05.31.12 separate statement re mtc rfd (set two) [conformed]

a..
....J
....J
c:::
W
....J
.....J
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
REQUEST NO 1: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Arenzano Trust.
Plaintiffs Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome and harassing and unlimited as to scope and time. Because plaintiff does not
control the trust, and is not entitled to any distribution from the trust, plaintiff further objects to
this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to
this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are
protected from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of
privacy_ Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product
doctrine. Those documents include communications between plaintiff and his counsel, the trust -
and their counsel, and the beneficiaries and their counseL
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff has no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
The trust is irrevocable and Plaintiff has no control or fmancial interest in it. The trust was set up
over 14 years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiff to
be in the possession and control of the attorney and Trustee, Joseph J. Praske, however, the
18 requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are
19 otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth above.
20 Reasons to Compel Production: Mr. Gaggero is the trustor and manager ofthe Arenzano
21 Trust, an offshore trust created in or about 1997 as part of an asset protection plan. Mr. Gaggero's
----- ---------22---estate plalli:fing aftorney.;-josepllPtask:e~isthe trustee. Mr-:-Praske;in-:Iiiscapacityas the trustee-o.r- ------
23 the Arenzano Tl'ust is ajudgment debtor as Mr, Gaggero's alter ego. All documents relating to
- ~-- --- . -- -- -- - ------ -- - - -- --- --" - - ... _-- -- -- -- - ---~- --
_____________ ~_t__ !I:t~_brel1~~oJ):!:1~!~re_r~l~y~~_~~9___~i!! !:li~jn _!g~epf()!~~l!l:~!1!_()f ~g'_~jl:l~@l~~!~ _lZPgJ:~~s________ _
25 agreed to limit the scope of this request as identified in the meet and confer correspondence of
26 May 11,2012.
27
28
-2-
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

1I
1 Mr. Gaggero also objects on the basis of his and third parties Constitutional right to
2 privacy, attorney-client, and attorney-work product privilege. It is well settled that the right of
3 privacy is not absolute and may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public interest.
4 Moskowitz v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 316 (1982) (citations omitted). One such
5 interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. Id Additionally,
6 to the extent that Mr. Gaggero seeks to withhold any document pursuant to any objection he must
7 identify with particularity the documents withheld and the objection, including but not limited to
8 claims of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 291; Code Civ.
9 Proc. §§ 2031.240(b)(1), (2). The information in a privilege log or accompanying any other claim
10 of privilege must be sufficiently specific to permit the trial court to determine whether each
11 withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.
12 App.4th 1217, 1228. Mr. Gaggero has not established that any of the documents he is seeking to
13 withhold is subject to any privilege or objection.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
---"--------22-----------------------------------------------------------------------------"---------------
23
24
25
26
27
28 ..,
-.,-

;---
a..
--1
--1
0:::
ill
--1
--1
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'----- -.;;-- ------ ---- - --- J/
REQUEST NO 2: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Giganin Trust.
Plaintiffs Response: Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
doctrine. Those documents include communications between plaintiff and his counsel, the trust
and their counsel, and the beneficiaries and their counsel.
The trust is irrevocable and Plaintiff has no control or [mancial interest in it. The trust was set up
over 13 years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto
be in the possession and control of the attorney and Trustee, Joseph 1. Praske, however, the
requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are
19 otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth above.
20 Reasons to Compel Production: The Giganin Trust is a qualified personal residence trust
21 that has ownership ofMr. Gaggero's personal residence a 1,500 ranch in Ventura, California. Mr.
1----------22- --Gaggero-is-the-beneficial)rof-tl1eGtganin-'T'rlTst:-Mr.-Ptaske,-astne-trtlstee-;Oj-t1fe-(JigarrirrTra-sr------- -
23 is ajudgment debtor as Mr. Gaggero's alter ego. All documents relating to the Giganin Trust are
24
25
26
27
28
-------------"------------- - ---------- -- -------~----.- --------- --- -- - --- ----
r:eJ~~~n!!<?__ ~~'~eEf()E~~~e_~t_ ~:ff~_s_~}9~9J~~s__~~~_~<!_!()_JilTIlt_t~~_~~()E_~_~f~i~E~q~_s~_(ts_ _. ______
identified in the meet and confer correspondence ofMay 11,2012.
- -
Mr. Gaggero also objects on the basis of his and third parties Constitutional right to
privacy, attorney-client, and attorney-work product privilege.-It is well settIed that the right of
-4-

c:::
W
--I
--I
)- - -- -- - - - - - - ----- ~----}-
- -- 'L ----- --------./
2 Moskowitz v. Superior Court, l37 Cal.App.3d 3l3, 316 (1982) (citations omitted). One such
3 interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. Id. Additionally,
9 -wit]1.held document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 CaL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
---------22----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12....l
....l
13
0::: 14
W
....l 15
....l
2:
16
17
18
------_.-._.. ----_.- ----
19
20
21
I
'
-- -- --- -- ~-- -,J-- - --- ---~~--
REQUEST NO 3:All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Aquasante Foundation.
Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product
The trust is irrevocable and Plaintiff has no control or fmancial interest in it. The trust was set up
over 14 years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto
be in the possession and control of the attorney and Trustee, Joseph J. Praske, however, the
requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are
otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth above.
Reasons to Compel Production: Mr. Gaggero is the manager of the Aquasante
Foundation, a foundation created in or about 1997 as part of his asset protection plan. Mr.
i----~---~----2Z_ --Gaggero'sestaTeplanffing attorney, 3'osepl:r-PrasKe,~ilnlie-trustee:-Mt-=-Praske;-in his-c-apactty~as---- ---~.
I
23 the trustee ofthe Aquasante Foundation is a judgment debtor as MI'. Gaggero's alter ego. All
-- -- - -- - ---- -- --- - ------- --- ~~ - -- - -- - -- - ---,-" - ~--- ~--
.___ ~2~__ ~Qc;l!!ll..e!l!s J:~I'!ti!lK~o !h_e_~9,:t:l~~'!!l:!~J~'0l!!'!d_8:1!~~~~~ !~Iey_~~~~_<! _~i!L8:i<!_~Jh~__~~t:~~()~1!l~nt 5?! ...
25 KPC's judgment. KPC has agreed to limit the scope of this request as identified in the meet and
26 confer correspondence ofMay 11,2012.
27
28
-6-
SEPARATE STATEMENT.IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

....--.....
- -- - -- - -- - --- --- ------------ -- - - --- -- - -- -- 7-- - ---- --- + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -
5 interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. fd. Additionally,
10 of privilege must be sufficiently specific to permit the trial court to detemiine whether each
11 withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
--------------22---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- - ----------
23
24
25
26
27
28 -7-

0...
--'
--'
0:::
W
--'
--'
'.
1 REQUEST NO 4: All DOCUMENTS that RELATEto any trust or foundation that is part of
YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to the defmition of ESTATE PLAN .set forth in
Defendant's Definitions in that it includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
administration and disposition of Plaintiffs property, owned by plaintiff at any time in any
capacity, before or after death including will, trust, gifts, or power of attorney, or any other
method of estate planning and further refers to the transfer of any assets owned by Plaintiff at any
time to any PERSON or ENTITY collectively on the ground that such an expansive group of
definitions imposes a burden greater than what is required by the California Rules of Civil
Procedure and makes the requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing andlor
not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the inquiry
into Plaintiffs current assets, which is the sole subject of.this discovery.
Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any relevant
scope and time period. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
18
_______on.the_grounds thatiLseeks_documents_thatare protected-from-disclosure-by-the--attorney-=client__________ _
19
20
21
privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
,------------22---- --------------------------------- -------------------
Trust documents are believed to be in the possession and control of the attorney and Trustee,
23
__________Joseph.J. Praske,howeyer, the IequestecL documentsareirrelevanLtothe -propounding-parties'--
24
26
27
28
-above. -
ReasollsJoC()DlpeIProduction: Mr. Gc:tggero refuses to produce docuIIlents because (1)
_d~fmiti_QnQf "Estate Plan" is _overly _bxoad_ and _imPDses a greater burden than re_auired by __ _
-8-

0....
.-oJ
.-oJ
0:::
ill
.-oJ
.-oJ
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
- - - - - - - -- }--
California Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) KPC is only entitled to request information about Mr.
Gaggero's current assets, and (3) the request is not limited to scope and time. The notion that
KPC is limited to information about Mr. Gaggero's current assets is erroneous and contrary to
well-settled authority relating to a judgment debtors scope of inquiry. KPC is entitled to any
document that will aid in their enforcement efforts including trust documents dating 20 years ago,
if necessary. Mr. Gaggero cannot withhold any documents on this basis for any ofKPC's requests.
While the request appears broad this is due to Mr. Gaggero's conduct in establishing a complex
scheme involving numerous entities, trusts, and foundations. Mr. Gaggero cannot now use this as
a defense to responding to relevant post- judgment discovery requests,
privacy, attorney-client, and attorney-work product privilege. It is well settled that the right of
privacy is not absolute and may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public interest.
Moskowitz v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 316 (1982) (citations omitted). One such
interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. Id. Additionally,
to the extent that Mr. Gaggero seeks to withhold any document pursuant to any objection he must
identify with particularity the documents withheld and the objection, including but not limited to
claims of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285,291; Code Civ.
Proc. §§ 2031.240(b)(1), (2). The information in a privilege log or accompanying any other claim
21 App. 4th 1217, 1228. Mr. Gaggerohas not established that any of the documents he is seeking to
22- -wit1il:l01ais-su15jeccto-ally privilege-or ol5jecfion:--------------------------------------
23
24
25
26
27
28 -9-

______________________________________________ --=~L- --') - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ -----
(L
....J
....J
0:::
ill
....J
....J
1 REQUEST NO 5: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
2 Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to the defmition of ESTATE PLAN set forth in
3 Defendant's Defmitions in that it includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
4 administration and disposition of Plaintiffs property, owned by plaintiff at any time in any
5 capacity, before or after death including will, trust, gifts, or power of attorney, or any other
6 method of estate planning and further refers to the transfer of any assets owned by Plaintiff at any
7 time to any PERSON or ENTITY collectively on the ground that such an expansive group of
8 definitions imposes a burden greater than what is required by the California Rules of Civil
9 Procedure and makes the requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and/or
10 not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the inquiry
11 into Plaintiffs current assets, which is the sole subject ofthis discovery.
12 Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any relevant
13 scope and time period. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
14 documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
15 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
16 calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs
17 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
18 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
19 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiff responds
21 as follows: Plaintiffs estate plan was set up over 14 years ago. Plaintiff has no documents
-:--------22---responsive totl1is requesCmnis possession or contf6nmlt ateWitnmany rea~mnablefime periociof-------
I
I
23 the judgment. Plaintiffs estate plan is irrevocable and was established over 14 years ago. Estate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - -- -
________________~.:!__ p]~n_<!~~~~l1!~,__~s_plaiJJ..:tJff__~t.e!P~_~~~_Jh~_<!.ef!l1it_!<:)111 ~I~_lJc:!iey~c!!Q. _!?e_~!h~J~~s~_c:~siO_l!_I:tIl§ _________ _
25 control of attorney Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevant to the
26 propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to attorney client
27 privileges and the other privileges and pnvacy rights set forth above.
28 -10-

0..
--I
--I
0:::
W
--I
--I
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'--- -------- ---- -------7------ --:/~l- ------- ------- -----------------
Reasons to Compel Production: Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents because (1)
defmition of "Estate Plan" is overly broad and imposes greater burden than required by California
Rules of Civil Procedure (2) KPC is only entitled to request information about Gaggero's current
assets, and (3) the request is not limited to scope and time. According to the testimony of Mr.
Gaggero and his estate planning attorney, Mr. Praske, in Gaggero v. Yura, Los Angeles Superior
Court (Case No BC239810) Mr. Gaggero's "estate plan" implemented an estate plan comprised of
multiple partnerships, multiple corporations, and multiple trusts or foundations. The Estate Plan is
clearly defmed in KPC's requests and includes the estate plan Mr. Gaggero described in his
testimony. Vhile the request appears broad this is due to l1r. Gaggero's conduct in establishing a
complex scheme involving numerous entities, trusts, and foundations. Mr. Gaggero cannot now
use this as a defense to responding to relevant post- judgment discovery requests. Moreover, the
notion that KPC is limited to information about Mr. Gaggero's current assets is erroneous and
contrary to well-settled authority relating to a judgment debtors scope of inquiry.
interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. fd. Additionally,
21 claims of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285,291; Code Civ.
~--------------Z2-- -Proc~§-rZ03T24-0-(bl{T)~(2r-Tlie Illrormal1onif.CapriviTegeTog-oraccompanymg-anyOilier cla:im-------
___________~4 ___wi1bh~!C:! c:lg_cJm!~l1:U~ ()Ij.1l_nQtprtyileg~ci~_Kqj~~r.EQ.UB4li()sp,_~._§.upt}rJ!!L_9011rt_Q~_2..82 §.§_(al.______________
27
28
-11-

j-_ __ - ________________ - - _________~ ______ ____ I '-,--------
a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
ill
.....J
.....J
~
r-- -. -- ---
,
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
REQUEST NO 6: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any COMMUNICATION
REFERENCING YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to the definition of ESTATE PLAN set forth in
Defendant's Defmitions in that it includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
defmitions imposes a burden greater than what is required by the California Rules of Civil
into Plaintiffs current assets, which is the sole subject ofthis discovery.
17
18
.. ______ __on the_gLounds that it.se_eks_do.cuments__thaLareproJe.cted_fromdisclosure_hy_the_.attomey:c1knt ______._.
19
20
21
privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine. The documents requested relate to an include.
communications between plaintiffand his counsel over 14 years ago.
Reasons to Compel Production: Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents because (1)
,---------------22---------- -------.-------..- ----.-
I
I defmition of "Estate Plan" is overly broad and imposes greater burden than required by California
23
I
_~_~~-__ 24- Rules of CiyiLErocedure(2}_KPC is _only entitledJQ :request information_aboui_Gaggerp'sCllrrellt_
.-------.-----.-assets,-ancf(3TThe-requesCis-noi-limilea-tc)-scope-andliiIi.e~ -AccoraiiigTo-the--testiiTIony-ofMr.-·- --
25
r
-Gaggeroand.hisestate planningattornej!-. Mr. Praske~in.Gaggerov+ Yur.a, LosAngele.sSuperior_
I
26
1 -
27
28
__Court (Cas_e N().BC~3981 0) Mr. Gagge!o's "estate plan" implelllented an estateplall comprised ()f
_mu,ltipk.partnerships, JJlllltinle c<Lmorations, and multinletrusts orfoundations.. The EstatePlan is
-12-

a..
.....J
.....J
0::
ill
.....J
.....J
.~
1_
1 clearly defmed in KPC's requests and includes the estate plan Mr. Gaggero described in his
2 testimony. While the request appears broad this is due to Mr. Gaggero's conduct in establishing a
3 complex scheme involving numerous entities, trusts, and foundations. Mr. Gaggero cannot now
4 use this as a defense to responding to relevant post- judgment discovery requests. Moreover, the
5 notion that KPC is limited to information about Mr. Gaggero's current assets is erroneous and
6 contrary to well-settled authority relating to a judgment debtors scope of inquiry. KPC is entitled
7 to any document that will aid in their enforcement efforts including trust documents dating 20
8 years ago, ifnecessary.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
- --_. - --_._---
]A..!". Gaggero also objects on the basis of his and third pa.rties Constitutional right to
interest is uncovering the tr.uth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. fd. Additionally,
claims of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 291; Code Civ.
of privilege must be sufficiently specific to permit the trial court to determine whether each
19
20
withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.
App. 4th 1217, 1228. Mr. Gaggero has not established that any of the documents he is seeking to
22------------------------------------------------- ------------------
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13-

I
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0./
10
11
0..
12.....J
.....J
13
0::: 14
W
.....J 15
.....J
~
16
17
18
- - - - - - - - -_/-~)-- - ----------~---- - - - -~-~-- ----
REQUEST NO 7: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are the
trustor regardless of YOUR present income or financial interest.
Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties'
judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth
--- -- ------- ------ ----- --above.------- ------- ------- ---------------------------- -- ---- --- --- ------- -- --- --------- ---
19
20
21
Reasons to Compel Production: The request is limited to any trust in which Mr. Gaggero
is the trustor- the request is clearly limited whether he is presently a trustor. Mr. Gaggero's use of
off-shore trusts and foundations as part of an asset protection plan makes his objections relating to
Z2-- - -----------------------
23
24-----.-.---~.---~--------
25
26
27
28
"control" and "entitled" irrelevant and an invalid basis to withhold documents. Additionally, this
-requesLisdirectedat-trusts thaLare not-partofMr._Gaggero's estate plan. KPC has agreed-to limit_
-------- - ------ ----- ------~----------------- - - ---
the definition ofYOU in this request to Mr. Gaggero in his-personafcapacliY~- --- - -- - ------ --- ----- --- ------
----------:rvf±..-Gaggero-also-0bjects- on-the:-basis-oi-his-and- thITd--palties -Constitutional right -to-
privacy-, _attorm~y-clkl1t,a.odatt:orney-w()]:k pr()duct_privilege._ It is well_sett:ledthat the rightof
__oriv:acy js .oot_ absolute_and may heabrid2:ed_ io__ ac_c_ommo_date___a CDmnellin2:_p_ublic interest.
-14-

1--
0....
.....I
.....I
a::::
ill
.....I
.....I
-'1-- -- -- --7-
_~l_________ ___________
6 Proc. §§ 2031.240(b)(l), (2). The information in a privilege log or accompanying any other claim
9 App. 4th 1217, 1228. M..r. Gaggero has not established that any ofthe documents he is seeking to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1--------22----------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ------
23
24
25
26
27
28 -15-

-,~-~---~------~~-~--~--~--~~---~ ~~--~~~-- - - - -- ~-- ------r--~--------~--~----~------ ----~
_____i~J _____________________________ _
0..
--I
--I
0:::
W
--I
--I
~
r- - - - -- ----- -- - ... _--
i,
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
REQUEST NO 8: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a
TRUST PROTECTOR, regardless of YOUR present income or financial interest.
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to
privacy. Plaintiff fu..rl.her objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
17 judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth
18 above.
19 Reasons to Compel Production: The request is limited to any trust in which Mr. Gaggero
i 20 is the trust protector- the request is clearly limited whether he is presently a trust protector. Again,
rl
, ___________21 Mr. Gaggero's use of off-shore trusts and foundations as part of an asset protection plan makes his
22---oojections relating -fC)"contfol" ancl-"entiIlea"-iITelevauraoo- an-invalicl-l5asis-towitl11f6Ia------
23 documents. Additionally, this request is directed at trusts that are not part of Mr. Gaggero's estate
I
t~~ - -~- ~ ~---~-~--~-~- -- - ~-~~~-~~~-
L_~_ _ __________)~___ p!?-1!:·_KEgQ~s_agreed!()_U~i~t}1~_~~fmi!i().!lSlfyOlIt~!hl~!~~ue~t!~M:!:~Q~&g~!"~inJl!Sp_e£s()J:l~L_ _________ _
25 capacity.
26
27
28 -16-

(L
.....J
.....J
0::::
W
.....J
.....J
r~-~
-----------------------~T------- ---------------- -------------- ------ ----- --;---
9 Proc. §§ 2031.240(b)(1), (2). The i!l..formation in a privilege log or accompanying any other claim.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
-17-

i
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12....J
....J
13
0:: 14
W
....J 15
....J
~
16
17
18
- - -- - - - - - - - --- --'-)------- - ---'1----- ----- -
REQUEST NO 9: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a
beneficiary, regardless ofYOUR present income or financial interest.
Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
________________________ahove_.____ ____________ __ ___ ____ ________________ ____ _______ __ _______ ____ __ __ __ _________ ____________ _______ ___ _________________________
19
20
21
is a beneficiary - the request is clearly limited whether he is presently a beneficiary. Again, Mr.
Gaggero's use of off-shore trusts and foundations as part of an asset protection plan makes his
22-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
objections relating to "control" and "entitled" irrelevant and an invalid basis to withhold
23
I 24
do_cuments. Additionally, this request is dir.ected at trusts that are not part ofMr. Gaggero's estate_
1----------------;5- --pran~-Finany~1ZpC -lias-agreed-to-liillfCfliecfe1:iiiifioiiorYDU-to--mclildeMr:-Gagger-a iii liis------- ---
[- - - --- -- - - -personaLcapacity_ - -- -- - - -- - -- ----- -- -- - - - - --- - ---- - - - -
I 26
I
27
28 -18-
- - - -

~-- --- - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - ---
--) /--)
- - -----:~----- ------ ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ---,--------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12.....J
.....J
13
cr 14
ill
.....J 15
.....J
~
16
17
18
REQUEST NO 10:All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class
of beneficiaries, regardless of YOUR present income or financial interest.
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
___________________ahoy_e. ________________ .____________._______ _________ _________ ___ ____ ____________ ._____ .___ __ _ _____________________________________________
19
20
is in class of beneficiaries - the request is clearly limited whether he is presently in class of
21
beneficiaries. Again, Mr. Gaggero's use of off-shore trusts and foundations as part of an asset
t - - - - - - · - - 2 2 - - - - - - - - - -
23
24
25
26
27
protection plan makes his objections relating to "control" and "entitled" irrelevant and an invalid
basis to withhold documents. Additionally, this_r.equestisdirected at_trusts that are not part ofMr.
__ -GaggerohlispersonaLcapacity_____________
_IvIt:. (Jaggero al§o _o1Jj~ctsonthe Q~sis gf his andthirci parties Cons!itu!ignal right to _
. . ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ u _12rivaQy,__attorneY,:,client, and_ attorney-work ill'Oduct_12rivikge.Jt iswelL settled .that the_ right of
28 -20-

r
I
[
a..
....J
....J
0:::
ill
....J
....J
------- ----------------f--- ----------------- ---
-'j
-7-
9 witb..held document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 CaL
10 App. 4th 1217, 1228. Mr. Gaggero has not established that any of the documents he is seeking to
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22--------------------------------
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21-

n::
w
.....I
.....I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____ J____________ ____________
REQUEST NO l1:All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid
on YOUR behalf by any PERSON or ENTITY including, but not limited to, Pacific Coast
Management and Avalon Corporation since 200l.
Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that the term "on
YOUR behalf" is overly broad and compound. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the
grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing and unlimited as to scope and
time. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action.
Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant
documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally
protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney
12 work-product doctrine.
13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
14 as follows: The specified time period is overly broad and unrelated to any reasonable attempt to
15 collect this judgment. If the propounding party agrees to limit this request to a relevant and
16 reasonable time period, Plaintiff will produce documents reasonably responsive to this request in
17 plaintiffs possession and control that are not privileged. As to fees paid by plaintiff that are not
18 privileged, those documents have already been produced in discovery in this action and the
19 Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke action currently pending before the Los Angeles Superior
20 Court in which the propounding parties' legal firm is the firm that prepared these discovery
21 requests.
i
I
~---~- ~~~~~~~:~~~~~um~re~p~~--~
I 23 Mr. Gaggero's daily living expenses, such as food, clothes, rent, toiletries, utilities, vet bills, dog
~-------------------~~- _J:>ill~_ ~~~!:!~~~pLe~£~~s_~~:~l1sL~l1~_o!!l~~j~ving exi~n~~J;i!I!!~~Lp_~~!i~s~_A~~or~~gJ~_~~ __________ _
I
I-I
c-
25
26
27
28
Gaggero, his vet bills and utility bills are paid for by Pacific Coast Management and/or Avalon
Corporation. Vet bills are clearly not an expense he incurred in his capacity as an employee or
consultant. :r<:PChas agreecit() lnnlt-the requests to bi1ls,-rees,mVOlces, charges paidonMf.
-22-

"-
i--------------------- ------------ ------------------------y--------- ---------------- ------------ - ----- ~
l---------------- --------
a..
.....J
.....J
~
W
.....J
.....J
1 Gaggero's behalf since January 1, 2009. Additionally, "YOUR behalf' is limited to bills, fees,
2 invoices, or charges paid for the benefit of Mr. Gaggero, in his personal capacity and not in his
3 capacity as an employee or consultant.
9 to the extent that NT...!". Gaggero seeks to with..hold any document pursuant to any objection he must
17
18
19
20
21
!--------2'2------------- ~~----~----------~~~~~~-----------------
23
24
25
26
27
28
-23-

-~ ~c___________________________________ ~ __ ~ ____________________________________________: _________________________________________ _
I
0:::
LU
..J
..J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
REQUEST NO 12:All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to travel expenses paid by YOU or any
PERSON or ENTITY on your behalf since 2001.
Plaintiffs Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that the term "on
YOUR behalf' is overly broad and compound. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the
protected right of privacy. Plaintiff fu...rther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
work-product doctrine.
13 as follows: The time period is overly broad and unrelated to any reasonable attempt to collect this
14 judgment. Should the propounding party agrees to limit this request to a relevant and reasonable
15 time period, Plaintiff will produce documents reasonably responsive to this request in plaintiff's
16 possession and control that are not privileged.
17 Reasons to Compel Production: This request seeks documents relating to the payment of
18 travel expenses by any person, entity, or by Mr. Gaggero. KPC has agreed to limit this request to
~.--- - ----- ---_._- --- ., ._------. ------- - ------------------_ .._----..._--------_._--- - -- .._. -- --------- -- --- -"------ -------
I
I
I
19 travel expenses paid for the benefit .of Mr. Gaggero in this personal capacity, and not in his
I 20 capacity as an employee or consultant. Travel expenses include Mr. Gaggero's car payments,
I
I 21 plane tickets, expenses paid while traveling out of state or ou.t of the country, food expenses paid
r----------22-- -willle--u'ave1ing out oIllie state or oufOfme country, and-anyollier expenses relaTed-tOtraveling. ----
23 KPC is aware Mr. Gaggero is often out ofthe country for "vacation" which is clearly unrelated to
__________________~1_ It!§':YQt:k~~<:::_I:!as fu!1:j1~~gr~ed 1~Ligl,it tl:!~_!:~@~§.~~~9.~~~P:s~SJ2~!~t~P:~e}al!!l~J11Q()2:_____________
27 privacy is not absolute and may be -abrrdged-to accoInmodate a compelling public interest.
28
-24-

----------------------------~~----------------- ------------~=~-- -----------------------------------
0...
.....J
.....J
~
W
.....J
.....J
2 interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. Id Additionally,
8 withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.
9 App.4th 1217, 1228. MJ. Gaggero has not established that any of the docll..11lents he is seeldng to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
[----------- -- -i9- --- --- ---- --- - ------ -- -----
20
21
1--------22--1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
23
24
25
26
27
28
-25-

1_______________ ---------------,-~--------- -------- -- ------_"-j __________________ --- ----
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12...J
...J
13
et:: 14
W
...J 15
...J
~
16
17
18
REQUEST NO 13:AIIDOCUMENTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or
anv PERSON or ENTITY on your behalf since 200l.
Plaintifrs Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that the term "on
YOUR behalf' is overly broad and compound. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the
protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
work-product doctrine.
as follows: The specified time period is overly broad and unrelated to any reasop.able attempt to
collect this judgment. If the propounding party agrees to limit this request to a relevant and
reasonable time period, Plaintiff will produce documents reasonably responsive to this request in
plaintiffs possession and control that are not privileged. As to fees paid by plaintiff that are not
privileged, those documents have already been produced in discovery in this action and the
______ _________ __Gagg~J!:u~,Xnann,p-eJSlL~lLiJJ1~LClarl~~~QtiQJ;u::JlJJ~ntly_1I~ndingbd9I~Jhe_LQS_.tillg~l~SSllP~tiQL ._______ _
19
20
21
Court in which the propounding parties' legal firm is the firm that prepared these discovery
requests.
Reasons to Compel Production: KPC is entitled to information relating to third parties
----~2--1--~-------------------·----------------------------
who provide financial support to Mr. Gaggero. Additionally, KPC is entitled to all information
23
__ ___________rela.tingJO...J!Ir. G-aggero'~a..bili1Y tSLpursue-cQstlylitigatiQn Whil~_c1aimingto l:mve_no 1119n~Y.T'bis
24
;------ ---------- --request -islimltecrto-1itigatlOn expenses paia:-Iortliebenem--of~-::--Gaggero~ln-1iis- -persoriar-- ------
. 25
....
i
1-
26
witll :f11ingfi l,!wsui~. _Jg>g ha~ agreed~~ I~ITlit _tl1is_~~que_st to only d5J~l!lllents_refJectirlg_~lle
27
_identity of the~erson or entity-,__ including Mr. OaggerQ, and the amounts paidfor expenses u
_ •
28 -26-

1--------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12--I
--I
13
0:: 14
W
--I 15
--I
~
16
17
18
-- -_.. _--_._-
19
20
__ c-''__________ _____________{~~
incurred by Mr. Gaggero. For example, all documents related to the payment of attorney fees in
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al in the Los Angeles Superior Case No BC286924 and
Bunge v. 511 o.F.W L.P., et al in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SCI00361 are responsive
to this request. Documents reflecting the identity of the person or entity making payments for Mr.
Gaggero's personal litigation expenses are not privileged. KPC also agrees to limit the requests to
expenses paid since October 1,2008.
privacy is not absolute and may be abridged to acco!!uTIodate a compelling public interest.
withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.
App.4th 1217,1228. Mr. Gaggero has not established that any of the documents he is seeking to
withhold is subject to any privilege or objection.
21
i--------22--I- - -
I
23
24
25
26
27
28 -27-

1--------------------------------------------------------------"--~
0...
..;..J
..;..J
0:::
W
..;..J
..;..J
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0/
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
REQUEST NO 14: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at
any time by YOU in any capacity.
Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this
request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this
request on the grounds that it calls for the production of irrelevant documents that are protected
from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of privacy.
Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
as follows: Plaintiff is not aware of any assets he has transferred since the entry of judgment in
this matter.
Reasons to Compel Production: Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the
grounds that the request is unlimited as to scope and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and
harassing. Additionally, Mr. Gaggero responds that there are no documents responsive documents
17
after the entry of judgment. Mr. Gaggero cannot withhold documents by improperly limiting
KPC's scope of discovery. KPC has agreed to limit the scope of this request to the transfer of Mr.
18
--------- --- --- - --- ---- --Gaggero-'sinterest.in_personaLpropetly_(cars,_hoats,_equipmenLfof_aTI.y.._business_owned..by him,- ------ -- ---
19
20
21
etc.) at any time since January 1, 1997 to any corporation, limited liability company, limited
partnership, and/or limited liability partnership by Mr. Gaggero, in personal capacity.
_:--------Z2--- Mr. Gaggero also objects on the basis of his and th~~arties C~mstitutional right to
23
--privacy- -is-not. absolute-and ma.ybe- abridged to accommodate a. compelling_public interesL
i 24!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
1---- - - - - -- -- ----
26
27
28
--interest-is-uncQver-ing-the-truthin-legal-pwceed-ings by-aUQwing-bwad-disccrv-e:ry..-Jd--AdditiQnaUy,---
JQfue extel1tthatMr.G~..ggero_seek~ to w:itl.-lholcLtl!1Y4()cumen(purs1-l<!ntto_a1'lY(Jbjf!:c:lion he l1111sL
_identifv_with._oarticularity_the do_cuments withheld and th.e ohie_ction including.huLno.tlimitecLtn
-28-

f/~ /-"""'
---------------- - - ------ -- ----------- ------7--------------- - - ---- ---------i---------------- ------ -----
0...
.....J
.....J
0::::
W
.....J
.....J
~
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
12--
23
24
25
26
27
28
-29-

[--- ----~-- ---~-------------------~--r------~--- ---~ - ----~- - - ~---~- -~----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0.. 12....J
....J
13
0:::: 14
W
....J 15
....J
16
REQUEST NO 15: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at
any time by YOU as part of YOUR ESTATE PLANNING.
Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to the definition of ESTATE PLAN set forth in
Defendant's Definitions in that it includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
definitions imposes a burden greater than what is required by the California Rules of Civil
into Plaintiffs current assets, which is the sole subject ofthis discovery.
~
17
18
__~_______ __~~__~_ _ ~on- the-W"ounds-thatiLseeks_documents~_thaLare_protecte_d~from_disclQsure_b;)Uheattome-y~dienL
19
20
21
privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
as follows: Plaintiffs estate plan was set up over 14 years ago. Plaintiff has no documents
12--
23
24
25
26
27
28
responsive to this request in his possession or control that are within any reasonable time period of
_the judgment.~Plaintiffsestate~planisirre~ocable_and was_establishe_doverJA_year~ago~ Estate ~ __ _
--cGontrol--of-attorney-Joseph-J.-Eraske,--howeCer,-the-requested-documents--are-irrelevantio the_ -
__PI9POUIldinZ~Parties' jlld-welltSQl1ectiol1 ~f:forts8.J.1d__are ~~ oth~rwise~uQject !o att()mey~~ cHen!
~ lmLvilel2:es and the otheLP.rhillel2:.es and_pnva_QYJ:ights _set forth above.
-30-

0...
....J
....J
0:::
W
....J
....J
~
r-
-------------+------------ ___________c--y_____________________________
1 Reasons to Compel Production: This request seeks documents related to Gaggero's
2 transfer of property owned by him, personally, into various corporations, partnerships, as part of
3 the first step in implementing his estate plan. This request also seeks documents related to transfer
4 of his ownership interest in the entities to his trusts or foundation. All documents relating to the
5 transfer of any assets as part of implementing the estate plan will lead to information of his
6 continued ownership interests or the value he received as part of his transfer. Mr. Gaggero cannot
7 withhold documents or refuse to comply with post-judgment discovery by improperly limiting
8 KPC's requests to his current assets.
0..-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1vf.J. Gaggero also objects on the basis of his and third parties Constittltional right to
claims of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 291; Code Civ.
20 App. 4th 1217, 1228. Mr. Gaggero has not established that any ofthe documents he is seeking to
22--
23
24---~~ ------------- -------- -~--- ------------------~----~~--- -- -- ~--- -- ------------- ------~---- -- - --~--
25
26
r
-
27
- -- -------_._._--- ------------ - - - ----
28
-31-

1-----.-----~-~---~------_~___________i_-+---------------------------~--
a..
---1
---1
0::
W
---1
---1
~
,--- - ---------------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
REQUEST NO 16:All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to anv post judgment discovery in any
matter to which YOU responded.
Plaintiffs Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
as follows: Plaintiff has no documents after entry ofjudgment in this case that are responsive to
this request except for the discovery done in this case, which documents are already in possession
,
ofthe requesting party
Reasons to Compel Production: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is
overly broad as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Mr. Gaggero
responds that he no documents after entry of judgment in this case that are responsive to this
request except for the discovery done in this case. There is no basis for Mr. Gaggero to withhold
__________docrunents_by_limiting__the_scope_to_the_entry:_oLjudgmenL_Ihe_requesLiLdirectl)[_rele:v:ant_to__ ______ _
19
KPC's enforcement efforts. Additionally the request seeks documents that relate to any post-
20
judgment discovery. KPC has agreed to exclude from this request any communications relating to
21
Mr. Gaggero's responses with his attorneys, however, KPC is entitled to the post-judgment
22--
23
24
discovery propounded to Mr. Gaggero, Mr. Gaggero's responses, and any documents produced in
response to any post-judgment discovery. There is_no need to limit the BcopeoftimeasitwilLbe_
-------------------~---nafurally lilliited to post~udgment discoveryllwolving Mr. daggero~-KPC-has agTeed-io-exclude--~--
25
----------- --from-thisl"equest-post~udgmen1-disco¥-er.:y-se1"¥-ed-inthe-pl"esen1-collection-efforts.---------- ------- -- -----
26 ~
27
______PDva_c.Y, attQme.Y:-client_ and attome.y~.w.ork__RroducLpIivil_ege..~t is_ well settled that.the rjght of
28 -32-

/,
------------- - - - - - - - - - -----+---~---~~ -------- ---- -----~~.:;---~ - - - - - - - - - --~---- - - ----~--
0:::
W
.....I
.....I
3 interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by allowing broad discovery. fd. Additionally,
9 withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 CaL
10 App.4th 1217, 1228. Mr. Gaggero has not established that any ofthe documents he is seeking to
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r----------22--'--------------------------------------------------------1-----
23
24
25
26
27
28 -33-

--~----------~----------------~--+---------~----------~-----~-- -'~-- ----~--~~--- ---------~-------
1 REQUEST NO 18:All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY ofwhich YOU are an
officer or member.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
from disclosure by theattorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
as follows: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations Plaintiff
responds as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request.
Reasons to Compel Production: This request seeks documents relating to any entity,
which is broadly defined in the Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), and includes
corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, general partnership, trusts,
foundation, or other partnership or association, of which Mr. Gaggero is an officer or member.
The request is clearly limited to the present, thus, all documents responsive to this request as of
1_ --. -~ - - ~-- -- -- ------- - -- _lanuary_3l,2D12,_wheniLwas_initiaILy_Ber~ed_must~ he__pmduced._KPG..has_agree~to_limiLthe__ ~ ---------
I 19
I
I 20
request to Mr. Gaggero in his personal capacity. As with all the requests, to the extent that you are
withholding any documents pursuant to a claim of privilege you must provide a privilege log
I 21
1 substantiating the assertion ofthe specific privilege.
,1----22--
23
24
_privacy,_ attorney-.c1ient,andattomey_-work producLprivilege. It~ k welLsettled thaLthe right oL_
;-- -----------------privacy-ls-not absolute-and may be abridged to accommodate a compelling pub1ic interest. ----
25
i1---- ------ ------- -Moskowitz-v.-Supe~io1'-Courl,-13}-CaLApp.3d3JJ ,---3-L6-~L982)-~citations-ornitted).-One-such -- ------
I 26
1
_~ 27 ipte_rt::_stis Ullcoy~ringthe trllth inlegaLpl."Q(;t::~ging~ by~llowinglJrQag d.i~90yery. Icl: Ac.l.di:tiQIl~lly,
_to the extent that Mr. Gaggyro seeks to withhold anJtdocumeni_PJJJ.suant to Q}:lv_obiec.tianlleJUusJ
28
-34-

--------------------------------------,/'J------------------~+----------------------
a..
...J
...J
a::::
w
...J
...J
5 withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hasp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.
6 App. 4th 1217,1228. Mr. Gaggero has not established that any of the documents he is seeking to
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22--
23
24
25
26
27
28 -35-

/~' (')
r- ------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----=_-~-------------------------- --- ---
1
2
3
4
5
i
6
7
8
9
10
11
0- 12
--'
--' 13
-
0::: 14
ill
--' 15
--'
- 16
~
17
18
REQUEST NO 20:All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to real property located at 3501
Canada Larga, Ventura California, 93001.
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action as plaintiff is not the owner of said
real property. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production
of irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties'
Constitutionally protected right of privacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds
that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
the attorney work-product doctrine.
Reasons to Compel Production: Mr. Gaggero's primary residence is a 1,500 acre ranch
located at 3501 Canada Larga, Ventura. The property is owned by the Giganin Trust, which is a
judgment debtor via Mr. Praske, in his capacity ofthe Giganin Trust.
. "--_ .. -_. .__.. _._0__-- ------- __interesUs_uUC_QY..er:.ingt~e_trl.lth_in legaLpmc.e.e.dings--by-allQ.:wil1g.broad-discQy-ery__14.__ AdditiQnally,-, __ ,_____ _
19
20
21
r--------22--
'
-----------------------------------------
'
-------
23
__ ___ __ of privilege_must _be_sufficiently _specificJo _permit the tdal_CQl1rLto_detepnme whether~ach __ _
24
1-------------- - wifEl:ieIaaocument-is or is not privilegea~serPOUnd. Hosji.-v.-Superior-CouiT(I9-9-8TooCaT:-- ------
25
1-__ ----- -- -------- - App~Ath.1212,1228~-Mr.-Gaggero..has.noLe.stablished thatau.y_ofthe_do_c_uments.he.is...seeking.to_
26
_ __ __",itN'l:o~d !§su~jectto~ny privilege o~.9.bj~cti()l1.
27
28
-36-

~-------------------~=-f--------------------~}---------------------------
0..
....J
_....J
~
W
....J
....J
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
REQUEST NO 25: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any income earned by YOUR since
2010
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
as follows: Plaintiff will produce any documents responsive to this Request in his possession and
control ifthe propounding party agrees to limit the document request to the relevant time period.
Reasons to Compel Production: Mr. Gaggero's income in the last two years is directly
relevant to KPC's enforcement of their judgment. See Troy, supra 186 CaLApp.3d at 1114
(employment records for preceding five years are relevant for enforcing judgment). These
objections are made in bad faith and wholly without meritless. Mr. Gaggero also objects on the
basis of his and third parties Constitutional right to privacy, attorney-client, and attorney-work
_pLOducLprivilege.~tis_welLsettkd_thaLthe_ righLofpriv:ac)dsnoLabsolute_andmay_be_abridgedto__________ _
accommodate a compelling public interest. Moskowitz v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 313,
316 (1982) (citations omitted). One such interest is uncovering the truth in legal proceedings by
allowing broad discovery. Id. Additionally, to the extent that Mr. Gaggero seeks to withhold any
22--
document pursuant to any objection he must identify with particularity the documents withheld
23
__ _ __and the_Qbjection,mdudinghut not limite_d to claims of privilege. Hemandez~.~upeJ"ior Court
24
---------------(2003) 112 CaL App. 4th 285, 291; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.240(b)(1), (2). Mr. Gaggero has no{-----
25
1-------- ----------- --establishe~thaLany-oLthe-documents-he-js-seeking--to-withhol~is--subjecLto-an:yprivilege-or-------
26
27
28
_gl?j~ctiol1._
-37-

/-~ .. '
1-----------1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'
-----r------- ------------------~ -~:f------- ---- -------- -- --------- ----
0:::
ill
-I
-I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REQUEST NO 28: All deeds, leases, mortgages, or any other DOCUMENT evidencing any
interest or ownership, including equitable interest or ownership, by YOU in real property at
any time since 1997.
9 Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grOlmds that it seeks documents that are protected
10 from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
12 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control which
13 would evidence any interest or ownership held in real property after entry of judgment in this
14 matter
15 Reasons to Compel Production: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is
16 overly broad as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Mr. Gaggero
17 responds that he no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control which would
18 evidence any interest or ownership held in real property after entry ofjudgment in this matter.
19 Mr. Gaggero's response again improperly limits the scope of the request. This request seeks
20 documents that will provide infonnation relating to Mr. Gaggero's ownership interests in assets,
21 notwithstanding, that legal title is held by an entity, trust, or foundation. Documents responsive to
22---nlis requesCincluc!eMr----=-Gaggero's ownerslfip interests ill any asset via lfis ownerslfip or controlof-
23 any trust, foundation, or entity. KPC is entitled to information since 1997 when Mr. Gaggero
___________2_4__ fraudulently transferred $30;QQO,OOO worth ofassets. ______________________________
------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
26
r 27
--privacy Is-nof-absoIliteand- inay-be- abridgeaiC;- accoriillioaate -acompellmg-pUblIc-illterest: ---
I
28
-38-

,/~ ')- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ! ) ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------;r--------------- - - -------
0..
.....I
.....I
0::
w
.....I
.....I
9 App.4th 1217,1228. :M.L Gaggero has not established that any of the documents he is seeking to
_11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
----------22---1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
23
24
25
26
27
28 -39-

, -'I rr)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------~--~-----~-----------------~-----7---------------------------1---
a...
--I
--I
-a::::
ill
--I
--I
--
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
REQUEST NO 30: All stock certificates or other DOCUMENTS evidencing ownership of
stocks and bonds held by YOU in anv capacity.
as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or controL
overly broad as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. These are not proper
grounds to refuse to comply with discovery requests. This request seeks documents relating to Mr.
Gaggero's ownership of stock certificates and bonds held by Mr. Gaggero in his personal capacity
or through his ownership or control of an entity, foundation, or trust that holds legal title to the
stock certificates and bonds. KPC has agreed to limit this request to documents since January 1,
2DD9..____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________~_____________________________
-------22--1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' ' - - - - - - - - - - = ' - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -
23
interestis uncovering the_truthinJegaLproceedingsby allQwing_broad_rliscoyery.Jd. _Additionally,
L __________~~__
i -t-:-o----,.th-e-e-Xtent that Mr. Gaggero seeks to withhold any document pursuant to any objection-he mu:st-- ----~
. 25
~----------------jdenti~-with-particularity-the-documents-withheld-and-the_objection,-including--hutnotJimitedJo_____
I 26 _.cJaim~_ofpriy!l~g~~Iierngl'lCl'~z v._§JAP~rj()!_COJ}:r! (~OQ~ll)~_~aJ. f..pp__Ath_2_~?, 291; Code Civ.1- - -------- --- - ---------- ---
i 27
28
__ Proc. _~&_2031.24Q(blCn,J2t The information in a nrivilege log or acCOmDany.in~any other .claim_
-40-

I------~---------~~-----~---~-_+_-------------------~~---------~------------
0..
-I
-I
~
W
-I
-I
~
1 of privilege must be sufficiently specific to permit the trial Court to determine whether each
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
;-----~---22--'-------------------------------------------~I---
23
24t-------~-------I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
25
26
27
28 -41-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ,)--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-_.-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0...
12~
~
13
-~ 14
W
~ 15
-~
- 16
~
17
18
----- _ .. _----------
19
20
21
REQUEST NO 33: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Pacific Cost
Management Corporation is a general partner.
PlaintifFs Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
unaware ofanyone who would be in possession of such documents
responds that he no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
unaware of anyone who would be in possession of such documents. Mr. Gaggero's assertion that
he does not have documents responsive to this request is subject to his objections pursuant to
_attomey::dienLprivilege,_attQrne-y_work::pmducLptivitege,__ and__GollstitutimlaLRight to~riyaQ)!,, __________ _
among others. It is unclear whether any responsive documents have been withheld pursuant to this
request.
'-------22-- -1----
23
r- -------------------- -jnterestjs_uncoy:eringihe_trufuinlegaLproceedings-,by_allo"Wmgbroa~discoyery_Jd--AdditionalLy~__------
26
-27 to the ~~tel1t_tp.?-t MI~ Qagg~t:()~e~~s1()'Y:i!~()1<=lH!ly_~o_~~1!!enL2~~1l~n1_!()_~1Zy~~j~t~()!l_h~ IIJ.ll_S~ __
28
_identify with particularity the documents withheld and the oQjection, including but not limited to_
-42-

~~ .-~
----------------------------------------;r-----------~------ ---- - . - - - / - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
W
.....J
.....J
1 claims of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 CaL App. 4th 285, 291; Code Civ.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22--
23
24
25
26
27
28
-43-

, ') ,')- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------;~-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a... 12-.....J
.....J
13
-0::: 14
W
.....J 15
.....J
- 16
~
17
REQUEST NO 34: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Avalon
Corporation is a general partner.
as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
unaware ofanyone who would be in possession ofsuch documents.
responds that he no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
unaware of anyone who would be in possession of such documents. Mr. Gaggero's assertion that
___ _________ _________ __attome¥",-clienLplivilege,_attomey__work:,producLprivilege,_ancLConstitutionaLRighLto_ PJiv:acy, ________ _
19
20
21
among others. IfMr. Gaggero is withholding any documents responsive to this request he needs
to provide a privilege log sufficient to support the claim ofprivilege.
1--------22--1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - -
23
_______________ priv:ac¥__isnotabsolute _and_may_be _abridged to__accornrnodate _acompellingpublkinterest._
24
---- Moskowitz v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 316 (1982) (citations omittedfC)ne-such ------
25
1-- -- --------------- - -interesLis-unco¥ering-the-truth-inJegaLproceedings-b:y-allo:wing-hroad-disco¥er-t_1d.-AdditionaUy:,-----
26
27
28
_tQJ:11_e~)(t~n!t41!t Mr_· Qagg~r()~~e:kslo~i!lJl1914flI11' r!()c:l!-11!el1tpw:§~af!!Jo__a!!JlpfJi~J:tifJfLt!~ [Il1:l§t __ _
__.identify with_p_articu1.arity the documents withheld and the obiection,_ includinR.but not limited tQ__
-44-

------~---------------~~.----------------~--~----cl-------------------
0...
.....J
.....J
0::
W
.....J
.....J
~
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r----------Z2---
'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
24
25
26
27
28 -45-

05.31.12 separate statement re mtc rfd (set two) [conformed]

05.31.12 separate statement re mtc rfd (set two) [conformed]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Similar to 05.31.12 separate statement re mtc rfd (set two) [conformed]

Similar to 05.31.12 separate statement re mtc rfd (set two) [conformed] (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

05.31.12 separate statement re mtc rfd (set two) [conformed]