer’s name and control.
With regard to a Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure, we have been in the process of
preparing same and should have that (o you ina couple weeks. As for assets and liabilities, we
are relying primarily on the records provided by Provident Financial Management. My
client is
not employed outside of the home. | am not aware at this time of eny separate assets of either
parly, except possibly for Catherine's earnings, post-separation. ‘The business entities, so far as
am aware, are community property.
As for mediation, | will address that subject with you in a separate communication.
'look forward to your prompt follow-up to this letter. However, I am uninterested in
further back-and-forth about my client’s ri ight to complete disclosure. That dialogue
has already
happened with Hollister & Brace, There is no need to revisit it. If we cannot have the records, I
will seek a court order. As your client has a fiduciary duty of disclosure, formal discovery will
Jacqueline Misho
Misho Law Group
February 26, 2016
Page 3
not be necessary, I will seek an order directly from the court that these
documents be provided. |
will also seek an award of attorney’s fees under Family Code section 271.
Very truly yours,
2...
Allan S. Morton
ASM/kI
Enclosures
ce: Jennifer Cora (w/enclosures)
EXHIBIT “C”
EXHIBIT “C”
EXHIBIT “C”
Misho Law Group
Jacqueline Misho, CFLS 111 West Micheltorena Street, Suite 210
Sarah B. Orr, CFLS Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Carolyn A. Diacos (805) 965-3405
jmisho@misholaw.com
March 21, 2016
Allan S. Morton
Fell Marking Abkin Montgomery Granet & Raney, LLP VIA HAND DELIVERY
222 East Carrillo Street, Suite 400
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2142
Re: Marriage of Cora
Dear Allan:
I write to you in an effort to meet and confer about the general tenor of this case, as it
appears to be headed down a path that is somewhat disappointing to our client, and may
be to
yours as well when it is time for the parties to consider their respective settlemen
t positions,
First, the 2012 documents you requested are being chased down. No one from this office
ever advised that they would not be produced, nor was any objection raised. We asked
if you
would limit your client’s request given that it is highly unlikely any court would consider
2012 in
determining cash flow. You refused, We have provided the 2013 documents and are in
the
process of obtaining 2012. Provident did not start representing Cat until 2013 and
does not have
the 2012 documents.
Second, and on a more global level, we want to be sure that we understand how Jennifer
would prefer that this case be handled. We understand that you and Cat’s former
lawyer, Paul
Roberts, had a discussion before either party filed in which he advised that from apublic
relations standpoint, Cat’s representatives felt that it would be better if she filed as
the Petitioner.
Mr. Roberts reports that you did not express any disagreement with that concept, nor did
you
contend that your client had a desire to file first. Apparently, as soon as your conversation
concluded, your office immediately filed the Petition, notwithstanding Mr. Roberts’
specific
request, to which you did not object.
We also understand that despite the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders, Jennifer
unilaterally withdrew a substantial sum of money from a joint account after the Petition
was
filed. It appears that she may have also changed the password on the account from
which the
funds were taken, but I am uncertain of that detail at this moment. In any event, she took the
funds without notice. We understand that you have explained her behavior by stating
that she
took the funds to use as fees and costs, and we will certainly pursue that. But the fact
remains
that from its inception, Jennifer appears to have approached this case in a bit of a hostile
manner.
Allan S. Morton
March 21, 2016
page two
Jennifer is the “out” spouse. We get that. Often times, the “out” spouse feels threatened
by the divorce and compensates by being unnecessarily aggressive. We get that, too. Jennifer is
absolutely entitled to litigate each and every dispute that arises and to have that dispute
determined by strict application of the law. No one disputes her right to have this case handled
in that manner and her absolute right to incur the fees associated with doing so. But, more often
than not, the “out” spouse does not understand that taking an unnecessarily aggressive stance on
minor issues (for instance, whether a confidentiality agreement is executed), is met with the same
aggression by the “in” spouse with respect to other issues, such as support. It never ceases to
amaze me that parties who spawn litigation over issues that could be resolved
had they been
willing to compromise, and who insist that those issues be determined by strict application of the
law, are later appalled and indignant when their former partner insists on doing the same thing.
For instance, when the former partner refuses to pay a penny more than the minimum amount of
support required under the law, or refuses to help the “out” spouse obtain a loan for a new house,
etc. You get the point.
We will take the path Jennifer wants to take in this case. Litigation has a certain comfort
level because everything is done under strict time constraints and no one has to make
important
decisions ~ the Judge will do that. On the other hand, one party is always unhappy with
the
result of litigation. To a large extent, the Judge’s hands are tied; at trial, he must order an equal
division of assets (rather than allowing the “out” spouse to get alittle more because she
is the
“out” spouse); he must issue a “work-hardening order” requiring the non-working spouse to seek
employment and, he must award fees based not only on need, but on an evaluation
of whose
conduct escalated the fees. Another unhappy consequence of the “take no prisoners” and “we
will not concede an inch” approach is that tens of thousands of dollars are paid to the attorneys
(i.e. your office and mine) rather than, , Say, paying for college tuition for the kids. You get
the
point.
We just want to make sure that Jennifer wants all of that — that she wants Cat to pay her
as little support as possible ~ that she does not want Cat’s hi elp in refinancing or buying a new
home ~ that she wants to return to work as soon as possible. The point we are not sure
that
Jennifer understands (which I am sure you understand from the many cases you have
handled), is
that it is patently unreasonable to play “hard ball” over such minor issues as a confident
iality
agreement, and then expect the other side to behave differently, i.e. not to play “hard ball” on
other issues. Throwing down the gauntlet always has a cost, and a consequence.
With that in mind, we wonder whether Jennifer may want to reconsider her stance as to
the confidentiality agreement. I have reviewed your past correspondence, and I must admit that I
could not, for the life of me, find any legally cognizable or even logical reason why she would
not even consider it. This conclusion requires a brief digression: the unwritten, but neverthel
ess
uniform protocol, is that the party seeking the agreement (on whatever issue — support, property,
custody, etc.) generally takes the laboring oar in drafting the agreement they
would approve, and
then transmits it to the other side. The responding party then makes whatever revisions
they
deem appropriate from their point of view, and the process continues until a final stipulati
on is
Allan S. Morton
March 21, 2016
page three
crafted. Of course, that assumes that each party is 1) desirous of settling the dispute short of
expensive litigation; and, 2) willing to make concessions to achieve that goal.
Here, Sarah Gower sent you a proposed Stipulation on January 7, 2016, but you did not
even bother to suggest the revisions your client might want to make it acceptable. You
complained that it was “cumbersome” and “burdensome” but did attempt to delete or
change
those provisions you thought were “cumbersome” and “burdensome.” That is why I said above
that, at least up to now, it appears Jennifer would not even consider such an agreement — because
no effort was made to reach one that is acceptable to both sides.
From the many cases I have had with other counsel in your firm, I am aware that you
have dozens of confidentiality agreements on your network that you could have reviewed
in
tesponding to the one sent by Ms. Gower. Some are less formal and less burdensome
while
others are more detailed and, perhaps, more labor-intensive to comply with. But you did
not
Propose an alternate agreement from the many you have as exemplars, and that seems to indicate
an unwillingness to even consider a compromise. Your letters confirm that stance.
This is what I am not able to understand: In prior correspondence, you urged counsel to
spend substantial time reviewing each and every email you demand to determine which contain
sensitive financial information, confidential communications and privileged material.
That
process would result in the creation of an expensive and elaborate “privilege log.” If the Court
upholds Cat’s objections to production of the material identified in th privilege log on any
ground. , it will not be ordered produced’. Instead, Cat has offered to produce everything, subject
only to the requirement that your client not disseminate the material. You have said that
she has
no intention to do so, while simultaneously stating that she will not agree in writing to refrain
from doing so. Forgive me, but that makes no sense at all. Why would Jennifer want to escalate
fees to have a privilege log created and to litigate this issue? Why would she refuse to
sign an
agreement that she not disseminate, if you say she will not disseminate? Why would she run
the
risk of not obtaining some of the material that you seem to think is relevant when she could have
it all?
I would never have the temerity to suggest an understanding as to why your client would
rather litigate than cooperate, but perhaps you can see why from our standpoint, her RFO seems
to be nothing more than an unnecessary fee-generating exercise.
For your client’s consideration, I again transmit the proposed Stipulation sent by Ms.
Gower on January 7, 2016. If your client wants to continue down the “hard ball” path,
we
understand, but she cannot be heard to complain later on when Cat does exactly
the same thing.
If, on the other hand, she would like to explore an alternate means of handling this issue
as well
" Thave personally reviewed many of the emails in question. There is no doubt that
there is privileged material (e.g,
correspondence with counsel) and there is no doubt that there
is protected material (financial details of employment
contracts of third party em ployces) for which your client would (and perhaps will) be required to give Consumer
Notice.
_ —
Allan S. Morton
March 21, 2016
page four
as the other issues that will inevitably arise in this case, a good start would be for you to suggest
whatever revisions to the proposed Stipulation she would accept, or to proposed an alternate
Stipulation altogether for our consideration. Since the settlement agreement you seek
also
contains a confidentiality provision, it makes far more sense for you to propose an agreement
your client can live with rather than have us guess at what she might approve.
Very truly yours,
JACQUELINE MISHO
JM/sk
ce: Catherine Cora
enclosure
—__
ee
Paul A. Roberts, State Bar No. 054421
Sarah Berkus Gower, State Bar No. 271274
HOLLISTER & BRACE
1126 Santa Barbara Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone 805-963-6711
Facsimile 805-965-0329
Attomeys for Petitioner, CATHERINE CORA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ANACAPA DIVISION
10 In re Marriage of CORA CASE NO.: 15FL02043
1 CATHERINE CORA,
12 STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE
Petitioner, ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE OF
VS.
13 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION;
ORDER THEREON
JENNIFER CORA,
14
Respondent. Dept: 3
15
16 Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P.
Anderle
17
18
WHEREAS, in connection with the above-captioned action, Petitioner Catheri
ne Cora
19
(“Catherine”) intends to produce copies of emails including attachments
between Catherine and
20
her business managers, Provident Financial Management, for the year 2015,
which may contain
221
confidential information relating to Catherine and her various business interests (such
documents,
22
and information hereinafter referred to as “Confidential Information”)
to Respondent Jennifer
23
Cora (“Jennifer”); and
24
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms below, Jennifer has agreed to keep the Confiden
tial
25
Information confidential and to use these documents and information for no
purpose other than
26
in this action and under the terms and conditions set forth herein;
27
Therefore, the parties, by and through their attorneys of record, stipulate as
follows:
28
1 This Stipulated Protective Order shall apply to the Confidential Information
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF COMMUNITY
PROPERTY ASSETS
which may be produced or disclosed by any party in connection with the proceedings in this
case. Any testimony concerning the Confidential Information will also be considered
confidential and will be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. Catherine or her attorneys
shall mark all Confidential Information as “confidential” in order to be subject to this Protective
Order.
2 Confidential Information will be used by the party to whom it is disclosed only in
connection with this lawsuit.
3 Confidential Information will be produced only to Fell, Marking, Abkin,
Montgomery, Granet and Raney, LLP and shall not be exhibited or disclosed to any person other
10 than Jennifer, Fell, Marking, Abkin, Montgomery, Granet and Raney, LLP members or
iH employees, any consultants, experts or attorneys employed by Fell, Marking, Abkin,
12 Montgomery, Granet and Raney, LLP in connection with this case. No person to whom this
13 Confidential Information is disclosed will discuss the information or disclose it to any person
14 other than those described in this paragraph.
15 4 Counsel to whom Confidential Information is disclosed or produced will be
16 responsible for ensuring that parties and other persons are informed of the terms of this
17 protective order, and that no one, other than the persons specified in paragraph 3, is informed of
18 the substance of any Confidential Information produced or disclosed. Before disclosing
19 Confidential Information to any consultants or experts, counsel will obtain from that person a
20 written agreement to be bound by the terms of this protective order.
21 5 Confidential Information may be disclosed to a judicial officer. Ifa party seeks to}
22 submit Confidential Information to a judicial officer in the form of a document, interrogatory
23 answer, deposition transcript, pleading, or other record or tangible item, that party will submit
24 the document to the Clerk of the Court under seal, specifically marked as Confidential
25 Information subject to this Protective Order, and kept in a location not open to public inspection.
26 Unless alternate protocols are agreed to between counsel for Petitioner and counsel for
27 Respondent, any references to Confidential Information made by the Parties in a court
28 proceeding shall be presented in chambers (which may be recorded stenographically), closed
>2
STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE
LSS SL ASN
Race
courtroom or in any other manner designed to ensure that such information is not disclosed to the|
general public.
6 On final disposition of this action, counsel for any party having possession,
custody, or control of Confidential Information produced in the course of discovery in this action
will promptly return all original documents covered by this order to counsel for the designated
party who produced them and will destroy all copies, transcripts, and notes containing
Confidential Information except those marked as exhibits during trial.
7 Nothing in this protective order affects, in any way, the admissibility of any
documents, testimony, or other evidence at trial, or restricts the use of information obtained from
10 sources other than discovery conducted in this action.
ul [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE}
122
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE
I
SO STIPULATED.
Dated: January, 2016 —
CATHERINE CORA
Dated: January _, 2016
————____.
JENNIFER CORA
HOLLISTER & BRACE
10
By: —— _—_— —__ _.
II
Paul A. Roberts, Esq.
12 Sarah Berkus Gower, Esq.
ATTORNEYS FOR CATHERINE CORA
13
FELL, MARKING, ABKIN, MONTGOMERY,
14 GRANET AND RANEY, LLP
15
By: a
16
Allan S. Morton, Esq.
17 ATTORNEYS FOR JENNIFER CORA
18
19
ORDER
20 Having read the stipulation and good cause appearing therefore, IT SO ORDERED.
21
22 Dated: _ re.
23 HON. THOMAS P. ANDERLE
Judge of the Superior Court
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE
EXHIBIT “D”
EXHIBIT “D”
EXHIBIT “D”
Misho Law Group
Jacqueline Misho, CFLS
111 West Micheltorena Street, Suite 210
Sarah B. Orr, CFLS
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Carolyn A. Diacos
(805) 965-3405
jmisho@misholaw.com
April 18, 2016
Allan S. Morton
Fell Marking Abkin Montgomery Granet & Raney, LLP
VIA HAND DELIVERY
222 East Carrillo Street, Suite 400
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2142
Re: Marriage of Cora
Counsel:
The purpose of this correspondence is to transmit a comprehensive settlement offer
which, if accepted, will eliminate significant time and expense associated with litigating
this
case. We perceive that this offer is equal to or better than the result Jennifer would
obtain at
trial; therefore, this offer is expressly intended to be admissible in any proceeding involvin
g the
determination of fees and costs.
Property Division
(i) The Residence
T let you know at our April 12, 2016 meeting that the equity in the family residenc
e is
approximately equal to the aggregate balance held in the cash accounts.
You wanted to hire an
appraiser, but | suggested that before incurring that expense, we first see if there
is a substantial
disagreement about the value of the residential property. We have accepted Jennifer’s estimate
of value of $1.4mm as reflected on her Schedule of Assets and Debts (executed under
penalty of
perjury), for purposes of this settlement offer.
You stated at our April 12, 2016 mecting that you did not have a Community Property
Balance Sheet, and you did not know whether your client wanted to keep
the residential
property. I have therefore enclosed two Communi
ity Property Balance Sheets, one reflecting an
award of the Cordova pro perty to Jennifer, and the other reflecting the award
of the property to
Cat. Obviously, selling the property is the worst-case scenario for the children.
Therefore, as I
let you know, Cat is willing to have the residential property awarded to Jennifer
or if Jennifer
prefers, Cat is willing to take it.
— -
Allan S. Morton
April 18, 2016
page two
You will note that the balance in the business accounts as of October 2015 was
approximately $310,000, but the balance in the personal accounts was de minimus. The parties
have paid the living expenses for themselves and the children from date of separation forward
with distributions from the business accounts. For purposes of settlement, if we accept Jennifer’s
number of $31,476 for monthly expenses, the $310,000 in community funds as of the date of
separation has been reduced by $31,476 x 6 months (as of the end of April) or $188,856, leaving
approximately $121,144 in community funds. Of course, Jennifer is free to spend the time and
effort to conduct a detailed post-separation accounting, but we feel that it would likely produce
the same or similar result. For purposes of this offer, we assume that the remaining communit
y
funds are roughly $120,000, before payment of the 2015 federal and state taxes.
The next thing you may note is that the cash accounts are primarily retirement accounts
and hence pre-tax dollars. Whichever party takes the accounts rather than the house, she would
not be getting the $372,727 reflected on the balance sheet. At an effective overall
tax rate of
40%, she would be getting only $223,636 in real dollars, i.e. $149,091
less.
If Jennifer wants to keep the house, Cat will accept an award of the cash and cash
equivalent accounts. If Cat assumes the community debts of the pledge to the Universi
ty of
Mississippi and the amount owed under the Settlement Agreement with Mark Johnson,
and if
Jennifer assumes the Capital One debt, Jennifer would owe an equalizing payment of
$117,653
(less what remains of her share of the CP business funds after payment of 2015 taxes).
Pursuant
to this offer, Cat would accept a Promissory note for the equalizer, secured
by the property,
payable on sale, refinance or the expiration of 15 years, whichever occurs first.
If Jennifer would prefer an award of the cash accounts, Cat will take the community
residence, the debt to U of M and Johnson. In that case, the equalizing payment
to Jennifer is
$9,781, and Jennifer would receive her one-half share of the remaining funds in the business
accounts at date of separation after payment of 2015 taxes.
The parties will equally divide the furniture, furnishings and appliances and each will
keep her separate property acquired by gift, devise or prior to marriage.
(ii) The Businesses
As I let you know at our meeting on April 12, 2016, the operational business entities are
Cat Cora, Inc. (“CCI”), Cora Group Incorporated (“CGI”) and Cat Cora Productions (“CCP”).
The few contracts held by these entities all involve compensation for the personal services
of Cat
Cora. The remaining entities (LLCs) are inactive.
cc
CCI holds the 2016 (i.e. post-separation) License and Personal Services Agreement with
Aramark. By virtue of an email agreement reached in 2013, CCI is also the vendor/payee on
the
Macy’s contract described below.
Allan S. Morton
April 18, 2016
page three
CGI
The 2010 Agreement between HBF Soto JV and Cat Cora Productions was amended in
2013 and is now between HBF, as successor in interest to HBF Soto JV and CGI, as successor
in interest to Cat Cora Productions. This is the contract for Cat’s services in overseein
g
development, opening and operation of restaurants in various domestic airports.
CGI also holds the 2013 Consulting Agreement with Resorts World at Sentosa. This is
the contract for Cat’s services in overseeing operation of the restaurant in Singapor
e.
CCP
Cat Cora Productions held the contract (now held by CCI) with Macy’s affiliate Advertex
Communications, which was renewed asof January 2013 and extended as of January
2015. CCP
collects royalties from a book Cat wrote a year ago called “Suitcase Surprise for Mommy” and
CCP received residuals for an appearance on “Meredith Viera” by Cat. There was a total of just
over $1,500 in earnings for CCP in 2015. There has been no income received by CCP in 2016,
nor is CCP is used for any new income sources.
As noted above, each of the foregoing contracts require Cat's personal servi
Preview
RICHARD |. WIDEMAN, Esq. [SB#41185] ELECTRONICALLY FILED JONATHAN D. WIDEMAN, Esq. [SB#274526] Superior Court of California Frederik’s Court # 232 County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 485 Alisal Road 7/17/2018 9:02 AM Solvang, CA 93463 By: Sarah Sisto, Deputy Phone: (805)245-8916 Fax (805)688-9424 riwlaw@gmail.com jonathanwideman@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ANACAPA DIVISION It 12 JACQUELINE MISHO dba MISHO ) LAW GROUP ) Case No.: 18CV01749 13 2 ) [Judge Pauline Maxwell] Plaintiff, 14 VS. } EXHIBIT A ~ D TO MISHO 15 < ) DECLARATION IN REPLY TO CATHERINE ANN (“CAT”) CORA, ) OPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR 16 CAT CORA INC., ET AL, ) ATACHMENT 17 Defendants. ) a) [ Hear —, AM, Dept. 6] 18 a 19 Dated: July 16, 2018 20 221 22 22 2 wets ICHARD I. WIDEMAN. Esq. JONATHAN D. WIDEMAN, Esq. \ Attorneys for Jacqueline Misho dba Misho Law Group 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBITS A — D TO MISHO DECLARATION EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “A” Misho Law Group Jacqueline Misho, CFLS 111 West Micheltorena Street, Suite 210 Sarah B. Orr, CFLS Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Carolyn A. Diacos (805) 968-3405 jmisho@misholaw.com February 23, 2016 Allan S. Morton Fell Marking Abkin Montgomery Granet & Raney, LLP VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 222 E st Carrillo Street, Suite 400 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2142 Re: Marriage of Cora Dear Allan: This will respond to yours of February 18, 2016. As you know, we have just substituted into the case and are getting up to speed. | understand that hundreds, if not thousands of documents have been produced pursuant to your previous requests and that now you are requesting additional historical documents dating back to 2012. In that connection, | have a copy of the document you sent to Sarah Gower entitled “Requested Documents from Catherine Cora.” It is my understanding that virtually all of the documents that are on the list were supplied for the years 2014 and 2015. It seems to me that those documents would be most relevant to a determination of my client’s cashflow. | have not seen any judicial officer in Santa Barbara go back four(4) years for purposes of a cashflow analysis. Will you agree to limit your client’s request to the year 2013? Again, perhaps you can enlighten me, but it seems that 2012 would be too remote in time to be relevant. With respect to Item 9 on the list of documents requested, would you be kind enough to advise to how “documents evidencing the salary and job responsibiliti s of Catherine Cora’s business managers” are relevant? Given the fact that we are now post-separation and Cat Cora’s income is her separate property, | am not certain I understand how or why documents reflecting the job responsibilities and salary of her business managers is relevant to her cashflow Ina similar vein, I simply do not see how thousands of emails between Cat Cora and her business managers are relevant to any issue with which this case is concerned. The fact that your client refuses to sign a Confidentiality Agreement is inexplicable, other than indicating a desire on her part to publish the materials. That is of great concern given the confidential financial Allan S. Morton February 23, 2015 page two information and sensitive business-related information contained therein. Frankly, I see no valid reason why your client would refuse to sign a Confidentiality Agreement other than a desire to improperly disseminate the information and thus potentially damage my client and her business relationships. In addition, I believe you were advised in prior correspondence that some of the emails you seek pertain to a lawsuit in which the parties are bound by a Confidentiality Agreement. Again, | am unclear as to your client’s reason for refusing to respect the confidential ature of the documents and information she seeks. In the event your client serves discovery seeking the documents, we reserve Cat’s right to object on all applicable grounds, including, but not limited to the comments and observations in this and other correspondence you were sent regarding this issue. We understand that after the Petition was filed and the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders were in place, your client surreptitiously removed in excess of $20,000 from a joint account to which both parties had access and placed those funds in an account under her sole management and control. Please advise as to the current location of the funds and whether your client will stipulate to return them to status quo by either redepositing them into the account from which they were taken or providing our client with the same access she previously had so that the funds may be monitored by both parties. In addition, in correspondence dated October 28, 2015, Mr. Roberts noted that Jennifer unilaterally changed the password to the Schwab account, to which both parties had access previously, He requested that your client provide the new password and login ID so that Cat could access the account information, as she had previously been able to. Did you ever respond to that request? I was not able to find one. I note that neither party has served a Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure. Please advise as to when your client will be in a position to exchange PDDs, which we request occur within the next two(2) weeks. Finally, | inquire as to whether your client is interested in a Voluntarily Settlement Conference, something that we would encourage once both partics have exchanged Preliminary Declarations of Disclosure. Please advise as to whether Jennifer will agree to attend a Voluntary Settlement Conference with a retired judicial officer and if so, whom you might suggest to conduct it. ! look forward to working with you to resolve the issues presented by this case in a cost efficient manner. Very truly yours, JA UELINE MISHO. JM/sk ce: Catherine Cora EXHIBIT “B” EXHIBIT “B” EXHIBIT “B” FELL, MARKING, ABKIN, MONTGOMERY, GRANET & RANIY, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 EAST CARRILLO STREET, FOURTH FLOOR SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101 TELEPHONE (805) 963-0755 + FACSIMILE (805) 985-7237 —— DOUGLAS E FELL MICHAEL 0, HELLMAN PHILIP W. MARKING. ALLAN5. MORTON JOSHUA P. RABINOWITZ JESSICA M. BURNS JOSEPH D. ABKIN JENNIFER GILLON DUFFY CLARK A. LAMMERS: FREDERICK W. MONTGOMERY DAVID J. TAPPEINER CRAIG 8, GRANET COUNSEL GAMBLE T. PARKS JAME! DAVIDSON JAM\E FORREST RANEY MARK A, DEPACO WRITER'S EMA AMORTCN@FMAM.CCV CEICHEIED FAMILY CAW SPECIAI IST By THE STATE IAB OF CALHOEMA BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZA “IDS February 26, 2016 Via E-mail Only Jacqueline Misho Misho Law Group 111 West Micheltorena St., Ste. 210 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Re: Marriage of Cora Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No.: 15FL02036 Dear Jacquie: This is in response to your letter to me of February 23, 2016, which was sent to me on the evening of February 23. It appears that you have thoroughly reviewed the communications between Hollister & Brace and me. | also sent you copies of some of the numerous e-mails and letters that have been exchanged. Therefore, I will be brief. No, we will not limit our document request to 2013. A copy of Mr. Warsavsky’s document list was enclosed. These documents which are in the custody of Barbara Karrol of Provident Financial Management, are community records. Jennifer has as much right to access these records as Catherine. Asa courtesy to Paul Roberts and Sarah Berkus, I had previously directed my requests through thir office. Moreover, Catherine also has a fiduciary duty to produce these records, With regard to the e-mails and the request that my client and I execute a stipulation for a protective order, this has been thoroughly discussed in my communications with Sarah. You are quite well aware of my position. There has been no showing whatsoever that any particula r document among the 2,294 e-mails, which are now in your possession, have any confident ial Jacqueline Misho Misho Law Group February 26, 2016 Page 2 information justifying a protective order. The request was for a blanket protectiv e order with regard to documents that Hollister & Brace had not even reviewed. Moreover, there is no basis in fact for the supposition, or indeed the accusation, that my client would misuse any of the contents. Rather, the fact that such a big deal has been made about these e-mails feeds suspicio n that Catherine has something to hide and that transactions were occurring behind Jennifer' s back. All this was done at a time prior to separation and while Barbara Karrol had aconfidential relationship with both Catherine and Jennifer. If you client wants a protective order, she will have to justify it to the Court. With regard to the settlement agreement between Catherine and the former business manager whose name is Mark Johnson, with Align Entertainment, as you know, Sarah informed me that the settlement agreement has a confidentiality clause. I had asked Sarah what she wanted me to sign. She did not get back to me, as evidently it was at this point that Catherine engaged your firm. Ifyou want me to sign some kind of confidentiality agreement with respect to shiy document, please provide a copy for my review. This settlement agreement created an ongoing liability of the community. ‘Therefore, it is important that a copy be provided. Finally, with regard to the Schwab account wherein my client deposited communi ty funds, | am providing you concurrently herewith copies of the account statements from October 27, 2015, when the account was opened, through December 31, 2015. There is not 3 January 2016 account statement available at this time. Jennifer removed these funds because she was fearful that Catherine would cut her off financially and because she needed funds for payment of attorney’s fees. 1 so informed Paul Roberts. Catherine suffers no prejudice by this account remaining in Jennifer’s name and control. With regard to a Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure, we have been in the process of preparing same and should have that (o you ina couple weeks. As for assets and liabilities, we are relying primarily on the records provided by Provident Financial Management. My client is not employed outside of the home. | am not aware at this time of eny separate assets of either parly, except possibly for Catherine's earnings, post-separation. ‘The business entities, so far as am aware, are community property. As for mediation, | will address that subject with you in a separate communication. 'look forward to your prompt follow-up to this letter. However, I am uninterested in further back-and-forth about my client’s ri ight to complete disclosure. That dialogue has already happened with Hollister & Brace, There is no need to revisit it. If we cannot have the records, I will seek a court order. As your client has a fiduciary duty of disclosure, formal discovery will Jacqueline Misho Misho Law Group February 26, 2016 Page 3 not be necessary, I will seek an order directly from the court that these documents be provided. | will also seek an award of attorney’s fees under Family Code section 271. Very truly yours, 2... Allan S. Morton ASM/kI Enclosures ce: Jennifer Cora (w/enclosures) EXHIBIT “C” EXHIBIT “C” EXHIBIT “C” Misho Law Group Jacqueline Misho, CFLS 111 West Micheltorena Street, Suite 210 Sarah B. Orr, CFLS Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Carolyn A. Diacos (805) 965-3405 jmisho@misholaw.com March 21, 2016 Allan S. Morton Fell Marking Abkin Montgomery Granet & Raney, LLP VIA HAND DELIVERY 222 East Carrillo Street, Suite 400 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2142 Re: Marriage of Cora Dear Allan: I write to you in an effort to meet and confer about the general tenor of this case, as it appears to be headed down a path that is somewhat disappointing to our client, and may be to yours as well when it is time for the parties to consider their respective settlemen t positions, First, the 2012 documents you requested are being chased down. No one from this office ever advised that they would not be produced, nor was any objection raised. We asked if you would limit your client’s request given that it is highly unlikely any court would consider 2012 in determining cash flow. You refused, We have provided the 2013 documents and are in the process of obtaining 2012. Provident did not start representing Cat until 2013 and does not have the 2012 documents. Second, and on a more global level, we want to be sure that we understand how Jennifer would prefer that this case be handled. We understand that you and Cat’s former lawyer, Paul Roberts, had a discussion before either party filed in which he advised that from apublic relations standpoint, Cat’s representatives felt that it would be better if she filed as the Petitioner. Mr. Roberts reports that you did not express any disagreement with that concept, nor did you contend that your client had a desire to file first. Apparently, as soon as your conversation concluded, your office immediately filed the Petition, notwithstanding Mr. Roberts’ specific request, to which you did not object. We also understand that despite the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders, Jennifer unilaterally withdrew a substantial sum of money from a joint account after the Petition was filed. It appears that she may have also changed the password on the account from which the funds were taken, but I am uncertain of that detail at this moment. In any event, she took the funds without notice. We understand that you have explained her behavior by stating that she took the funds to use as fees and costs, and we will certainly pursue that. But the fact remains that from its inception, Jennifer appears to have approached this case in a bit of a hostile manner. Allan S. Morton March 21, 2016 page two Jennifer is the “out” spouse. We get that. Often times, the “out” spouse feels threatened by the divorce and compensates by being unnecessarily aggressive. We get that, too. Jennifer is absolutely entitled to litigate each and every dispute that arises and to have that dispute determined by strict application of the law. No one disputes her right to have this case handled in that manner and her absolute right to incur the fees associated with doing so. But, more often than not, the “out” spouse does not understand that taking an unnecessarily aggressive stance on minor issues (for instance, whether a confidentiality agreement is executed), is met with the same aggression by the “in” spouse with respect to other issues, such as support. It never ceases to amaze me that parties who spawn litigation over issues that could be resolved had they been willing to compromise, and who insist that those issues be determined by strict application of the law, are later appalled and indignant when their former partner insists on doing the same thing. For instance, when the former partner refuses to pay a penny more than the minimum amount of support required under the law, or refuses to help the “out” spouse obtain a loan for a new house, etc. You get the point. We will take the path Jennifer wants to take in this case. Litigation has a certain comfort level because everything is done under strict time constraints and no one has to make important decisions ~ the Judge will do that. On the other hand, one party is always unhappy with the result of litigation. To a large extent, the Judge’s hands are tied; at trial, he must order an equal division of assets (rather than allowing the “out” spouse to get alittle more because she is the “out” spouse); he must issue a “work-hardening order” requiring the non-working spouse to seek employment and, he must award fees based not only on need, but on an evaluation of whose conduct escalated the fees. Another unhappy consequence of the “take no prisoners” and “we will not concede an inch” approach is that tens of thousands of dollars are paid to the attorneys (i.e. your office and mine) rather than, , Say, paying for college tuition for the kids. You get the point. We just want to make sure that Jennifer wants all of that — that she wants Cat to pay her as little support as possible ~ that she does not want Cat’s hi elp in refinancing or buying a new home ~ that she wants to return to work as soon as possible. The point we are not sure that Jennifer understands (which I am sure you understand from the many cases you have handled), is that it is patently unreasonable to play “hard ball” over such minor issues as a confident iality agreement, and then expect the other side to behave differently, i.e. not to play “hard ball” on other issues. Throwing down the gauntlet always has a cost, and a consequence. With that in mind, we wonder whether Jennifer may want to reconsider her stance as to the confidentiality agreement. I have reviewed your past correspondence, and I must admit that I could not, for the life of me, find any legally cognizable or even logical reason why she would not even consider it. This conclusion requires a brief digression: the unwritten, but neverthel ess uniform protocol, is that the party seeking the agreement (on whatever issue — support, property, custody, etc.) generally takes the laboring oar in drafting the agreement they would approve, and then transmits it to the other side. The responding party then makes whatever revisions they deem appropriate from their point of view, and the process continues until a final stipulati on is Allan S. Morton March 21, 2016 page three crafted. Of course, that assumes that each party is 1) desirous of settling the dispute short of expensive litigation; and, 2) willing to make concessions to achieve that goal. Here, Sarah Gower sent you a proposed Stipulation on January 7, 2016, but you did not even bother to suggest the revisions your client might want to make it acceptable. You complained that it was “cumbersome” and “burdensome” but did attempt to delete or change those provisions you thought were “cumbersome” and “burdensome.” That is why I said above that, at least up to now, it appears Jennifer would not even consider such an agreement — because no effort was made to reach one that is acceptable to both sides. From the many cases I have had with other counsel in your firm, I am aware that you have dozens of confidentiality agreements on your network that you could have reviewed in tesponding to the one sent by Ms. Gower. Some are less formal and less burdensome while others are more detailed and, perhaps, more labor-intensive to comply with. But you did not Propose an alternate agreement from the many you have as exemplars, and that seems to indicate an unwillingness to even consider a compromise. Your letters confirm that stance. This is what I am not able to understand: In prior correspondence, you urged counsel to spend substantial time reviewing each and every email you demand to determine which contain sensitive financial information, confidential communications and privileged material. That process would result in the creation of an expensive and elaborate “privilege log.” If the Court upholds Cat’s objections to production of the material identified in th privilege log on any ground. , it will not be ordered produced’. Instead, Cat has offered to produce everything, subject only to the requirement that your client not disseminate the material. You have said that she has no intention to do so, while simultaneously stating that she will not agree in writing to refrain from doing so. Forgive me, but that makes no sense at all. Why would Jennifer want to escalate fees to have a privilege log created and to litigate this issue? Why would she refuse to sign an agreement that she not disseminate, if you say she will not disseminate? Why would she run the risk of not obtaining some of the material that you seem to think is relevant when she could have it all? I would never have the temerity to suggest an understanding as to why your client would rather litigate than cooperate, but perhaps you can see why from our standpoint, her RFO seems to be nothing more than an unnecessary fee-generating exercise. For your client’s consideration, I again transmit the proposed Stipulation sent by Ms. Gower on January 7, 2016. If your client wants to continue down the “hard ball” path, we understand, but she cannot be heard to complain later on when Cat does exactly the same thing. If, on the other hand, she would like to explore an alternate means of handling this issue as well " Thave personally reviewed many of the emails in question. There is no doubt that there is privileged material (e.g, correspondence with counsel) and there is no doubt that there is protected material (financial details of employment contracts of third party em ployces) for which your client would (and perhaps will) be required to give Consumer Notice. _ — Allan S. Morton March 21, 2016 page four as the other issues that will inevitably arise in this case, a good start would be for you to suggest whatever revisions to the proposed Stipulation she would accept, or to proposed an alternate Stipulation altogether for our consideration. Since the settlement agreement you seek also contains a confidentiality provision, it makes far more sense for you to propose an agreement your client can live with rather than have us guess at what she might approve. Very truly yours, JACQUELINE MISHO JM/sk ce: Catherine Cora enclosure —__ ee Paul A. Roberts, State Bar No. 054421 Sarah Berkus Gower, State Bar No. 271274 HOLLISTER & BRACE 1126 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone 805-963-6711 Facsimile 805-965-0329 Attomeys for Petitioner, CATHERINE CORA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ANACAPA DIVISION 10 In re Marriage of CORA CASE NO.: 15FL02043 1 CATHERINE CORA, 12 STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE Petitioner, ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE OF VS. 13 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; ORDER THEREON JENNIFER CORA, 14 Respondent. Dept: 3 15 16 Assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle 17 18 WHEREAS, in connection with the above-captioned action, Petitioner Catheri ne Cora 19 (“Catherine”) intends to produce copies of emails including attachments between Catherine and 20 her business managers, Provident Financial Management, for the year 2015, which may contain 221 confidential information relating to Catherine and her various business interests (such documents, 22 and information hereinafter referred to as “Confidential Information”) to Respondent Jennifer 23 Cora (“Jennifer”); and 24 WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms below, Jennifer has agreed to keep the Confiden tial 25 Information confidential and to use these documents and information for no purpose other than 26 in this action and under the terms and conditions set forth herein; 27 Therefore, the parties, by and through their attorneys of record, stipulate as follows: 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order shall apply to the Confidential Information 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY ASSETS which may be produced or disclosed by any party in connection with the proceedings in this case. Any testimony concerning the Confidential Information will also be considered confidential and will be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. Catherine or her attorneys shall mark all Confidential Information as “confidential” in order to be subject to this Protective Order. 2 Confidential Information will be used by the party to whom it is disclosed only in connection with this lawsuit. 3 Confidential Information will be produced only to Fell, Marking, Abkin, Montgomery, Granet and Raney, LLP and shall not be exhibited or disclosed to any person other 10 than Jennifer, Fell, Marking, Abkin, Montgomery, Granet and Raney, LLP members or iH employees, any consultants, experts or attorneys employed by Fell, Marking, Abkin, 12 Montgomery, Granet and Raney, LLP in connection with this case. No person to whom this 13 Confidential Information is disclosed will discuss the information or disclose it to any person 14 other than those described in this paragraph. 15 4 Counsel to whom Confidential Information is disclosed or produced will be 16 responsible for ensuring that parties and other persons are informed of the terms of this 17 protective order, and that no one, other than the persons specified in paragraph 3, is informed of 18 the substance of any Confidential Information produced or disclosed. Before disclosing 19 Confidential Information to any consultants or experts, counsel will obtain from that person a 20 written agreement to be bound by the terms of this protective order. 21 5 Confidential Information may be disclosed to a judicial officer. Ifa party seeks to} 22 submit Confidential Information to a judicial officer in the form of a document, interrogatory 23 answer, deposition transcript, pleading, or other record or tangible item, that party will submit 24 the document to the Clerk of the Court under seal, specifically marked as Confidential 25 Information subject to this Protective Order, and kept in a location not open to public inspection. 26 Unless alternate protocols are agreed to between counsel for Petitioner and counsel for 27 Respondent, any references to Confidential Information made by the Parties in a court 28 proceeding shall be presented in chambers (which may be recorded stenographically), closed >2 STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE LSS SL ASN Race courtroom or in any other manner designed to ensure that such information is not disclosed to the| general public. 6 On final disposition of this action, counsel for any party having possession, custody, or control of Confidential Information produced in the course of discovery in this action will promptly return all original documents covered by this order to counsel for the designated party who produced them and will destroy all copies, transcripts, and notes containing Confidential Information except those marked as exhibits during trial. 7 Nothing in this protective order affects, in any way, the admissibility of any documents, testimony, or other evidence at trial, or restricts the use of information obtained from 10 sources other than discovery conducted in this action. ul [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE} 122 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE I SO STIPULATED. Dated: January, 2016 — CATHERINE CORA Dated: January _, 2016 ————____. JENNIFER CORA HOLLISTER & BRACE 10 By: —— _—_— —__ _. II Paul A. Roberts, Esq. 12 Sarah Berkus Gower, Esq. ATTORNEYS FOR CATHERINE CORA 13 FELL, MARKING, ABKIN, MONTGOMERY, 14 GRANET AND RANEY, LLP 15 By: a 16 Allan S. Morton, Esq. 17 ATTORNEYS FOR JENNIFER CORA 18 19 ORDER 20 Having read the stipulation and good cause appearing therefore, IT SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: _ re. 23 HON. THOMAS P. ANDERLE Judge of the Superior Court 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NON-DISCLOSURE EXHIBIT “D” EXHIBIT “D” EXHIBIT “D” Misho Law Group Jacqueline Misho, CFLS 111 West Micheltorena Street, Suite 210 Sarah B. Orr, CFLS Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Carolyn A. Diacos (805) 965-3405 jmisho@misholaw.com April 18, 2016 Allan S. Morton Fell Marking Abkin Montgomery Granet & Raney, LLP VIA HAND DELIVERY 222 East Carrillo Street, Suite 400 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2142 Re: Marriage of Cora Counsel: The purpose of this correspondence is to transmit a comprehensive settlement offer which, if accepted, will eliminate significant time and expense associated with litigating this case. We perceive that this offer is equal to or better than the result Jennifer would obtain at trial; therefore, this offer is expressly intended to be admissible in any proceeding involvin g the determination of fees and costs. Property Division (i) The Residence T let you know at our April 12, 2016 meeting that the equity in the family residenc e is approximately equal to the aggregate balance held in the cash accounts. You wanted to hire an appraiser, but | suggested that before incurring that expense, we first see if there is a substantial disagreement about the value of the residential property. We have accepted Jennifer’s estimate of value of $1.4mm as reflected on her Schedule of Assets and Debts (executed under penalty of perjury), for purposes of this settlement offer. You stated at our April 12, 2016 mecting that you did not have a Community Property Balance Sheet, and you did not know whether your client wanted to keep the residential property. I have therefore enclosed two Communi ity Property Balance Sheets, one reflecting an award of the Cordova pro perty to Jennifer, and the other reflecting the award of the property to Cat. Obviously, selling the property is the worst-case scenario for the children. Therefore, as I let you know, Cat is willing to have the residential property awarded to Jennifer or if Jennifer prefers, Cat is willing to take it. — - Allan S. Morton April 18, 2016 page two You will note that the balance in the business accounts as of October 2015 was approximately $310,000, but the balance in the personal accounts was de minimus. The parties have paid the living expenses for themselves and the children from date of separation forward with distributions from the business accounts. For purposes of settlement, if we accept Jennifer’s number of $31,476 for monthly expenses, the $310,000 in community funds as of the date of separation has been reduced by $31,476 x 6 months (as of the end of April) or $188,856, leaving approximately $121,144 in community funds. Of course, Jennifer is free to spend the time and effort to conduct a detailed post-separation accounting, but we feel that it would likely produce the same or similar result. For purposes of this offer, we assume that the remaining communit y funds are roughly $120,000, before payment of the 2015 federal and state taxes. The next thing you may note is that the cash accounts are primarily retirement accounts and hence pre-tax dollars. Whichever party takes the accounts rather than the house, she would not be getting the $372,727 reflected on the balance sheet. At an effective overall tax rate of 40%, she would be getting only $223,636 in real dollars, i.e. $149,091 less. If Jennifer wants to keep the house, Cat will accept an award of the cash and cash equivalent accounts. If Cat assumes the community debts of the pledge to the Universi ty of Mississippi and the amount owed under the Settlement Agreement with Mark Johnson, and if Jennifer assumes the Capital One debt, Jennifer would owe an equalizing payment of $117,653 (less what remains of her share of the CP business funds after payment of 2015 taxes). Pursuant to this offer, Cat would accept a Promissory note for the equalizer, secured by the property, payable on sale, refinance or the expiration of 15 years, whichever occurs first. If Jennifer would prefer an award of the cash accounts, Cat will take the community residence, the debt to U of M and Johnson. In that case, the equalizing payment to Jennifer is $9,781, and Jennifer would receive her one-half share of the remaining funds in the business accounts at date of separation after payment of 2015 taxes. The parties will equally divide the furniture, furnishings and appliances and each will keep her separate property acquired by gift, devise or prior to marriage. (ii) The Businesses As I let you know at our meeting on April 12, 2016, the operational business entities are Cat Cora, Inc. (“CCI”), Cora Group Incorporated (“CGI”) and Cat Cora Productions (“CCP”). The few contracts held by these entities all involve compensation for the personal services of Cat Cora. The remaining entities (LLCs) are inactive. cc CCI holds the 2016 (i.e. post-separation) License and Personal Services Agreement with Aramark. By virtue of an email agreement reached in 2013, CCI is also the vendor/payee on the Macy’s contract described below. Allan S. Morton April 18, 2016 page three CGI The 2010 Agreement between HBF Soto JV and Cat Cora Productions was amended in 2013 and is now between HBF, as successor in interest to HBF Soto JV and CGI, as successor in interest to Cat Cora Productions. This is the contract for Cat’s services in overseein g development, opening and operation of restaurants in various domestic airports. CGI also holds the 2013 Consulting Agreement with Resorts World at Sentosa. This is the contract for Cat’s services in overseeing operation of the restaurant in Singapor e. CCP Cat Cora Productions held the contract (now held by CCI) with Macy’s affiliate Advertex Communications, which was renewed asof January 2013 and extended as of January 2015. CCP collects royalties from a book Cat wrote a year ago called “Suitcase Surprise for Mommy” and CCP received residuals for an appearance on “Meredith Viera” by Cat. There was a total of just over $1,500 in earnings for CCP in 2015. There has been no income received by CCP in 2016, nor is CCP is used for any new income sources. As noted above, each of the foregoing contracts require Cat's personal servi