Preview
Richard Abel
1
707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301
2 Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Telephone: (707) 340-3894
3
4 Plaintiff, In pro per
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11 RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456
12 AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN
Plaintiff; SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
13
v. COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, AND
FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
14 B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN,
15
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1
16 through 100, inclusive; Date: March 23, 2022
Time: 3:00 p.m.
17
Defendants. Dept: 18
18 Trial Date: October 7, 2022
19
20
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21
This Amended Separate Statement is the same as the one filed on November 15, 2021. In
22
reviewing the Court's docket, Plaintiff found that pages 4 and 9 were not scanned in by the Court
23
when it was filed on paper. It is re-submitted by plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff"), in support
24
of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses from defendant Dale Davis ("Defendant").
25
SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
26
The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") includes causes of action for (1) Legal
27
Malpractice; (2) Conversion; (3) Fraud; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duties; (5) Unfair Business
28
Practices; (6) Unjust Enrichment; (7) Accounting; and (8) Injunctive Relief to End the Conflicted
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
1
1 Representation. This action arises out of Defendant's role as a party in Sonoma County Superior
2 Court action, entitled Liebling v. Goodrich (Case no. SCV-245738) (the "Liebling Action").
3 Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to prosecute all defendants in the Liebling Action,
4 (FAC ¶10). Plaintiff alleged that, McCutchan represented that an asset search was performed on
5 defendant Robert Zuckerman; that McCutchan assured Plaintiff that Zuckerman was collectible;
6 (FAC ¶11). Plaintiff alleged that twenty (20) plaintiffs assigned their claims to Plaintiff (FAC
7 ¶14). Plaintiff alleged that Plaintiff received no award for any of these assignments, (FAC ¶¶18,
8 27, 35). Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan inserted the names dismissed plaintiffs into the
9 judgments (FAC ¶¶26, 34).
10 Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan is attempting to collect on judgments for dismissed
11 plaintiffs and the assignors (FAC ¶¶42, 43). Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan filed documents in
12 the Bankruptcy Court to collect on the judgments of dismissed plaintiffs, without authority or
13 consent of the assignors and dismissed plaintiffs, (FAC ¶44).
14 Plaintiff alleged that the assignments made to Plaintiff were converted by defendants
15 (FAC ¶68). Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan failed to deposit all clients funds into a client trust
16
account and converted the Plaintiffs' funds (FAC ¶71).
17
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was part of the conspiracy with McCutchan to convert
18
the awards for claims that Plaintiff had received by way of assignment. (FAC ¶78).
19
Among other things, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant converted Plaintiff's rights to the
20
assignments; refused to turn over Plaintiff's client file; inserted plaintiff York into the judgment
21
twice; inserted the names of twenty-three (23) dismissed plaintiffs into the judgment; concealed
22
the inflated judgment from the court; double-billed and charged an unconscionable amount of
23
fees; refused to turn over Plaintiff's files; failed to keep Plaintiff reasonably informed; generally
24
mishandling, mismanaging, and over-billing in the Liebling Action. (FAC ¶84).
25
This misconduct was authorized, directed, and ratified by Defendant, who authorized his
26
lawyer McCutchan to act as his agent to do the wrongdoings alleged therein. (FAC ¶7).
27
The FAC alleged a conflict of interests between Defendant and Plaintiff (See FAC, p. 17,
28
line 6), and seeks to end the conflicted representation that now exists.
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
2
1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
4 1. Requests for Admissions ......................................................................
4
5
6 2. Form Interrogatories ............................................................................35
7
8 3. Demand for Inspection of Documents .................................................96
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
3
I. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
1
2 The Response starts with a preliminary statement of general objections:
3
"Defendant is engaged in continuing discovery in this case. Therefore, all the answers
4 contained herein are based upon such information and documents as are presently available and
known to defendant and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to him. There are
5 potential witnesses who have not been deposed, documents which have not been reviewed or
6
obtained, analysis which has not been completed, and other discovery and investigation which
has not been finished. Discovery and investigation have only begun and are continuing.
7 Defendant therefore provides the following responses to plaintiffs' Request for Admission, Set
Number one without prejudice to present at trial further documentary or oral evidence or analysis
8
not yet obtained or completed and that future discovery in this matter could possibly change the
9 responses herein."
"The responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action. Each
10 answer is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections of
11 competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) which would require the
exclusion of any statement contained herein if the interrogatory were asked, or any statement
12 contained herein were made by, a witness present or testifying in court. All such objections and
grounds therefore are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. Except for facts
13
explicitly admitted herein, no admission of any nature whatsoever is to be implied or inferred.
14 The fact that any interrogatory herein has been answered should not be taken as an admission or
concession of the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by each interrogatory, nor that such
15
answer construed as given on the basis of present recollection."
16 "The fact that defendants have responded to part or all of any Requests for Admission are
not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by him of all or any part of any objection
17 to any requests. Defendant reserves hi (sic) right to supplement any answers herein."
18
WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
19 Even though several interrogatories, requests for documents and request for admissions
may be objectionable on the same ground, they may not be objected to as a group. See Hogan
20
and Weber, California Civil Discovery (2d. ed. 2009) §51.
21 The Discovery Code does not authorize such a preamble or general objections. Instead
the Discovery Act requires the party to respond to each request separately. See CCP
22
§2033.210(b) [authorizing objections only to the particular request at issue].
23 Therefore the Preliminary Statement preamble and General Objections must be removed
from the response. Actually there were no answers given, so this preamble is unnecessary.
24
25
REQUESTS AND RESPONSES:
26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
1. Please admit that there exists a conflict of interests between the plaintiffs represented
27
by the law firm Sunderland/McCutchan in Sonoma County Superior Court action, case number
28 SCV-245738 entitled Liebling vs. Goodrich (herein referred to as the “Liebling Action”).
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
4
THE RESPONSE:
1
Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
2 complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
3
warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
4 reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper
5 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard
6
Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct
warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is
7 argumentative and requires responding party to speculate. 6. The request is overbroad, vague,
lacks particularity and calls for a legal conclusion. 7. The discovery requests are very broad,
8
and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not appear
9 reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and improperly
burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424.)
10
11 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to
12 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior
Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798.
13
2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
14 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541;
see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible
15
evidence"].
16 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by
answering the discovery.
17 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds
18
for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims.
5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party
19 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v.
Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects
20
of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally
21 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v.
Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653.
22
6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems
23 Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the
question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is
24 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded
25
by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a
request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has
26 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections.
7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts
27
as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v.
28 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest
(See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6).
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
5
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
1
2. Please admit that YOU have not personally met each of the plaintiffs of record in the
2 Liebling Action.
3
THE RESPONSE:
4 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
5 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
6
warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
7 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper
service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard
8
Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct
9 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is
argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks
10 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very
11 broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not
appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and
12 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424).
13
WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
14 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to
proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior
15
Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798.
16 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541;
17 see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible
18
evidence"].
3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by
19 answering the discovery.
4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds
20
for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims.
21 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party
has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v.
22
Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects
23 of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally
proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v.
24 Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653.
25
6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems
Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the
26 question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is
“vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded
27
by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a
28 request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has
not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections.
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
6
7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts
1
as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v.
2 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest
(See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6).
3
4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
3. Please admit that YOUR percentage share of the Second Amended Judgment in the
5 Liebling Action is greater than YOUR percentage investment in the Malibu loans that were the
6
basis for the Liebling Action.
7 THE RESPONSE:
Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
8
complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
9 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
10 reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
11 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper
service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard
12 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct
warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is
13
argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks
14 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very
broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not
15
appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and
16 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424). 8. The August 4,
2021 filed second amended judgment against Robert Zuckerman who is in a Chapter 7 no asset
17 bankruptcy is a final judgment which controls.
18
WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
19 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to
proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior
20
Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798.
21 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541;
22
see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible
23 evidence"].
3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by
24 answering the discovery.
25
4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds
for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims.
26 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party
has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v.
27
Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects of
28 requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally proper
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
7
to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. Kovalsky
1
(1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653.
2 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems
Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the
3
question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is
4 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded
by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a
5 request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has
6
not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections.
7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts
7 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest
8
(See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6).
9 8. This Request is asking about the second amended judgment. Whether or not it
"controls" is irrelevant.
10
11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
4. Please admit that YOU were not required to pay Sunderland/McCutchan for the
12 Liebling Action unless there was a monetary recovery.
13
THE RESPONSE:
14 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
15
be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
16 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
17 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper
18
service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard
Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct
19 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is
argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks
20
particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very
21 broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not
appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and
22
improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424).
23
WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
24 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to
25
proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior
Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798.
26 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541;
27
see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible
28 evidence"].
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
8
3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by
1
answering the discovery.
2 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds
for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims.
3
5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party
4 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v.
Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects of
5 requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally proper
6
to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. Kovalsky
(1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653.
7 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems
Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the
8
question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is
9 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded
by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a
10 request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has
11 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections.
7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts
12 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 6th cause of action alleges Unjust Enrichment
13
(See First Amended Complaint, p. 14, line 27) and that the fee agreement is void.
14
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
15
5. Please admit that YOU knew that Richard Abel was obtaining assignments from the
16 other plaintiffs in the Liebling Action before trial.
17 THE RESPONSE:
18
Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
19 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
20
reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
21 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper
service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard
22
Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct
23 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is
argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks
24 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very
25
broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not
appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and
26 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424).
//
27
28
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
9
WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
1
1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to
2 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior
Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798.
3
2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
4 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541;
see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible
5 evidence"].
6
3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by
answering the discovery.
7 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds
for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims.
8
5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party
9 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v.
Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects
10 of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally
11 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v.
Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653.
12 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems
Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the
13
question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is
14 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded
by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a
15
request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has
16 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections.
7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts
17 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v.
18
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 2nd cause of action alleges facts about the
conversion of the assignments (See First Amended Complaint, p. 9, line 11).
19
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
20
6. Please admit that Edward McCutchan advised YOU to obtain assignments from the
21 other plaintiffs in the Liebling Action.
22
THE RESPONSE:
23 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
24 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
25
warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
26 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper
service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard
27
Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct
28 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is
argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
10
particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very
1
broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not
2 appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and
improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424).
3
4 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to
5 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior
6
Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
7 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541;
see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible
8
evidence"].
9 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by
answering the discovery.
10 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds
11 for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims.
5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party
12 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v.
Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects
13
of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally
14 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v.
Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653.
15
6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems
16 Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the
question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is
17 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded
18
by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a
request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has
19 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections.
7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts
20
as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v.
21 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 2nd cause of action alleges facts about the
conversion of the assignments (See First Amended Complaint, p. 9, line 11).
22
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
7. Please admit that YOU don't know which plaintiffs were still active in the Liebling
24 Action at the time when the Liebling Action went to trial in 2016.
25
THE RESPONSE:
26 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
27
be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
28 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
11
complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper
1
service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard
2 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct
warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is
3
argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks
4 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very
broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not
5 appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and
6
improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424).
7 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED:
1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to
8
proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior
9 Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
10 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541;
11 see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible
evidence"].
12 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by
answering the discovery.
13
4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds
14 for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims.
5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party
15
has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v.
16 Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects
of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally
17 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v.
18
Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653.
6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems
19 Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the
question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is
20
“vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded
21 by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a
request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has
22
not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections.
23 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts
as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v.
24 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest
25
(See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6), and that dismissed plaintiff's were put into the
judgments (See First Amended Complaint, p. 8, line 21-26).
26
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
27
8. Please admit that YOU don't know why any of the defendants in the Liebling Action
28 were dismissed.
AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
12
THE RESPONSE:
1
Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended
2 complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can
be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis
3
warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not
4 reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
complaint. 3. Richard Abel faile
Preview
Richard Abel 1 707 Hahman Drive, No. 9301 2 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Telephone: (707) 340-3894 3 4 Plaintiff, In pro per 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 RICHARD ABEL, an individual; Case Number: SCV-263456 12 AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN Plaintiff; SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 13 v. COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST 14 B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN JR. an DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS individual; SUNDERLAND/McCUTCHAN, 15 LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 16 through 100, inclusive; Date: March 23, 2022 Time: 3:00 p.m. 17 Defendants. Dept: 18 18 Trial Date: October 7, 2022 19 20 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 This Amended Separate Statement is the same as the one filed on November 15, 2021. In 22 reviewing the Court's docket, Plaintiff found that pages 4 and 9 were not scanned in by the Court 23 when it was filed on paper. It is re-submitted by plaintiff Richard Abel ("Plaintiff"), in support 24 of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses from defendant Dale Davis ("Defendant"). 25 SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: 26 The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") includes causes of action for (1) Legal 27 Malpractice; (2) Conversion; (3) Fraud; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duties; (5) Unfair Business 28 Practices; (6) Unjust Enrichment; (7) Accounting; and (8) Injunctive Relief to End the Conflicted AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 1 1 Representation. This action arises out of Defendant's role as a party in Sonoma County Superior 2 Court action, entitled Liebling v. Goodrich (Case no. SCV-245738) (the "Liebling Action"). 3 Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to prosecute all defendants in the Liebling Action, 4 (FAC ¶10). Plaintiff alleged that, McCutchan represented that an asset search was performed on 5 defendant Robert Zuckerman; that McCutchan assured Plaintiff that Zuckerman was collectible; 6 (FAC ¶11). Plaintiff alleged that twenty (20) plaintiffs assigned their claims to Plaintiff (FAC 7 ¶14). Plaintiff alleged that Plaintiff received no award for any of these assignments, (FAC ¶¶18, 8 27, 35). Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan inserted the names dismissed plaintiffs into the 9 judgments (FAC ¶¶26, 34). 10 Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan is attempting to collect on judgments for dismissed 11 plaintiffs and the assignors (FAC ¶¶42, 43). Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan filed documents in 12 the Bankruptcy Court to collect on the judgments of dismissed plaintiffs, without authority or 13 consent of the assignors and dismissed plaintiffs, (FAC ¶44). 14 Plaintiff alleged that the assignments made to Plaintiff were converted by defendants 15 (FAC ¶68). Plaintiff alleged that McCutchan failed to deposit all clients funds into a client trust 16 account and converted the Plaintiffs' funds (FAC ¶71). 17 Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was part of the conspiracy with McCutchan to convert 18 the awards for claims that Plaintiff had received by way of assignment. (FAC ¶78). 19 Among other things, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant converted Plaintiff's rights to the 20 assignments; refused to turn over Plaintiff's client file; inserted plaintiff York into the judgment 21 twice; inserted the names of twenty-three (23) dismissed plaintiffs into the judgment; concealed 22 the inflated judgment from the court; double-billed and charged an unconscionable amount of 23 fees; refused to turn over Plaintiff's files; failed to keep Plaintiff reasonably informed; generally 24 mishandling, mismanaging, and over-billing in the Liebling Action. (FAC ¶84). 25 This misconduct was authorized, directed, and ratified by Defendant, who authorized his 26 lawyer McCutchan to act as his agent to do the wrongdoings alleged therein. (FAC ¶7). 27 The FAC alleged a conflict of interests between Defendant and Plaintiff (See FAC, p. 17, 28 line 6), and seeks to end the conflicted representation that now exists. AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 2 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 4 1. Requests for Admissions ...................................................................... 4 5 6 2. Form Interrogatories ............................................................................35 7 8 3. Demand for Inspection of Documents .................................................96 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 3 I. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE 1 2 The Response starts with a preliminary statement of general objections: 3 "Defendant is engaged in continuing discovery in this case. Therefore, all the answers 4 contained herein are based upon such information and documents as are presently available and known to defendant and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to him. There are 5 potential witnesses who have not been deposed, documents which have not been reviewed or 6 obtained, analysis which has not been completed, and other discovery and investigation which has not been finished. Discovery and investigation have only begun and are continuing. 7 Defendant therefore provides the following responses to plaintiffs' Request for Admission, Set Number one without prejudice to present at trial further documentary or oral evidence or analysis 8 not yet obtained or completed and that future discovery in this matter could possibly change the 9 responses herein." "The responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to this action. Each 10 answer is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections of 11 competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) which would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the interrogatory were asked, or any statement 12 contained herein were made by, a witness present or testifying in court. All such objections and grounds therefore are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. Except for facts 13 explicitly admitted herein, no admission of any nature whatsoever is to be implied or inferred. 14 The fact that any interrogatory herein has been answered should not be taken as an admission or concession of the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by each interrogatory, nor that such 15 answer construed as given on the basis of present recollection." 16 "The fact that defendants have responded to part or all of any Requests for Admission are not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by him of all or any part of any objection 17 to any requests. Defendant reserves hi (sic) right to supplement any answers herein." 18 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 19 Even though several interrogatories, requests for documents and request for admissions may be objectionable on the same ground, they may not be objected to as a group. See Hogan 20 and Weber, California Civil Discovery (2d. ed. 2009) §51. 21 The Discovery Code does not authorize such a preamble or general objections. Instead the Discovery Act requires the party to respond to each request separately. See CCP 22 §2033.210(b) [authorizing objections only to the particular request at issue]. 23 Therefore the Preliminary Statement preamble and General Objections must be removed from the response. Actually there were no answers given, so this preamble is unnecessary. 24 25 REQUESTS AND RESPONSES: 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 1. Please admit that there exists a conflict of interests between the plaintiffs represented 27 by the law firm Sunderland/McCutchan in Sonoma County Superior Court action, case number 28 SCV-245738 entitled Liebling vs. Goodrich (herein referred to as the “Liebling Action”). AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 4 THE RESPONSE: 1 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended 2 complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis 3 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not 4 reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper 5 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard 6 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is 7 argumentative and requires responding party to speculate. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks particularity and calls for a legal conclusion. 7. The discovery requests are very broad, 8 and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not appear 9 reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424.) 10 11 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to 12 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. 13 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 14 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible 15 evidence"]. 16 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by answering the discovery. 17 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds 18 for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party 19 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects 20 of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally 21 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653. 22 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems 23 Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is 24 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded 25 by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has 26 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections. 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts 27 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. 28 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest (See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6). AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 1 2. Please admit that YOU have not personally met each of the plaintiffs of record in the 2 Liebling Action. 3 THE RESPONSE: 4 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can 5 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis 6 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended 7 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard 8 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct 9 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks 10 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very 11 broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and 12 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424). 13 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 14 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior 15 Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. 16 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; 17 see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible 18 evidence"]. 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by 19 answering the discovery. 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds 20 for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. 21 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v. 22 Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects 23 of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. 24 Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653. 25 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the 26 question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded 27 by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a 28 request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections. AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 6 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts 1 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. 2 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest (See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6). 3 4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: 3. Please admit that YOUR percentage share of the Second Amended Judgment in the 5 Liebling Action is greater than YOUR percentage investment in the Malibu loans that were the 6 basis for the Liebling Action. 7 THE RESPONSE: Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended 8 complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can 9 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not 10 reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended 11 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard 12 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is 13 argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks 14 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not 15 appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and 16 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424). 8. The August 4, 2021 filed second amended judgment against Robert Zuckerman who is in a Chapter 7 no asset 17 bankruptcy is a final judgment which controls. 18 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 19 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior 20 Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. 21 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; 22 see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible 23 evidence"]. 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by 24 answering the discovery. 25 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. 26 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v. 27 Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects of 28 requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally proper AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 7 to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. Kovalsky 1 (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653. 2 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the 3 question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is 4 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a 5 request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has 6 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections. 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts 7 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest 8 (See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6). 9 8. This Request is asking about the second amended judgment. Whether or not it "controls" is irrelevant. 10 11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: 4. Please admit that YOU were not required to pay Sunderland/McCutchan for the 12 Liebling Action unless there was a monetary recovery. 13 THE RESPONSE: 14 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can 15 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis 16 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended 17 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper 18 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct 19 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks 20 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very 21 broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and 22 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424). 23 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 24 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to 25 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. 26 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; 27 see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible 28 evidence"]. AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 8 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by 1 answering the discovery. 2 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. 3 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party 4 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects of 5 requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally proper 6 to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653. 7 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the 8 question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is 9 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a 10 request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has 11 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections. 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts 12 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 6th cause of action alleges Unjust Enrichment 13 (See First Amended Complaint, p. 14, line 27) and that the fee agreement is void. 14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: 15 5. Please admit that YOU knew that Richard Abel was obtaining assignments from the 16 other plaintiffs in the Liebling Action before trial. 17 THE RESPONSE: 18 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can 19 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not 20 reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended 21 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard 22 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct 23 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks 24 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very 25 broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and 26 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424). // 27 28 AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 9 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 1 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to 2 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. 3 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 4 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible 5 evidence"]. 6 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by answering the discovery. 7 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. 8 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party 9 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects 10 of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally 11 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653. 12 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the 13 question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is 14 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a 15 request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has 16 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections. 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts 17 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. 18 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 2nd cause of action alleges facts about the conversion of the assignments (See First Amended Complaint, p. 9, line 11). 19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: 20 6. Please admit that Edward McCutchan advised YOU to obtain assignments from the 21 other plaintiffs in the Liebling Action. 22 THE RESPONSE: 23 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can 24 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis 25 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended 26 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard 27 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct 28 warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 10 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very 1 broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not 2 appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424). 3 4 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to 5 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior 6 Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 7 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible 8 evidence"]. 9 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by answering the discovery. 10 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds 11 for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party 12 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects 13 of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally 14 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653. 15 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems 16 Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is 17 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded 18 by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has 19 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections. 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts 20 as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. 21 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 2nd cause of action alleges facts about the conversion of the assignments (See First Amended Complaint, p. 9, line 11). 22 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: 7. Please admit that YOU don't know which plaintiffs were still active in the Liebling 24 Action at the time when the Liebling Action went to trial in 2016. 25 THE RESPONSE: 26 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can 27 be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis 28 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 11 complaint. 3. Richard Abel failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as to proper 1 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. This discovery like Richard 2 Abel's naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 herein is an example of plaintiff's frivolous conduct warranting him being deemed by this court as a vexatious litigant. 5. The request is 3 argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks 4 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very broad, and their full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues in the case and do not 5 appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and 6 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 424). 7 WHY THESE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE OVERRULED: 1. A pending demurrer is not grounds for objection. California law permits discovery to 8 proceed while the pleadings develop. CCP §2033.020(b); Budget Finance Plan v. Superior 9 Court (1973) 34 Cal.App. 3d 794, 797-798. 2. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 10 Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; 11 see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 ["discovery is not limited to admissible evidence"]. 12 3. Whether or not the proof of service was signed, Defendant waived this objection by answering the discovery. 13 4. This conclusory statement about "frivolous conduct" is mere opinion, and not grounds 14 for objection. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery to develop his claims. 5. This request is not argumentative, and does not require a legal conclusion. A party 15 has a duty to answer in good faith if “the nature of the information sought is apparent.” Deyo v. 16 Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA 3d 771, 783. Legal and factual opinions are generally proper subjects of requests to admit. Chodos v. Superior Court (1963), 215 Cal.App. 2d 318. It is generally 17 proper to seek admissions as to "ultimate conclusions of fact." Gribin Von Dyl & Assoc. v. 18 Kovalsky (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 653. 6. Boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems 19 Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513. Vague is a valid objection only if the question is totally unintelligible. Blanket, unsupported objections that a discovery request is 20 “vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome” are, by themselves, meaningless, and disregarded 21 by the Court. A party objecting on these bases must explain the specific grounds in which a request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. CCP §2033.220(b). Here, Defendant has 22 not provided any grounds for his boilerplate objections. 23 7. Under the Legislature's “very liberal and flexible standard of relevancy,” any “doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Williams v. 24 Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 542. The 8th cause of action alleges a conflict of interest 25 (See First Amended Complaint, p. 17, line 6), and that dismissed plaintiff's were put into the judgments (See First Amended Complaint, p. 8, line 21-26). 26 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: 27 8. Please admit that YOU don't know why any of the defendants in the Liebling Action 28 were dismissed. AMENDED SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 12 THE RESPONSE: 1 Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel's first amended 2 complaint in this action under CCP section 430.10(e) failure to state facts upon which relief can be obtained and the naming of Dale Davis as DOE 4 in this action lacks legal and factual basis 3 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not 4 reasonable calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended complaint. 3. Richard Abel faile