...

1. Sent By: ; 8056436094; Sep-8-"q 11:21AM; Page 9
LAW 0 PFI C E 5
DAVID BLAKE CHATFIELD
425 ZENO WAY
OAK PARK. CALIFORNIA 91377
(81 8, 879-1269
FAX 1818) 879-9138
DAVID BLAKE CHATFIELD
EMAIL: DAVIDBLAXEC@,YAHCO.COM
September 5, 2003
Andrew Jablon, Esq.
Resch, Polster, Alpert & Berger
10390 Santa Monica Blvd. 4 th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
via facsimilie
Re: Sulphur Mountain v. John Redmond
Dear Mr. Jablon,
On August 29th, immediately after the hearing on your continued motion to compel, Mr.
Bezek and I asked that we meet so that we might try to resolve the issues that you felt
were outstanding. Our earlier attempts to meet with you were unsuccessful, largely
because it was impossible to carry on an intellectual dialogue when you were unwilling
to listen to counter arguments. The Judge's comments on August 29th seemed to
provide an environment conducive to open, mutual dialogue. You, Mr. Bezek and
myself then spent a considerable amount of time discussing issues and at the end we
agreed that your areas of inquiry could and would be substantially reduced, if not
completely eliminated. You wanted to confer with Michael Baum, the lawyer slated to try
this case, and then you would send us a proposal. With any luck, the proposal would
eliminate any further disputes or, at worst, leave only a few areas open for the court to
consider.
We were very upset when we read your proposal. You have modified nothing, in fact,
you have added new areas of discovery. Your position is as inflexible now as it was
prior to the August 29 th hearing and it is .clear that some sort of gamesmanship is
occurring here. We've been concerned that your strategy is simply to make this case so
unbearably burdensome, that my client would simply give up. YOU HAVE OVER
LITIGATED THIS CASE TO AN EXTREME. The issues are simple. There was a
contract to lease, your client ordered improvements made to the leasehold for which it
promised to pay, it admittedly failed to pay the rent and failed to pay for the
improvements which were installed, and left the facility in shambles. There is nothing
more to the case than that.
Based on your comments at the conclusion of the meet and confer on the 29', I was
very encouraged that not only would we eliminate the need for any further attorney or
court time in order to resolve disputes, there was a basis to discuss resolution of the
entire case. I reported as much to my client. They were very pleased. Imagine our ire

2. Sent By: ; 8056436094; Sep-8 -1 11:21AM; Page 10/16
Page 2 of 6
when we received your proposal only to learn that we had made NO PROGRESS and
we were still left with the very same issues and concerns expressed in your motion, plus
some new ones. We have no choice now but to spend more time addressing each and
every individual issue raised in your proposal. This is very unfortunate.
Once again you have totally ignored our overriding concern about our client's privacy
rights, the privacy rights of third parties, and your attempt to invade their trade secrets
which would jeopardize their ability to compete. You have again failed to establish any
relevance for this line of questioning which is required to be balanced against the
privacy rights of these private companies and their principals.
We will now attempt again, for the third time, to address the issues to avoid the
burdensome and self-defeating costs and expense to the parties of litigating these
issues.
We will address each of the issues raised in your letter, but not necessarily in the same
order as you have presented them.
Number 9.
You have once again ignored Mr. Bezek's informal attempts to resolve this issue both
prior to the hearing on August 29, 2003 and after the hearing at our meet and confer.
Despite Mr. Bezek's very extensive discussion regarding this issue, and Mr. Bezek's
repeated request for an explanation of the relevancy of the invasive information you are
seeking, you have failed to explain how any profit margin relates to the reasonable
value of the improvements installed at your clients' request. You have again failed to
establish any relevance for this line of questioning which is required to be balanced
against the privacy rights of these private companies and their principals.
Now you have compounded the problem by asking for a "typical profit margin". This
new terminology would be impossible to understand or apply, even if it were relevant.
We cannot understand why you refuse to explain to us how the profit margin relates to
the real issue here which is the reasonable value of the improvements installed at your
clients' request.
Once again, for the third time, we present you with the following hypothetical to illustrate
the lack of relevancy. If we had hired and paid an individual an exorbitant sum for the
improvements that were installed, you would correctly contend that what we paid was
not binding on you, as it would not reflect the reasonable value of the installed
improvements.
From this example, which we have given to you on three occasions, you can see that
the controlling issue is what is the reasonable value of the improvements installed.
What we paid is not conclusive on you of the reasonable value of the installed
improvements. As mentioned before, the method of proof on this issue will be expert
testimony at the time of trial. Delving into what the workers received in compensation

3. Sent By: ; 8056436094; Sep-8 - 1 11:22AM; Page 11/16
Page 3 of 6
for work done is not relevant. We cannot unilaterally control reasonable value. That is
an independent standard which has yet to be determined based on other facts, all of
which you have been given. By asking questions about each worker, their hourly rates,
their immigration status, where they live, etc., you are intentionally deflecting
concentration from the relevant issue. How much time was spent? How much material
was used? What equipment was used? These are the types of questions that go to
reasonable value. WE HAVE GIVEN YOU THIS INFORMATION.
Number 12.
You have reason to believe that your client is being investigated by the District
Attorney's Office in relation to potential criminal matters. You have asked that we give
you whatever information may have been supplied to the DA as part of their
investigation. For the reasons stated below, without a court order, or permission from
the DA, we are forced to decline.
You have failed to show how any of this is relevant to anything in this case. As this
involves an ongoing investigation by the District Attorney, if you get permission from the
District Attorney in writing permitting us to show you the documents, we will do so upon
receipt of proof of that permission. Because this involves a third party, the District
Attorney, it is appropriate that the District Attorney's Office be contacted.
This entire process which you have embarked upon appears to be an attempt to
discover information from us that you apparently are unable to obtain directly from the
District Attorney. It is logical to assume that you are doing so in order to assist your
clients' defense, should one become necessary. This is an interference with an ongoing
investigation and we cannot participate in such a tactic. We do not want to be in the
middle of these issues and it seems no matter what we do, we run the risk of upsetting
someone. We need proper protections. Therefore, your request is improper.
Number 1.
You have told us that you want to know the identification of all of the shareholders of
the plaintiff, and the shareholder's shareholders, in order to determine who might have
relevant information. We told you this already in interrogatory responses as early as
February 2003, and you have had all these months to depose the individuals identified
and have not done so, save two.
You have repeatedly failed to respond to our request that you provide us with a reason
why the identification of individuals without any knowledge of the issues in this case
would be relevant. You have again failed to establish any relevance for this line of
questioning which is required to be balanced against the privacy rights of these private
companies and their principals.
Number 2.
As you want the entire lease history of the property, not withstanding our request for an
explanation of relevancy, you have failed to explain to us how this information would be

4. Sent By: ; 8056436094; Sep-8 -1 11:22AM; Page 12/16
Page 4 of 6
relevant to the specific lease in question. We have already told you who owns the
property. We have already told you that there is a document authorizing the lease of
the property. We have twice offered to show you the document authorizing the lease of
the property. if, after you review the document, you have a good faith belief that there
is a real issue as to authority to lease, we will discuss the issue further and if it can't be
resolved in good faith, we will stipulate to bring the matter to the court on shortened
time. You have not responded to our offer to see the document which resolves this
issue once and for all. We suggested the idea of a protective order, which your
proposal embraces. We will negotiate the protective order immediately should you now
wish to see the document. However, you have not responded to any of my letters
offering the document for review, or moved for production of the document and your
time for doing so has long passed. Do you want to see this document? if so, we once
again, offer to show it to you.
As you are fully aware, this lease contract was tailor made and there is no prior
document that is in anyway similar to this tailor made lease. As you well know, other
contracts, especially where they are dissimilar, have no relevancy to the interpretation
of the tailor made lease that is before us. The request you have made is designed to
make more work for us and an invasion of the business practices of my client and
others. Once again, please explain the relevancy of prior lease agreements, if any,
with earlier lessees, prior owners, and other portions of the ranch premises. How
would any of this lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? We again ask for an
explanation. You have again failed to establish any relevance for this line of questioning
which is required to be balanced against the privacy rights of these private companies
and their principals. Given your apparent belief that there was validity to our position
when we met on August 29th, I am left to assume that Michael Baum has a theory of
which you were unaware on the 29 th. Simply tell us.
Numbers 3 and 4.
Between October 11, 2002 and December 31, 2002 we received no rent from any of
your clients' tenants. In fact, Mr. Gaggero specifically testified to this at his deposition
on several occasions. With regard to the time frame subsequent to the end of your
clients lease term (December 31, 2002), whatever rent has been paid by current
lessees is not relevant to your clients' breach of the lease. Are you now contending,
after meeting with Michael Baum, that the lease payments from current tenants
somehow controls the rent payments specifically stated in the lease your client
breached? Are you contending that if renters are paying less today than your client
agreed to pay in the lease, that that somehow ameliorates your client's obligations
under the now breached lease? If so, are you prepared to accept the reverse
proposition, namely, if they are paying more, will you concede your client owes not only
what the lease calls for, but also the increase that is currently being paid? I think not.
Yet you want the benefits of an irrelevant argument, but not the burdens. This is why
this case has been so over litigated.
You have again failed to establish any relevance for this line of questioning which is
required to be balanced against the privacy rights of these private companies and their
principals.

5. Sent By: ; 8056436094; Sep-8 -1 11:23AM; Page 13/16
Page 5 of 6
Number 5.
See number 2, above. We asked you why this is relevant. You said only to prove
authority to lease the property. We have twice offered to show you the document to
resolve this issue. There is no reason to pursue this information as the issue is easily
resolved by the documentation. If, after you review the document, you have a aood
faith belief that there is a real issue as to authority to lease, we will discuss the issue
and if it can't be resolved, we will stipulate to bring the matter to the court on shortened
time. You have not responded to our offer to see the document which resolves this
issue once and for all.
Number 6.
See number 1. We have identified every person who has knowledge of the issues and
you have had this information for many months in order to depose them, yet you have
failed to do so save two individuals. Again, you have failed to explain to us how the
identification of people without knowledge would be relevant. You have again failed to
establish any relevance for this line of questioning which is required to be balanced
against the privacy rights of these private companies, their principals and other third
parties. This is just another example of your invasive, burdensome and oppressive
defense tactics.
Number 7.
This is the first time you have asked this question and is not a question identified by you
previously. This process was supposed to narrow the issues, not provide you with a
vehicle to do new discovery. In addition, this question makes no sense as to what is
meant by "being involved in any fashion". In our meet and confer we asked you to
explain the reasons why the information you are now seeking is relevant and would not
result in a terrible waste of time. You have failed to do so. These areas of inquiry are
unlikely to provide relevant information but most certainly will raise attorneys fees for all
parties. We have identified every person who has knowledge and you have had this
information for many months in order to depose them, yet you have failed to do so save
two individuals. Again, you have failed to explain to us how the identification of people
without knowledge would be relevant. You have again failed to establish any relevance
for this line of questioning which is required to be balanced against the privacy rights of
these private companies, their principals and other third parties.
Number 8.
You have told us that the reason for this request is that if the property manager for the
plaintiff did not have a contractors license, it would excuse your clients' failure to pay for
the work which was done at their request. Even if there was validity to this theory, and
there is not, Pacific Coast Management is not required to have a contractors license.
We cited authority to you in our opposition to your motion to compel. You have ignored
our cited authority, giving no meaning to our meet and confer. Please provide us with
counter authority, otherwise our authority is conclusive.

6. Sent By: ; 8056436094; Sep-8 - 1 11:23AM; Page 14/16
s.-
Page 6 of 6
Number 10.
See number 9, above. Additionally, we have provided to you the time spent doing the
improvements requested by your clients so that you can analyze reasonable value.
You have never asked for your expert to view the property or view the improvements to
determine reasonable value. This discovery is a red herring to prolong discovery and
delay the trial of this matter.
Number 11.
See number 10, above. There is no logical difference between the repair work and the
improvements.
Number 13.
See number 12, above. This is an interference with an ongoing investigation. We
cannot participate in such a tactic.
Document Requests.
As for the document requests contained within the numbered sections in your letter,
you have now exceeded our agreement and your Motion to Compel. You did not make
any motion for production of documents. We are having enough difficulty dealing with
issues on the table and you should not be bringing up new issues.
Depositions.
We will agree to hold all three depositions on the same day. We will need to delineate
start, stop and lunch times. We agree to depose Adamson first, then Redmond - with a
cap of 3 hours each, and then Armstrong, also with a cap of 3 hours. As long as you
limit the questions to relevant areas, there should be no difficulty in completing the
depositions.
As this action is venued in Ventura, the parties, and Mr. Armstrong are in Ventura, the
depositions should be taken in Ventura. Mr. Bezek's office is located in Santa Barbara
and your office is located in Los Angeles. Mr. Bezek is not opposed to meeting you half
way between offices in Ventura. Your requirement that the two depositions plaintiff
noticed in Ventura and the one deposition defendants noticed in Los Angeles should be
all taken in Los Angeles, only benefits you and increases the expense to the plaintiff, its
counsel, and the witnesses.
We look forward to hearing from you in response to the above.
David Blake Ch
DBC/kt
cc: Peter J. Bezek, Esq.