Preview
1 SONIA R. MARTIN (SBN 191148)
sonia.martin@dentons.com
2 JONATHAN A. BRAUNSTEIN (SBN 227322)
3 jon.braunstein@dentons.com
JOSHUA K. HAEVERNICK (SBN 308380)
4 joshua.haevernick@dentons.com
DENTONS US LLP
5 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
6 Telephone:415 882-5000
7 Facsimile:415 882-0300
8 Attorneys For Defendants NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LAURA
9 BUSKIRK
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 1300
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
12 COUNTY OF SONOMA
DENTONS US LLP
13
415 882 5000
14 PAUL LEUSCHNER and LOUISE
Case No. SCV-271322
LEUSCHNER,
15
Unlimited Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs,
16 vs. EXHIBITS J-R TO THE DECLARATION
17 OF JOSHUA HAEVERNICK ON REPLY
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
18 COMPANY; LAURA BUSKIRK and DOES
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
1-100, inclusive,
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
19
ADJUDICATION ON EACH AND/OR
Defendants.
20 ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR BAD FAITH, THIRD
21 CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FINANCIAL
ELDER ABUSE, FOURTH CAUSE OF
22 ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION, AND/OR
23
PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
24
Date: August 16, 2023
25 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: 16
26 Hon. Patrick Broderick
27 Date Action Filed: August 3, 2022
Trial Date: September 8, 2023
28
DECL. OF JOSHUA HAEVERNICK ON REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NATIONWIDE’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
EXHIBIT J
Hankins, Adrienne
From: Haevernick, Joshua
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke; Michael G. Miller; Erin E. Viramontes; Ellie A. Ehlert; Cenaida E.
Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon; Martin, Sonia R.; Donner, Diane V.; Hanover, Mark L.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
Kelsey,
As I have already stated, you unilaterally dictated a July 26 th “deadline,” no such deadline was agreed upon. As I advised
on July 18th, we have been working to amend and serve Defendants’ responses as soon as reasonably possible, but could
not agree to provide the amended responses within timeline you demanded. Again, we are awaiting verification from
our clients, and will serve the amended discovery responses as soon as possible. We will not agree to withdraw the
motions. Thank you.
Best,
Josh
Joshua Haevernick
Senior Managing Associate
+1 415 267 4149
From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:03 AM
To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E.
Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
[WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER]
Josh –
It seems that you did not read my entire, very detailed email. Responses were due yesterday. Serving them today or
tomorrow is unacceptable. You do not get to unilaterally dictate the schedule. You can repeat 89 days all you want – my
timeline below was extremely thorough – the extensions were in light of Defendants’ Motion to Stay. You’ve now had
my meet and confer letter for 44 days, and yet no amended responses have been received.
Withdraw the motions or we will seek to have them denied on these bad faith discovery tactics.
1
Kelsey L. O’Rourke
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Haevernick, Joshua
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:56 AM
To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes
; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kelsey,
We served responses in Mid-March 2023. We did not hear from you for 89 days. We are working to finalize voluntary,
informally negotiated amended responses as soon as we can. But you and plaintiffs cannot and will not unilaterally
dictate the timing and terms by which our clients provide them. Your suggestion that the motions for summary
judgment and adjudication should not proceed is without merit. We are awaiting verification from our clients, and
expect to get the amended discovery responses to you today or tomorrow. Thank you.
Best,
Josh
Joshua Haevernick
Senior Managing Associate
+1 415 267 4149
From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:53 AM
To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E.
Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
Importance: High
2
[WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER]
Mr. Haevernick-
I am extremely disappointed that we did not receive the amended discovery responses yesterday, nor did we receive
any confirmation from you that Defendants would be withdrawing their Motions for Summary Judgment. As you’ll
recall, we agreed to provide your requested 21 days IF you withdrew the Motions. You did neither, yet you are simply
taking the additional time as if you are entitled to it; you are not.
Defendants now have two choices, either withdraw your Motions for Summary Judgment, with confirmation to us by 12
p.m. today, or we will seek to have Defendants’ Motions denied on the basis of these bad faith tactics in withholding
discovery that is pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Oppositions.
California Code of Civil Procedure states: “If, after granting a continuance to allow specified additional discovery, the
court determines that the party seeking summary judgment has unreasonably failed to allow the discovery to be
conducted, the court shall grant a continuance to permit the discovery to go forward or deny the motion for summary
judgment or summary adjudication. This section does not affect or limit the ability of a party to compel discovery under
the Civil Discovery Act (Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4).” California Code of Civil Procedure 437(i).
Here, if the continuance is granted, the Motions are mooted as Defendants filed on the last possible day to
accommodate the 75-day rule. As such, the Motions would be denied outright, which we will seek. Defendants should
not be rewarded for their continued delay tactics, which are done for no other reason than to prejudice Plaintiffs and
attempt to throw off our trial date. We will not allow either to happen.
Make no mistake, providing the responses now will not hinder our right to have your Motions denied – I was
unequivocal in my last email – responses were due yesterday.
These requests were served February 13, 2023. Defendants served their wholly inadequate responses on March 17,
2023. Thereafter, on April 10, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay Action. Our Motion to
Compel deadline was May 3, 2023. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion was scheduled for May 19, 2023. In light of the
pending Motion, Mr. Braunstein and I agreed to extend Plaintiffs deadline to compel to June 2 nd, for the outcome of the
hearing. On May 19th, Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preference were heard in part. The hearings were
then continued, on the Court’s request, to June 1, 2023, and Mr. Braunstein and I again agreed to move the deadline to
compel to 6/15.
On June 14, 2023, we sent a comprehensive meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies in Defendants’ discovery
responses. In the letter, an extension to move to compel was sought to July 7, 2023, to allow Defendants time to
amend. Thereafter, I granted you repeated extensions to respond, all the while, you could have been preparing
amended responses. In addition, you have three attorneys working on this file in California, not to mention Mr. Hanover,
who you requested be brought in the case, as well as two other attorneys Defendants unsuccessfully sought to have
admitted pro hac vice to assist on this file. Defendants have more than enough resources to have timely completed this
task.
You finally served a response on Sunday, July 16th seeking 21 days to provide amended responses. I immediately
informed you that due to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment and our oppositions being due August 2 nd, we
needed responses in 10 days, by July 26, 2023. You repeatedly stated it wasn’t possible, however, when I offered to
accept responses in 21 days in exchange for Defendants withdrawing their Motions, you went radio silent, and then did
not provide responses within the demanded 10 days, thereby seeking to stick to your own arbitrary timeline, and
prejudicing Plaintiffs. Your open-ended deadline to compel is meaningless as the discovery cutoff is August 8 th – and by
your timeline, these responses will be served August 7 th.
It is clear that Defendants are attempting gamesmanship – however, it will not stand. As stated, either you confirm to
us by 12 p.m. today that you have taken both Motions for Summary Judgment off calendar, or we will seek to have the
Motions denied on the basis of your bad faith tactics in withholding discovery that is pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Oppositions.
3
Kelsey L. O’Rourke
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 2:03 PM
To: 'Haevernick, Joshua' ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E.
Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
Josh-
As I previously stated, we need the full and complete responses to adequately respond to the motions for summary
judgment. The only way I can agree to 21 days is if Defendants agree to withdraw both of the motions for summary
judgment. Otherwise, we expect full and complete responses within 10 days of your 7/16 letter.
Kelsey
Kelsey L. O’Rourke
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Haevernick, Joshua
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 10:35 AM
To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes
; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
4
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kelsey,
As I previously stated, we are working to amend and serve Defendants’ responses as soon as reasonably possible, but
we cannot agree to provide the amended response within 10 days. To be clear, I am the only associate working on this
file. Some of the agreed upon amendments/tasks (e.g. identification of documents responsive to interrogatories from a
large claim file, addressing all issues (i.e. document corruption, etc.) with the production, etc.) can be particularly time-
intensive. Thank you.
Best,
Josh
Joshua Haevernick
Senior Managing Associate
+1 415 267 4149
From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:38 PM
To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E.
Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
[WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER]
Josh-
We apologize for any inconvenience, but we too need to prepare for depositions and the motions for summary
judgment – both of which require full and complete discovery responses.
As you’ll remember, I provided you with several weeks of extensions to prepare the meet and confer letter you sent just
last night.
We aren’t trying to be difficult, but we also need to be realistic with our fast-approaching trial date. Your team has
numerous attorneys working on this file – I have no doubt that complete responses can be provided within 10 days.
Kelsey
5
Kelsey L. O’Rourke
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Haevernick, Joshua
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 3:18 PM
To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes
; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kelsey,
We cannot agree to 10 days – especially in light of the fact that we are responding to additional written discovery,
arranging and preparing for several depositions, and otherwise preparing for summary judgment and trial. We would
like to remind counsel that Defendants provided an extension on Plaintiffs’ MTC, despite the fact that Defendants never
received any meet and confer correspondence from Plaintiffs until receiving the subject meet and confer letter 89 days
after service, and the day before the agreed upon extended deadline. We are working to amend and serve Defendants’
responses as soon as reasonably possible, but would appreciate the time requested (i.e. 21 days) to do so. Thank you.
Best,
Josh
Joshua Haevernick
Senior Managing Associate
+1 415 267 4149
From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 1:17 PM
To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E.
Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
6
[WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER]
Josh-
Thank you for your response. As an initial pressing concern, I wanted to address your request for 21 days to
respond. As I am sure you can appreciate, our trial date is rapidly approaching. Can we agree to 10 days?
Kelsey
Kelsey L. O’Rourke
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Haevernick, Joshua
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2023 1:42 PM
To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes
; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V.
Subject: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Counsel,
Please find Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter attached. Thank you.
Best,
Josh
Joshua Haevernick
Senior Managing Associate
+1 415 267 4149
joshua.haevernick@dentons.com | Website
Dentons US LLP
Our Legacy Firms | Client Experience (CX)
7
EXHIBIT K
Hankins, Adrienne
From: Ellie A. Ehlert
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 7:57 PM
To: Martin, Sonia R.; Braunstein, Jon; Haevernick, Joshua; Hanover, Mark L.; Donner, Diane
V.; Hankins, Adrienne
Cc: Michael G. Miller; Kelsey L. O’Rourke; Kristina M. Gardenal; Jennifer H. Alexander;
Douglas M. Keehner; Cenaida E. Guzman; Erin E. Viramontes
Subject: Leuschner v. Nationwide/Buskirk
Attachments: 2023 07-20 Expert Disclosure - Plaintiffs.pdf; 2023 07-20 NOD Angela Othersen.pdf;
2023 07-20 NOD Daniel Alexander.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena Ronald Arrigotti w
POD.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena Daniel Alexander w POD.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena
Angela Othersen w POD.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena Lindsay Lathrum w POD.pdf; 2023
07-20 NOD Ronald Arrigotti.pdf; 2023 07-20 NOD Lindsay Lathrum.pdf; 2023 07-20
POS EAE.pdf
[WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good Evening:
A ached please find Plain ffs’ expert disclosure and other documents for service.
Ellie Ehlert, ACP — Paralegal (she/they)
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: ehlert@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are con idential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
1
EXHIBIT L
Hankins, Adrienne
From: Braunstein, Jon
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2023 7:11 PM
To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke; Cenaida E. Guzman; Michael G. Miller; Erin E. Viramontes
Cc: Martin, Sonia R.; Haevernick, Joshua
Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322
Kelsey,
Are plaintiffs agreeable to remote depositions for these witnesses? Please confirm.
Thank you, and much appreciated, Jon
Jon Braunstein
Partner
+1 415 882 2425
San Francisco/Oakland
From: Braunstein, Jon
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2023 5:56 PM
To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Cenaida E. Guzman ; Michael G. Miller
; Erin E. Viramontes
Cc: Martin, Sonia R. ; Haevernick, Joshua
Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322
Kelsey,
We have not heard from you on this in over a month and a half.
Per your request, we will check on dates and get back to you.
Thank you, Jon
Jon Braunstein
Partner
+1 415 882 2425
San Francisco/Oakland
From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2023 4:49 PM
To: Braunstein, Jon ; Cenaida E. Guzman ; Michael G. Miller
; Erin E. Viramontes
Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne ; Martin,
Sonia R. ; Haevernick, Joshua
Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322
[WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER]
1
Jon-
Circling back on this. We need to schedule the depositions of Laura Buskirk, the PMK at Nationwide regarding
claims handling, training & policies, and the PMK at Nationwide regarding Plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance
claim.
Please advise what dates you have available through the end of the month.
Thank you,
Kelsey
Kelsey L. O’Rourke
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Braunstein, Jon
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 3:41 PM
To: Cenaida E. Guzman ; Michael G. Miller ; Kelsey L. O’Rourke
; Erin E. Viramontes
Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne ; Martin,
Sonia R. ; Haevernick, Joshua
Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Ms. Guzman,
Respectfully, we would prefer to communicate with counsel directly on substantive matters like this. As all counsel are
aware, there is a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation pending. Defendants specifically objected to these
depositions on that basis, among other grounds. If and after all pending motions are addressed and resolved, counsel for
the parties can assess and discuss next steps.
Regards, Jon
Jon Braunstein
Partner
+1 415 882 2425
San Francisco/Oakland
2
From: Cenaida E. Guzman
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 3:20 PM
To: Braunstein, Jon
Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne ; Michael G.
Miller ; Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Erin E. Viramontes
Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322
Importance: High
[WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Mr. Braunstein:
Thank you for forwarding this email to me. Can you please provide available dates for the
depositions of Laura Buskirk, PMK at Nationwide regarding claims handling, training &
policies, and the PMK at Nationwide regarding plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance claim?
Thank you,
Cenaida E. Guzman
Secretary to Michael G. Miller, Nicole M. Jaffee, and Kelsey O’Rourke
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
438 First Street, 4th Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242
Email: guzman@perrylaw.net Website www.perrylaw.net
From: Braunstein, Jon
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Cenaida E. Guzman
Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne
Subject: FW: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Cenaida – I noticed you were not on the email below. Courtesy forwarding to you here. Thank you.
Jon Braunstein
Partner
+1 415 882 2425
San Francisco/Oakland
From: Donner, Diane V.
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 9:17 AM
To: miller@perrylaw.net; orourke@perrylaw.net
3
Cc: Martin, Sonia R. ; Braunstein, Jon ; Haevernick, Joshua
Subject: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322
Dear Counsel:
Attached as e-service in the referenced litigation, please find the following:
1. DEFENDANT LAURA BUSKIRK’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
LAURA BUSKIRK AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;
2. DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AT DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY RE CLAIMS HANDLING,
TRAINING & POLICIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; and
3. DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE AT DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY RE PLAINTIFFS’
HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE CLAIM AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Please advise if you encounter any difficulty opening or accessing the attached documents. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane V. Donner
Legal Secretary
+1 415 882 0143 | US Internal 40143
Assistant To: Joshua Haevernick, Andrea M. Hall, Samuel D. Jubelirer, Sonia R. Martin, Alyssa Wolf
San Francisco/Oakland
Jon Braunstein
Partner
+1 415 882 2425
San Francisco/Oakland
4
EXHIBIT M
1 SONIA R. MARTIN (SBN 191148)
sonia.martin@dentons.com
2 JONATHAN A. BRAUNSTEIN (SBN 227322)
jon.braunstein@dentons.com
3 JOSHUA K. HAEVERNICK (SBN 308380)
joshua.haevernick@dentons.com
4 DENTONS US LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
5 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: 415 882 5000
6 Facsimile: 415 882 0300
7 Attorneys for Defendants NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
8 LAURA BUSKIRK
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SONOMA
11
12 PAUL LEUSCHNER and LOUISE No. SCV-271322
LEUSCHNER,
13 DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
Plaintiffs, INSURANCE COMPANY’S AMENDED
14 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
vs. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
15 DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
16 COMPANY; LAURA BUSKIRK and
DOES 1-100, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs PAUL and LOUISE LEUSCHNER
21
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
23
SET NUMBER: ONE
24
25
26
27
28
1
NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.010 et seq., Defendant Nationwide
2 Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) submits the following objections and amended
3 responses to Plaintiffs Paul and Louise Leuschner’s (“Plaintiffs”) Requests for Production of
4 Documents, Set One:
5 Nationwide has not yet completed its investigation of the facts pertaining to this action, its
6 discovery, or its preparation for trial. Nationwide reserves its right to rely on any documents or
7 other information that may develop or come to Nationwide’s attention at a later time. Nationwide
8 responds and objects as set forth below without prejudice to its right to assert any additional
9 responses or objections should it discover additional grounds for such responses or objections.
10 By responding, Nationwide does not concede that its responses are properly discoverable or
11 admissible and reserves its right to object to further discovery into the subject matter and to the
12 introduction of these responses into evidence. Furthermore, by responding, Nationwide does not
13 waive any of its previously stated objections to these requests.
14 AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
16 All DOCUMENTS identified in and/or referenced in YOUR response to Form
17 Interrogatories, Set One.
18 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
19 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
20 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject
21 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
22 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client
23 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege,
24 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this
25 request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or
26 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks
27 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the
28 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the
2
NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or
2 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
3 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of
4 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance
5 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce
6 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number
7 192047-GL.
8 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
9 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
10 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the
11 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
12 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the
13 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or
14 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.
15 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret,
16 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request
17 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section
18 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would
19 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its
20 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
21 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding
22 of this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the
23 insurance policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally,
24 Nationwide has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of
25 those portions reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve
26 information.
27
28
3
NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2:
2 All DOCUMENTS identified in and/or referenced in YOUR response to Special
3 Interrogatories, Set One.
4 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
5 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
6 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject
7 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client
9 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege,
10 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this
11 request to the extent certain affirmative defenses are purely legal in nature. Nationwide objects to
12 this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or
13 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks
14 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the
15 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the
16 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or
17 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
18 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of
19 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance
20 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce
21 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number
22 192047-GL.
23 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
24 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
25 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the
26 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
27 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the
28 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or
4
NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.
2 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent certain affirmative defenses are purely legal in
3 nature. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret,
4 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request
5 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section
6 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would
7 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its
8 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
9 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of
10 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the insurance
11 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally, Nationwide
12 has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of those portions
13 reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve information.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
15 All DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR First Affirmative Defense –
16 Failure to State Cause of Action, as set forth in YOUR answer to PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint.
17 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
18 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
19 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject
20 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
21 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client
22 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege,
23 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this
24 request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or
25 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks
26 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the
27 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the
28
5
NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or
2 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
3 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of
4 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance
5 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce
6 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number
7 192047-GL.
8 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
9 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
10 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the
11 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
12 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the
13 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or
14 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.
15 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret,
16 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request
17 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section
18 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would
19 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its
20 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
21 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of
22 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the insurance
23 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally, Nationwide
24 has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of those portions
25 reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve information.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
27 All DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR Second Affirmative Defense –
28 Waiver, as set forth in YOUR answer to PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint.
6
NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
2 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
3 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject
4 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client
6 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege,
7 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this
8 request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or
9 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks
10 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the
11 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the
12 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or
13 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
14 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of
15 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance
16 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce
17 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number
18 192047-GL.
19 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
20 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
21 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the
22 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
23 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the
24 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or
25 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.
26 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret,
27 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request
28 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section
7
NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE
1 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would
2 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its
3 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds.
4 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of
5 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the insurance
6 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally, Nationwide
7 has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of those portions
8 reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve information.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
10 All DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR Third Affirmative Defense –
11 Estoppel, as set forth in YOUR answer to PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint.
12 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
13 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide
14 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject
15 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
16 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client
17 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege,
18 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects
Preview
1 SONIA R. MARTIN (SBN 191148) sonia.martin@dentons.com 2 JONATHAN A. BRAUNSTEIN (SBN 227322) 3 jon.braunstein@dentons.com JOSHUA K. HAEVERNICK (SBN 308380) 4 joshua.haevernick@dentons.com DENTONS US LLP 5 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 6 Telephone:415 882-5000 7 Facsimile:415 882-0300 8 Attorneys For Defendants NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LAURA 9 BUSKIRK 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 1300 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 12 COUNTY OF SONOMA DENTONS US LLP 13 415 882 5000 14 PAUL LEUSCHNER and LOUISE Case No. SCV-271322 LEUSCHNER, 15 Unlimited Jurisdiction Plaintiffs, 16 vs. EXHIBITS J-R TO THE DECLARATION 17 OF JOSHUA HAEVERNICK ON REPLY NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 18 COMPANY; LAURA BUSKIRK and DOES NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 1-100, inclusive, COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 19 ADJUDICATION ON EACH AND/OR Defendants. 20 ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BAD FAITH, THIRD 21 CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE, FOURTH CAUSE OF 22 ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, AND/OR 23 PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 24 Date: August 16, 2023 25 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 16 26 Hon. Patrick Broderick 27 Date Action Filed: August 3, 2022 Trial Date: September 8, 2023 28 DECL. OF JOSHUA HAEVERNICK ON REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NATIONWIDE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION EXHIBIT J Hankins, Adrienne From: Haevernick, Joshua Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:03 AM To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke; Michael G. Miller; Erin E. Viramontes; Ellie A. Ehlert; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon; Martin, Sonia R.; Donner, Diane V.; Hanover, Mark L. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) Kelsey, As I have already stated, you unilaterally dictated a July 26 th “deadline,” no such deadline was agreed upon. As I advised on July 18th, we have been working to amend and serve Defendants’ responses as soon as reasonably possible, but could not agree to provide the amended responses within timeline you demanded. Again, we are awaiting verification from our clients, and will serve the amended discovery responses as soon as possible. We will not agree to withdraw the motions. Thank you. Best, Josh Joshua Haevernick Senior Managing Associate +1 415 267 4149 From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 9:03 AM To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) [WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER] Josh – It seems that you did not read my entire, very detailed email. Responses were due yesterday. Serving them today or tomorrow is unacceptable. You do not get to unilaterally dictate the schedule. You can repeat 89 days all you want – my timeline below was extremely thorough – the extensions were in light of Defendants’ Motion to Stay. You’ve now had my meet and confer letter for 44 days, and yet no amended responses have been received. Withdraw the motions or we will seek to have them denied on these bad faith discovery tactics. 1 Kelsey L. O’Rourke PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Haevernick, Joshua Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:56 AM To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Kelsey, We served responses in Mid-March 2023. We did not hear from you for 89 days. We are working to finalize voluntary, informally negotiated amended responses as soon as we can. But you and plaintiffs cannot and will not unilaterally dictate the timing and terms by which our clients provide them. Your suggestion that the motions for summary judgment and adjudication should not proceed is without merit. We are awaiting verification from our clients, and expect to get the amended discovery responses to you today or tomorrow. Thank you. Best, Josh Joshua Haevernick Senior Managing Associate +1 415 267 4149 From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:53 AM To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) Importance: High 2 [WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER] Mr. Haevernick- I am extremely disappointed that we did not receive the amended discovery responses yesterday, nor did we receive any confirmation from you that Defendants would be withdrawing their Motions for Summary Judgment. As you’ll recall, we agreed to provide your requested 21 days IF you withdrew the Motions. You did neither, yet you are simply taking the additional time as if you are entitled to it; you are not. Defendants now have two choices, either withdraw your Motions for Summary Judgment, with confirmation to us by 12 p.m. today, or we will seek to have Defendants’ Motions denied on the basis of these bad faith tactics in withholding discovery that is pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Oppositions. California Code of Civil Procedure states: “If, after granting a continuance to allow specified additional discovery, the court determines that the party seeking summary judgment has unreasonably failed to allow the discovery to be conducted, the court shall grant a continuance to permit the discovery to go forward or deny the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. This section does not affect or limit the ability of a party to compel discovery under the Civil Discovery Act (Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4).” California Code of Civil Procedure 437(i). Here, if the continuance is granted, the Motions are mooted as Defendants filed on the last possible day to accommodate the 75-day rule. As such, the Motions would be denied outright, which we will seek. Defendants should not be rewarded for their continued delay tactics, which are done for no other reason than to prejudice Plaintiffs and attempt to throw off our trial date. We will not allow either to happen. Make no mistake, providing the responses now will not hinder our right to have your Motions denied – I was unequivocal in my last email – responses were due yesterday. These requests were served February 13, 2023. Defendants served their wholly inadequate responses on March 17, 2023. Thereafter, on April 10, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay Action. Our Motion to Compel deadline was May 3, 2023. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion was scheduled for May 19, 2023. In light of the pending Motion, Mr. Braunstein and I agreed to extend Plaintiffs deadline to compel to June 2 nd, for the outcome of the hearing. On May 19th, Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preference were heard in part. The hearings were then continued, on the Court’s request, to June 1, 2023, and Mr. Braunstein and I again agreed to move the deadline to compel to 6/15. On June 14, 2023, we sent a comprehensive meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies in Defendants’ discovery responses. In the letter, an extension to move to compel was sought to July 7, 2023, to allow Defendants time to amend. Thereafter, I granted you repeated extensions to respond, all the while, you could have been preparing amended responses. In addition, you have three attorneys working on this file in California, not to mention Mr. Hanover, who you requested be brought in the case, as well as two other attorneys Defendants unsuccessfully sought to have admitted pro hac vice to assist on this file. Defendants have more than enough resources to have timely completed this task. You finally served a response on Sunday, July 16th seeking 21 days to provide amended responses. I immediately informed you that due to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment and our oppositions being due August 2 nd, we needed responses in 10 days, by July 26, 2023. You repeatedly stated it wasn’t possible, however, when I offered to accept responses in 21 days in exchange for Defendants withdrawing their Motions, you went radio silent, and then did not provide responses within the demanded 10 days, thereby seeking to stick to your own arbitrary timeline, and prejudicing Plaintiffs. Your open-ended deadline to compel is meaningless as the discovery cutoff is August 8 th – and by your timeline, these responses will be served August 7 th. It is clear that Defendants are attempting gamesmanship – however, it will not stand. As stated, either you confirm to us by 12 p.m. today that you have taken both Motions for Summary Judgment off calendar, or we will seek to have the Motions denied on the basis of your bad faith tactics in withholding discovery that is pertinent to Plaintiffs’ Oppositions. 3 Kelsey L. O’Rourke PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 2:03 PM To: 'Haevernick, Joshua' ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) Josh- As I previously stated, we need the full and complete responses to adequately respond to the motions for summary judgment. The only way I can agree to 21 days is if Defendants agree to withdraw both of the motions for summary judgment. Otherwise, we expect full and complete responses within 10 days of your 7/16 letter. Kelsey Kelsey L. O’Rourke PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Haevernick, Joshua Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 10:35 AM To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. 4 Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Kelsey, As I previously stated, we are working to amend and serve Defendants’ responses as soon as reasonably possible, but we cannot agree to provide the amended response within 10 days. To be clear, I am the only associate working on this file. Some of the agreed upon amendments/tasks (e.g. identification of documents responsive to interrogatories from a large claim file, addressing all issues (i.e. document corruption, etc.) with the production, etc.) can be particularly time- intensive. Thank you. Best, Josh Joshua Haevernick Senior Managing Associate +1 415 267 4149 From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:38 PM To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) [WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER] Josh- We apologize for any inconvenience, but we too need to prepare for depositions and the motions for summary judgment – both of which require full and complete discovery responses. As you’ll remember, I provided you with several weeks of extensions to prepare the meet and confer letter you sent just last night. We aren’t trying to be difficult, but we also need to be realistic with our fast-approaching trial date. Your team has numerous attorneys working on this file – I have no doubt that complete responses can be provided within 10 days. Kelsey 5 Kelsey L. O’Rourke PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Haevernick, Joshua Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 3:18 PM To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Kelsey, We cannot agree to 10 days – especially in light of the fact that we are responding to additional written discovery, arranging and preparing for several depositions, and otherwise preparing for summary judgment and trial. We would like to remind counsel that Defendants provided an extension on Plaintiffs’ MTC, despite the fact that Defendants never received any meet and confer correspondence from Plaintiffs until receiving the subject meet and confer letter 89 days after service, and the day before the agreed upon extended deadline. We are working to amend and serve Defendants’ responses as soon as reasonably possible, but would appreciate the time requested (i.e. 21 days) to do so. Thank you. Best, Josh Joshua Haevernick Senior Managing Associate +1 415 267 4149 From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 1:17 PM To: Haevernick, Joshua ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: RE: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) 6 [WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER] Josh- Thank you for your response. As an initial pressing concern, I wanted to address your request for 21 days to respond. As I am sure you can appreciate, our trial date is rapidly approaching. Can we agree to 10 days? Kelsey Kelsey L. O’Rourke PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Haevernick, Joshua Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2023 1:42 PM To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes ; Ellie A. Ehlert ; Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Braunstein, Jon ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Donner, Diane V. Subject: Response to M&C Letter (Leuschner) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Counsel, Please find Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer letter attached. Thank you. Best, Josh Joshua Haevernick Senior Managing Associate +1 415 267 4149 joshua.haevernick@dentons.com | Website Dentons US LLP Our Legacy Firms | Client Experience (CX) 7 EXHIBIT K Hankins, Adrienne From: Ellie A. Ehlert Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 7:57 PM To: Martin, Sonia R.; Braunstein, Jon; Haevernick, Joshua; Hanover, Mark L.; Donner, Diane V.; Hankins, Adrienne Cc: Michael G. Miller; Kelsey L. O’Rourke; Kristina M. Gardenal; Jennifer H. Alexander; Douglas M. Keehner; Cenaida E. Guzman; Erin E. Viramontes Subject: Leuschner v. Nationwide/Buskirk Attachments: 2023 07-20 Expert Disclosure - Plaintiffs.pdf; 2023 07-20 NOD Angela Othersen.pdf; 2023 07-20 NOD Daniel Alexander.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena Ronald Arrigotti w POD.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena Daniel Alexander w POD.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena Angela Othersen w POD.pdf; 2023 07-20 Subpoena Lindsay Lathrum w POD.pdf; 2023 07-20 NOD Ronald Arrigotti.pdf; 2023 07-20 NOD Lindsay Lathrum.pdf; 2023 07-20 POS EAE.pdf [WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER] Good Evening: A ached please find Plain ffs’ expert disclosure and other documents for service. Ellie Ehlert, ACP — Paralegal (she/they) PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: ehlert@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are con idential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 1 EXHIBIT L Hankins, Adrienne From: Braunstein, Jon Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2023 7:11 PM To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke; Cenaida E. Guzman; Michael G. Miller; Erin E. Viramontes Cc: Martin, Sonia R.; Haevernick, Joshua Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322 Kelsey, Are plaintiffs agreeable to remote depositions for these witnesses? Please confirm. Thank you, and much appreciated, Jon Jon Braunstein Partner +1 415 882 2425 San Francisco/Oakland From: Braunstein, Jon Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2023 5:56 PM To: Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Cenaida E. Guzman ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes Cc: Martin, Sonia R. ; Haevernick, Joshua Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322 Kelsey, We have not heard from you on this in over a month and a half. Per your request, we will check on dates and get back to you. Thank you, Jon Jon Braunstein Partner +1 415 882 2425 San Francisco/Oakland From: Kelsey L. O’Rourke Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2023 4:49 PM To: Braunstein, Jon ; Cenaida E. Guzman ; Michael G. Miller ; Erin E. Viramontes Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Haevernick, Joshua Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322 [WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER] 1 Jon- Circling back on this. We need to schedule the depositions of Laura Buskirk, the PMK at Nationwide regarding claims handling, training & policies, and the PMK at Nationwide regarding Plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance claim. Please advise what dates you have available through the end of the month. Thank you, Kelsey Kelsey L. O’Rourke PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: Orourke@perrylaw.net Website: www.perrylaw.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Braunstein, Jon Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 3:41 PM To: Cenaida E. Guzman ; Michael G. Miller ; Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Erin E. Viramontes Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne ; Martin, Sonia R. ; Haevernick, Joshua Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Ms. Guzman, Respectfully, we would prefer to communicate with counsel directly on substantive matters like this. As all counsel are aware, there is a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation pending. Defendants specifically objected to these depositions on that basis, among other grounds. If and after all pending motions are addressed and resolved, counsel for the parties can assess and discuss next steps. Regards, Jon Jon Braunstein Partner +1 415 882 2425 San Francisco/Oakland 2 From: Cenaida E. Guzman Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 3:20 PM To: Braunstein, Jon Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne ; Michael G. Miller ; Kelsey L. O’Rourke ; Erin E. Viramontes Subject: RE: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322 Importance: High [WARNING: EXTERNAL SENDER] Hello Mr. Braunstein: Thank you for forwarding this email to me. Can you please provide available dates for the depositions of Laura Buskirk, PMK at Nationwide regarding claims handling, training & policies, and the PMK at Nationwide regarding plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance claim? Thank you, Cenaida E. Guzman Secretary to Michael G. Miller, Nicole M. Jaffee, and Kelsey O’Rourke PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP 438 First Street, 4th Floor Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 525-8800 Fax: (707) 545-8242 Email: guzman@perrylaw.net Website www.perrylaw.net From: Braunstein, Jon Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 1:00 PM To: Cenaida E. Guzman Cc: Donner, Diane V. ; Hankins, Adrienne Subject: FW: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Cenaida – I noticed you were not on the email below. Courtesy forwarding to you here. Thank you. Jon Braunstein Partner +1 415 882 2425 San Francisco/Oakland From: Donner, Diane V. Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 9:17 AM To: miller@perrylaw.net; orourke@perrylaw.net 3 Cc: Martin, Sonia R. ; Braunstein, Jon ; Haevernick, Joshua Subject: Leuschner v Nationwide, et al.; Sonoma Sup. Ct. Case No. SCV-271322 Dear Counsel: Attached as e-service in the referenced litigation, please find the following: 1. DEFENDANT LAURA BUSKIRK’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT LAURA BUSKIRK AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; 2. DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AT DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY RE CLAIMS HANDLING, TRAINING & POLICIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; and 3. DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AT DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY RE PLAINTIFFS’ HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE CLAIM AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Please advise if you encounter any difficulty opening or accessing the attached documents. Thank you. Sincerely, Diane V. Donner Legal Secretary +1 415 882 0143 | US Internal 40143 Assistant To: Joshua Haevernick, Andrea M. Hall, Samuel D. Jubelirer, Sonia R. Martin, Alyssa Wolf San Francisco/Oakland Jon Braunstein Partner +1 415 882 2425 San Francisco/Oakland 4 EXHIBIT M 1 SONIA R. MARTIN (SBN 191148) sonia.martin@dentons.com 2 JONATHAN A. BRAUNSTEIN (SBN 227322) jon.braunstein@dentons.com 3 JOSHUA K. HAEVERNICK (SBN 308380) joshua.haevernick@dentons.com 4 DENTONS US LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 5 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: 415 882 5000 6 Facsimile: 415 882 0300 7 Attorneys for Defendants NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and 8 LAURA BUSKIRK 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA 11 12 PAUL LEUSCHNER and LOUISE No. SCV-271322 LEUSCHNER, 13 DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL Plaintiffs, INSURANCE COMPANY’S AMENDED 14 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ vs. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 15 DOCUMENTS, SET ONE NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 16 COMPANY; LAURA BUSKIRK and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs PAUL and LOUISE LEUSCHNER 21 22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 23 SET NUMBER: ONE 24 25 26 27 28 1 NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.010 et seq., Defendant Nationwide 2 Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) submits the following objections and amended 3 responses to Plaintiffs Paul and Louise Leuschner’s (“Plaintiffs”) Requests for Production of 4 Documents, Set One: 5 Nationwide has not yet completed its investigation of the facts pertaining to this action, its 6 discovery, or its preparation for trial. Nationwide reserves its right to rely on any documents or 7 other information that may develop or come to Nationwide’s attention at a later time. Nationwide 8 responds and objects as set forth below without prejudice to its right to assert any additional 9 responses or objections should it discover additional grounds for such responses or objections. 10 By responding, Nationwide does not concede that its responses are properly discoverable or 11 admissible and reserves its right to object to further discovery into the subject matter and to the 12 introduction of these responses into evidence. Furthermore, by responding, Nationwide does not 13 waive any of its previously stated objections to these requests. 14 AMENDED RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 16 All DOCUMENTS identified in and/or referenced in YOUR response to Form 17 Interrogatories, Set One. 18 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 19 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 20 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject 21 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 22 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client 23 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege, 24 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this 25 request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or 26 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks 27 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the 28 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the 2 NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or 2 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 3 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of 4 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance 5 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce 6 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number 7 192047-GL. 8 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: 9 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 10 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the 11 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 12 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the 13 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or 14 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. 15 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, 16 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request 17 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 18 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would 19 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its 20 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 21 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding 22 of this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the 23 insurance policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally, 24 Nationwide has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of 25 those portions reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve 26 information. 27 28 3 NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: 2 All DOCUMENTS identified in and/or referenced in YOUR response to Special 3 Interrogatories, Set One. 4 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 5 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 6 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject 7 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client 9 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege, 10 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this 11 request to the extent certain affirmative defenses are purely legal in nature. Nationwide objects to 12 this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or 13 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks 14 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the 15 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the 16 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or 17 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 18 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of 19 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance 20 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce 21 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number 22 192047-GL. 23 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: 24 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 25 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the 26 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 27 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the 28 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or 4 NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. 2 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent certain affirmative defenses are purely legal in 3 nature. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, 4 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request 5 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 6 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would 7 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its 8 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 9 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of 10 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the insurance 11 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally, Nationwide 12 has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of those portions 13 reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve information. 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 15 All DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR First Affirmative Defense – 16 Failure to State Cause of Action, as set forth in YOUR answer to PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint. 17 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 18 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 19 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject 20 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 21 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client 22 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege, 23 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this 24 request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or 25 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks 26 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the 27 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the 28 5 NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or 2 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 3 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of 4 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance 5 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce 6 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number 7 192047-GL. 8 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 9 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 10 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the 11 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 12 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the 13 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or 14 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. 15 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, 16 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request 17 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 18 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would 19 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its 20 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 21 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of 22 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the insurance 23 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally, Nationwide 24 has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of those portions 25 reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve information. 26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 27 All DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR Second Affirmative Defense – 28 Waiver, as set forth in YOUR answer to PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint. 6 NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 2 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 3 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject 4 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client 6 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege, 7 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects to this 8 request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial or 9 commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks 10 documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 791 et seq. of the 11 California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would violate the 12 constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its current or 13 former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 14 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of 15 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide will produce a copy of the insurance 16 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Nationwide will produce 17 the non-privileged, non-confidential, and relevant portions of the claim files for claim number 18 192047-GL. 19 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 20 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 21 objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the 22 subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 23 evidence. Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the 24 attorney-client privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or 25 litigation privilege, or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. 26 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, 27 proprietary, financial or commercially sensitive information. Nationwide objects to this request 28 to the extent it seeks documents or information that are private or confidential pursuant to section 7 NATIONWIDE’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 791 et seq. of the California Insurance Code or related regulations, disclosure of which would 2 violate the constitutional, statutory or common law privacy rights or interests of Nationwide, its 3 current or former employees, its customers, and/or its insureds. 4 Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based on Nationwide’s understanding of 5 this request, Nationwide responds as follows: Nationwide has produced a copy of the insurance 6 policy in effect on the date of loss at issue in this lawsuit (the “Policy”). Additionally, Nationwide 7 has produced the claim files for claim number 192047-GL, with the exception of those portions 8 reflecting communications with counsel, attorney work product, and reserve information. 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 10 All DOCUMENTS which YOU contend support YOUR Third Affirmative Defense – 11 Estoppel, as set forth in YOUR answer to PLAINTIFFS’ Complaint. 12 ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 13 Nationwide fully incorporates each of its general objections and reservations. Nationwide 14 objects to this request on the ground it seeks documents that are neither relevant to the subject 15 matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 16 Nationwide objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client 17 privilege, work product document, settlement communication privilege, and/or litigation privilege, 18 or was developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Nationwide objects