Preview
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376)
SUNDERLAND | MeCUTCHAN, LLP
1083 Vine Street, Suite 907
Healdsburg, California 95448
Telephone: (707) 433-0377
Facsimile: (707) 433-0379
Attorneys for Defendant
DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
RICHARD ABEL, an individual, CASE NO. SCV-263456
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’
SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2)
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
)
)
Plaintiff, }
)
}
B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an } RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
individual; SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, ? SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 DALE DAVIS
through 100, inclusive, Continued Hearing Date: March 23, 2022
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Dept.: 18
Defendants.
} Trial Date: October 7, 2022
Assigned For All Purposes to the
Honorable Jennifer V. Dollard
Dept. 18
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
This separate statement (Part 2) is hereby submitted by Defendant Dale Davis
(“Defendant”) in opposition to plaintiff's continued February 16, 2022 motion to compel further
responses and for monetary sanctions against Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Dale Davis has answered these document inspection requests after a reasonable and
diligent search for all documents in his custody, possession, and control where there are none
that he has to produce on February 28, 2022. Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS.
110
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
electronic emails and information he received from Richard Abel as his and the other plaintiffs’
liaison with Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP in the litigated Liebling matter that is ended.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that YOU signed
that refer or relate to the Liebling v. Goodrich action, Sonoma County Superior Court, case no.
SCV-245738 (herein referred to as the “Liebling Action”).
Response: 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 4" 424),
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
Richard Abel’s proof of service is not signed on this discovery as required by code.
This discovery request is not reasonably related to Richard Abel’s plead issues in the case
in his First Amended Complaint. His first amended complaint filed November 18, 2020 fails to
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS.
210
al
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
allege anything about advice to Dale Davis.
The request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and lacks particularity and violates
the attorney client privilege.
The August 4, 2021 Second Amended judgment against Robert Zuckerman is a final
judgment not subject to appeal at this point in time where Richard Abel has failed to comply
with a May 6, 2021 order in the Liebling action to file a motion demonstrating his alleged
assignments are not fraudulent and back dated as to dismissed plaintiffs.
The discovery request is very broad, and its full scope does not appear reasonably related
to the issues plead the case and do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need
and have been sent to harass and improperly burden where Richard Abel has the burden to
demonstrate legal assignments per the May 6, 2021 filed order in the Liebling matter. (Obregon
y. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4° 424).
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to the payments YOU made to Sunderland | McCutchan for the Liebling Action.
Response: 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 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 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
310
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
18
19
20
al
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4th 424),
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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
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
reasonably 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 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, 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, unduly burdensome,
vague, lacks 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 appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
410
iL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 |
23
24
25
26
27
28
and improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4th 424).
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to each and every one of the payments that YOU received from Sunderland |
McCutchan for the Liebling Action.
Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4t 424),
Mt
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
510
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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
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
reasonably 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
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,
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, unduly burdensome,
vague, lacks 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 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. 4!" 424), Richard Abel
was the contact with Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP and the plaintiffs and he received all the
monthly billings from the law firm before sending them to the plaintiffs.
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to the Liebling Action.
Response: 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|
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ‘CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
610
ai
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relief can 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4th 424),
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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 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 reasonably 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 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
‘DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
710
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
plaintiff's frivolous conduct, 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 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests
are very broad, unduly burdensome 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 improperly burden. (Obregon vy. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. qh
424).
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to e-mails YOU sent Edward McCutchan for the Liebling Action.
Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy, 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
810
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4th 424),
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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,
unduly burdensome, vague, lacks 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 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. qn
424).
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6; Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
910
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
refer, or relate to e-mails YOU received from Edward McCutchan for the Liebling Action.
Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5, The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4! 424),
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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
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
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
1010
ai
12
13
14
is
16
a7
18
19
20
21
. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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)
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
argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks
particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very
broad, unduly burdensome 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4" 424).
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to all invoices YOU received from Sunderland | McCutchan for the Liebling
Action.
Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF § CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS.
ii10
ai
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
stated. 5, The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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. 8.
The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4t 424),
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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 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
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
1210
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and do not 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). Richard Abel
was the contact person with Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP and the plaintiffs and Richard Abel
would receive the invoices directly from the law firm before sending to the plaintiffs.
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to all correspondence YOU had with Sunderland | McCutchan in the Liebling v.
Goodrich action, including all e-mails and letters.
Response: 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 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 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
8. The discovery requests are very 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
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS.
1310
1.
12
13
14
15
16
a7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
have been sent to harass and improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4th 424),
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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
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
reasonably 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 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 plaintiffs frivolous
conduct, 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
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
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. 4! 424).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to all original Charlene Goodrich loan files for the Malibu loan(s) that YOU
made, that are the basis for YOUR claims in the Liebling Action.
Response: Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel’s First
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
1410
a.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Amended 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 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The
discovery is not reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4t 424),
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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 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 reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIEF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY, SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
1510
a1
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
i9
20
2.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the First Amended 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 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 argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad,
vague, lacks 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 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).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute,
refer, or relate to all vote(s) that YOU cast in the Liebling Action, including YOUR ballot(s).
Response: 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 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 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The
request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is
stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The
request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This
discovery, like Richard 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.
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
1610
iL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App.
4th 424),
WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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 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 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. 4" 424).
Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling
matter.
Date: March 7 » 2022
Attorneys for Defe
DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
1710
1.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA
I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my present address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg.
California 95448.
On March Fine, I served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANT
DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE
DAVIS on the parties by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as
follows:
/ SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
By Regular U.S. Mail. The documents were placed for collection and mailing following
ordinary business practice for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated above. L- A be
By personal service. I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s
as stated above.
By facsimile transmitted from (707) 433-0379. The document transmission was reported as
complete and without error.
/ By email or electronic transmission. I caused the document to be sent to the persons at the
email addresses listed below. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any
sete message or other j Co mee transmission was unsuccessful.
I declare under/penalty of perjury under the laws ‘he State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March _ 7 2022, at Healdsburg.
California.
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS
1810
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Abel v. McCutchan, et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456
Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel
Richard Abel
707 Hahman Drive, #9301
Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301
Tel: (707) 340-3894
E-Mail: pererel@gmail.com
Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland | McCutchan, Inc.; Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP,
B. Edward McCutchan, Jr.
Joseph S. Picchi, Esq.
Aaron T. Schultz, Esq.
Alexander Promm, Esq.
Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi
A Professional Corporation
2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398
Tel. No. (925) 930-9090
Fax No. (925) 930-9035
E-Mail: aschultz@glattys.com
DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16,
2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS.
19
Preview
10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Edward McCutchan (SBN 119376) SUNDERLAND | MeCUTCHAN, LLP 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907 Healdsburg, California 95448 Telephone: (707) 433-0377 Facsimile: (707) 433-0379 Attorneys for Defendant DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RICHARD ABEL, an individual, CASE NO. SCV-263456 DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ) ) Plaintiff, } ) } B. EDWARD McCUTCHAN, JR. an } RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY ) ) ) ) ) vs. individual; SUNDERLAND | McCUTCHAN, ? SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT LLP, a general partnership; and DOES 1 DALE DAVIS through 100, inclusive, Continued Hearing Date: March 23, 2022 Time: 3:00 p.m. Dept.: 18 Defendants. } Trial Date: October 7, 2022 Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable Jennifer V. Dollard Dept. 18 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: This separate statement (Part 2) is hereby submitted by Defendant Dale Davis (“Defendant”) in opposition to plaintiff's continued February 16, 2022 motion to compel further responses and for monetary sanctions against Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS Dale Davis has answered these document inspection requests after a reasonable and diligent search for all documents in his custody, possession, and control where there are none that he has to produce on February 28, 2022. Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS. 110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 electronic emails and information he received from Richard Abel as his and the other plaintiffs’ liaison with Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP in the litigated Liebling matter that is ended. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that YOU signed that refer or relate to the Liebling v. Goodrich action, Sonoma County Superior Court, case no. SCV-245738 (herein referred to as the “Liebling Action”). Response: 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 4" 424), WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED Richard Abel’s proof of service is not signed on this discovery as required by code. This discovery request is not reasonably related to Richard Abel’s plead issues in the case in his First Amended Complaint. His first amended complaint filed November 18, 2020 fails to DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS. 210 al 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 allege anything about advice to Dale Davis. The request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and lacks particularity and violates the attorney client privilege. The August 4, 2021 Second Amended judgment against Robert Zuckerman is a final judgment not subject to appeal at this point in time where Richard Abel has failed to comply with a May 6, 2021 order in the Liebling action to file a motion demonstrating his alleged assignments are not fraudulent and back dated as to dismissed plaintiffs. The discovery request is very broad, and its full scope does not appear reasonably related to the issues plead the case and do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass and improperly burden where Richard Abel has the burden to demonstrate legal assignments per the May 6, 2021 filed order in the Liebling matter. (Obregon y. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4° 424). Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to the payments YOU made to Sunderland | McCutchan for the Liebling Action. Response: 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 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 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 310 11 12 13 14 15 16 47 18 19 20 al 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4th 424), WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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, unduly burdensome, vague, lacks 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 appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need and have been sent to harass DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 410 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | 23 24 25 26 27 28 and improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4th 424). Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to each and every one of the payments that YOU received from Sunderland | McCutchan for the Liebling Action. Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4t 424), Mt DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 510 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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, unduly burdensome, vague, lacks 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 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. 4!" 424), Richard Abel was the contact with Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP and the plaintiffs and he received all the monthly billings from the law firm before sending them to the plaintiffs. Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to the Liebling Action. Response: 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| DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S ‘CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 610 ai 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 relief can 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4th 424), WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably 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 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 ‘DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 710 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 plaintiff's frivolous conduct, 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 particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very broad, unduly burdensome 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 improperly burden. (Obregon vy. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. qh 424). Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to e-mails YOU sent Edward McCutchan for the Liebling Action. Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy, 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 810 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4th 424), WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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, unduly burdensome, vague, lacks 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 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. qn 424). Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6; Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 refer, or relate to e-mails YOU received from Edward McCutchan for the Liebling Action. Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5, The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4! 424), WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by the first amended DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 1010 ai 12 13 14 is 16 a7 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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) 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 argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks particularity and requires responding party to speculate. 7. The discovery requests are very broad, unduly burdensome 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4" 424). Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to all invoices YOU received from Sunderland | McCutchan for the Liebling Action. Response: 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 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 reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF § CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS. ii10 ai 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 stated. 5, The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4t 424), Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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 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 DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 1210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and do not 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). Richard Abel was the contact person with Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP and the plaintiffs and Richard Abel would receive the invoices directly from the law firm before sending to the plaintiffs. Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to all correspondence YOU had with Sunderland | McCutchan in the Liebling v. Goodrich action, including all e-mails and letters. Response: 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 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 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. 8. The discovery requests are very 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 DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS. 1310 1. 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 have been sent to harass and improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4th 424), Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably 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 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 plaintiffs frivolous conduct, 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 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 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. 4! 424). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to all original Charlene Goodrich loan files for the Malibu loan(s) that YOU made, that are the basis for YOUR claims in the Liebling Action. Response: Objection. 1. There is a December 8, 2021 demurrer as to Abel’s First DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 1410 a. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amended 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 warranting monetary sanctions being assessed against Richard Abel. 2. The discovery is not reasonably 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4t 424), Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as to the issues framed by DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIEF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY, SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 1510 a1 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 i9 20 2. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the First Amended 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 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 argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion. 6. The request is overbroad, vague, lacks 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 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). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all DOCUMENTS that constitute, refer, or relate to all vote(s) that YOU cast in the Liebling Action, including YOUR ballot(s). Response: 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 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 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 service of this discovery where the proof of service is not signed. 4. The request is overbroad, excessively voluminous, and burdensome in that no specific time frame is stated. 5. The request invades upon the attorney client and work product privileges. 6. The request invades upon responding party’s Constitutional Right of financial privacy. 7. This discovery, like Richard 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. DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 1610 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. The discovery requests are very 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 improperly burden. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal App. 4th 424), WHY THE OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED 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 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 reasonably 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 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, 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 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 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. 4" 424). Dale Davis is 90 years of age and did not save the electronic emails in the Liebling matter. Date: March 7 » 2022 Attorneys for Defe DALE DAVIS SUED AS DOE 4 DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 1710 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA I am employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my present address is: 1083 Vine Street, Suite 907, Healdsburg. California 95448. On March Fine, I served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS on the parties by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: / SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST By Regular U.S. Mail. The documents were placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practice for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as stated above. L- A be By personal service. I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s as stated above. By facsimile transmitted from (707) 433-0379. The document transmission was reported as complete and without error. / By email or electronic transmission. I caused the document to be sent to the persons at the email addresses listed below. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any sete message or other j Co mee transmission was unsuccessful. I declare under/penalty of perjury under the laws ‘he State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March _ 7 2022, at Healdsburg. California. DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS 1810 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Abel v. McCutchan, et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-263456 Plaintiff in Pro Per: Richard Abel Richard Abel 707 Hahman Drive, #9301 Santa Rosa, CA 95405-9301 Tel: (707) 340-3894 E-Mail: pererel@gmail.com Attorneys for Defendants: Sunderland | McCutchan, Inc.; Sunderland | McCutchan, LLP, B. Edward McCutchan, Jr. Joseph S. Picchi, Esq. Aaron T. Schultz, Esq. Alexander Promm, Esq. Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi A Professional Corporation 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 350 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2398 Tel. No. (925) 930-9090 Fax No. (925) 930-9035 E-Mail: aschultz@glattys.com DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT (PART 2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, 2022 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND FOR MONETARY SACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DALE DAVIS. 19