Preview
1
Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248
2
By the Law, APC
481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233
3 Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel: (510) 362-6791
4
Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co
5
6 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai,
7
Defendant, Cross-complainant
and Cross-Defendant
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
11
Unlimited Jurisdiction
12
13 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, Case No.: 18CV02004
14 CROSS-COMPLAINANT
Plaintiff, SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX
15 vs. PARTE APPLICATION TO
COMPEL FURTHER
16 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE FOR PRODUCTION FROM
17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES JEANNE TURNER AND
1 through 10 inclusive MONETARY SANCTIONS IN
18 THE AMOUNT OF $3025 OR
ALTERNATIVELY TO
19 Defendants. SHORTEN TIME FOR NOTICE
____________________________________________ OF MOTION TO COMPEL
20 SHAHRAM TABATABAI, FURTHER RESEPONSES
21
Cross-Complainant,
22
vs.
23
24 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual;
ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH
25
OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant,
26 and ROES 1-15.
27 Cross-Defendants.
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 1
1
2 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI,
3
Cross-Complainant,
4 vs.
5
6
NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM
TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10,
7
Cross-Defendants.
8
9
10 TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
11 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 5, 2022, at 1 p.m., or as soon thereafter
12 as the matter may be heard in Department 5 of the above-entitled Court located at 701
13 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, Defendant Shahram Tabatabai (“Tabatabai”) will
14 and hereby does request this Court, for an Ex Parte Order that compels Jeanne Turner
15
to provide further responses to Requests for Production Set One (with sanctions of
16
$3,025 per the Motion) or in the alternative an Order shortening time for Notice so that
matter can be heard by Motion prior to the discovery hearing deadline of April 8th (or a
17
hearing date that this Court finds reasonable.
18
This Ex Parte Application is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum
19
of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Tanzeel Hak, exhibits, on the complete files
20
and records of this action, and on such other oral and/or documentary evidence as may
21
be presented at the hearing on this Ex Parte.
22
23
Dated: April 1, 2022
24
25
_______________________________
26 Tanzeel Hak,
Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
27
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
On February 25, 2022, Tabatabai served Turner with Requests for Production (a
3
true and correct copy is attached to the Motion). On March 18th, it became apparent that
4
the discovery responses which were extensive since Tabatabai requested many items
5
that would be necessary in trial, had likely not been worked on. While discussing a
6
potential continuance stipulation, Turner proposed a stipulation with the clause, “The
7
outstanding written discovery referenced in section 3, above, if necessary, shall be due
8
30 days after the ruling on Turner’s motion to dismiss, if she is not dismissed.” Section 3
9
referred to the pending depositions and Turner’s responses to Tabatabai. Other items
10
referred to discovery that Tabatabai had already responded to, discovery that Turner
11 propounded on Plaintiff Maleksalehi and discovery issues between Tabatabai and
12 Lindow. It could be reasonably deducted that such a clause meant that no effort had
13 been placed in the responses. On March 22nd, in a declaration filed by Turner’s counsel,
14 she made the same suggestion again. With this understanding that discovery issues
15 would arise, on March 23rd Tabatabai told Turner that there was no agreement to move
16 pending discovery to a later time outside of depositions. Later that day, Turner
17 confirmed that the pending responses would be timely provided.
18 On March 25th, to further support the position that the Requests for Production
19 responses, which would require considerable time to complete, had not been worked
20
on, Turner served her responses with approximately three pages of evidence.
Due to many pending items in this matter all of which relate to Tabatabai,
21
Tabatabai needed time to review the responses and do research. On March 29th,
22
Tabatabai served a meet and confer letter detailing many issues with the responses
23
provided, which seemingly resulted in only three full pages being produced. Tabatabai
24
requested that by the morning of April 1st, Turner either provide supplemental
25
responses or state that she would not. Without a trial continuance and lingering
26
discovery motions’ deadline, Tabatabai had no choice but to provide only three days to
27
Turner for supplemental responses. On the evening of March 31st, Turner stated that she
28
could not provide the supplemental responses because of all of the pending motions in
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 3
this case. She stated that she could provide them the following week, but there is no
1
certainty as to whether this would have occurred, especially with the ever-increasing
2
filings with minimal time to work with given an April 25th trial. Tabatabai asserted that
3
while he would have provided more time for discovery responses, he simply could not
4
do so and would have to pursue this Ex Parte/Motion to reserve his rights that would
5
otherwise be waived by the April 8th discovery motion’s deadline.
6
To avoid repetition, Tabatabai incorporates his entire Motion to Compel
7
Further Responses (a true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 1) and Separate
8
Statement (a true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2) into this Ex Parte
9
Application.
10
II. ARGUMENT
11 A. Standard
12 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c) states, “An applicant must make an
13 affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on
14 personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory
15 basis for granting relief ex parte.”
16 B. Notice will be provided as required.
17 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203 states “[a] party seeking an ex parte order
18 must notify all parties no later than 10:00 A.M. the court day before the ex parte
19 appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time
20
for notice.”
Tabatabai intends to give notice to all of the parties as required by the
21
aforementioned Code of Civil Procedure section. He will provide notice on April 4th for
22
the Ex Parte hearing that will be heard on April 5th. Additionally, Tabatabai informed
23
Turner (through counsel) in a meet and confer letter that this Ex Parte Application
24
would be filed, if necessary. On April 1st, Turner (the only party of significance in this
25
filing) was given notice that this Ex Parte would be pursued on April 5th. This should be
26
more than sufficient notice.
27
C. Defendant will serve the parties with copies of this Ex Parte Application as
28
soon as it is filed.
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 4
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203 states, “Parties appearing at the ex parte
1
hearing must serve the ex parte application or any written opposition on all other
2
appearing parties at the first reasonable opportunity. Absent exceptional circumstances,
3
no hearing may be conducted unless such service has been made.”
4
Tabatabai will serve the parties as required by the above-mentioned rule.
5
Tabatabai intends to electronically serve the parties so that everyone has knowledge of
6
the Ex Parte Application and can properly oppose it if necessary. Tabatabai will also
7
provide hardcopies if the parties desire. While Tabatabai would be willing to provide
8
the document sooner, due to time restraints and all of the pending matters in this
9
action, he will be unable to. This was a significant part of Tabatabai’s argument in his
10
Motion to Continue Trial, but the opposing parties did not find interest in having
11 regular noticed motions with sufficient response deadlines.
12 III. CONCLUSION
13 For the reasons contained within this Ex Parte Application and the attached
14 Motion and Separate Statement, this Court should grant this Ex Parte Application and
15 either compel Cross-Defendant to provide further responses or hear the Motion under
16 shortened time prior to April 8th (due to the discovery motions’ deadline) or at a time
17 this Court believes is reasonable.
18
19 Dated: April 1, 2022
20
_______________________________
21
Tanzeel Hak,
22 Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
23
24
25
26
27
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 5
1 DECLARATION OF TANZEEL HAK
2 I, Tanzeel Hak, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of
3 California, declare:
4
1. I am the attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before all of the courts in the
5
State of California. I am familiar with the aspects of this case, including all of the
6
matters which are set forth in this Declaration.
7
2. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify as to the
8
truthfulness of the following facts, all of which are within my own personal
9
knowledge except for those stated on information and belief, and as to those, I
10
am informed and believe them to be true. I request that the court receive this
11
declaration into evidence as my direct testimony.
12
3. This declaration is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as being a
13
waiver of any information protected by any applicable privilege including
14
privacy, confidentiality, attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product
15 doctrine. The matters set forth herein were stated and/or observed in non-
16 privileged settings and are not the result of privileged work-product matters.
17 4. After making this filing, I will officially notify the parties that I have submitted
18 this Ex Parte Application and provide them with notice as to when the hearing
19 will occur, which is Tuesday, April 5, 2022.
20 5. The parties and/or their attorneys will be notified via email as we normally
21 communicate to avoid any misunderstandings. I will send the email on April 4th,
22 2022.
23 6. The only party of interest in this filing, Ms. Turner, was notified through counsel
24
on April 1st about the hearing date.
7. In my email notice to the parties/attorneys, I will provide a copy of this Ex Parte
25
Application and Proposed Order.
26
8. The attached service list will satisfy the California Rules of Court Rule 3.1202.
27
9. It is my understanding that Ms. Turner will oppose this Ex Parte Application.
28
10. The remaining parties are not parties of interest in this filing.
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 6
11. At this time, this Court has decided that it will not continue trial to a later date,
1
but it will reevaluate the matter at the April 4th hearing.
2
12. The decision at the April 4th hearing may change the circumstances, if a
3
continuance is granted, but at this time Mr. Lindow and Ms. Harris have asserted
4
their opposition to a continuance.
5
13. If a continuance is granted, Mr. Tabatabai will likely still pursue this Ex Parte
6
Application to allow this Court to determine what should be done with the
7
discovery.
8
14. Due to the current time restraints of the April 25th trial and pertinent discovery
9
motions’ deadline, Mr. Tabatabai must file this ex parte application to either have
10
the Motion granted or have it heard under shortened time.
11 15. The discovery motions’ hearing deadline is in a few days, so Mr. Tabatabai has
12 no other alternative but to seek this Ex Parte Application.
13 16. Due to this case’s significant rise in activity this past month (including consistent
14 hearings), this Ex Parte/Motion could not have been brought much sooner.
15 17. I sent a meet and confer letter on March 29th to resolve potential discovery issues.
16 18. On the evening of March 31st, she informed me that due to all of the pending
17 motions, she would not be able to provide supplemental responses by the April
18 1st deadline I provided her (due to the fact I could not possibly provide any
19 greater time).
20
19. I responded by informing her that I would be forced to pursue this Ex Parte
Application and Motion due to time restraints, even though I understood the
21
circumstances and would have been willing to provide additional time to her
22
and her client, if I was able.
23
20. Due to Mr. Lindow consistent and Ms. Turner’s inconsistent positions that no
24
trial continuance should be granted, the case has had issues where everything
25
had to be rushed and continue to be rushed.
26
21. As a party of interest in every single filing made and heard in March, Mr.
27
Tabatabai and I have been on the most stringent schedule from all of the parties
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 7
but have made the most out of the circumstances we were placed in due to the
1
continuance’s opposition.
2
22. It is my understanding that this is a strategic position to create missteps for
3
Tabatabai under time restrictions.
4
23. Ironically, the opposing parties have both mentioned issues with the time
5
restraints but have chosen not to agree to a continuance, which is very
6
reasonable.
7
24. Mr. Tabatabai and I are moving as quickly as possible to ensure that the lack of
8
discovery does not prejudice Mr. Tabatabai.
9
25. As provided in the Motion’s declaration, $3,025 is being requested for the
10
amount of time put into the Motion, Ex Parte Application, and the hearing.
11
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
13
that the foregoing is true and correct.
14 Executed this April 1, 2022, at Los Gatos, California.
15
16 ________________________________
Tanzeel Hak
17
Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES Page 8
EXHIBIT 1
1
Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248
2 By the Law, APC
481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233
3 Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel: (510) 362-6791
4
Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co
5
6
Attorney for Sean Tabatabai,
7 Defendant, Cross-complainant
and Cross-Defendant
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
12 Unlimited Jurisdiction
13
Case No.: 18CV02004
14
NEMAT MALEKSALEHI,
CROSS-COMPLAINANT
15 SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND
16 MOTION TO COMPEL
vs.
FURTHER RESPONSES TO
17 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE FROM JEANNE TURNER AND
18
TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES MONETARY SANCTIONS IN
1 through 10 inclusive THE AMOUNT OF $3,025
19
Date: TBD
20 Defendants. Time: 8:30 A.M.
____________________________________________ Honorable Timothy Volkmann
21 Dept: 5
SHAHRAM TABATABAI,
22
Cross-Complainant,
23
24 vs.
25
JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual;
26 ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH
OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant,
27 and ROES 1-15.
28
Cross-Defendants.
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 1
1
2
3
JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI,
4
Cross-Complainant,
5
vs.
6
7 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM
8
TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10,
9 Cross-Defendants.
10
11 TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
12 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ______, ____, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon
13 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 5 of the above-entitled Court
14 located at 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, Defendant Shahram Tabatabai
15 (“Tabatabai”) will move the Court for an order to compelling Cross-Defendant Jeanne
16 Turner, to serve further responses to Tabatabai’s Requests for Production, Set One and
17 will further move this court for an order requiring Cross-Defendant Turner to pay a
18
monetary sanction in the amount of $3,025 to Tabatabai pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.300(d).
19
This Motion will be made on the grounds that Cross-Defendant Turner
20
intentionally waited to prepare discovery responses and attempted to evade them
21
altogether by continuance but was unable to do so. Then she provided three full pages
22
of evidence to Tabatabai’s Request for Production knowing that this would hinder
23
Tabatabai’s ability to prepare for trial, especially considering that it was set for April
24
25th.
25
//////
26
//////
27
//////
28
//////
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 2
//////
1
//////
2
This Motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points
3
and Authorities, the Separate Statement, the Declaration of Tanzeel Hak, on the papers
4
and records on file, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at
5
the hearing on the Motion.
6
7
Dated: April 1, 2022
8
_______________________________
9 Tanzeel Hak,
Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
On February 25, 2022, Tabatabai served Turner with Requests for Production (a
3
true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 1). On March 18th, it became apparent that
4
the discovery responses which were extensive since Tabatabai requested many items
5
that would be necessary in trial, had likely not been worked on. While discussing a
6
potential continuance stipulation, Turner proposed a stipulation with the clause, “The
7
outstanding written discovery referenced in section 3, above, if necessary, shall be due
8
30 days after the ruling on Turner’s motion to dismiss, if she is not dismissed.” Section 3
9
referred to the pending depositions and Turner’s responses to Tabatabai. Other items
10
referred to discovery that Tabatabai had already responded to, discovery that Turner
11 propounded on Plaintiff Maleksalehi and discovery issues between Tabatabai and
12 Lindow. It could be reasonably deducted that such a clause meant that no effort had
13 been placed in the responses. On March 22nd, in a declaration filed by Turner’s counsel,
14 she made the same suggestion again. With this understanding that discovery issues
15 would arise, on March 23rd Tabatabai told Turner that there was no agreement to move
16 pending discovery to a later time outside of depositions. Later that day, Turner
17 confirmed that the pending responses would be timely provided.
18 On March 25th, to further support the position that the Requests for Production
19 responses, which would require considerable time to complete, had not been worked
20
on, Turner served her responses with approximately three pages of evidence (a true
and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2).
21
Due to many pending items in this matter all of which relate to Tabatabai,
22
Tabatabai needed time to review the responses and do research. On March 29th,
23
Tabatabai served a meet and confer letter detailing many issues with the responses
24
provided, which seemingly resulted in only three full pages being produced. Tabatabai
25
requested that by the morning of April 1st, Turner either provide supplemental
26
responses or state that she would not. Without a trial continuance and lingering
27
discovery motions’ deadline, Tabatabai had no choice but to provide only three days to
28
Turner for supplemental responses. On the evening of March 31st, Turner stated that she
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 4
could not provide the supplemental responses because of all of the pending motions in
1
this case. She stated that she could provide them the following week, but there is no
2
certainty as to whether this would have occurred, especially with the ever-increasing
3
filings with minimal time to work with given an April 25th trial. Tabatabai asserted that
4
while he would have provided more time for discovery responses, he simply could not
5
do so and would have to pursue this Ex Parte/Motion to reserve his rights that would
6
otherwise be waived by the April 8th discovery motion’s deadline.
7
For the reasons contained herein, this Court should grant this Motion.
8
II. ARGUMENT
9
A. STANDARD
10
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that:
11 (a) On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the party demanding an
12 inspection may move for an order compelling further response to the demand
13 if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:
14 (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
15 (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or
16 evasive.
17 (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
18 As it will be discussed in the Separate Statement in greater specificity, Cross-
19 Defendant has provided inadequate objections, and at least one that is not even
20
permitted in California. Additionally, the objections supposedly cover so much
evidence that given the objections, only three full pages of evidence could be provided
21
to Tabatabai. Considering that there were almost thirty Requests for Production, the
22
responses are evidently inappropriate.
23
B. A Separate Statement will be filed simultaneously with this Motion.
24
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(3) provides that a separate statement is
25
required when seeking a motion to compel further responses to requests for production.
26
Tabatabai has provided a detailed Separate Statement in support of this Motion
27
as required. It will be filed concurrently.
28
C. A declaration regarding meet and confer efforts is filed with this Motion.
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 5
Code of Civil Procedure 2031.310 (b)(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and
1
confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
2
Tabatabai has provided a Declaration that explains his meet and confer efforts
3
with Turner. Due to time restraints, the meet and confer did not last very long and its
4
results are speculative in that Turner said she would provide supplemental responses
5
next week. If she did not provide any responses or provided responses that did not
6
address the meet and confer letter, Tabatabai would have had no remedy since the
7
discovery motion’s deadline will lapse next week. A perfect example of mixed signals
8
by Turner is the fact that she went back and forth about trial continuance and provided
9
conflicting positions for weeks. This can be demonstrated by communications, but also
10
the declarations filed by Turner’s counsel, which showed different positions in each of
11 the three declarations. If this occurred with discovery, intentionally or even
12 unintentionally, Tabatabai would have had no option but to accept that he is preparing
13 for trial without all of the evidence which exists.
14 D. Defendants have brought this Motion within the appropriate time.
15 Code of Civil Procedure 2031.310 (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45
16 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or
17 on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding
18 party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further
19 response to the demand.
20
This Motion has been served on Cross-Defendant within the 45-day period
provided and virtually as quickly as it could have been brought given the
21
circumstances.
22
E. Cross-Defendant’s responses defy the purpose of discovery.
23
The purpose of discovery is to take the “game” element out of trial preparation
24
by enabling the parties to obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their
25
dispute before a trial is necessary. Weil and Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure
26
Before Trial (TRG 2018) ¶8:1 citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 55 C.2d. 355,
27
376.
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 6
“One of the principal purposes of the Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc., section
1
2016-2035) is to enable a party to obtain evidence in the control of his adversary in order
2
to further the efficient, economical disposition of cases according to right and justice on
3
the merits…. The statute is to be liberally interpreted so that it may accomplish its
4
purpose. [Emphasis added.] Fairfield v. Superior Court (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 119-
5
120 (Second Appellate District, Division 1), quoting Carol Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court
6
(1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 303-304 (Appellate District, Division 2):
7
Tabatabai cannot adequately prepare for trial or potentially settle without being
8
able to understand the evidence that Turner withholds. The evidence can produce
9
potential defenses that Tabatabai does not know exist. Similarly, the discovery can lead
10
to evidence that substantiates Tabatabai’s claims. Cross-Defendants Turner and Lindow
11 have taken a very similar approach with their discovery responses by withholding as
12 much information as possible and backing Tabatabai into a corner very last minute so
13 he has to prepare for trial without all of the evidence that exists.
14 III. CONCLUSION
15 For the reasons contained herein, this Court should grant this Motion in its
16 Entirety and award monetary sanctions against Cross-defendant Turner.
17
18 Dated: April 1, 2022
19 _______________________________
20
Tanzeel Hak,
Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 7
DECLARATION OF TANZEEL HAK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
1
FURTHER RESPONSES
2
3
I, Tanzeel Hak, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of California declare:
4 1. I am the attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before all of the courts in the
5 State of California. I am familiar with the aspects of this case, including all of the
6 matters which are set forth in this Declaration.
7 2. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify as to the
8 truthfulness of the following facts, all of which are within my own personal
9 knowledge except for those stated on information and belief, and as to those, I
10 am informed and believe them to be true. I request that the court receive this
11 declaration into evidence as my direct testimony.
12 3. This declaration is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as being a
13
waiver of any information protected by any applicable privilege including
privacy, confidentiality, attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product
14
doctrine. The matters set forth herein were stated and/or observed in non-
15
privileged settings and are not the result of privileged work-product matters.
16
4. On February 25, 2022, I served Ms. Turner with Requests for Production.
17
5. Based on Ms. Turner’s March 18th proposed stipulation and Ms. Harris’s March
18
22nd declaration, Tabatabai got suspicious of the possibility that he would not
19
receive adequate responses since it appeared that Turner was waiting until last
20
minute to prepare responses or avoid them altogether.
21
6. On March 23rd, I told Ms. Harris that we were not providing an extension and
22
expected the discovery responses.
23
7. Mr. Tabatabai and I were hoping for a continuance but understood that there
24
was no way to adequately predict if one would be granted.
25 8. This meant that we had to get all of the pending discovery as soon as possible to
26 ensure trial preparation can begin.
27 9. Also on March 23rd, Ms. Harris confirmed that timely responses would be
28 provided.
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 8
10. On March 25th, Turner served responses, that after review, were deemed to be
1
insufficient.
2
11. On March 29th, I provided a meet and confer letter to Ms. Harris.
3
12. On the evening of March 31st, Ms. Harris informed me that they would be unable
4
to provide supplemental responses given time restraints.
5
13. I do not know if the issues found in the meet and confer letter were completely
6
agreed upon, since that was not stated.
7
14. For that reason, I am uncertain whether the supplemental responses would have
8
addressed everything mentioned or not.
9
15. I am uncertain whether any supplemental responses would have even provided
10
or this was a strategic tactic to make Mr. Tabatabai lose his ability to bring a
11 Motion/Ex Parte given that the discovery motion’s deadline is also next week.
12 16. Regardless, due to time restraints, I told Ms. Harris that we could not provide
13 her client more time, even though we would not have been opposed to it at that
14 time, if there was actually additional time to provide.
15 17. At this time, whether a continuance is granted at the April 4th hearing or not, we
16 would like to pursue this Motion and the Ex Parte Application to ensure things
17 progress.
18 18. Mr. Lindow and Ms. Turner’s opposition to the continuance is what resulted in
19 Tabatabai having to go through the trouble of preparing and filing documents
20
consistently and constantly for weeks.
19. Tabatabai was forced to focus more on filings than actual trial preparation.
21
20. There have been endless hearings and filings since early March, all of which had
22
Tabatabai as a party of interest.
23
21. The parties strategically placed the burdensome time restraints on Tabatabai.
24
22. For these reasons, Tabatabai has no reason not to have this Motion/Ex Parte as
25
well as the other filings heard as he pursues them, regardless of any trial
26
continuance.
27
23. My current hourly rate for Sean Tabatabai’s actions including this one is $275.
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 9
24. In relationship to these discovery issues I have spent the following amount of
1
time:
2
a. 1.5 hours doing legal research on the responses to the requests for
3
production, meet and confer, this Motion, and Ex Parte Application.
4
b. 0.5 reviewing all of the responses to the requests for production.
5
c. 3.5 hours drafting the Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Points and
6
Authorities, Separate Statement and Declaration.
7
d. 1.25 hours preparing the Ex Parte Application documents associated to
8
this filing.
9
25. I anticipate spending approximately 0.75 analyzing the Opposition that Cross-
10
Defendant will likely file.
11 26. I anticipate spending 2.5 hour doing additional research and drafting a Reply to
12 the Opposition.
13 27. I anticipate that attending this Motion’s hearing will take approximately 0.8
14 hours, if the Ex Parte Application is not granted in its entirety rather than an
15 Order only to shorten time.
16 28. I anticipate that attending the associated Ex Parte will take 0.2 hours.
17 29. It is estimated that the total cost of bringing this Motion and Ex Parte Application
18 will be $3,025, if it requires an Ex Parte and Motion hearing (and Ms. Turner files
19 an Opposition).
20
30. I have provided estimates so that this Court can analyze the billing and make its
own decision as to what is reasonable.
21
31. Moreover, I understand that this Court may grant the Ex Parte Application and
22
not require a Motion’s hearing, but this is unlikely.
23
32. Regardless, all of the costs are broken down and can be calculated given the
24
different scenarios.
25
33. The costs associated to communications and drafting the meet and confer letter
26
are not included here.
27
//////
28
//////
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 10
//////
1
//////
2
//////
3
4 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
5 that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on April 1,
6 2022, in Los Gatos, California.
7
8 ____________________________
Tanzeel Hak
9
Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 11
EXHIBIT 1
1
Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248
2 481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233,
Los Gatos, CA 95030
3 Tel: (510) 362-6791
Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co
4
5
Attorney for Sean Tabatabai,
6
Defendant, Cross-Complainant
7 and Cross-Defendant
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
11
Unlimited Jurisdiction
12
13 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, Case No.: 18CV02004
14 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN
Plaintiff, TABATABAI’S REQUESTS FOR
15 vs. PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO CROSS-
16 DEFENDANT JEANNE TURNER
SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE
17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES SET ONE
1 through 10 inclusive
18
19 Defendants.
_______________________________________
20 SHAHRAM TABATABAI,
21
Cross-Complainant,
22
vs.
23
24 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual;
ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH
25
OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant,
26 and ROES 1-15.
27 Cross-Defendants.
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 1
1
2 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI,
3
Cross-Complainant,
4 vs.
5
6
NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM
TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10,
7
Cross-Defendants.
8
9
10 PROPOUNDING PARTY: SHAHRAM TABATABAI
RESPONDING PARTY: JEANNE TURNER
11
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
12
To Cross-Defendant Jeanne Turner and to her attorneys of record:
13
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, Cross-Complaint,
14
Sean Tabatabai, hereby demands that you produce and permit the inspection and
15
copying by or on behalf of himself of the documents and/or tangible things in the
16
categories described below at 181 Driftwood Court, Aptos, CA 95003.
17
Moreover, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210 –
18
2031.250, Responding Party is further required to serve upon Propounding Party a
19
written response to this set of Requests for Production of Documents responding to
20 each request separately and under oath within thirty (30) days of service hereof.
21 Production is to be by production of the original documents or things for inspection and
22 copying at: 181 Driftwood Court, Aptos, CA 95003.
23 In leui of this, the documents can be electronically served to the email address:
24 tanzeelbythelaw.co or mailed to 481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030.
25
26 DEFINITIONS
27 a) “ANY” and “ALL” means any and all, each and every.
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 2
b) COMMUNICATIONS” mean any form of conveying information between
1
persons, including but not limited to telephone calls, emails, text messages,
2
letters, memorandum, documents, and discussions.
3
c) “COMMUNITY“ shall mean all property, real or personal, wherever situated,
4
acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state,
5
as defined in California Family Code § 760.
6
d) “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” mean each and every original or copy of
7
words or information generated by printing, typing, longhand, electronic
8
recording, or other process, regardless of the form thereof, and include any kind
9
of “writing” as defined by California Evidence Code §250. Such documents
10
include, but are not limited to, published materials, reports, correspondence,
11 emails, records, memoranda, notices, notes, marginal notations, messages,
12 teletype printouts, statements, books, studies, minutes, diagrams, drawings,
13 maps, surveys, plans, charts, graphs, data, computer files, computer tapes,
14 computer diskettes, computer printouts, computer hard drives, appointment
15 books, telephone message tapes, telephone message slips, drafts, checks, money
16 orders, invoices, billings, evaluations, photographs, audio tapes, and videotapes.
17 e) “ENABLEDWARE” means the original Enabledware, LLC, the company that
18 was registered in the State of Delaware by Sean Tabatabai.
19 f) “ENVISION,” “ENVISION MEDIA,” and “ENVISION NV” means Envision
20
Media, the Nevada corporation.
g) “RELATE TO”, “RELATES TO”, “RELATED TO” and “RELATING TO” shall be
21
construed in their broadest possible sense and shall mean and refer to reflecting,
22
referring, evidencing, describing, constituting, showing, memorializing or
23
otherwise connected to the subject matter referred to in a particular request.
24
h) “NEMAT MALEKSALEHI” means the Plaintiff in this action.
25
i) “ROBERT LINDOW” means the Cross-Defendant in this action.
26
j) “SEAN TABATABAI” means the Cross-Complainant, Shahram Tabatabai.
27
k) “YOU” or “YOUR” means Responding Party and its agents, servants, employees,
28
attorneys, representatives, officers, shareholders, directors, consultants, and any
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 3
other person or entity acting, or purporting to act, on its behalf, and where
1
appropriate in the context, YOUR agents, representatives, employees, attorneys,
2
and investigators.
3
4
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
5
All of the requests refer to the time period between January 1, 2010 through the current
6
date unless provided otherwise.
7
8
REQUEST NO. 1
9
ALL DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS between SEAN TABATABAI and
10
YOU that RELATE TO or refer to ENVISION NV providing funds to ENABLEDWARE
11 for ANY reason.
12 REQUEST NO. 2
13 ALL DOCUMENTS that REFER TO or reflect that ENABLEDWARE had investors.
14 REQUEST NO. 3
15 ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or refer to YOUR
16 decision to no longer provide ENVISION funds to ENABLEDWARE after signing
17 stipulation in August 2016 to provide such funding.
18 REQUEST NO. 4
19 ALL COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU including ALL
20
attachments.
REQUEST NO. 5
21
ALL DOCUMENTS that YOU provided to ROBERT LINDOW.
22
REQUEST NO. 6
23
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU
24
about the proposed sale of ENABLEDWARE to Verify Smart.
25
REQUEST NO. 7
26
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU
27
that referred to, RELATED TO or in ANY way impacted the proposed sale of
28
ENABLEDWARE to Verify Smart.
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 4
REQUEST NO. 8
1
ALL DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS between third parties and YOU
2
RELATED TO Verify Smart.
3
REQUEST NO. 9
4
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU
5
about the proposed sale of ENABLEDWARE to NXChain.
6
REQUEST NO. 10
7
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU
8
that referred to, RELATED TO or in ANY way impacted the proposed sale of
9
ENABLEDWARE to NXChain.
10
REQUEST NO. 11
11 ALL DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO YOUR positions in the company ENVISION NV
12 from its inception.
13 REQUEST NO. 12
14 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that may have negatively impacted
15 people’s perception of SEAN TABATABAI.
16 REQUEST NO. 13
17 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNCATIONS that RELATE TO the 2016 bank opening
18 for ENVISION at US Bank.
19 REQUEST NO. 14
20
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that in ANY way impacted ENVISION
NV’s business contracts in which ENABLEDWARE was the vendor.
21
REQUEST NO. 15
22
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that in ANY way impacted
23
ENABLEDWARE contracts in which ENVISION MEDIA was a vendor.
24
REQUEST NO. 16
25
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS reflecting or referring to services of
26
ENVISION NV being provided to ROBERT LINDOW.
27
REQUEST NO. 17
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 5
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS in which YOU communicated to ANY
1
person that SEAN TABATABAI had not paid his taxes and was avoiding doing so.
2
REQUEST NO. 18
3
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS wherein YOU communicated to ANY
4
person ANY statements or allegations concerning SEAN TABATABAI’s veracity and
5
credibility.
6
REQUEST NO. 19
7
ALL DOCUMENTS that refer to or reflect that SEAN TABATABAI was being
8
criminally indicted by ANY government agency.
9
REQUEST NO. 20
10
ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNCATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU
11 RELATED TO or referring to registering a company named “Enabledware LLC” in the
12 state of Delaware.
13 REQUEST NO. 21
14 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNCATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU
15 RELATED TO or referring to the original ENABLEDWARE LLC.
16 REQUEST NO. 22
17 ALL COMMUNICATIONS between ANY individual and YOU RELATING TO or
18 referring to NEMAT MALEKSALEHI’s loan to the COMMUNITY.
19 REQUEST NO. 23
20
ALL DOCUMENTS RELAT
Preview
1 Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248 2 By the Law, APC 481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233 3 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel: (510) 362-6791 4 Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co 5 6 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai, 7 Defendant, Cross-complainant and Cross-Defendant 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 11 Unlimited Jurisdiction 12 13 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, Case No.: 18CV02004 14 CROSS-COMPLAINANT Plaintiff, SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX 15 vs. PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER 16 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE FOR PRODUCTION FROM 17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES JEANNE TURNER AND 1 through 10 inclusive MONETARY SANCTIONS IN 18 THE AMOUNT OF $3025 OR ALTERNATIVELY TO 19 Defendants. SHORTEN TIME FOR NOTICE ____________________________________________ OF MOTION TO COMPEL 20 SHAHRAM TABATABAI, FURTHER RESEPONSES 21 Cross-Complainant, 22 vs. 23 24 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH 25 OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant, 26 and ROES 1-15. 27 Cross-Defendants. 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 1 1 2 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, 3 Cross-Complainant, 4 vs. 5 6 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10, 7 Cross-Defendants. 8 9 10 TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 11 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on April 5, 2022, at 1 p.m., or as soon thereafter 12 as the matter may be heard in Department 5 of the above-entitled Court located at 701 13 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, Defendant Shahram Tabatabai (“Tabatabai”) will 14 and hereby does request this Court, for an Ex Parte Order that compels Jeanne Turner 15 to provide further responses to Requests for Production Set One (with sanctions of 16 $3,025 per the Motion) or in the alternative an Order shortening time for Notice so that matter can be heard by Motion prior to the discovery hearing deadline of April 8th (or a 17 hearing date that this Court finds reasonable. 18 This Ex Parte Application is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum 19 of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Tanzeel Hak, exhibits, on the complete files 20 and records of this action, and on such other oral and/or documentary evidence as may 21 be presented at the hearing on this Ex Parte. 22 23 Dated: April 1, 2022 24 25 _______________________________ 26 Tanzeel Hak, Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 27 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 On February 25, 2022, Tabatabai served Turner with Requests for Production (a 3 true and correct copy is attached to the Motion). On March 18th, it became apparent that 4 the discovery responses which were extensive since Tabatabai requested many items 5 that would be necessary in trial, had likely not been worked on. While discussing a 6 potential continuance stipulation, Turner proposed a stipulation with the clause, “The 7 outstanding written discovery referenced in section 3, above, if necessary, shall be due 8 30 days after the ruling on Turner’s motion to dismiss, if she is not dismissed.” Section 3 9 referred to the pending depositions and Turner’s responses to Tabatabai. Other items 10 referred to discovery that Tabatabai had already responded to, discovery that Turner 11 propounded on Plaintiff Maleksalehi and discovery issues between Tabatabai and 12 Lindow. It could be reasonably deducted that such a clause meant that no effort had 13 been placed in the responses. On March 22nd, in a declaration filed by Turner’s counsel, 14 she made the same suggestion again. With this understanding that discovery issues 15 would arise, on March 23rd Tabatabai told Turner that there was no agreement to move 16 pending discovery to a later time outside of depositions. Later that day, Turner 17 confirmed that the pending responses would be timely provided. 18 On March 25th, to further support the position that the Requests for Production 19 responses, which would require considerable time to complete, had not been worked 20 on, Turner served her responses with approximately three pages of evidence. Due to many pending items in this matter all of which relate to Tabatabai, 21 Tabatabai needed time to review the responses and do research. On March 29th, 22 Tabatabai served a meet and confer letter detailing many issues with the responses 23 provided, which seemingly resulted in only three full pages being produced. Tabatabai 24 requested that by the morning of April 1st, Turner either provide supplemental 25 responses or state that she would not. Without a trial continuance and lingering 26 discovery motions’ deadline, Tabatabai had no choice but to provide only three days to 27 Turner for supplemental responses. On the evening of March 31st, Turner stated that she 28 could not provide the supplemental responses because of all of the pending motions in CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 3 this case. She stated that she could provide them the following week, but there is no 1 certainty as to whether this would have occurred, especially with the ever-increasing 2 filings with minimal time to work with given an April 25th trial. Tabatabai asserted that 3 while he would have provided more time for discovery responses, he simply could not 4 do so and would have to pursue this Ex Parte/Motion to reserve his rights that would 5 otherwise be waived by the April 8th discovery motion’s deadline. 6 To avoid repetition, Tabatabai incorporates his entire Motion to Compel 7 Further Responses (a true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 1) and Separate 8 Statement (a true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2) into this Ex Parte 9 Application. 10 II. ARGUMENT 11 A. Standard 12 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(c) states, “An applicant must make an 13 affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on 14 personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory 15 basis for granting relief ex parte.” 16 B. Notice will be provided as required. 17 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203 states “[a] party seeking an ex parte order 18 must notify all parties no later than 10:00 A.M. the court day before the ex parte 19 appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time 20 for notice.” Tabatabai intends to give notice to all of the parties as required by the 21 aforementioned Code of Civil Procedure section. He will provide notice on April 4th for 22 the Ex Parte hearing that will be heard on April 5th. Additionally, Tabatabai informed 23 Turner (through counsel) in a meet and confer letter that this Ex Parte Application 24 would be filed, if necessary. On April 1st, Turner (the only party of significance in this 25 filing) was given notice that this Ex Parte would be pursued on April 5th. This should be 26 more than sufficient notice. 27 C. Defendant will serve the parties with copies of this Ex Parte Application as 28 soon as it is filed. CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 4 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203 states, “Parties appearing at the ex parte 1 hearing must serve the ex parte application or any written opposition on all other 2 appearing parties at the first reasonable opportunity. Absent exceptional circumstances, 3 no hearing may be conducted unless such service has been made.” 4 Tabatabai will serve the parties as required by the above-mentioned rule. 5 Tabatabai intends to electronically serve the parties so that everyone has knowledge of 6 the Ex Parte Application and can properly oppose it if necessary. Tabatabai will also 7 provide hardcopies if the parties desire. While Tabatabai would be willing to provide 8 the document sooner, due to time restraints and all of the pending matters in this 9 action, he will be unable to. This was a significant part of Tabatabai’s argument in his 10 Motion to Continue Trial, but the opposing parties did not find interest in having 11 regular noticed motions with sufficient response deadlines. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons contained within this Ex Parte Application and the attached 14 Motion and Separate Statement, this Court should grant this Ex Parte Application and 15 either compel Cross-Defendant to provide further responses or hear the Motion under 16 shortened time prior to April 8th (due to the discovery motions’ deadline) or at a time 17 this Court believes is reasonable. 18 19 Dated: April 1, 2022 20 _______________________________ 21 Tanzeel Hak, 22 Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 23 24 25 26 27 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 5 1 DECLARATION OF TANZEEL HAK 2 I, Tanzeel Hak, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of 3 California, declare: 4 1. I am the attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before all of the courts in the 5 State of California. I am familiar with the aspects of this case, including all of the 6 matters which are set forth in this Declaration. 7 2. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify as to the 8 truthfulness of the following facts, all of which are within my own personal 9 knowledge except for those stated on information and belief, and as to those, I 10 am informed and believe them to be true. I request that the court receive this 11 declaration into evidence as my direct testimony. 12 3. This declaration is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as being a 13 waiver of any information protected by any applicable privilege including 14 privacy, confidentiality, attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product 15 doctrine. The matters set forth herein were stated and/or observed in non- 16 privileged settings and are not the result of privileged work-product matters. 17 4. After making this filing, I will officially notify the parties that I have submitted 18 this Ex Parte Application and provide them with notice as to when the hearing 19 will occur, which is Tuesday, April 5, 2022. 20 5. The parties and/or their attorneys will be notified via email as we normally 21 communicate to avoid any misunderstandings. I will send the email on April 4th, 22 2022. 23 6. The only party of interest in this filing, Ms. Turner, was notified through counsel 24 on April 1st about the hearing date. 7. In my email notice to the parties/attorneys, I will provide a copy of this Ex Parte 25 Application and Proposed Order. 26 8. The attached service list will satisfy the California Rules of Court Rule 3.1202. 27 9. It is my understanding that Ms. Turner will oppose this Ex Parte Application. 28 10. The remaining parties are not parties of interest in this filing. CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 6 11. At this time, this Court has decided that it will not continue trial to a later date, 1 but it will reevaluate the matter at the April 4th hearing. 2 12. The decision at the April 4th hearing may change the circumstances, if a 3 continuance is granted, but at this time Mr. Lindow and Ms. Harris have asserted 4 their opposition to a continuance. 5 13. If a continuance is granted, Mr. Tabatabai will likely still pursue this Ex Parte 6 Application to allow this Court to determine what should be done with the 7 discovery. 8 14. Due to the current time restraints of the April 25th trial and pertinent discovery 9 motions’ deadline, Mr. Tabatabai must file this ex parte application to either have 10 the Motion granted or have it heard under shortened time. 11 15. The discovery motions’ hearing deadline is in a few days, so Mr. Tabatabai has 12 no other alternative but to seek this Ex Parte Application. 13 16. Due to this case’s significant rise in activity this past month (including consistent 14 hearings), this Ex Parte/Motion could not have been brought much sooner. 15 17. I sent a meet and confer letter on March 29th to resolve potential discovery issues. 16 18. On the evening of March 31st, she informed me that due to all of the pending 17 motions, she would not be able to provide supplemental responses by the April 18 1st deadline I provided her (due to the fact I could not possibly provide any 19 greater time). 20 19. I responded by informing her that I would be forced to pursue this Ex Parte Application and Motion due to time restraints, even though I understood the 21 circumstances and would have been willing to provide additional time to her 22 and her client, if I was able. 23 20. Due to Mr. Lindow consistent and Ms. Turner’s inconsistent positions that no 24 trial continuance should be granted, the case has had issues where everything 25 had to be rushed and continue to be rushed. 26 21. As a party of interest in every single filing made and heard in March, Mr. 27 Tabatabai and I have been on the most stringent schedule from all of the parties 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 7 but have made the most out of the circumstances we were placed in due to the 1 continuance’s opposition. 2 22. It is my understanding that this is a strategic position to create missteps for 3 Tabatabai under time restrictions. 4 23. Ironically, the opposing parties have both mentioned issues with the time 5 restraints but have chosen not to agree to a continuance, which is very 6 reasonable. 7 24. Mr. Tabatabai and I are moving as quickly as possible to ensure that the lack of 8 discovery does not prejudice Mr. Tabatabai. 9 25. As provided in the Motion’s declaration, $3,025 is being requested for the 10 amount of time put into the Motion, Ex Parte Application, and the hearing. 11 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 13 that the foregoing is true and correct. 14 Executed this April 1, 2022, at Los Gatos, California. 15 16 ________________________________ Tanzeel Hak 17 Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Page 8 EXHIBIT 1 1 Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248 2 By the Law, APC 481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233 3 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel: (510) 362-6791 4 Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co 5 6 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai, 7 Defendant, Cross-complainant and Cross-Defendant 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 12 Unlimited Jurisdiction 13 Case No.: 18CV02004 14 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, CROSS-COMPLAINANT 15 SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND 16 MOTION TO COMPEL vs. FURTHER RESPONSES TO 17 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE FROM JEANNE TURNER AND 18 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES MONETARY SANCTIONS IN 1 through 10 inclusive THE AMOUNT OF $3,025 19 Date: TBD 20 Defendants. Time: 8:30 A.M. ____________________________________________ Honorable Timothy Volkmann 21 Dept: 5 SHAHRAM TABATABAI, 22 Cross-Complainant, 23 24 vs. 25 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; 26 ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant, 27 and ROES 1-15. 28 Cross-Defendants. CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 1 1 2 3 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, 4 Cross-Complainant, 5 vs. 6 7 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM 8 TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10, 9 Cross-Defendants. 10 11 TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 12 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ______, ____, 2022 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon 13 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 5 of the above-entitled Court 14 located at 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, Defendant Shahram Tabatabai 15 (“Tabatabai”) will move the Court for an order to compelling Cross-Defendant Jeanne 16 Turner, to serve further responses to Tabatabai’s Requests for Production, Set One and 17 will further move this court for an order requiring Cross-Defendant Turner to pay a 18 monetary sanction in the amount of $3,025 to Tabatabai pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d). 19 This Motion will be made on the grounds that Cross-Defendant Turner 20 intentionally waited to prepare discovery responses and attempted to evade them 21 altogether by continuance but was unable to do so. Then she provided three full pages 22 of evidence to Tabatabai’s Request for Production knowing that this would hinder 23 Tabatabai’s ability to prepare for trial, especially considering that it was set for April 24 25th. 25 ////// 26 ////// 27 ////// 28 ////// CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 2 ////// 1 ////// 2 This Motion will be based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points 3 and Authorities, the Separate Statement, the Declaration of Tanzeel Hak, on the papers 4 and records on file, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at 5 the hearing on the Motion. 6 7 Dated: April 1, 2022 8 _______________________________ 9 Tanzeel Hak, Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 On February 25, 2022, Tabatabai served Turner with Requests for Production (a 3 true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 1). On March 18th, it became apparent that 4 the discovery responses which were extensive since Tabatabai requested many items 5 that would be necessary in trial, had likely not been worked on. While discussing a 6 potential continuance stipulation, Turner proposed a stipulation with the clause, “The 7 outstanding written discovery referenced in section 3, above, if necessary, shall be due 8 30 days after the ruling on Turner’s motion to dismiss, if she is not dismissed.” Section 3 9 referred to the pending depositions and Turner’s responses to Tabatabai. Other items 10 referred to discovery that Tabatabai had already responded to, discovery that Turner 11 propounded on Plaintiff Maleksalehi and discovery issues between Tabatabai and 12 Lindow. It could be reasonably deducted that such a clause meant that no effort had 13 been placed in the responses. On March 22nd, in a declaration filed by Turner’s counsel, 14 she made the same suggestion again. With this understanding that discovery issues 15 would arise, on March 23rd Tabatabai told Turner that there was no agreement to move 16 pending discovery to a later time outside of depositions. Later that day, Turner 17 confirmed that the pending responses would be timely provided. 18 On March 25th, to further support the position that the Requests for Production 19 responses, which would require considerable time to complete, had not been worked 20 on, Turner served her responses with approximately three pages of evidence (a true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2). 21 Due to many pending items in this matter all of which relate to Tabatabai, 22 Tabatabai needed time to review the responses and do research. On March 29th, 23 Tabatabai served a meet and confer letter detailing many issues with the responses 24 provided, which seemingly resulted in only three full pages being produced. Tabatabai 25 requested that by the morning of April 1st, Turner either provide supplemental 26 responses or state that she would not. Without a trial continuance and lingering 27 discovery motions’ deadline, Tabatabai had no choice but to provide only three days to 28 Turner for supplemental responses. On the evening of March 31st, Turner stated that she CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 4 could not provide the supplemental responses because of all of the pending motions in 1 this case. She stated that she could provide them the following week, but there is no 2 certainty as to whether this would have occurred, especially with the ever-increasing 3 filings with minimal time to work with given an April 25th trial. Tabatabai asserted that 4 while he would have provided more time for discovery responses, he simply could not 5 do so and would have to pursue this Ex Parte/Motion to reserve his rights that would 6 otherwise be waived by the April 8th discovery motion’s deadline. 7 For the reasons contained herein, this Court should grant this Motion. 8 II. ARGUMENT 9 A. STANDARD 10 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a) provides that: 11 (a) On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the party demanding an 12 inspection may move for an order compelling further response to the demand 13 if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: 14 (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. 15 (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or 16 evasive. 17 (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. 18 As it will be discussed in the Separate Statement in greater specificity, Cross- 19 Defendant has provided inadequate objections, and at least one that is not even 20 permitted in California. Additionally, the objections supposedly cover so much evidence that given the objections, only three full pages of evidence could be provided 21 to Tabatabai. Considering that there were almost thirty Requests for Production, the 22 responses are evidently inappropriate. 23 B. A Separate Statement will be filed simultaneously with this Motion. 24 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(3) provides that a separate statement is 25 required when seeking a motion to compel further responses to requests for production. 26 Tabatabai has provided a detailed Separate Statement in support of this Motion 27 as required. It will be filed concurrently. 28 C. A declaration regarding meet and confer efforts is filed with this Motion. CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 5 Code of Civil Procedure 2031.310 (b)(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and 1 confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 2 Tabatabai has provided a Declaration that explains his meet and confer efforts 3 with Turner. Due to time restraints, the meet and confer did not last very long and its 4 results are speculative in that Turner said she would provide supplemental responses 5 next week. If she did not provide any responses or provided responses that did not 6 address the meet and confer letter, Tabatabai would have had no remedy since the 7 discovery motion’s deadline will lapse next week. A perfect example of mixed signals 8 by Turner is the fact that she went back and forth about trial continuance and provided 9 conflicting positions for weeks. This can be demonstrated by communications, but also 10 the declarations filed by Turner’s counsel, which showed different positions in each of 11 the three declarations. If this occurred with discovery, intentionally or even 12 unintentionally, Tabatabai would have had no option but to accept that he is preparing 13 for trial without all of the evidence which exists. 14 D. Defendants have brought this Motion within the appropriate time. 15 Code of Civil Procedure 2031.310 (c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 16 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or 17 on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding 18 party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further 19 response to the demand. 20 This Motion has been served on Cross-Defendant within the 45-day period provided and virtually as quickly as it could have been brought given the 21 circumstances. 22 E. Cross-Defendant’s responses defy the purpose of discovery. 23 The purpose of discovery is to take the “game” element out of trial preparation 24 by enabling the parties to obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their 25 dispute before a trial is necessary. Weil and Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure 26 Before Trial (TRG 2018) ¶8:1 citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 55 C.2d. 355, 27 376. 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 6 “One of the principal purposes of the Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc., section 1 2016-2035) is to enable a party to obtain evidence in the control of his adversary in order 2 to further the efficient, economical disposition of cases according to right and justice on 3 the merits…. The statute is to be liberally interpreted so that it may accomplish its 4 purpose. [Emphasis added.] Fairfield v. Superior Court (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 119- 5 120 (Second Appellate District, Division 1), quoting Carol Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court 6 (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 303-304 (Appellate District, Division 2): 7 Tabatabai cannot adequately prepare for trial or potentially settle without being 8 able to understand the evidence that Turner withholds. The evidence can produce 9 potential defenses that Tabatabai does not know exist. Similarly, the discovery can lead 10 to evidence that substantiates Tabatabai’s claims. Cross-Defendants Turner and Lindow 11 have taken a very similar approach with their discovery responses by withholding as 12 much information as possible and backing Tabatabai into a corner very last minute so 13 he has to prepare for trial without all of the evidence that exists. 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons contained herein, this Court should grant this Motion in its 16 Entirety and award monetary sanctions against Cross-defendant Turner. 17 18 Dated: April 1, 2022 19 _______________________________ 20 Tanzeel Hak, Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 7 DECLARATION OF TANZEEL HAK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 1 FURTHER RESPONSES 2 3 I, Tanzeel Hak, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of California declare: 4 1. I am the attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before all of the courts in the 5 State of California. I am familiar with the aspects of this case, including all of the 6 matters which are set forth in this Declaration. 7 2. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify as to the 8 truthfulness of the following facts, all of which are within my own personal 9 knowledge except for those stated on information and belief, and as to those, I 10 am informed and believe them to be true. I request that the court receive this 11 declaration into evidence as my direct testimony. 12 3. This declaration is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as being a 13 waiver of any information protected by any applicable privilege including privacy, confidentiality, attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product 14 doctrine. The matters set forth herein were stated and/or observed in non- 15 privileged settings and are not the result of privileged work-product matters. 16 4. On February 25, 2022, I served Ms. Turner with Requests for Production. 17 5. Based on Ms. Turner’s March 18th proposed stipulation and Ms. Harris’s March 18 22nd declaration, Tabatabai got suspicious of the possibility that he would not 19 receive adequate responses since it appeared that Turner was waiting until last 20 minute to prepare responses or avoid them altogether. 21 6. On March 23rd, I told Ms. Harris that we were not providing an extension and 22 expected the discovery responses. 23 7. Mr. Tabatabai and I were hoping for a continuance but understood that there 24 was no way to adequately predict if one would be granted. 25 8. This meant that we had to get all of the pending discovery as soon as possible to 26 ensure trial preparation can begin. 27 9. Also on March 23rd, Ms. Harris confirmed that timely responses would be 28 provided. CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 8 10. On March 25th, Turner served responses, that after review, were deemed to be 1 insufficient. 2 11. On March 29th, I provided a meet and confer letter to Ms. Harris. 3 12. On the evening of March 31st, Ms. Harris informed me that they would be unable 4 to provide supplemental responses given time restraints. 5 13. I do not know if the issues found in the meet and confer letter were completely 6 agreed upon, since that was not stated. 7 14. For that reason, I am uncertain whether the supplemental responses would have 8 addressed everything mentioned or not. 9 15. I am uncertain whether any supplemental responses would have even provided 10 or this was a strategic tactic to make Mr. Tabatabai lose his ability to bring a 11 Motion/Ex Parte given that the discovery motion’s deadline is also next week. 12 16. Regardless, due to time restraints, I told Ms. Harris that we could not provide 13 her client more time, even though we would not have been opposed to it at that 14 time, if there was actually additional time to provide. 15 17. At this time, whether a continuance is granted at the April 4th hearing or not, we 16 would like to pursue this Motion and the Ex Parte Application to ensure things 17 progress. 18 18. Mr. Lindow and Ms. Turner’s opposition to the continuance is what resulted in 19 Tabatabai having to go through the trouble of preparing and filing documents 20 consistently and constantly for weeks. 19. Tabatabai was forced to focus more on filings than actual trial preparation. 21 20. There have been endless hearings and filings since early March, all of which had 22 Tabatabai as a party of interest. 23 21. The parties strategically placed the burdensome time restraints on Tabatabai. 24 22. For these reasons, Tabatabai has no reason not to have this Motion/Ex Parte as 25 well as the other filings heard as he pursues them, regardless of any trial 26 continuance. 27 23. My current hourly rate for Sean Tabatabai’s actions including this one is $275. 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 9 24. In relationship to these discovery issues I have spent the following amount of 1 time: 2 a. 1.5 hours doing legal research on the responses to the requests for 3 production, meet and confer, this Motion, and Ex Parte Application. 4 b. 0.5 reviewing all of the responses to the requests for production. 5 c. 3.5 hours drafting the Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Points and 6 Authorities, Separate Statement and Declaration. 7 d. 1.25 hours preparing the Ex Parte Application documents associated to 8 this filing. 9 25. I anticipate spending approximately 0.75 analyzing the Opposition that Cross- 10 Defendant will likely file. 11 26. I anticipate spending 2.5 hour doing additional research and drafting a Reply to 12 the Opposition. 13 27. I anticipate that attending this Motion’s hearing will take approximately 0.8 14 hours, if the Ex Parte Application is not granted in its entirety rather than an 15 Order only to shorten time. 16 28. I anticipate that attending the associated Ex Parte will take 0.2 hours. 17 29. It is estimated that the total cost of bringing this Motion and Ex Parte Application 18 will be $3,025, if it requires an Ex Parte and Motion hearing (and Ms. Turner files 19 an Opposition). 20 30. I have provided estimates so that this Court can analyze the billing and make its own decision as to what is reasonable. 21 31. Moreover, I understand that this Court may grant the Ex Parte Application and 22 not require a Motion’s hearing, but this is unlikely. 23 32. Regardless, all of the costs are broken down and can be calculated given the 24 different scenarios. 25 33. The costs associated to communications and drafting the meet and confer letter 26 are not included here. 27 ////// 28 ////// CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 10 ////// 1 ////// 2 ////// 3 4 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, 5 that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on April 1, 6 2022, in Los Gatos, California. 7 8 ____________________________ Tanzeel Hak 9 Attorney for Shahram Tabatabai 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SHAHRAM TABATABAI’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION FROM JEANNE TURNER Page 11 EXHIBIT 1 1 Tanzeel Hak, State Bar No., 331248 2 481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #233, Los Gatos, CA 95030 3 Tel: (510) 362-6791 Email: tanzeel@bythelaw.co 4 5 Attorney for Sean Tabatabai, 6 Defendant, Cross-Complainant 7 and Cross-Defendant 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 11 Unlimited Jurisdiction 12 13 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, Case No.: 18CV02004 14 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN Plaintiff, TABATABAI’S REQUESTS FOR 15 vs. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO CROSS- 16 DEFENDANT JEANNE TURNER SHAHRAM TABATABAI, an individual; JEANNE 17 TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; and DOES SET ONE 1 through 10 inclusive 18 19 Defendants. _______________________________________ 20 SHAHRAM TABATABAI, 21 Cross-Complainant, 22 vs. 23 24 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, an individual; ROBERT LINDOW, an individual; DEBORAH 25 OLINYK, an individual, Any Cross-Defendant, 26 and ROES 1-15. 27 Cross-Defendants. 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 1 1 2 JEANNE TURNER TABATABAI, 3 Cross-Complainant, 4 vs. 5 6 NEMAT MALEKSALEHI, SHAHRAM TABATABAI, and ROES 1 through 10, 7 Cross-Defendants. 8 9 10 PROPOUNDING PARTY: SHAHRAM TABATABAI RESPONDING PARTY: JEANNE TURNER 11 SET NUMBER: ONE (1) 12 To Cross-Defendant Jeanne Turner and to her attorneys of record: 13 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010, Cross-Complaint, 14 Sean Tabatabai, hereby demands that you produce and permit the inspection and 15 copying by or on behalf of himself of the documents and/or tangible things in the 16 categories described below at 181 Driftwood Court, Aptos, CA 95003. 17 Moreover, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210 – 18 2031.250, Responding Party is further required to serve upon Propounding Party a 19 written response to this set of Requests for Production of Documents responding to 20 each request separately and under oath within thirty (30) days of service hereof. 21 Production is to be by production of the original documents or things for inspection and 22 copying at: 181 Driftwood Court, Aptos, CA 95003. 23 In leui of this, the documents can be electronically served to the email address: 24 tanzeelbythelaw.co or mailed to 481 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030. 25 26 DEFINITIONS 27 a) “ANY” and “ALL” means any and all, each and every. 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 2 b) COMMUNICATIONS” mean any form of conveying information between 1 persons, including but not limited to telephone calls, emails, text messages, 2 letters, memorandum, documents, and discussions. 3 c) “COMMUNITY“ shall mean all property, real or personal, wherever situated, 4 acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state, 5 as defined in California Family Code § 760. 6 d) “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” mean each and every original or copy of 7 words or information generated by printing, typing, longhand, electronic 8 recording, or other process, regardless of the form thereof, and include any kind 9 of “writing” as defined by California Evidence Code §250. Such documents 10 include, but are not limited to, published materials, reports, correspondence, 11 emails, records, memoranda, notices, notes, marginal notations, messages, 12 teletype printouts, statements, books, studies, minutes, diagrams, drawings, 13 maps, surveys, plans, charts, graphs, data, computer files, computer tapes, 14 computer diskettes, computer printouts, computer hard drives, appointment 15 books, telephone message tapes, telephone message slips, drafts, checks, money 16 orders, invoices, billings, evaluations, photographs, audio tapes, and videotapes. 17 e) “ENABLEDWARE” means the original Enabledware, LLC, the company that 18 was registered in the State of Delaware by Sean Tabatabai. 19 f) “ENVISION,” “ENVISION MEDIA,” and “ENVISION NV” means Envision 20 Media, the Nevada corporation. g) “RELATE TO”, “RELATES TO”, “RELATED TO” and “RELATING TO” shall be 21 construed in their broadest possible sense and shall mean and refer to reflecting, 22 referring, evidencing, describing, constituting, showing, memorializing or 23 otherwise connected to the subject matter referred to in a particular request. 24 h) “NEMAT MALEKSALEHI” means the Plaintiff in this action. 25 i) “ROBERT LINDOW” means the Cross-Defendant in this action. 26 j) “SEAN TABATABAI” means the Cross-Complainant, Shahram Tabatabai. 27 k) “YOU” or “YOUR” means Responding Party and its agents, servants, employees, 28 attorneys, representatives, officers, shareholders, directors, consultants, and any CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 3 other person or entity acting, or purporting to act, on its behalf, and where 1 appropriate in the context, YOUR agents, representatives, employees, attorneys, 2 and investigators. 3 4 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 5 All of the requests refer to the time period between January 1, 2010 through the current 6 date unless provided otherwise. 7 8 REQUEST NO. 1 9 ALL DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS between SEAN TABATABAI and 10 YOU that RELATE TO or refer to ENVISION NV providing funds to ENABLEDWARE 11 for ANY reason. 12 REQUEST NO. 2 13 ALL DOCUMENTS that REFER TO or reflect that ENABLEDWARE had investors. 14 REQUEST NO. 3 15 ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO or refer to YOUR 16 decision to no longer provide ENVISION funds to ENABLEDWARE after signing 17 stipulation in August 2016 to provide such funding. 18 REQUEST NO. 4 19 ALL COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU including ALL 20 attachments. REQUEST NO. 5 21 ALL DOCUMENTS that YOU provided to ROBERT LINDOW. 22 REQUEST NO. 6 23 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU 24 about the proposed sale of ENABLEDWARE to Verify Smart. 25 REQUEST NO. 7 26 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU 27 that referred to, RELATED TO or in ANY way impacted the proposed sale of 28 ENABLEDWARE to Verify Smart. CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 4 REQUEST NO. 8 1 ALL DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS between third parties and YOU 2 RELATED TO Verify Smart. 3 REQUEST NO. 9 4 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU 5 about the proposed sale of ENABLEDWARE to NXChain. 6 REQUEST NO. 10 7 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU 8 that referred to, RELATED TO or in ANY way impacted the proposed sale of 9 ENABLEDWARE to NXChain. 10 REQUEST NO. 11 11 ALL DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO YOUR positions in the company ENVISION NV 12 from its inception. 13 REQUEST NO. 12 14 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that may have negatively impacted 15 people’s perception of SEAN TABATABAI. 16 REQUEST NO. 13 17 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNCATIONS that RELATE TO the 2016 bank opening 18 for ENVISION at US Bank. 19 REQUEST NO. 14 20 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that in ANY way impacted ENVISION NV’s business contracts in which ENABLEDWARE was the vendor. 21 REQUEST NO. 15 22 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that in ANY way impacted 23 ENABLEDWARE contracts in which ENVISION MEDIA was a vendor. 24 REQUEST NO. 16 25 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS reflecting or referring to services of 26 ENVISION NV being provided to ROBERT LINDOW. 27 REQUEST NO. 17 28 CROSS-COMPLAINANT SEAN TABATABAI’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TURNER Page 5 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS in which YOU communicated to ANY 1 person that SEAN TABATABAI had not paid his taxes and was avoiding doing so. 2 REQUEST NO. 18 3 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS wherein YOU communicated to ANY 4 person ANY statements or allegations concerning SEAN TABATABAI’s veracity and 5 credibility. 6 REQUEST NO. 19 7 ALL DOCUMENTS that refer to or reflect that SEAN TABATABAI was being 8 criminally indicted by ANY government agency. 9 REQUEST NO. 20 10 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNCATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU 11 RELATED TO or referring to registering a company named “Enabledware LLC” in the 12 state of Delaware. 13 REQUEST NO. 21 14 ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNCATIONS between ROBERT LINDOW and YOU 15 RELATED TO or referring to the original ENABLEDWARE LLC. 16 REQUEST NO. 22 17 ALL COMMUNICATIONS between ANY individual and YOU RELATING TO or 18 referring to NEMAT MALEKSALEHI’s loan to the COMMUNITY. 19 REQUEST NO. 23 20 ALL DOCUMENTS RELAT