Preview
1 Hoover ♦ Krepelka, LLP 8/17/2020
JAMES J. HOOVER, SBN 217952
2 Certified Family Law Specialist
KARLINA PAREDES, SBN 291103
3 MEGHAN HERNING, SBN 317815
1520 The Alameda, Suite 200
4
San Jose, CA 95126
5 408-947-7600
6 Pierson Coats Palash & Paul LLP
RANDY RABIDOUX, ESQ., SBN 293166
7 500 Sansome Street, Suite 220
San Francisco, CA 94111
8 (415) 495-4499
9 Attorneys for Defendant,
PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER
10
11 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
13 ) Case No.: 19-CIV-03974
MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, )
14 Plaintiff, ) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN
) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
15 and ) RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL
) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
16 PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, )
Defendant. )
17 And Does 1-10, co-Defendants ) Hearing Date and Time: 8/27/2020 at 1:30
) Dept: 4
18 ) Judge: Nancy L. Fineman
19 )
)
20 )
)
21 )
PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, )
22 Cross-Complainant, )
)
23 and )
)
24 MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, )
25 Defendant. )
And Does 1-10, co-Defendants )
26 )
1
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 This Statement of Facts is filed concurrently with Defendant’s, PAUL DENINGER
2 (hereinafter “Defendant”), response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Production
3 of Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. As explained in
4 further detail in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed concurrently herewith, on
5 August 14, 2020. On January 12, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer regarding
6 Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. On January 24, 2020, Defendant’s
7 attorney responded to the meet and confer letter, outlining Defendant’s reasons for not
8 responding to Plaintiff’s requests. On May 19, 2020, the parties attended an informal discovery
9 conference and agreed to narrow the scope of discovery to 2009 to date of production. However,
10 despite the narrowing of the scope by three years, Defendant maintains his objections.
11 Defendant’s responses and legal reasoning for objections to Plaintiff’s requests:
12 Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One
13 Demand 5
14 Request No. 5: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all brokerage, savings,
15 checking, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, investment accounts, and/or any other
16 accounts in any depository institution held in YOUR name, from 2005 to the present, including
17 but not limited to, ALL statements, canceled checks, check registers, passbooks, and any other
18 documentation for each and every account, reflecting the balance of the account and/or ALL
19 deposits, withdrawals, and/or any other transactions made to the accounts.
20 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 5: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
21 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing, and overbroad, as it requests
22 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's
23 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I,
24 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also
25 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15
26
2
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also
2 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast
3 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest
4 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to
5 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents
6 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged.
7 A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request
8 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a
9 compelling need. To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding
10 party does not utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would
11 need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents
12 are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include
13 any records held digitally by the institution. Should responding party discover any
14 nonobjectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to this request, he
15 reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing.
16 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response:
17 To the extent of Defendant's own assets, this is unduly burdensome in that the request is
18 entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is
19 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be
20 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this
21 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to
22 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts.
23 Privacy Objections
24 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether
25 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's
26
3
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive,
2 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy.
3 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the
4 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties.
5 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome, and intrusive
6 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and
7 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of
8 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement
9 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and
10 irrelevant discovery.
11 Demand 7
12 Request No. 7: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ALL joint living expenses YOU
13 and Plaintiff shared from 2005 to 2019, including but not limited to, any and ALL receipts,
14 canceled checks, bills, and any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the source of funds used to pay
15 for the expenses.
16 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 7: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
17 party objects to this request as vague and ambiguous to the extent the word "joint" modifies the
18 word "living," it raises the presumption that any documents produced herein support a claim that
19 the parties were jointly living together, to which responding party objects. To the extent the word
20 "joint" modifies the word "expenses," it again raises the presumption those expenses were
21 shared, through some form of consensual sharing, to which responding party objects.
22 Responding party is then forced to attempt to ascertain propounding party's meaning, which is
23 impossible. Any documents, which may be responsible to this vague and ambiguous and
24 overbroad request would also be in propounding party's possession and control and are therefore
25 only intended to harass responding party. Responding party objects to this request as oppressive,
26
4
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 burdensome, harassing, and overbroad, as it requests documents over an eleven (11) year period
2 of time. Further, it violates responding party's constitutionally protected right to privacy under
3 both the California Constitution (Article I, Section l) as well as the federal Constitution.
4 Responding party's financial privacy rights are also protected from propounding party under
5 Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975)15 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21
6 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to
7 relevance issues, and the broad net cast encompasses documents which have no relation to this
8 case and there is no compelling interest for propounding party to have these documents, or how
9 they relate to her case. While the right to financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a
10 privilege, information and documents which implicate private financial information are
11 presumptively privileged.
12 A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request
13 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a
14 compelling need. To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding
15 party does not utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would
16 need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents
17 are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include
18 any records held digitally by the institution. Finally, assuming the vague description was
19 narrowed to something which requested documents with particularity, Plaintiff would have
20 custody and control of documents which reflect her own expenses, and such documents would
21 not be within the Defendant's custody or control. Should responding party discover any non-
22 objectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to this request, he
23 reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing.
24 As to documents related to Plaintiff's expenses, Responding party is unable to comply
25 with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2031.230]. Responding party has made a diligent
26
5
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand, but is unable to comply
2 with this demand because the particular document(s):
3 [X] Has/have never been in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.
4 Responding party believes the following person(s) and/or organization(s) to have
5 possession, custody, or control of the particular document(s): Name: Mary Elizabeth LeMasters.
6 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Responses:
7 The demand seeks documents related to all joint living expenses between 2009 and 2019.
8 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections
9 While the demand may be relevant, it creates an undue burden on Defendant to provide
10 such documents related to joint expenses. Such documentation should be available to petitioner if
11 expenses were joint. Forcing Defendant to dig through documents going back eleven (11) years
12 creates is oppressive to Defendant. While discovery is broadly construed and applied, there is a
13 limit and distinction between seeking to educate the parties and seeking to inundate one side with
14 unduly burdensome discovery.
15 To the extent of Defendant's own properties in his own name, paid for by his own assets,
16 this is unduly burdensome in that the request is entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship
17 existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is proven to have existed and property division or
18 support become at issue, Defendant will be happy to provide such documents. However,
19 providing such documents spanning eleven (11) years at this time is unduly burdensome as no
20 relationship has been established between the parties as to warrant providing a schedule of assets
21 and debts.
22 Privacy Objections
23 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether
24 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's
25 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive,
26
6
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy.
2 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the
3 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties.
4 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome and intrusive
5 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and
6 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of
7 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement
8 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and
9 irrelevant discovery.
10 Demand 8
11 Request No. 8: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all written or verbal
12 AGREEMENTS between YOU and Plaintiff regarding any real property to which YOU or the
13 Plaintiff have or had an ownership interest, including but not limited to, any such
14 AGREEMENTS RELATING TO the ownership interest, down payment, equity, and/or
15 mortgage payments, to any such real properties, as well any such AGREEMENTS RELATING
16 TO the management, maintenance, leasing, improvements, upkeep, rental income, and tenant
17 related work for any such real properties.
18 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 8: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
19 party objects to this request as vague, as it fails to define "AGREEMENTS" despite the
20 capitalization referencing a defined word. It is further overbroad as to time and scope and could
21 presumably encompass any and all agreements for coffee at a residence, to meet for dinner at a
22 property owned by other party, or any other trivial and insignificant item. With the failure to
23 define "AGREEMENTS" the definition remains vague and ambiguous. Responding party
24 therefore is forced to determine propounding party's intent in drafting the demands, and therefore
25 will respond based on the common definition of agreement as set forth in propounding party's
26
7
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 complaint. The broad description therefore is objectionable as to relevance, vague, ambiguity,
2 and fails to identify a time and scope and is therefore vague and ambiguous, overbroad such to
3 be harassing and burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving said objections, responding party
4 responds as follows:
5 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2),
6 2031.230] Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
7 comply with this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular
8 document(s):[X] Has/have never existed.
9 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Responses:
10 Defendant has already responded that no such documents exists. Any attempt to compel
11 further response is nonsensical and harassing.
12 Demand 9
13 Request No. 9: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the down payment, equity, and/or
14 mortgage payments for any real properties to which YOU had an ownership interest from 2005
15 to 2019.
16 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 9: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
17 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing and overbroad, as it requests
18 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's
19 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I,
20 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also
21 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15
22 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also
23 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast
24 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest
25 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to
26
8
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents
2 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged. A mere showing of
3 relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request implicates the constitutional right of
4 produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a compelling need. Lastly, to the extent
5 any responsive documents relate to a third-party’s ownership rights, those third parties must be
6 given Notice of this request, and no such notice was provided. The request is overbroad and
7 harassing and overly burdensome as it requests documents over a fourteen-year period of time.
8 To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding party does not
9 utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would need hard-
10 copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents are
11 therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include any
12 records held digitally by the institution. Lastly, tax returns, and supporting documents to returns,
13 are privileged under both Federal and State Law. Webb v. Standard Oil (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509;
14 Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d
15 789. This privilege is to be broadly construed. Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15
16 Cal.3d l, 617. Should responding party discover any non-objectionable, non-privileged
17 documentation which may be responsive to this request, he reserves the right to update this
18 response. Discovery is ongoing.
19 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response:
20 This demand seeks documents relating to payments of any real property which Defendant
21 had an ownership interest from 2009 to 2019.
22 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections
23 This is unduly burdensome in that the request is entirely irrelevant to establish if a
24 relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is proven to have existed and property
25 division or support become at issue, Defendant will be happy to provide such documents.
26
9
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 However, providing such documents spanning eleven (11) years at this time is unduly
2 burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to warrant providing a
3 schedule of assets and debts.
4 To the extent of Defendant's own assets, this is unduly burdensome in that the request is
5 entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is
6 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be
7 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this
8 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to
9 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts.
10 Privacy Objections
11 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether
12 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's
13 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive,
14 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy.
15 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the
16 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties.
17 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome, and intrusive
18 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and
19 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of
20 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement
21 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and
22 irrelevant discovery.
23 //
24 //
25 //
26
10
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 Demand 10
2 Request No. 10: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the management, maintenance,
3 payment of expenses, leasing, improvements, upkeep, rental income, and tenant related work for
4 any real properties to which YOU had an ownership interest from 2005 to 2019.
5 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 10: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
6 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing and overbroad, as it requests
7 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's
8 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I,
9 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also
10 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15
11 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also
12 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast
13 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest
14 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case.
15 While the right to financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege,
16 information and documents which implicate private financial information are presumptively
17 privileged. A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request
18 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a
19 compelling need. Lastly, to the extent any responsive documents relate to a third-party’s
20 ownership rights, those third parties must be given Notice of this request, and no such notice was
21 provided. The request is overbroad and harassing and overly burdensome as it requests
22 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. To the extent any additional documents are
23 stored electronically, responding party does not utilize any electronically stored information for
24 security reasons and thus would need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no
25 objection is upheld, and the documents are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue
26
11
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 burden and expense. This would include any records held digitally by the institution. Lastly, tax
2 returns, and supporting documents to returns, are privileged under both Federal and State Law.
3 Webb v. Standard Oil (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141;
4 Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789. This privilege is to be broadly construed. Sav-on
5 Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d l, 617. Should responding party discover any
6 non-objectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to this request, he
7 reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing.
8 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response:
9 This demand seeks documents related to management, maintenance, payment expenses,
10 etc. for any real properties in which Defendant had an ownership interest from 2009 to 2019.
11 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections
12 This is unduly burdensome in that the request is entirely irrelevant to establish if a
13 relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is proven to have existed and property
14 division or support become at issue, Defendant will be happy to provide such documents.
15 However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this time is unduly burdensome as no
16 relationship has been established between the parties as to warrant providing a schedule of assets
17 and debts. To the extent of Defendant's own assets, this is unduly burdensome in that the request
18 is entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is
19 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be
20 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this
21 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to
22 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts.
23 Privacy Objections
24 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether
25 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's
26
12
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive,
2 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy.
3 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the
4 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties.
5 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome, and intrusive
6 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and
7 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of
8 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement
9 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and
10 irrelevant discovery.
11 Demand 11
12 Request No. 11: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any written or verbal
13 AGREEMENTS between YOU and the Plaintiff regarding the carrying out of domestic duties
14 for YOUR household(s) between 2005 and 2019.
15 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 11: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
16 party objects to this demand as vague, as it fails to define "AGREEMENTS" despite the
17 capitalization referencing a defined word. It is further overbroad as to time and scope and could
18 presumably encompass any and all agreements for coffee, to meet for dinner, or any other trivial
19 and insignificant item. With the failure to define "AGREEMENTS" the definition remains vague
20 and ambiguous. Responding party therefore is forced to determine propounding party's intent in
21 drafting the demands, and therefore will respond based on the common definition of agreement
22 as set forth in propounding party's complaint. The broad description therefore is objectionable as
23 to relevance, vague, ambiguity, and fails to identify a time and scope and is therefore vague and
24 ambiguous, overbroad such to be harassing and burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving
25 said objections, responding party responds as follows:
26
13
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2),
2 2031.230]. Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to
3 comply with this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular
4 document(s):
5 [X] Has/have never existed.
6 Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses:
7 Defendant has already responded that no such documents exists. Any attempt to compel
8 further response is nonsensical and harassing.
9 Demand 14
10 Request No. 14: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any written or verbal
11 AGREEMENTS between YOU and the Plaintiff, from 2005 to 2019, regarding the management
12 and maintenance of any home YOU leased or owned.
13 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 14: [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding party objects
14 to this request as vague, as it fails to define "AGREEMENTS" despite the capitalization
15 referencing a defined word. It is further overbroad as to time and scope and could presumably
16 encompass any and all agreements for coffee, to meet for dinner, or any other trivial and
17 insignificant item. With the failure to define "AGREEMENTS" the definition remains vague and
18 ambiguous. Responding party therefore is forced to determine propounding party's intent in
19 drafting the demands, and therefore will respond based on the common definition of agreement
20 as set forth in propounding party's complaint. The broad description therefore is objectionable as
21 to relevance, vague, ambiguity, and the fourteen year time frame is therefore vague and
22 ambiguous, overbroad such to be harassing and burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving
23 said objections, responding party responds as follows:
24 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2031.230]
25
26
14
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with
2 this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular document(s):
3 [X] Has/have never existed.
4 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response: Defendant has already
5 responded that no such documents exist. Any attempt to compel further response is nonsensical
6 and harassing.
7 Demand 15
8 Request No. 15: Any and all lender statements regarding any real property to which YOU or the
9 Plaintiff have had an ownership interest from 2005 to April 2017.
10 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 15: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
11 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing, and overbroad, as it requests
12 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's
13 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I,
14 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also
15 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15
16 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also
17 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast
18 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest
19 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to
20 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents
21 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged.
22 A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request
23 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a
24 compelling need. Lastly, to the extent any responsive documents relate to a third-party's
25 ownership rights, those third parties must be given Notice of this request, and no such notice was
26
15
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 provided. The request is overbroad and harassing and overly burdensome as it requests
2 documents over a twelve-year period of time. To the extent any additional documents are stored
3 electronically, responding party does not utilize any electronically stored information for security
4 reasons and thus would need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no objection is
5 upheld, and the documents are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and
6 expense. This would include any records held digitally by the institution. Should responding
7 party discover any non-objectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to
8 this request, he reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing. As to documents
9 related to the Plaintiff’s ownership in any real property,
10 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2031.230]
11 Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with
12 this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular document(s):
13 [X] To the extent they exist, the documents have never been in the possession, custody, or
14 control of the responding party.
15 To the extent they exist, Responding party believes the following person(s) and/or
16 organization(s) to have possession, custody, or control of the particular document(s): Name:
17 Mary Elizabeth LeMasters.
18 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response:
19 This demand seeks documents related to any written or verbal agreements between
20 plaintiff and defendant from 2009 to 2019, regarding the management and maintenance of any
21 home defendant leased or owned.
22 To clarify your specific assertion of evasive discovery response, we Defendant contends
23 that such agreements do not exist, but to the extent that Plaintiff asserts that such agreements
24 exists between her and Defendant have never been in Defendant's possession, custody or control.
25 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections
26
16
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 While it may be relevant, it creates an undue burden on Defendant to provide
2 such documents related to joint agreements. Such documentation should be available to
3 petitioner if agreements were present. Forcing Defendant to dig through documents going back
4 11 years creates is oppressive to Defendant. While discovery is broadly construed and applied,
5 there is a limit and distinction between seeking to educate the parties and seeking to inundate one
6 side with unduly burdensome discovery.
7 To the extent of Defendant's own properties, this is unduly burdensome in that the request
8 is entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is
9 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be
10 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this
11 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to
12 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts.
13 Privacy Objections
14 Plaintiffs discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether
15 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's
16 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive,
17 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy.
18 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the
19 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties.
20 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome and intrusive
21 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and
22 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of
23 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement
24 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and
25 irrelevant discovery.
26
17
LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974
1 Demand 16
2 Request No. 16: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO mortgage payments for any real
3 property to which YOU or the Plaintiff have had an ownership interest from 2005 to the present
4 date.
5 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 16: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding
6 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing and overbroad, as it requests
7 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's
8 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I,
9 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also
10 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15
11 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also
12 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast
13 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest
14 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to
15 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents
16 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged. A mere showing of
17 relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request implicates the constitutional right of
18 produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a compelling need. Lastly, to the extent
19 any responsive documents relate to a third-party's ownership rights, those third parties must be
20 given Notice of this request, and no such notice was provided. The request is overbroad and
21 harassing and overly burdensome as it requests documents over a fourteen-year period of time.
22 To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding party does not
23 utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would need hard-
24 copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents are
25 therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include
Preview
1 Hoover ♦ Krepelka, LLP 8/17/2020 JAMES J. HOOVER, SBN 217952 2 Certified Family Law Specialist KARLINA PAREDES, SBN 291103 3 MEGHAN HERNING, SBN 317815 1520 The Alameda, Suite 200 4 San Jose, CA 95126 5 408-947-7600 6 Pierson Coats Palash & Paul LLP RANDY RABIDOUX, ESQ., SBN 293166 7 500 Sansome Street, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94111 8 (415) 495-4499 9 Attorneys for Defendant, PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER 10 11 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 13 ) Case No.: 19-CIV-03974 MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, ) 14 Plaintiff, ) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN ) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S 15 and ) RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 16 PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, ) Defendant. ) 17 And Does 1-10, co-Defendants ) Hearing Date and Time: 8/27/2020 at 1:30 ) Dept: 4 18 ) Judge: Nancy L. Fineman 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, ) 22 Cross-Complainant, ) ) 23 and ) ) 24 MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, ) 25 Defendant. ) And Does 1-10, co-Defendants ) 26 ) 1 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 This Statement of Facts is filed concurrently with Defendant’s, PAUL DENINGER 2 (hereinafter “Defendant”), response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses and Production 3 of Documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. As explained in 4 further detail in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed concurrently herewith, on 5 August 14, 2020. On January 12, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer regarding 6 Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. On January 24, 2020, Defendant’s 7 attorney responded to the meet and confer letter, outlining Defendant’s reasons for not 8 responding to Plaintiff’s requests. On May 19, 2020, the parties attended an informal discovery 9 conference and agreed to narrow the scope of discovery to 2009 to date of production. However, 10 despite the narrowing of the scope by three years, Defendant maintains his objections. 11 Defendant’s responses and legal reasoning for objections to Plaintiff’s requests: 12 Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One 13 Demand 5 14 Request No. 5: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all brokerage, savings, 15 checking, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, investment accounts, and/or any other 16 accounts in any depository institution held in YOUR name, from 2005 to the present, including 17 but not limited to, ALL statements, canceled checks, check registers, passbooks, and any other 18 documentation for each and every account, reflecting the balance of the account and/or ALL 19 deposits, withdrawals, and/or any other transactions made to the accounts. 20 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 5: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 21 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing, and overbroad, as it requests 22 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's 23 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I, 24 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also 25 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 26 2 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also 2 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast 3 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest 4 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to 5 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents 6 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged. 7 A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request 8 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a 9 compelling need. To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding 10 party does not utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would 11 need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents 12 are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include 13 any records held digitally by the institution. Should responding party discover any 14 nonobjectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to this request, he 15 reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing. 16 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response: 17 To the extent of Defendant's own assets, this is unduly burdensome in that the request is 18 entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is 19 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be 20 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this 21 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to 22 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts. 23 Privacy Objections 24 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether 25 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's 26 3 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive, 2 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy. 3 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the 4 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties. 5 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome, and intrusive 6 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and 7 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of 8 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement 9 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and 10 irrelevant discovery. 11 Demand 7 12 Request No. 7: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ALL joint living expenses YOU 13 and Plaintiff shared from 2005 to 2019, including but not limited to, any and ALL receipts, 14 canceled checks, bills, and any DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the source of funds used to pay 15 for the expenses. 16 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 7: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 17 party objects to this request as vague and ambiguous to the extent the word "joint" modifies the 18 word "living," it raises the presumption that any documents produced herein support a claim that 19 the parties were jointly living together, to which responding party objects. To the extent the word 20 "joint" modifies the word "expenses," it again raises the presumption those expenses were 21 shared, through some form of consensual sharing, to which responding party objects. 22 Responding party is then forced to attempt to ascertain propounding party's meaning, which is 23 impossible. Any documents, which may be responsible to this vague and ambiguous and 24 overbroad request would also be in propounding party's possession and control and are therefore 25 only intended to harass responding party. Responding party objects to this request as oppressive, 26 4 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 burdensome, harassing, and overbroad, as it requests documents over an eleven (11) year period 2 of time. Further, it violates responding party's constitutionally protected right to privacy under 3 both the California Constitution (Article I, Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. 4 Responding party's financial privacy rights are also protected from propounding party under 5 Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975)15 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 6 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to 7 relevance issues, and the broad net cast encompasses documents which have no relation to this 8 case and there is no compelling interest for propounding party to have these documents, or how 9 they relate to her case. While the right to financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a 10 privilege, information and documents which implicate private financial information are 11 presumptively privileged. 12 A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request 13 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a 14 compelling need. To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding 15 party does not utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would 16 need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents 17 are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include 18 any records held digitally by the institution. Finally, assuming the vague description was 19 narrowed to something which requested documents with particularity, Plaintiff would have 20 custody and control of documents which reflect her own expenses, and such documents would 21 not be within the Defendant's custody or control. Should responding party discover any non- 22 objectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to this request, he 23 reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing. 24 As to documents related to Plaintiff's expenses, Responding party is unable to comply 25 with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2031.230]. Responding party has made a diligent 26 5 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with this demand, but is unable to comply 2 with this demand because the particular document(s): 3 [X] Has/have never been in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. 4 Responding party believes the following person(s) and/or organization(s) to have 5 possession, custody, or control of the particular document(s): Name: Mary Elizabeth LeMasters. 6 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Responses: 7 The demand seeks documents related to all joint living expenses between 2009 and 2019. 8 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections 9 While the demand may be relevant, it creates an undue burden on Defendant to provide 10 such documents related to joint expenses. Such documentation should be available to petitioner if 11 expenses were joint. Forcing Defendant to dig through documents going back eleven (11) years 12 creates is oppressive to Defendant. While discovery is broadly construed and applied, there is a 13 limit and distinction between seeking to educate the parties and seeking to inundate one side with 14 unduly burdensome discovery. 15 To the extent of Defendant's own properties in his own name, paid for by his own assets, 16 this is unduly burdensome in that the request is entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship 17 existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is proven to have existed and property division or 18 support become at issue, Defendant will be happy to provide such documents. However, 19 providing such documents spanning eleven (11) years at this time is unduly burdensome as no 20 relationship has been established between the parties as to warrant providing a schedule of assets 21 and debts. 22 Privacy Objections 23 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether 24 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's 25 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive, 26 6 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy. 2 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the 3 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties. 4 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome and intrusive 5 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and 6 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of 7 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement 8 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and 9 irrelevant discovery. 10 Demand 8 11 Request No. 8: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any and all written or verbal 12 AGREEMENTS between YOU and Plaintiff regarding any real property to which YOU or the 13 Plaintiff have or had an ownership interest, including but not limited to, any such 14 AGREEMENTS RELATING TO the ownership interest, down payment, equity, and/or 15 mortgage payments, to any such real properties, as well any such AGREEMENTS RELATING 16 TO the management, maintenance, leasing, improvements, upkeep, rental income, and tenant 17 related work for any such real properties. 18 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 8: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 19 party objects to this request as vague, as it fails to define "AGREEMENTS" despite the 20 capitalization referencing a defined word. It is further overbroad as to time and scope and could 21 presumably encompass any and all agreements for coffee at a residence, to meet for dinner at a 22 property owned by other party, or any other trivial and insignificant item. With the failure to 23 define "AGREEMENTS" the definition remains vague and ambiguous. Responding party 24 therefore is forced to determine propounding party's intent in drafting the demands, and therefore 25 will respond based on the common definition of agreement as set forth in propounding party's 26 7 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 complaint. The broad description therefore is objectionable as to relevance, vague, ambiguity, 2 and fails to identify a time and scope and is therefore vague and ambiguous, overbroad such to 3 be harassing and burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving said objections, responding party 4 responds as follows: 5 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 6 2031.230] Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to 7 comply with this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular 8 document(s):[X] Has/have never existed. 9 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Responses: 10 Defendant has already responded that no such documents exists. Any attempt to compel 11 further response is nonsensical and harassing. 12 Demand 9 13 Request No. 9: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the down payment, equity, and/or 14 mortgage payments for any real properties to which YOU had an ownership interest from 2005 15 to 2019. 16 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 9: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 17 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing and overbroad, as it requests 18 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's 19 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I, 20 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also 21 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 22 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also 23 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast 24 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest 25 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to 26 8 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents 2 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged. A mere showing of 3 relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request implicates the constitutional right of 4 produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a compelling need. Lastly, to the extent 5 any responsive documents relate to a third-party’s ownership rights, those third parties must be 6 given Notice of this request, and no such notice was provided. The request is overbroad and 7 harassing and overly burdensome as it requests documents over a fourteen-year period of time. 8 To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding party does not 9 utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would need hard- 10 copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents are 11 therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include any 12 records held digitally by the institution. Lastly, tax returns, and supporting documents to returns, 13 are privileged under both Federal and State Law. Webb v. Standard Oil (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509; 14 Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141; Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 15 789. This privilege is to be broadly construed. Sav-on Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 16 Cal.3d l, 617. Should responding party discover any non-objectionable, non-privileged 17 documentation which may be responsive to this request, he reserves the right to update this 18 response. Discovery is ongoing. 19 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response: 20 This demand seeks documents relating to payments of any real property which Defendant 21 had an ownership interest from 2009 to 2019. 22 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections 23 This is unduly burdensome in that the request is entirely irrelevant to establish if a 24 relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is proven to have existed and property 25 division or support become at issue, Defendant will be happy to provide such documents. 26 9 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 However, providing such documents spanning eleven (11) years at this time is unduly 2 burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to warrant providing a 3 schedule of assets and debts. 4 To the extent of Defendant's own assets, this is unduly burdensome in that the request is 5 entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is 6 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be 7 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this 8 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to 9 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts. 10 Privacy Objections 11 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether 12 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's 13 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive, 14 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy. 15 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the 16 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties. 17 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome, and intrusive 18 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and 19 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of 20 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement 21 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and 22 irrelevant discovery. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 10 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 Demand 10 2 Request No. 10: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the management, maintenance, 3 payment of expenses, leasing, improvements, upkeep, rental income, and tenant related work for 4 any real properties to which YOU had an ownership interest from 2005 to 2019. 5 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 10: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 6 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing and overbroad, as it requests 7 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's 8 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I, 9 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also 10 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 11 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also 12 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast 13 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest 14 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. 15 While the right to financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, 16 information and documents which implicate private financial information are presumptively 17 privileged. A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request 18 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a 19 compelling need. Lastly, to the extent any responsive documents relate to a third-party’s 20 ownership rights, those third parties must be given Notice of this request, and no such notice was 21 provided. The request is overbroad and harassing and overly burdensome as it requests 22 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. To the extent any additional documents are 23 stored electronically, responding party does not utilize any electronically stored information for 24 security reasons and thus would need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no 25 objection is upheld, and the documents are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue 26 11 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 burden and expense. This would include any records held digitally by the institution. Lastly, tax 2 returns, and supporting documents to returns, are privileged under both Federal and State Law. 3 Webb v. Standard Oil (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509; Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141; 4 Aday v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 789. This privilege is to be broadly construed. Sav-on 5 Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d l, 617. Should responding party discover any 6 non-objectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to this request, he 7 reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing. 8 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response: 9 This demand seeks documents related to management, maintenance, payment expenses, 10 etc. for any real properties in which Defendant had an ownership interest from 2009 to 2019. 11 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections 12 This is unduly burdensome in that the request is entirely irrelevant to establish if a 13 relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is proven to have existed and property 14 division or support become at issue, Defendant will be happy to provide such documents. 15 However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this time is unduly burdensome as no 16 relationship has been established between the parties as to warrant providing a schedule of assets 17 and debts. To the extent of Defendant's own assets, this is unduly burdensome in that the request 18 is entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is 19 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be 20 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this 21 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to 22 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts. 23 Privacy Objections 24 Plaintiff's discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether 25 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's 26 12 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive, 2 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy. 3 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the 4 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties. 5 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome, and intrusive 6 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and 7 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of 8 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement 9 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and 10 irrelevant discovery. 11 Demand 11 12 Request No. 11: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any written or verbal 13 AGREEMENTS between YOU and the Plaintiff regarding the carrying out of domestic duties 14 for YOUR household(s) between 2005 and 2019. 15 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 11: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 16 party objects to this demand as vague, as it fails to define "AGREEMENTS" despite the 17 capitalization referencing a defined word. It is further overbroad as to time and scope and could 18 presumably encompass any and all agreements for coffee, to meet for dinner, or any other trivial 19 and insignificant item. With the failure to define "AGREEMENTS" the definition remains vague 20 and ambiguous. Responding party therefore is forced to determine propounding party's intent in 21 drafting the demands, and therefore will respond based on the common definition of agreement 22 as set forth in propounding party's complaint. The broad description therefore is objectionable as 23 to relevance, vague, ambiguity, and fails to identify a time and scope and is therefore vague and 24 ambiguous, overbroad such to be harassing and burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving 25 said objections, responding party responds as follows: 26 13 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2 2031.230]. Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to 3 comply with this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular 4 document(s): 5 [X] Has/have never existed. 6 Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses: 7 Defendant has already responded that no such documents exists. Any attempt to compel 8 further response is nonsensical and harassing. 9 Demand 14 10 Request No. 14: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any written or verbal 11 AGREEMENTS between YOU and the Plaintiff, from 2005 to 2019, regarding the management 12 and maintenance of any home YOU leased or owned. 13 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 14: [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding party objects 14 to this request as vague, as it fails to define "AGREEMENTS" despite the capitalization 15 referencing a defined word. It is further overbroad as to time and scope and could presumably 16 encompass any and all agreements for coffee, to meet for dinner, or any other trivial and 17 insignificant item. With the failure to define "AGREEMENTS" the definition remains vague and 18 ambiguous. Responding party therefore is forced to determine propounding party's intent in 19 drafting the demands, and therefore will respond based on the common definition of agreement 20 as set forth in propounding party's complaint. The broad description therefore is objectionable as 21 to relevance, vague, ambiguity, and the fourteen year time frame is therefore vague and 22 ambiguous, overbroad such to be harassing and burdensome. Subject to, and without waiving 23 said objections, responding party responds as follows: 24 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2031.230] 25 26 14 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with 2 this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular document(s): 3 [X] Has/have never existed. 4 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response: Defendant has already 5 responded that no such documents exist. Any attempt to compel further response is nonsensical 6 and harassing. 7 Demand 15 8 Request No. 15: Any and all lender statements regarding any real property to which YOU or the 9 Plaintiff have had an ownership interest from 2005 to April 2017. 10 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 15: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 11 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing, and overbroad, as it requests 12 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's 13 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I, 14 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also 15 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 16 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also 17 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast 18 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest 19 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to 20 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents 21 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged. 22 A mere showing of relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request 23 implicates the constitutional right of produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a 24 compelling need. Lastly, to the extent any responsive documents relate to a third-party's 25 ownership rights, those third parties must be given Notice of this request, and no such notice was 26 15 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 provided. The request is overbroad and harassing and overly burdensome as it requests 2 documents over a twelve-year period of time. To the extent any additional documents are stored 3 electronically, responding party does not utilize any electronically stored information for security 4 reasons and thus would need hard-copies of any and all documents to which no objection is 5 upheld, and the documents are therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and 6 expense. This would include any records held digitally by the institution. Should responding 7 party discover any non-objectionable, non-privileged documentation which may be responsive to 8 this request, he reserves the right to update this response. Discovery is ongoing. As to documents 9 related to the Plaintiff’s ownership in any real property, 10 [X] Responding party is unable to comply with this demand. [CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(2), 2031.230] 11 Responding party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply with 12 this demand, but is unable to comply with this demand because the particular document(s): 13 [X] To the extent they exist, the documents have never been in the possession, custody, or 14 control of the responding party. 15 To the extent they exist, Responding party believes the following person(s) and/or 16 organization(s) to have possession, custody, or control of the particular document(s): Name: 17 Mary Elizabeth LeMasters. 18 Factual and Legal Reasons for NOT Compelling Further Response: 19 This demand seeks documents related to any written or verbal agreements between 20 plaintiff and defendant from 2009 to 2019, regarding the management and maintenance of any 21 home defendant leased or owned. 22 To clarify your specific assertion of evasive discovery response, we Defendant contends 23 that such agreements do not exist, but to the extent that Plaintiff asserts that such agreements 24 exists between her and Defendant have never been in Defendant's possession, custody or control. 25 Breadth and Timeframe Requested Objections 26 16 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 While it may be relevant, it creates an undue burden on Defendant to provide 2 such documents related to joint agreements. Such documentation should be available to 3 petitioner if agreements were present. Forcing Defendant to dig through documents going back 4 11 years creates is oppressive to Defendant. While discovery is broadly construed and applied, 5 there is a limit and distinction between seeking to educate the parties and seeking to inundate one 6 side with unduly burdensome discovery. 7 To the extent of Defendant's own properties, this is unduly burdensome in that the request 8 is entirely irrelevant to establish if a relationship existed as Plaintiff alleges. If a relationship is 9 proven to have existed and property division or support become at issue, Defendant will be 10 happy to provide such documents. However, providing such documents spanning 11 years at this 11 time is unduly burdensome as no relationship has been established between the parties as to 12 warrant providing a schedule of assets and debts. 13 Privacy Objections 14 Plaintiffs discovery is served in advance of a determination by this Court as to whether 15 Plaintiff, in fact, has met her burden as imposed by law. Until such burden is met, Defendant's 16 responses to the demand are irrelevant and inadmissible insofar that the demand is oppressive, 17 time consuming, expensive and an unwarranted invasion of Defendant's right to privacy. 18 Defendant is prejudiced because financial circumstances should not be considered at all by the 19 court until Plaintiff establishes a relationship between the parties. 20 Subjecting Defendant to the time consuming, expensive, burdensome and intrusive 21 discovery in advance of Plaintiff proving she is entitled to assets and debts is unfair and 22 inequitable, and an unnecessary, irrelevant obligation. Such a demand is not only an invasion of 23 privacy but is also tantamount or subject to coercing or forcing Defendant to consider settlement 24 or resolution on the matter not on the legal merits, but to avoid the unwarranted, harassing, and 25 irrelevant discovery. 26 17 LEMASTERS v. DENINGER Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts 19-CV-03974 1 Demand 16 2 Request No. 16: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO mortgage payments for any real 3 property to which YOU or the Plaintiff have had an ownership interest from 2005 to the present 4 date. 5 Defendant’s Response to Request No. 16: Objection [CCP § 2031.210(a)(3)]: Responding 6 party objects to this request as oppressive, burdensome, harassing and overbroad, as it requests 7 documents over a fourteen-year period of time. Further, it violates responding party's 8 constitutionally protected right to privacy under both the California Constitution (Article I, 9 Section l) as well as the federal Constitution. Responding party's financial privacy rights are also 10 protected from propounding party under Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 11 Cal.3d 652; Schnabel v. Superior Court 21 Cal.App.4th 5550 (1993). The request is also 12 sufficiently overbroad as be objectionable due to relevance issues, and the broad net cast 13 encompasses documents which have no relation to this case and there is no compelling interest 14 for propounding party to have these documents, or how they relate to her case. While the right to 15 financial privacy is not absolute such as to constitute a privilege, information and documents 16 which implicate private financial information are presumptively privileged. A mere showing of 17 relevance is not enough to order discovery when the request implicates the constitutional right of 18 produce; they party seeking discovery must demonstrate a compelling need. Lastly, to the extent 19 any responsive documents relate to a third-party's ownership rights, those third parties must be 20 given Notice of this request, and no such notice was provided. The request is overbroad and 21 harassing and overly burdensome as it requests documents over a fourteen-year period of time. 22 To the extent any additional documents are stored electronically, responding party does not 23 utilize any electronically stored information for security reasons and thus would need hard- 24 copies of any and all documents to which no objection is upheld, and the documents are 25 therefore not reasonably accessible due to an undue burden and expense. This would include