Preview
1 SADIE CLEMENT (284865)
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
2 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 1500
3 San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 244-4570
4 Facsimile: (408) 423-8830
Email: sclement@mtsalawgroup.com
5
6/7/2021
DEBRA R. SCHOENBERG, ESQ. (SBN 255933)
6 SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP, P. C.
7 575 Market St., Suite 4000
San Francisco, California, 94105
8 Phone: (415) 834-1120
Fax: (415) 834-1121
9 Email: dschoenberg@sflg.com
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
11 Mary Elizabeth LeMasters
160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500
12
IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
San Jose, CA 95113
13
(408) 244-4570
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14
15 MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, Case No: 19-CIV-03974
Plaintiff
16 v. DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT, ESQ.
17 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING
Defendant.
18 DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING
FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
19 IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND
SANCTIONS
20
21 Date: 7/27/2021
PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, Time: 2:00PM
22 Cross- Dept.: 4
Complainant
23 v.
MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, [IDC Held: March 4, 2021]
24 Cross-Defendant.
25
26
//
27 1
LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974
28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS
1 I, Sadie Clement, Esq. declare:
2 1. THE FILING OF THIS MOTION WAS AUTHORIZED BY COMMISSIONER
3 ERNST A. HALPERIN AS THE PARTIES ATTENDED AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY
4 CONFERENCE (“IDC”) ON MARCH 4, 2021 AT 3:00 P.M. PURSUANT TO SAN
5 MATEO LOCAL RULE 3-700(a) AND WERE UNABLE TO REACH AN
6 AGREEMENT. Refer to Minute Order dated March 4, 2021, attached hereto and incorporated
7 herein as Exhibit A. All of the facts set forth in this Declaration are true and correct and, if
8 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truthfulness thereof, except as
9 to matters that may be stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
10 them to be true.
11 2. I make this Declaration in support of Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth LeMasters’ Motion For
160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500
12 Protective Order Regarding Discovery Related To The Identity Of Plaintiff’s Lender filed
San Jose, CA 95113
13 concurrently herewith, in which respectfully requests (1) a protective order estopping
(408) 244-4570
14 Defendant from propounding any further discovery related to any and all discovery seeking the
15 identity of Plaintiff’s lender on “Non-Guaranteed Personal Loan Convention” agreement dated
16 April 15, 2019, and (2) sanctions under C.C.P. sections 2019.030, and 2023.010-2023.040. This
17 Declaration is also made in defense of Defendant, Paul Deninger's (“Defendant”)’s Motion to
18 Compel Plaintiff to Answer Questions at Deposition and Pay Sanctions (“MTC”).
19 3. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of
20 California. I am a senior associate attorney with MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV &
21 AZZOLINO L.L.P., attorneys of record for Plaintiff, Mary Elizabeth LeMasters (“Plaintiff”) by
22 association with SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP, P. C. in the above-entitled matter.
23 This declaration is in lieu of oral testimony pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2009
24 and 2015.5. To the extent necessary, I hereby certify these pleadings pursuant to the
25 requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure §128.7. Nothing in this Declaration is
26 intended to waive, nor shall it be deemed a waiver of, the attorney-client privilege, attorney
27 2
LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974
28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS
1 work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privileges or confidential communications.
2 4. This is not the firsttime Defendant has sought the identity of Plaintiff’s lender, yet he
3 continues to pursue it.In fact, on March 13, 2020, Defendant served the following relevant
4 discovery requests in relevant part (1) Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Special
5 Interrogatories No. 566-568, and (2) Defendant’s Demand for Inspection and Production of
6 Documents, Set Two, Demand No. 184, which specifically requested as follows:
7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY No. 566:
8 Please state all facts to support how you have been paying your
expenses from April 2019 to date of production.
9
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY No. 567:
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
10 Please identify all witnesses that support your answer to Special
Interrogatory No. 566.
11
160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500
12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY No. 568:
Please identify all documents that support your answer to Special
San Jose, CA 95113
13 Interrogatory No. 566.
(408) 244-4570
14 DEMAND NO. 184
Provide all documents identified in your answer to Special
15
Interrogatory No. 568 from Special Interrogatories, Set One, served
16 concurrently.
17 5. On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff served her responses, objecting based upon her
18 constitutional privacy rights under California and Federal law, as well as the privacy rights of a
19 third party, but subject to, and without waiving said objection, Responding party responded that
20 she had been paying her expenses from April 2019 to the date of production through a personal
21 loan from a friend, and providing the loan agreement with the third party’s identifying redacted.
6. On May 20, 2020, the day after the parties attended their first IDC in the above-entitled
22
matter on a separate issue1, Defendant sent a fifty-three (53) page meet and confer letter to
23
Plaintiff’s counsel, insisting that Plaintiff produce her further responses in less than forty-eight
24
(48 hours). As this demand was incredibly unreasonable, particularly in consideration of the
25
1
Plaintiff’sNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH REQUEST FOR
26
PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE
SUM OF $21,680 filed February 27, 2020, which was granted in December of 2020.
27 3
LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974
28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS
1 parties’ obligations as ordered in the day’s prior IDC to meet and confer further regarding other
2 discovery, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would provide her further responses on June 8, 2020.
3 In compliance with that agreement, Plaintiff served her Amended Responses to Defendant’s
4 Request for Production of Document, Set Two and Amended Responses to Defendant’s Specially
5 Written Interrogatories, Set One on June 8, 2020, along with cover a meet and confer letter that
stated in relevant part:
6
7
Demand No. 184 and Special Interrogatories No. 566-568
8 Page 31 of your letter incorrectly stated that Ms. LeMasters
provide nothing in response. She provided a loan agreement with
9 the third party’s identity redacted on privacy grounds. As Ms.
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
LeMasters’ banking records have already been provided, she has
10 complied in full and has amended her response accordingly.
11
With respect to Special Interrogatory No. 568, Ms. LeMasters is
160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500
12 unable to provide an unredacted loan agreement. The fact that she
has taken out a loan to support herself in lieu of Mr. Deninger’s
San Jose, CA 95113
13 promised support is relevant, but the identity of the lender is not.
(408) 244-4570
14 7. Following additional meet and confer between counsel for both parties, Plaintiff served
15 Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Document, Set Two and
16 Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Specially Written Interrogatories, Set One, on July 15,
17 2020. Plaintiff’s relevant supplemental responses were as follows:
18
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 567:
19 Please identify all witnesses that support your answer to Special
20 Interrogatory No. 566.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 567:
21 Responding party objects on the grounds of third party privacy.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 567: Responding party responds as
follows: Plaintiff has secured a loan from a close friend. Plaintiff
23
objects on the grounds of privacy and for the fear of retaliation
24 from Defendant. Propounding party has made threats in the past
which is why Plaintiff has had to resort to enrolling in the Safe at
25 Home, Confidential Address Program.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 568:
26 Please identify all documents that support your answer to Special
Interrogatory No. 566.
27 4
LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974
28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS
1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 568:
Responding party objects this request to the extent it seeks
2 information protected from discovery by her Constitutional privacy
3 rights under pursuant to California and Federal law as well as the
privacy rights of a third party. The response to any request for
4 production that is privileged or protected from disclosure is
inadvertent, and no privilege or protection is waived by any such
5 inadvertent response.
Subject to and without waiving said objection, Responding Party
6 responds as follows: A loan agreement with the third party’s
7 identity redacted on privacy grounds
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 568: Responding party objects this
request to the extent it seeks information protected from discovery
9 by her Constitutional privacy rights under pursuant to California
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
and Federal law as well as the privacy rights of a third party. The
10
response to any request for production that is privileged or
11 protected from disclosure is inadvertent, and no privilege or
protection is waived by any such inadvertent response.
160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500
12 Subject to and without waiving said objection, Responding Party
responds as follows: A loan agreement with the third party’s
San Jose, CA 95113
13 identity redacted on privacy grounds.
(408) 244-4570
14 8. The motion to compel further discovery on this issue was therefore August 31, 2020;
15 however, at that time, before Defendant filed a motion to compel on that issue, the parties were
16 required to attend an IDC. The parties then attended an IDC on August 5, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.,
17 which involved various issues outlined in Plaintiff’s Discovery Conference Statement2 filed July
18 31, 2020. As noted in Plaintiff’s Statement for the IDC on August 5, 2020, Defendant’s
19 Specially Written Interrogatory, Set One and Defendant’s Demand for Inspection and
20 Production of Documents, Set One were were prepared in retaliation against Plaintiff’s validly
21 propounded discovery requests in an effort to unnecessarily increase her fees. Defendant’s
22 requests contained 649 interrogatories, questioning her about every phrase, and/or sentence in
23 her Complaint, regardless of the elements of her cause of action with a corresponding document
24 request. Moreover, many of the requests are redundant within the requests themselves as well as
25
2
Full title is Discovery Conference Statement Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents in
26
Compliance with Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Plaintiff’s Request for Specially
Written Interrogatories, Set One.
27 5
LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974
28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS
1 with Defendant’s prior discovery device, Defendant’s Request for Production of Document Set
2 No. One. Nonetheless, Plaintiff responded in good faith, and at the time of the August 2020
3 IDC, the only remaining issue was Defendant’s insistence that the identity of the lender be
4 revealed. As argued by Plaintiff in her IDC Statement, and as well as at the IDC, Plaintiff
5 should not be compelled to disclose the name of her lender because while the terms of the loan
6 agreement is relevant, the name of her lender is not. Presumably based upon the Court’s
7 comments related to this issue at the IDC, Defendant did not file his motion to compel.
8 9. Defendant then raised this issue again during his Deposition of Plaintiff on September
9 24, 2020. The parties met and conferred through counsel thereafter and were unable to reach a
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
10 resolution of the matter. On November 23, 2020, Defendant then filed his MTC. On January 21,
11 2021, Plaintiff filed her opposition papers, and on January 26, 2021, Defendant filed his Reply
160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500
12 papers. On February 1, 2021, the Court issued its Tentative Ruling, which became an order on
San Jose, CA 95113
13 February 2, 2021, ruling “[][t]he motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to hold an
(408) 244-4570
14 Informal Discovery Conference prior to filing the motion as required by Local Rule 3.700. The
15 motion may be re-noticed, if necessary, after the conclusion of an Informal Discovery
16 Conference.” The parties then attended an IDC on March 4, 2021, but were unable to resolve the
17 dispute. Defendant then re-noticed his MTC, which is set to be heard on June 29, 2021, at 2:00
18 p.m. in Department 4. As this motion for a Protective Order is directly related to the same
19 issues raised in Defendant’s MTC and is brought in part in defense of Defendant’s MTC,
20 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court consolidate the motions to be heard concurrently.
21 10. Pursuant to the signed retainer agreement that Plaintiff signed at my firm, my billing rate
22 is $395. Pursuant to the signed retainer agreement that Plaintiff signed with my co-counsel,
23 Schoenberg Family Law Group, P.C. the billing rates are as follows:
24 Principal- $675
25 Associates and of counsel: $400 - $550
Law Graduates: $350
26 Law Clerks: $300
Paralegals: $275
27 6
LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974
28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS
1 Legal Assistant: $275
Case File Management: $100
2
11. I performed the major of the work in the preparation of this motion, in which Plaintiff
3
incurred $3,950 in attorney’s fees and costs in preparation of this motion as a result of my nine
4
(10) hours of work on this motion (10 hours x $395 = $3,950). I anticipate that Plaintiff will
5
incur an additional three (3.0) hours reviewing Defendant’s Responsive Papers and researching
6
any law cited by Defendant. (3.0 hours x 395 =$1,185). I further anticipate that Plaintiff will
7
incur an additional four (4.0) hours in drafting her Reply papers and preparing Talking points,
8
and three hours (3.0) attending the Hearing. (7.0 hours x 395 = $2,765). Finally, I anticipate that
9
Plaintiff will incur an additional 1.5 hours in the preparation of the Order After Hearing and
MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
10
communication with counsel for Defendant regarding the same (1.5 hours x 395 = $595.50). In
11
summary, in addition to the $3,555 already incurred by Plaintiff, it is anticipated that Plaintiff
160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500
12
will incur an additional $4,545.50 to litigate this motion.
San Jose, CA 95113
13
(408) 244-4570
12. Therefore, Plaintiff requests $8,495 in sanctions as and for reimbursement for her
14
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended in preparation and litigation of this motion
15
subject to proof, as well as the fees and costs that Plaintiff has incurred and will incur in
16
connection with defending against Defendant’s MTC subject to proof.
17
13. I declare under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
18
foregoing is true and correct.
19
DATED: June 7, 2021 MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP
20
21
22 ______________________________
SADIE CLEMENT
23
Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS
24
25
26
27 7
LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974
28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE
IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS
Preview
1 SADIE CLEMENT (284865) MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP 2 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 1500 3 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 244-4570 4 Facsimile: (408) 423-8830 Email: sclement@mtsalawgroup.com 5 6/7/2021 DEBRA R. SCHOENBERG, ESQ. (SBN 255933) 6 SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP, P. C. 7 575 Market St., Suite 4000 San Francisco, California, 94105 8 Phone: (415) 834-1120 Fax: (415) 834-1121 9 Email: dschoenberg@sflg.com MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 11 Mary Elizabeth LeMasters 160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500 12 IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA San Jose, CA 95113 13 (408) 244-4570 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 14 15 MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, Case No: 19-CIV-03974 Plaintiff 16 v. DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT, ESQ. 17 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING Defendant. 18 DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE 19 IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS 20 21 Date: 7/27/2021 PAUL FRANCIS DENINGER, Time: 2:00PM 22 Cross- Dept.: 4 Complainant 23 v. MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS, [IDC Held: March 4, 2021] 24 Cross-Defendant. 25 26 // 27 1 LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974 28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS 1 I, Sadie Clement, Esq. declare: 2 1. THE FILING OF THIS MOTION WAS AUTHORIZED BY COMMISSIONER 3 ERNST A. HALPERIN AS THE PARTIES ATTENDED AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY 4 CONFERENCE (“IDC”) ON MARCH 4, 2021 AT 3:00 P.M. PURSUANT TO SAN 5 MATEO LOCAL RULE 3-700(a) AND WERE UNABLE TO REACH AN 6 AGREEMENT. Refer to Minute Order dated March 4, 2021, attached hereto and incorporated 7 herein as Exhibit A. All of the facts set forth in this Declaration are true and correct and, if 8 called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truthfulness thereof, except as 9 to matters that may be stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP 10 them to be true. 11 2. I make this Declaration in support of Plaintiff Mary Elizabeth LeMasters’ Motion For 160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500 12 Protective Order Regarding Discovery Related To The Identity Of Plaintiff’s Lender filed San Jose, CA 95113 13 concurrently herewith, in which respectfully requests (1) a protective order estopping (408) 244-4570 14 Defendant from propounding any further discovery related to any and all discovery seeking the 15 identity of Plaintiff’s lender on “Non-Guaranteed Personal Loan Convention” agreement dated 16 April 15, 2019, and (2) sanctions under C.C.P. sections 2019.030, and 2023.010-2023.040. This 17 Declaration is also made in defense of Defendant, Paul Deninger's (“Defendant”)’s Motion to 18 Compel Plaintiff to Answer Questions at Deposition and Pay Sanctions (“MTC”). 19 3. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of 20 California. I am a senior associate attorney with MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & 21 AZZOLINO L.L.P., attorneys of record for Plaintiff, Mary Elizabeth LeMasters (“Plaintiff”) by 22 association with SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP, P. C. in the above-entitled matter. 23 This declaration is in lieu of oral testimony pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2009 24 and 2015.5. To the extent necessary, I hereby certify these pleadings pursuant to the 25 requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure §128.7. Nothing in this Declaration is 26 intended to waive, nor shall it be deemed a waiver of, the attorney-client privilege, attorney 27 2 LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974 28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS 1 work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privileges or confidential communications. 2 4. This is not the firsttime Defendant has sought the identity of Plaintiff’s lender, yet he 3 continues to pursue it.In fact, on March 13, 2020, Defendant served the following relevant 4 discovery requests in relevant part (1) Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Special 5 Interrogatories No. 566-568, and (2) Defendant’s Demand for Inspection and Production of 6 Documents, Set Two, Demand No. 184, which specifically requested as follows: 7 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY No. 566: 8 Please state all facts to support how you have been paying your expenses from April 2019 to date of production. 9 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY No. 567: MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP 10 Please identify all witnesses that support your answer to Special Interrogatory No. 566. 11 160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500 12 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY No. 568: Please identify all documents that support your answer to Special San Jose, CA 95113 13 Interrogatory No. 566. (408) 244-4570 14 DEMAND NO. 184 Provide all documents identified in your answer to Special 15 Interrogatory No. 568 from Special Interrogatories, Set One, served 16 concurrently. 17 5. On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff served her responses, objecting based upon her 18 constitutional privacy rights under California and Federal law, as well as the privacy rights of a 19 third party, but subject to, and without waiving said objection, Responding party responded that 20 she had been paying her expenses from April 2019 to the date of production through a personal 21 loan from a friend, and providing the loan agreement with the third party’s identifying redacted. 6. On May 20, 2020, the day after the parties attended their first IDC in the above-entitled 22 matter on a separate issue1, Defendant sent a fifty-three (53) page meet and confer letter to 23 Plaintiff’s counsel, insisting that Plaintiff produce her further responses in less than forty-eight 24 (48 hours). As this demand was incredibly unreasonable, particularly in consideration of the 25 1 Plaintiff’sNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH REQUEST FOR 26 PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE SUM OF $21,680 filed February 27, 2020, which was granted in December of 2020. 27 3 LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974 28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS 1 parties’ obligations as ordered in the day’s prior IDC to meet and confer further regarding other 2 discovery, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would provide her further responses on June 8, 2020. 3 In compliance with that agreement, Plaintiff served her Amended Responses to Defendant’s 4 Request for Production of Document, Set Two and Amended Responses to Defendant’s Specially 5 Written Interrogatories, Set One on June 8, 2020, along with cover a meet and confer letter that stated in relevant part: 6 7 Demand No. 184 and Special Interrogatories No. 566-568 8 Page 31 of your letter incorrectly stated that Ms. LeMasters provide nothing in response. She provided a loan agreement with 9 the third party’s identity redacted on privacy grounds. As Ms. MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP LeMasters’ banking records have already been provided, she has 10 complied in full and has amended her response accordingly. 11 With respect to Special Interrogatory No. 568, Ms. LeMasters is 160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500 12 unable to provide an unredacted loan agreement. The fact that she has taken out a loan to support herself in lieu of Mr. Deninger’s San Jose, CA 95113 13 promised support is relevant, but the identity of the lender is not. (408) 244-4570 14 7. Following additional meet and confer between counsel for both parties, Plaintiff served 15 Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Document, Set Two and 16 Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Specially Written Interrogatories, Set One, on July 15, 17 2020. Plaintiff’s relevant supplemental responses were as follows: 18 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 567: 19 Please identify all witnesses that support your answer to Special 20 Interrogatory No. 566. RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 567: 21 Responding party objects on the grounds of third party privacy. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 567: Responding party responds as follows: Plaintiff has secured a loan from a close friend. Plaintiff 23 objects on the grounds of privacy and for the fear of retaliation 24 from Defendant. Propounding party has made threats in the past which is why Plaintiff has had to resort to enrolling in the Safe at 25 Home, Confidential Address Program. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 568: 26 Please identify all documents that support your answer to Special Interrogatory No. 566. 27 4 LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974 28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 568: Responding party objects this request to the extent it seeks 2 information protected from discovery by her Constitutional privacy 3 rights under pursuant to California and Federal law as well as the privacy rights of a third party. The response to any request for 4 production that is privileged or protected from disclosure is inadvertent, and no privilege or protection is waived by any such 5 inadvertent response. Subject to and without waiving said objection, Responding Party 6 responds as follows: A loan agreement with the third party’s 7 identity redacted on privacy grounds SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 568: Responding party objects this request to the extent it seeks information protected from discovery 9 by her Constitutional privacy rights under pursuant to California MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP and Federal law as well as the privacy rights of a third party. The 10 response to any request for production that is privileged or 11 protected from disclosure is inadvertent, and no privilege or protection is waived by any such inadvertent response. 160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500 12 Subject to and without waiving said objection, Responding Party responds as follows: A loan agreement with the third party’s San Jose, CA 95113 13 identity redacted on privacy grounds. (408) 244-4570 14 8. The motion to compel further discovery on this issue was therefore August 31, 2020; 15 however, at that time, before Defendant filed a motion to compel on that issue, the parties were 16 required to attend an IDC. The parties then attended an IDC on August 5, 2020 at 10:30 a.m., 17 which involved various issues outlined in Plaintiff’s Discovery Conference Statement2 filed July 18 31, 2020. As noted in Plaintiff’s Statement for the IDC on August 5, 2020, Defendant’s 19 Specially Written Interrogatory, Set One and Defendant’s Demand for Inspection and 20 Production of Documents, Set One were were prepared in retaliation against Plaintiff’s validly 21 propounded discovery requests in an effort to unnecessarily increase her fees. Defendant’s 22 requests contained 649 interrogatories, questioning her about every phrase, and/or sentence in 23 her Complaint, regardless of the elements of her cause of action with a corresponding document 24 request. Moreover, many of the requests are redundant within the requests themselves as well as 25 2 Full title is Discovery Conference Statement Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents in 26 Compliance with Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Plaintiff’s Request for Specially Written Interrogatories, Set One. 27 5 LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974 28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS 1 with Defendant’s prior discovery device, Defendant’s Request for Production of Document Set 2 No. One. Nonetheless, Plaintiff responded in good faith, and at the time of the August 2020 3 IDC, the only remaining issue was Defendant’s insistence that the identity of the lender be 4 revealed. As argued by Plaintiff in her IDC Statement, and as well as at the IDC, Plaintiff 5 should not be compelled to disclose the name of her lender because while the terms of the loan 6 agreement is relevant, the name of her lender is not. Presumably based upon the Court’s 7 comments related to this issue at the IDC, Defendant did not file his motion to compel. 8 9. Defendant then raised this issue again during his Deposition of Plaintiff on September 9 24, 2020. The parties met and conferred through counsel thereafter and were unable to reach a MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP 10 resolution of the matter. On November 23, 2020, Defendant then filed his MTC. On January 21, 11 2021, Plaintiff filed her opposition papers, and on January 26, 2021, Defendant filed his Reply 160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500 12 papers. On February 1, 2021, the Court issued its Tentative Ruling, which became an order on San Jose, CA 95113 13 February 2, 2021, ruling “[][t]he motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to hold an (408) 244-4570 14 Informal Discovery Conference prior to filing the motion as required by Local Rule 3.700. The 15 motion may be re-noticed, if necessary, after the conclusion of an Informal Discovery 16 Conference.” The parties then attended an IDC on March 4, 2021, but were unable to resolve the 17 dispute. Defendant then re-noticed his MTC, which is set to be heard on June 29, 2021, at 2:00 18 p.m. in Department 4. As this motion for a Protective Order is directly related to the same 19 issues raised in Defendant’s MTC and is brought in part in defense of Defendant’s MTC, 20 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court consolidate the motions to be heard concurrently. 21 10. Pursuant to the signed retainer agreement that Plaintiff signed at my firm, my billing rate 22 is $395. Pursuant to the signed retainer agreement that Plaintiff signed with my co-counsel, 23 Schoenberg Family Law Group, P.C. the billing rates are as follows: 24 Principal- $675 25 Associates and of counsel: $400 - $550 Law Graduates: $350 26 Law Clerks: $300 Paralegals: $275 27 6 LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974 28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS 1 Legal Assistant: $275 Case File Management: $100 2 11. I performed the major of the work in the preparation of this motion, in which Plaintiff 3 incurred $3,950 in attorney’s fees and costs in preparation of this motion as a result of my nine 4 (10) hours of work on this motion (10 hours x $395 = $3,950). I anticipate that Plaintiff will 5 incur an additional three (3.0) hours reviewing Defendant’s Responsive Papers and researching 6 any law cited by Defendant. (3.0 hours x 395 =$1,185). I further anticipate that Plaintiff will 7 incur an additional four (4.0) hours in drafting her Reply papers and preparing Talking points, 8 and three hours (3.0) attending the Hearing. (7.0 hours x 395 = $2,765). Finally, I anticipate that 9 Plaintiff will incur an additional 1.5 hours in the preparation of the Order After Hearing and MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP 10 communication with counsel for Defendant regarding the same (1.5 hours x 395 = $595.50). In 11 summary, in addition to the $3,555 already incurred by Plaintiff, it is anticipated that Plaintiff 160 W. Santa Clara St. Suite 1500 12 will incur an additional $4,545.50 to litigate this motion. San Jose, CA 95113 13 (408) 244-4570 12. Therefore, Plaintiff requests $8,495 in sanctions as and for reimbursement for her 14 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended in preparation and litigation of this motion 15 subject to proof, as well as the fees and costs that Plaintiff has incurred and will incur in 16 connection with defending against Defendant’s MTC subject to proof. 17 13. I declare under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the 18 foregoing is true and correct. 19 DATED: June 7, 2021 MORGAN TIDALGO SUKHODREV & AZZOLINO LLP 20 21 22 ______________________________ SADIE CLEMENT 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS 24 25 26 27 7 LeMasters v. Deninger; Case No. 19-CIV-03974 28 DECLARATION OF SADIE CLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ESTOPPING DEFENDANT FROM PROPOUNDING FURTHER DISCOVERY TO OBTAIN THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S LENDER AND SANCTIONS