Kevin Khamati Oduor

1 2 3 4 REBEKA SHADPOUR, AND GAMA CENTRAL HEATING AND AIR CONDOTIONING 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE 8 S Case No.: 21STCV45150 - v. Plaintiff, {Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Kristin Escalante} REBEKA SHADPOUR, doing business as WEALTH ROAD REALTY; AAA TEXTILE INC., a suspended California Corporation; CAL SMAT ESCROW, INC., a suspended California corporation; GAMA CENTRAL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, an unknown entity; DIANA FARAJOLLAHZADEH LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, DEFENDANT REBEKA SHADPOUR’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE Complaint filed: Defendants. 15 16 Propounding Party: SHAWN DARDASHTI 17 Responding Party: REBEKA SHADPOUR 18 Set Number: ONE 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 1 1 2 Pursuant to Section- et seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant REBEKA SHADPOUR (“Defendant”) hereby responds to Plaintiff SHAWN DARDASHTI’s (“Plaintiff”) Requests for Production of Documents, set one. 3 4 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and admissibility) which would - require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the interrogatory were asked of, or any statement contained herein were made by, a witness present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds therefore are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. The party on whose behalf the responses are given has not yet completed its investigation of the facts relating to this action, has not yet completed its discovery in this action, and has not completed its preparation for trial. Consequently, the following responses are given without prejudice to the responding party's possessive right to produce, at the time of trial, subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proof of facts subsequently discovered to be material. Except for facts explicitly admitted herein, no admission of any nature whatsoever is to be implied or inferred. The fact that any interrogatory herein has been answered should not be taken as an admission, or a concession of the existence, of any facts set forth or assumed by such interrogatory, or that such answer constitutes evidence of any fact thus set forth or assumed. All answers must be construed as given on the basis of present recollection. 15 16 Any interrogatory deemed as continuing is objected to as oppressive, over burdensome, improper and not in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections-,-(d), et seq., and will not be regarded as continuing in nature. 17 18 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. All DOCUMENTS which constitute or contain YOUR files with respect to YOUR 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 2 1 agency representation of PLAINTIFF in the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION with respect to the PROPERTY, including, but not limited to, purchase and sale agreement, escrow 2 3 4 documents, correspondence, bank documentation, wire transfer information, closing statements, and all other documents pertaining to the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 5 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 6 7 Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 2. All DOCUMENTS which constitute or contain YOUR handwritten notes in 8 connection with YOUR agency representation of PLAINTIFF in the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 9 10 11 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 12 13 14 Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 3. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect the BROKER’S AGREEMENT with respect to the PROPERTY. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 15 16 17 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: 18 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 3 1 4. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect corporate documents of AAA from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, articles of incorporation, bylaws, annual corporate 2 3 4 minutes, Statements of Information and any other California secretary of state filings, shareholder distributions, and any other corporate document of AAA. This request is not addressed to Defendant Rebeka Shadpour and as such, Ms. Shadpour does not have sufficient knowledge to comply with this request. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: 5 6 7 8 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 5. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to AAA in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, including, but not limited to, payments made by ESCROW to AAA. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 9 10 11 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 6. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made by AAA to SHADPOUR 12 13 14 from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 15 and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is overly broad and is not likely to lead to 16 17 18 discoverable evidence. Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents, 10 years of which were before the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION took place. Recent documents reflecting payments made by AAA to SHADPUR are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 4 1 Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the 2 3 4 requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court 5 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the 6 7 8 documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 7. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to AAA from SHADPOUR from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 9 10 11 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: - All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. Respondent further objects as the request is overly broad and is not likely to lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents, 10 years of which were before the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION took place. Recent documents reflecting payments made by AAA to SHADPUR are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 16 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 17 18 evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 5 1 Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on 2 3 4 Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 8. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect corporate documents of DIANA LLC from 2012 to the present, including, but not limited to, articles of organization, operating agreements, annual corporate minutes, Statements of Information and any other California secretary 5 6 7 of state filings, shareholder distributions, and any other corporate document of DIANA LLC. CCP §- Defendant is unable to comply with this request. the inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and SHADPOUR did not have any interest in DIANA LLC at the 8 time ??the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Defendant further objects as the request is overly broad and is not likely to lead to 9 10 11 discoverable evidence. Recent corporate documents of DIANA LLC are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 9. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to DIANA LLC in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, including, but not limited to, payments made by ESCROW to DIANA LLC. 12 13 14 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been 15 destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 16 17 18 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 10. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made by DIANA LLC to SHADPOUR from 2012 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 6 1 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 2 3 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is overly broad and is not likely to lead to 4 discoverable evidence. Plaintiff’s request covers 10 years of documents. The events 5 6 7 8 complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made by DIANA, LLC, to SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 9 evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 10 11 12 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 13 14 15 11. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to DIANA LLC from SHADPOUR from 2012 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 16 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 17 18 and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 7 1 scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated 2 3 4 5 to annoy and harass plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 10 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made by DIANA, LLC, from SHADPUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 6 7 8 9 Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court 10 11 12 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 12. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect corporate documents of MELICO from 2011 to the present, including, but not limited to, articles of incorporation, bylaws, annual corporate 13 minutes, Statements of Information and any other California secretary of state filings, shareholder distributions, and any other corporate document of MELICO. 14 15 16 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. Objection. The information sought in this discovery request is equally available to the 17 18 pro- pounding party. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (c); and Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court - Cal.App.2d 45 [66 Cal.Rptr. 250].)” A party has an obligation to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 8 1 requested information, “except where the information is equally avail- able to the propounding party.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (c).) 2 3 4 MELICO is the seller’s related entity, and such, the information is equally available to Plaintiff. 13. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to MELICO in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, including, but not limited to, payments made by ESCROW to MELICO. 5 6 7 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been 8 destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 9 10 11 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 14. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made by MELICO to SHADPOUR from 2011 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 12 13 14 to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 15 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with 16 17 18 the request would be an undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated to annoy and harass plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 10 years of documents. The events 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 9 1 complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made by 2 3 4 MELICO to SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 5 evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 6 7 8 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 9 15. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to MELICO from SHADPOUR from 2011 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax 10 11 returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is 12 not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. The events complained of in the lawsuit 13 14 15 took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated 16 to annoy and harass plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 17 18 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 10 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 10 1 MELICO from SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 2 3 4 Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 5 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court 6 7 8 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 16. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect corporate documents of GAMA from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, articles of incorporation, bylaws, annual corporate 9 minutes, Statements of Information and any other California secretary of state filings, shareholder distributions, and any other corporate document of GAMA. 10 11 12 Objection. The information sought in this discovery request is equally available to the propounding party. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (c); and Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court - Cal.App.2d 45 [66 Cal.Rptr. 250].)” A party has an obligation to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain requested information, “except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code of Civ. 13 Proc., §- subd. (c).) GAMA is not respondent’s related entity, and such, the information is equally 14 15 16 available to Plaintiff. 17. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to GAMA in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, including, but not limited to, payments made by ESCROW to GAMA. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 17 18 to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. The events complained of in the lawsuit 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 11 1 took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 2 3 4 Objection. The information sought in this discovery request is equally available to the propounding party. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (c); and Alpine Mutual Water Co. v. Superior Court - Cal.App.2d 45 [66 Cal.Rptr. 250].)” A party has an obligation to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain requested information, “except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code of Civ. 5 Proc., §- subd. (c).) GAMA is not respondent’s related entity, and as such, the information is equally 6 available to Plaintiff. 7 8 18. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made by GAMA to SHADPOUR from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. 9 10 11 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 12 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with 13 14 15 the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current 16 possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to GAMA from SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, 17 18 and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 12 1 requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need 2 3 4 for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the 5 6 7 documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 19. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to GAMA from SHADPOUR from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 8 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 9 10 11 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is 12 calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 13 14 15 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to GAMA to SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 16 Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the 17 18 requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 13 1 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court 2 3 4 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 20. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect corporate documents of JK7, LLC from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, articles of incorporation, bylaws, annual corporate 5 6 7 minutes, Statements of Information and any other California secretary of state filings, shareholder distributions, and any other corporate document of JK7, LLC. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this 8 request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. Objection. Irrelevant. JK7’s DOCUMENTS are irrelevant to the subject matter of this 9 10 11 matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.)” Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is 12 calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 13 14 15 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents from an entity that is not a party to this litigation. 21. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to JK7, LLC. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is 16 17 18 not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. Objection. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 14 1 would be an undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated to annoy and harass plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia 2 3 4 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) JK7 is not a defendant in this lawsuit, and the entity is completely unrelated to the facts alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, the request does not specify any time frame or payor information. 5 22. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made by JK7, LLC to SHADPOUR from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax 6 7 8 returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. - Objection. Irrelevant. JK7’s DOCUMENTS are irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.)” Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 13 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents 14 15 16 from an entity that is not a party to this litigation. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need 17 for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; 18 Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 15 1 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the 2 3 4 documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 23. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to JK7, LLC from SHADPOUR from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 5 6 7 to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. Objection. Irrelevant. JK7’s DOCUMENTS are irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 8 admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.)” Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and 9 10 11 scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents 12 from an entity that is not a party to this litigation. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 13 14 15 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; 16 Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on 17 18 Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 24. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect corporate documents of JK Land Trust 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 16 1 from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, articles of incorporation, bylaws, annual corporate minutes, Statements of Information and any other California secretary of state filings, 2 3 4 shareholder distributions, and any other corporate document of JK Land Trust. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never been in the possession and is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. Moreover, this request is not addressed to Defendant Shadpour. 5 6 7 8 Objection. Irrelevant. JK Land Trust’s DOCUMENTS are irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.)” Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 9 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents 10 11 12 from an entity that is not a party to this litigation. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: the entity was created months after the escrow closed on the subject property and was not used until 2017. 25. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to JK Land Trust. Objection. Irrelevant. JK Land Trust’s DOCUMENTS are irrelevant to the subject 13 14 15 matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.)” Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is 16 calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 17 18 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents from an entity that is not a party to this litigation. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows: the entity was created months after the escrow 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 17 1 2 3 closed on the subject property and was not used until 2017. 26. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made by JK Land Trust to SHADPOUR from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Objection. Irrelevant. JK Land Trust’s DOCUMENTS are irrelevant to the subject 4 matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.)” 5 6 7 8 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents from an entity that is not a party to this litigation. Without waiving said objections, the 9 10 11 responding party further responds as follows: the entity was created months after the escrow closed on the subject property and was not used until 2017. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 12 evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 13 14 15 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 16 17 18 27. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to JK Land Trust from SHADPOUR from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 18 1 Objection. Irrelevant. JK Land Trust’s DOCUMENTS are irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the 2 3 4 discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.)” Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 5 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents 6 7 8 9 from an entity that is not a party to this litigation. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; 10 11 12 Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 28. All DOCUMENTS YOU received from ESCROW in connection with the REAL 13 14 15 ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 16 17 18 and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 29. All DOCUMENTS YOU provided to ESCROW in connection with the REAL 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 19 1 2 3 ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 4 and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 5 6 7 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 30. All DOCUMENTS YOU received from PLAINTIFF in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 8 9 10 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 11 12 13 31. All DOCUMENTS YOU provided to PLAINTIFF in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 14 15 16 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 32. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 17 18 not limited to, emails, between YOU and any individual or entity pertaining to the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 20 1 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2 3 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 4 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 33. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 5 6 7 not limited to, emails, between YOU and PLAINTIFF, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 8 9 10 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 34. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 11 12 13 not limited to, emails, between YOU and AAA, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 14 15 16 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 35. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 17 not limited to, emails, between YOU and DIANA LLC, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 18 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 21 1 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2 3 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 4 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 36. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 5 6 7 not limited to, emails, between YOU and MELICO, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 8 9 10 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 37. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 11 12 13 not limited to, emails, between YOU and GAMA, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 14 15 16 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 38. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 17 not limited to, emails, between YOU and ESCROW, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 18 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 22 1 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2 3 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 4 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 39. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 5 6 7 not limited to, emails, between YOU and Shawn Melamed, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 8 9 10 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 40. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 11 12 13 not limited to, emails, between YOU and Farahnaz Khoshnood, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 14 15 16 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 41. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 17 not limited to, emails, between YOU and Jenous Tootian, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 18 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 23 1 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2 3 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 4 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 42. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 5 6 7 not limited to, emails, between YOU and Select Portfolio Servicing, LLC, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 8 9 10 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 43. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 11 12 13 not limited to, emails, between YOU and Chase Bank, N.A., in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 14 15 16 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 44. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect DOCUMENTS YOU received from 17 18 Select Portfolio Servicing, LLC, pertaining to the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 24 1 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 2 3 and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 4 45. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect DOCUMENTS YOU received from Chase Bank, N.A, pertaining to the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 5 6 7 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 8 9 10 Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 46. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect DOCUMENTS pertaining to the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 11 12 13 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 14 15 16 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 47. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to any individual or entity from the sales proceeds in the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION, including, but not limited to, payments made to AAA, MELICO, DIANA LLC, and/or GAMA. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 17 18 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 25 1 2 3 and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 48. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect closing statements in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 4 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 5 6 7 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 8 9 49. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect closing statements YOU provided to PLAINTIFF in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 10 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 11 12 13 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 50. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect closing statements YOU received from 14 15 16 ESCROW in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 17 18 and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 26 1 51. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect invoices provided to ESCROW by any individual or entity in connection with the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 2 3 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 4 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 5 6 7 Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 52. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect entities in which YOU formed from 2004 to the present. Objection. Irrelevant. The business entities formed by the Defendant are irrelevant to 8 9 10 the sub ject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.) Defendant further objects that this discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request 11 12 13 is calculated to annoy and harass plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 53. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect entities in which YOU hold a controlling interest in, from 2004 to the present. 14 15 16 Objection. Irrelevant. The business entities held by the Defendant are irrelevant to the subject matter of this matter, and the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.) Defendant further objects that this discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To 17 comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the plaintiff. The request is calculated to annoy and harass plaintiff. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 18 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 27 1 2 3 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 54. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made between GAMA and AAA from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 4 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 5 6 7 and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 8 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. 9 10 11 The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made between GAMA and AAA, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 12 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 13 14 15 evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on 16 Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 17 18 55. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made between GAMA and MELICO from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 28 1 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 2 3 4 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with 5 6 7 8 the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to GAMA to SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and 9 unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent also objects since Defendant does not have any ownership or control 10 11 12 interest in neither GAMA, nor MELICO. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need 13 for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; 14 15 16 Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 56. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made between GAMA and 17 18 DIANA LLC from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 29 1 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2 3 4 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is 5 calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 6 7 8 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].)” Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made between GAMA and DIANA LLC, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 9 Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the 10 11 12 requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court 13 14 15 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 57. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made between MELICO and DIANA LLC from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax 16 returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 17 18 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 30 1 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 2 3 4 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 5 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352]; Sav-On-Drugs v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509.) Nor are the documents related thereto 6 7 8 (Sav-On-Drugs v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509.) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to GAMA to SHADPOUR, if any, 9 10 11 are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent also objects since she has never held an interest in MELICO, and did not acquire interest in DIANA LLC until the closing of the escrow. Defendant further answers that DIANA LLC was not involved in any transactions until 2017. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 12 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 13 14 15 evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on 16 Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].) Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 17 18 58. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made between MELICO and 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 31 1 2 3 AAA from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 4 and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and 5 6 7 8 scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352]; Sav-On-Drugs v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509.) Nor are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 9 10 11 Cal.2d 509.) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments between MELICO and AAA, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 12 Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the 13 14 15 requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court 16 (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].)” Not are the 17 18 documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 59. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made between AAA and 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 32 1 DIANA LLC from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements and tax returns. 2 3 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 4 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 5 6 7 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 8 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took 9 10 11 place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made between AAA and DIANA LLC, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Respondent further objects that information regarding tax returns, W-2 and/or 1099 12 forms is privileged under federal and state law. Furthermore, Defendant objects since the requests are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 13 14 15 evidence. Any relevance is outweighed by Defendant’s privacy rights and no compelling need for the information has been shown. (See Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509 [319 P.2d 621]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141 [139 Cal.Rptr. 327]; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789 [13 Cal.Rptr. 415]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200].) This privilege is to be broadly construed. (Sav-on 16 Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6-7 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 287].) Not are the documents related thereto (Sav-On-Drugs and Webb supra.) 17 18 60. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect any transaction made between GAMA and AAA from 2004 to the present, which are related to a real estate transaction. 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 33 1 Respondent objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request 2 3 4 would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took 5 place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting transactions between GAMA and AAA, if any, are 6 7 8 completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Defendant is further unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been 9 10 11 destroyed and/or discarded. 61. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect any transaction made between GAMA and MELICO from 2004 to the present, which are related to a real estate transaction. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 12 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 13 14 15 and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 16 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 17 18 Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any ownership or control interest in 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 34 1 neither GAMA, nor MELICO. 62. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect any transaction made between GAMA 2 3 and DIANA LLC from 2004 to the present, which are related to a real estate transaction. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody 4 or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 5 6 7 and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 8 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 9 10 11 Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting transactions between GAMA and DIANA, LLC, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 12 63. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect any transaction made between MELICO and DIANA LLC from 2004 to the present, which are related to a real estate transaction. 13 14 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 15 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 16 17 18 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 35 1 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 2 3 4 Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting transactions between MELICO, and DIANA LLC, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 5 64. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect any transaction made between MELICO and AAA from 2004 to the present, which are related to a real estate transaction. 6 7 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 8 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 9 10 11 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 12 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took 13 14 15 place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting transactions between MELICO, and AAA, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 65. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect any transaction made between AAA and DIANA LLC from 2004 to the present, which are related to a real estate transaction. 16 17 18 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 36 1 and/or discarded. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and 2 3 4 scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 5 Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the 6 7 8 Respondent. Recent documents reflecting transactions between DIANA LLC, and AAA, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 66. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to GAMA from any escrow company, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the - transacting parties in the real estate transaction. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) - Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. (CCP §-). Recent documents reflecting payments made to GAMA to SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 67. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to AAA from any escrow company, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the 17 18 transacting parties in the real estate transaction. Respondent objects that the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 37 1 request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia 2 3 4 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. ( CCP §-). The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, 5 approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 6 7 8 Recent documents reflecting payments made to AAA from any escrow company in which Defendant was a broker, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 68. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to MELICO from any escrow company, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the 9 10 11 transacting parties in the real estate transaction. Objection. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia 12 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 13 14 15 Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made from MELICO to SHADPOUR, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 16 69. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to DIANA LLC from any escrow company, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the 17 18 transacting parties in the real estate transaction. Objection. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 38 1 would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia 2 3 4 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to DIANA LLC by an escrow 5 company where Defendant was a broker, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 6 7 8 70. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to GAMA from any individual or entity, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction. Objection. The request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request 9 would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia 10 11 12 Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. ( CCP §-). Recent documents reflecting payments made GAMA from 13 14 15 any individual or entity in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. Furthermore, this request is not appropriately directed to SHADPOUR. 71. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to AAA from any 16 individual or entity, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction. 17 18 Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 39 1 calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - 2 3 4 Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to AAA in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction, if any, are 5 6 7 completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 72. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to MELICO from any individual or entity, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction. Respondent objects the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be 8 an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy 9 10 11 and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the 12 Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to MELICO in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction, if any, are 13 14 15 completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 73. All DOCUMENTS that memorialize or reflect payments made to DIANA LLC from any individual or entity, from 2004 to the present, in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction. Respondent further objects as the request is so broad and unlimited as to time and 16 17 18 scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with the request would be an undue burden and expense on the defendant. The request is calculated to annoy and harass defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §- subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - Cal.App.2d 12, 19 [69 Cal.Rptr. 348, 352].) 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 40 1 Plaintiff’s request covers 18 years of documents. The events complained about took place in 2014, and the documents are not in current possession, custody or control of the 2 3 4 Respondent. Recent documents reflecting payments made to DIANA LLC in which SHADPOUR was a broker for one of the transacting parties in the real estate transaction, if any, are completely unrelated to this case, harassing, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. 74. All DOCUMENTS that constitute or contain a written communication, including but 5 not limited to, emails, between YOUR staff, inter-office, relating to the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 6 7 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 8 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 9 10 Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 75. All DOCUMENTS which reference or relate to punitive action, censure, or other 11 similar action, taken by the California Department of Real Estate, against YOU, from 2004 to the present. 12 13 14 Defendant objects that the inquiry is overbroad, irrelevant, and unlikely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant’s dealings with the Department of Real Estate, if any, are irrelevant to this lawsuit and therefore outside the scope of discovery. 76. All DOCUMENTS which reference or relate to any complaints filed with the California Department of Real Estate against YOU, from 2004 to the present. 15 16 17 Defendant objects that the inquiry is overbroad, irrelevant, and unlikely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant’s dealings with the Department of Real Estate, if any, are irrelevant to this lawsuit and therefore outside the scope of discovery. 77. All DOCUMENTS which reference or relate to client complaints or other similar action, taken by any of YOUR clients, against YOU, from 2004 to the present, alleging negligence, 18 fraud, and/or other similar allegations, including lawsuit filed with any Superior Court of the State 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 41 1 2 3 of California, any United States District Court, or in any arbitration forum. Defendant objects that the inquiry is overbroad, irrelevant, and unlikely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant’s litigations history, if any, are irrelevant to this lawsuit and therefore outside the scope of discovery. Furthermore, Plaintiff such information, if any, is public information and easily accessible to Plaintiff. 4 78. All DOCUMENTS that that memorialize or reflect closing statements referencing Select Portfolio Servicing, LLC, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE 5 6 7 TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed 8 9 10 and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 79. All DOCUMENTS that that memorialize or reflect closing statements referencing Chase Bank, N.A., in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 11 12 13 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 14 15 16 Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 80. All DOCUMENTS that that memorialize or reflect payments made to Select Portfolio Servicing, LLC, in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. 17 18 Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 42 1 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. 2 3 Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 81. All DOCUMENTS that that memorialize or reflect payments made to Chase Bank, 4 N.A., in connection with, or related to, the REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION. Defendant is unable to comply with the request under CCP §-. The inability 5 6 7 to comply is because the particular item or category is not in the current possession, custody or control of the responding party. The events complained of in the lawsuit took place in 2014, approximately 8 years ago, and the relevant documents have long been destroyed and/or discarded. Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows. 8 9 10 All documents within Defendant’s possession and control are produced. 82. All DOCUMENTS that that memorialize or reflect fictitious business name registrations for Wealth Road Realty, from 2004 to the present, including, but not limited to, filings with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. Objection. Irrelevant. Plaintiff ’s fictitious business name registrations are irrelevant 11 12 13 to the subject matter of this matter, and the infor- mation sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc, §-.) Without waiving the objections, SHADPOUR directs PLAINTIFF to her responses to Form Interrogatories, set 1. 83. All DOCUMENTS which reference or relate to judgments issued against YOU, from 14 15 16 2004 to the present, in any legal forum, including, but not limited to, any Superior Court of the State of California, any United States District Court, or in any arbitration forum. Objection. Irrelevant. Any judgements against defendant are prejudicial and irrelevant. Furthermore, such judgements, if available, are public records and easily accessible by Plaintiff. 17 18 19 DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 43 1 Dated: 2 3 By:________ _______________ - DEFENDANT SHADPOUR’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE 20 44