Responce to RFP
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