This motion seeks to compel judgment debtor Stephen Gaggero to produce documents in response to a request for production from the judgment creditors Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini (KPC) related to enforcing their judgment. KPC argues that Gaggero's responses improperly withheld relevant documents and asserted invalid claims of privilege. KPC requests the court order production of the requested documents, award $10,840 in attorney fees for bringing this motion, and sanction Gaggero's attorney $5,000 for obstructing discovery.

1. a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
W
.....J
.....J
~
RANDALLA.MILLER (BarNo. 116036)
1 AUSTA WAKILY (Bar No. 257424)
MILLERLLP
2 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
3 Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749.5812
4
Attorneys for KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
5 STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS
and ANDRE JARDINI
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I8--
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO; an individual; CASE NO.: BC286925
PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT, INC., a
Corporation; GINGERBREAD COURT LP, a' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
Limited Partnership; 511 OFW, LP a Limited COMPEL POST .JUDGMENT REQUEST
Partnership; MALIBU BROAD BEACH LP, a PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
Limited Partnership; MARINA GLENCOE TWO); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
LP, a Limited Partnership; BLU HOUSE LLC, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION;
a Limited Liability Company; BOARDWALK DECLARATION OF AVSTA WAKILY
SUNSET LLC, a Limited Liability Company; -.
TRUSTEE of GIGANIN TRUST, JOSEPH
PRASKE; TRUSTEE of ARENZANO [SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED
TRUST, JOSEPH PRASKE; and TRUSTEE of CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS MOTION]
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION, JOSEPH
PRASKE,
Plaintiffs and Judgment Debtors,
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEPHEN
RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS and
ANDRE JARDINI,
Defendants and Judgment Creditors.
-1-
Date:
Time:.
Dept.:
July 20, 2012
1:30 P.M.
lA
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

2. a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
W
.....J
.....J
'i/
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Please take notice that on July 20, 2012 at 1:30 a.m. at 111 North Hill Street, Los
3 Angeles, California 90012 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Defendants and
4 Judgment Creditors Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre
5 Jardini (KPC) will move this Court to compel Judgment Debtor, Stephen Gaggero to produce
6 documents in response to KPC's Request for Production of Documents (Set Two). This motion is
7 made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010 and 2031.010, et seq. on the
8 following grounds:
9 1. KPC is entitled to the documents requested in Request for Production of
10 Documents (Set Two). Each request is designed to elicit information that will assist KPC in
11 enforcing their judgment. Mr. Gaggero has failed to provide a proper basis for withholding the
12
13
14
15
16
documents and has failed to substantial his claims ofprivilege or objections.
2. Mr. Gaggero, aided by his attorney, David Chatfield, has abused the discovery
process by making, without substantial justification, unmeritorious objection and evasive
responses to discovery. Mr. Gaggero and Mr. Chatfield's objections were solely to delay and
obstruct KPC's post-judgment discovery. KPC therefore requests sanctions in the amount of
17 $5,000 and an award of attorney fees in bringing this motion in the amount of $10,840 jointly
18 against Mr. Gaggero and Mr. Chatfield.
19 This motion is based upon this notice of motion and motion, the attached memorandum of
20 points and authorities, the accompanying Declaration of Austa Wakily, and, all pleadings and
21 papers on file in this action, and such additional facts and argument as may be presented at or
22 before the time ofthe hearing.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

3. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12-l
-l
13
0:::: 14
ill
-l 15
-l
~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: May 31, 2012
1
MILLERLLP
BY:~fMaW~AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN &
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
-3-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUJ:v1ENTS

4. 0..
....J
....J
a::::
w
....J
....J
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Judgment Debtor, Stephen Gaggero, a wealthy real estate developer, implemented a
3 complex estate plan in 1997, as part of an asset protection scheme to cheat his creditors. The
4 estate plan involved transferring all of his personal wealth to multiple corporations and
5 partnerships that were in turn owned by one of his trusts and/or foundation. Immediately after
6 implementing the estate plan, Mr. Gaggero's estate planning attorney, and trustee of his trusts,
7 Joseph Praske, appointed him as the "asset manager" of the trusts and foundation. As the asset
8 manager Mr. Gaggero retained complete control of all his property, including decisions relating to
9 refinancing, tax, insurance, buying, selling, improving, and designing some ultimate disposition.
10 Additionally, Mr. Gaggero continues to reap the fmancial benefit from the assets in the estate plan
11 through his personal tax returns. Despite, Mr. Gaggero's substantial wealth, he has refused to pay
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
one penny towards the judgment.
Mr. Gaggero's present conduct is entirely consistent with his well-documented abuse of
the litigation and discovery process. The trial court in the underlying lawsuit found that:
"The evidence clearly and unequivocally supports the conclusion that although there was
no legal justification whatsoever for refusing to pay the judgment in full, Mr. Gaggero
never had any intention to payoff that obligation 100 cents on the dollar. Rather, his
absolutely single-minded focus was on delay as a tactic to force the VNBC judgment
creditors to accept a deeply discounted payoff. Every strategy devised or advocated by Mr.
Gaggero with respect to the VNBC judgrnentcreejitors w~s designed tQ make ilso difficult
and so expensive to continue the fight that they would capitulate.... (fn: In fact, it appears
this same strategy worked with respect to other judgment creditors" '
21 Using the same estate plan as a shield, Mr. Gaggero obstinately refuses to respond to post-
22 judgment discovery asserting claims of irrelevance, privilege, and invasion of privacy rights on
23 behalfofhis corporations, trusts, and partnerships. Mr. Gaggefo has refusedto produce documents
--
24 relating to the implementation of his estate plan arguing the transfers are irrelevant to KPC's
25 enforcement efforts. In fact, according to Mr. Gaggero, KPC is only entitled to information about
26 his finances after the entry ofjudgment and in some instances only-to his current assets.Mr.
27 Gaggero maintains that after giving away $35,000,000 worth of assets as part ofthe estate plan he
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL POST
JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

5. a..
.....J
.....J
0:::
W
.....J
.....J
'/
1 is now destitute. KPC has made substantial efforts in attempting to resolve the present discovery
2 dispute without the Court's intervention, including substantially limiting and clarifying the
3 requested documents. Mr. Gaggero simply refuses to cooperate.
4 Remarkably, while claiming that is he is destitute in response to KPC's post-judgment
5 discovery, Mr. Gaggero, in his personal capacity, is presently litigating a third legal malpractice
6 lawsuit against KPC. In this pending lawsuit Mr. Gaggero claims that he lost the ability to
7 purchase three ocean front properties in Santa Monica exceeding $2,000,000.00.1
KPC,
8 respectfully requests that this Court compel Mr. Gaggero to produce documents requested in the
9 Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two). Additionally, KPC seeks an award of attorney
10 fees and costs they incurred in bringing this motion in the amount of $10,840.00. Finally, KPC
11 requests sanctions against Mr. Gaggero's attorney in the amount of $5,000 for his collusion in Mr.
12 Gaggero's efforts to defraud his judgment creditors and to commit a fraud on the courts.
13
14 n.
15
16
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
KPC filed the present Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) on January 31,
17 2012 seeking 38 categories of documents pertaining to Mr. Gaggero's estate plan, business,
18 entities, and general fmances. See Declaration of Austa Wakily (Decl. AW ~ 3, Exh. B). Mr.
19 Gaggero's responses were due on March 6,2012 . (ld. at ~ 3). On March 1,2012, Mr. Gaggero's
20 attorney, David Chatfield, requested a 30 day extension to respond citing to Mr. Gaggero's travel
21 schedule and other lawsuits as a basis for the request. (Id at ~ 4, Exh. C). As a matter of
22 professional courtesy Mr. Gaggero's deadline to respond was extended to March 20, 2012. (ld).
23 Mr. Gaggero served responses to KPC's Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) on
~-
24
25 1 KPC, pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 452(d) and (h), respectfully requests that
this Court take judicial notice of the records and pleading filed in the present case, including the
26 Motion to Amend the Judgment to Add AdditioilalJudgrri~mt Debtors, and Mr. Gaggero's pending
lawsuits in Gaggero v Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case
27 ND. BC286924) and Bunge v. 511 OF. W L.P., et aI, Los Angeles County Superior Court, (Case
No. SC100361).
28
-5-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST TIJDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

6. 0....
...J
...J
0:::
ill
...J
...J
~
1 March 20, 2012. (Id., at ~ 5, Exh. D ). The responses included general boilerplate objections
2 stating in part "[r]equests for documents relating to assets transferred, sold or liquidated over a
3 decade are clearly irrelevant to his judgment enforcement and will not be produced by plaintiff'
4 among numerous other boilerplate and frivolous responses. (Id). Mr. Gaggero did not produce a
5 privilege log or any documents. (Id). KPC, through counsel, responded to Mr. Gaggero's
6 responses on April 2, 2012. (Id. ~ 6, Exh. E). After delays by Mr. Chatfield, the parties met and
7 conferred on April 19, 2012. (Id. ~~ 7-9, Exh. F). Mr. Chatfield agreed to (1) provide
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
supplemental responses removing all boilerplate andlor or inapplicable objections, (2) provide a
"privilege log" for documents withheld pursuant to a claim of privilege, and (3) produce all
documents that are responsive to the requests that are not privileged. (Id. ~ 9, Exh. G).The
deadline to provide supplemental responses was April 30, 2012. (Id). Mr. Chatfield did not
produce any documents or a privilege log, serving only supplemental responses with baseless
objections. (Id. ~ 10, Exh. H). Mr. Chatfield did not respond to inquiries relating to his intention to
produce a privilege log or documents as he agreed during the meet and confer. (Id. ~ 11, Exh. 1).
KPC on May 11, 2012 afforded Mr. Gaggero another opportunity to resolve the discovery
disputes informally. (Id. ~ 11, Exh. J). Specifically, KPC, through counsel, sent Mr. Chatfield a 22
page letter stating the relevance of each documents requested, clarifying the scope of each request,
and providing case law and authority supporting each request. (Id). After two extensions Mr.
Gaggero was required to produce responsive documents and a privilege log no later than May 24,
2012. (Id.~. 14-15, Exh. K). Mr. Gaggero again refused. Rather, on May 24,2012 at 9:59 p.m.,
Mr. Chatfield notified KPC that a motion for protective order was filed relating to the requests.
(Id. ~ 16, Exh. L). The proposed protective order sought, among other things, to preclude KPC
from using evidence obtained in the present post-judgment collection efforts in their defense ofthe
pending legal lllaipractice lawsuit asserted against thc:In by Mr.. Gaggero. (lcl). In sum, Mr.
Gaggero is seeking the Court's aid to allow him to testify about his vast wealth in pursuing a
lawsuit while asserting that he is penniless in response to post-judgment discovery. (Id). KPC after
further delay tactics was forced to bring this motion. (Id. ~~ 17-18, Exh. M).
-6-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

7. a..
.....J
.....J
a:::
ill
.....J
.....J
1 B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 Mr. Gaggero created an estate plan in or about 1997. (Id. ~ 20, Exh. N). As part of the
3 estate plan Mr. Gaggero transferred approximately $35,000,000 into various entities, including
4 limited partnerships and limited liability companies. (Id). At the time of the transfer Mr. Gaggero
5 was sole the owner of all the entities into which he transferred his assets. (Id). He subsequently
6 transferred his ownership interests in the entities into one of two trusts or a foundation. (Id). Mr.
7 Gaggero continued to retain control over all assets that he transferred as an "asset manager" for the
8 properties and the trusts and foundation. (Id). Based on Mr. Gaggero's and Mr. Praske's
9 testimony during the Gaggero v. Yura trial, Mr. Gaggero's transfer of his assets into his various
10 entities and subsequently into one of his trusts was nothing more than an attempt to shield his
11 assets from creditors. (Id). Mr. Gaggero is the equitable owner of all assets that are a part of his
12 estate plan and KPC as the judgment creditors are entitled to all documents relating to his estate.
13 KPC, on April 10, 2012 filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment to add Mr. Gaggero's
14 trusts, foundation, and business entities as his alter egos. The Motion was granted on May 29,
15 2012. (Id). The amended judgment precludes Mr. Gaggero's further baseless objections on·
16 grounds of irrelevance and privacy, Mr. Gaggero's continued refusal to produce documents will be
17 clearly in bad faith and warrants sanctions.
18
19 III. DISCUSSION
20 A. LEGAL STANDARD
21 Post-judgment discovery is accorded the widest scope for inquiry concerning property and
22 business affairs ofthe debtor; the object of the proceedings being to compel the judgment debtor
23 to give information concerning his property. "Public policy does not support a judgment debtor's
24 attempt to be fess than candid about his assets and- ability to pay the-judgment especially when a
25 defmite legislative policy has established a procedure for aiding judgment creditors' collection of
26 their judgments." Youngv. Keele (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1090, 1093.
27
1 18--,..~_ _ __
, _ -7-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I

8. 0..
....I
....I
0::
W
....I
.....1
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
Here, the critical timeframe in ascertaining Mr. Gaggero's assets is approximately 15 years
ago when he implemented the estate plan. (Id. ~~ 13, 20, Exh. J, N). Mr. Gaggero seeks to curtail
the scope ofdiscovery to assets in his personal name after the entry ofjudgment and in some cases
to his current assets. (rd. ~~ 9-10, G, H). This is plainly wrong and contrary to case law. Troy v.
Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1114 Gudgment debtor required to answer questions
relating to the transfer of any assets within the last 10 years). KPC is entitled to documents
relating to Mr. Gaggero's estate plan implemented over 15 years ago.
Mr. Gaggero has also objected to documents relating to his business entities and his
employment asserting a myriad of boilerplate and improper objections. (DecL AW ~ 10, Exh. H).
Case law is clear that KPC is entitled to information relating to Mr. Gaggero'sbusiness affairs.
Troy, supra 186 Cal.App.3d at 1114 citing Martin-Trigona v. Gouletas (7th Cir. 1980) 634 F.2d
354, 360 Gudgment debtor is obligated to answer questions relating to partners, co-shareholders,
co-officers and co-directors, and the contents of a will could reveal the existence and location of
assets owned by the judgment debtor). Additionally, documents relating to a judgment debtor's
employment records for the preceding five years are relevant and proper inquiry for post-judgment
discovery. Id. Mr. Gaggero's continued objections and refusal to provide these documents on
grounds of Constitutional right to privacy, third party privacy, or irrelevance are clearly be in bad
18 faith.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
B. KPC'S REQUESTS SEEK DOCUMENTS THAT WILL AID IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR JUDGMENT
Estate Plan: Requests 1-6, 15 seek documents relating to the Arenzano Trust, Giganin
Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation and all entities or assets within the estate plan. Mr. Gaggero
testified that he implemented an estate plan 15 years ago which is comprised of the two trusts,
foundation, and multiple business entities. Mr. Gaggero is the trustor of these trusts and the
26 manager ofthe trusts,foundation, and assets within the estate plan. (Decl. AW ~·13, Exh. J).
27
Trusts and Foundations Generally: Requests 7-10 seek documents relating to all trusts
+-----------..____1- or foundations in which Mr Gaggero may have assets, hut which he may....assert is not part of the
28
-8-
MOTION TO CO:tv1PEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

9. a..
--I
--I
~
W
--I
--I
~
1 "estate plan." An example is the Terra Mar trust associated with Mr. Gaggero which has been
2 identified in the Bunge v. 511 G.F. W L.P., et aI, (2008) Los Angeles County Superior Court,(Case
3 No. SCI00361). (Decl. AW ~ 13, Exh. J).
4 General Finances: Requests 11-13, 25, 37 seek documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's
5 ability to live a lavish lifestyle, including vacationing overseas, living on a 1,500 acre ranch, and
6 spending hundreds ofthousands of dollars pursuing lawsuits, while claiming he is destitute. These
7 requests seek information concerning Mr. Gaggero's sources of income, financial benefits, right or
8 access to payments of any kind. (Id. ~ 13, Exh. J).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
'17
28
Assets: Requests 14, 20, 28, 30, and 36 seeks documents designed to elicit information
about Mr. Gaggero's current assets, millions of dollars he transferred to third parties, and
information about his ownership interest in the Canada Larga ranch. These documents will aid
KPC in identifying the present legal title ofthe properties as well as ascertaining the consideration
Mr. Gaggero received as part of the transfer which can be used to satisfy the judgment. (Id. ~ 13,
Exh.J).
Post-Judgment Discovery: Request 16 seeks documents relating to attempts of other
judgment creditors in enforcing their judgment against Mr. Gaggero. KPC is clearly entitled to all
documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's involvement in post-judgment discovery. (Id. ~ 13, Exh. J).
Business Entities: Requests 18, 33-34 seek documents relating to any entity, broadly
defined as a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, general
partnership, trusts, foundation, or other partnership or association in which Mr. Gaggero is an
officer or member in his personal capacity. The requests also seek information relating to any
partr1ership in which Pacific Coast Management or Avalon Corporation is the general partner. (Id.
~ 13, Exh. J).
C. MR. GAGGERO HAS IGNORED IDS OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH
POST-DISCOVERY
Mr. Gaggero in response to requests, 1-5, 7-10, 15, asserts that responsive documents are
"helieved to be" in:MI. Praske's possession or control. (Id. ~, 10-11, Exh. H). First, Mr. Gaggero,
-9-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

10. /'
0:::
W
.....I
.....I
~l
;
1 pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.230, must "affirm that a diligent search and
2 a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand." (Decl. AW ~~ 6,
3 9,13, Exh. E, G, J). To the extent Mr. Gaggero claims that he is unable to comply, he must state
4 "whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has
5 been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the
6 possession, custody or control ofthe responding party. (ld). The statement shall set forth the name
7 and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have
8 possession, custody or control ofthat item or category of item." (Id). Second, Mr. Gaggero must at
9 a minimum request the documents relating to his estate plan from his estate planning attorney,
10 Joseph Praske, who has an ethical obligation comply with his client's request. Mr. Gaggero did
11 not comply with the requests despite the noticed provided by KPC in the meet and confer
12 correspondence to Mr. Chatfield. (Id). Finally, Mr. Praske in Bunge v. 511 OF. W L.P has filed a .
13 motion for protective order relating to Mr. Gaggero's trust documents. Mr. Gaggero is actively
14 involved in that lawsuit as it relates to his business entities. Clearly Mr. Gaggero is fully aware
15 whether Mr. Praske has possession of the trust documents, but is intentionally refusing to comply
16 with his obligation.
17
18
19
D. MR. GAGGERO IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY WITH PARTICULARITY
DOCUMENTS WITHHELD PURSUANT TO ANY OBJECTION, INCLUDING
CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE
20 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240(b)(1) requires Mr. Gaggero to identify with
21 particularity documents withheld pursuant to any objection, including but not limited to claims of
22 privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 291. Mr. Gaggero is
23 required to set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection
24 is based on a clilim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. ffanobjection is
25 based on a claim that the infonnation sought is protected work product under Chapter 4
-
26 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted." Code Civ. Proc. §§
27 203I.240(b)(1), (2). Importantly, objections made to requests for production of documents that do
28
-10-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

11. 0..
.....J
.....J
~
W
.....J
.....J
1 not exists or are not in the attorney's or party's possession violate an attorney's ethical duty under
2 the Business and Professions Code to act truthfully and constitute bad faith. Bihun v. AT&T Info.
3 Sys. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976,991 n 5.
4 The purpose of a "privilege log" is to provide a specific factual description of documents
5 In aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document
6 production." Hernandez, supra 112 Cal. App. 4th 285 at 292 citing Korea Data Systems Co. v.
7 Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516-1517. The information in a privilege log or
8 accompanying any other claim ofprivilege must be sufficiently specific to permit the trial court to
9 determine whether each withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v.
10 Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1217, 1228.
11 Mr. Gaggero, as the party who is seeking to assert this privilege has "[t]he burden of
12 showing the need for such protection." San Diego Professional Assn. v. Superior Court (1962) 58
13 Cal. 2d 194, 204. Mr. Gaggero must provide a specific factual description for each document
14 withheld sufficient to substantiate a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document
15 production. Hernandez, supra 112 Cal. App. 4th 285 at 292 citing Korea Data Systems Co. v.
16 Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513,1516-1517. Mr. Gaggero has not established that
17 any of the documents he is seeking to withhold is subject to any privilege, thus, KPC respectfully
18 requests that this Court compel Mr. Gaggero to produce all documents without further objection.
19 (Decl. AW ~ 10, Exh. H).
20 E. MR. GAGGERO CANNOT ASSERT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR
ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE TO COMMITT A FRAUD
21
22 The attorney-client privilege authorizes a client to refuse to disclose, and to prevent others
23 from disclosing, information communicated in confidence to the attorney and legal advice
-
24 received in return. Evid. Code, § 954. The privilege does not apply where the "services of the
25 lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a
26 fraud." Evid. Code, § 956. To invoke crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, the
27 proponent must make prima facie showing that services of lawyer were sought or obtained to
28
-11-
MOTION TO COJvIPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

12. 0:::
W
....J
....J
)
1 enable or to aid anyone to commit or plan to commit crime or fraud. State Farm Fire & Casualty
2 Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625. Here, Mr. Gaggero, while he was a judgment
3 debtor, retained Mr. Praske to implement an asset protection scheme to conceal his assets from
4 creditors. (Decl. AW ~ 20, Exh. N). Mr. Praske continues his work relating to the estate plan as the
5 trustee ofthe trusts or foundation and in his capacity as an officer of the various business entities.
6 Id.
7 Importantly, Mr. Gaggero only asserts this privilege as part of his efforts to defraud
8 judgment creditors. (Id. ~~16-17, 20, Exh. L, N). Mr. Gaggero in pursuing a breach of contract
9 lawSl.lit against in Gaggero v. Yura did not assert the attorney client privilege relating to his estate
10 plan. (Id. ~ 20, N). In fact both he and Mr. Praske testified in great lengths about the
11 implementation of the estate plan and Mr. Gaggero's authority to command resources within the
12 estate to purchase property in excess of 1 million dollars. (Id). Mr. Gaggero's cannot assert the
13 attorney-client privilege selectively to defraud his judgment creditors. Finally, Mr. Praske's
14 knowledge of the fraud is irrelevant for the crime-fraud exception to the attorney client privilege
15 to apply; instead, the application of it turns on Mr. Gaggero's intent. Freedom Trust v. Chubb
16 Group ofIns. Companies (1999) 38 F.Supp.2d 1170. There is no doubt that Mr. Gaggero was and
17 is perpetrating a fraud in implementing the estate plan designed to conceal his assets from his
18 judgment creditors.
19
F. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY DOES NOT PERMIT A
20 JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO DEFRAUD CREDITORS
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is well settled that the right of privacy is not absolute and it may be abridged to
accommodate a compelling public interest. Moskowitz v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 313,
316 (1982) (emphasis added). One such interest is uncovering the truth in legalproceedings by
allowing broad discovery. Id. When the right of privacy and the public interest conflict, the court
must balancethe inten.~stsfor a fair resolution ofthe lawsuit. Here, Mr. Gaggero seeks toassertthe .
constitutional right to privacy for each response, without any description as to. what documents he
-12-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

13. 0:::
W
-1
-1
1 is withholding pursuant to the privacy, and for the sole purpose to defraud his creditors. The
2 constitutional right to privacy does not support this proposition.
3 G. KPC'S MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT OBVIATES MR.
GAGGERO'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ON GROUNDS OF
4 PRIVACY
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
25
26
27
28
On May 29, 2012 KPC's Motion to Amend the Judgment to Add Additional Judgment
Debtors came on for hearing before Judge Robert L. Hess. Judge Hess granted the motion adding
Pacific Coast Management, 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad Beach LP,
Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske, trustee, of the
Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante Foundation as judgment debtors. Mr.
Gaggero, therefore, can no longer assert the privacy rights of the trusts, foundation, and entities in
support ofhis refusal to comply with post-judgment discovery. (Id. ~20, Exh. N).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, judgment creditors KPC, respectfully request this Court to
produce documents in response to the Request for Production of
MILLERLLP
By: rbh- We1 A
RANDALL A. MILLER,C;Q~
AUSTA WAKILY,ESQ.
Attorneys for Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, StephenRay
Garcia,.Stephen M. Harris, and Andre Jardini
-13-
MOTION TO COJvfPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

14. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0...
12.....J
.....J
13
a:: 14
ill
.....J 15
.....J
~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2'7
28
DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I, Austa Wakily, declare:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law by the State Bar of California. I am an
associate at the law firm Miller LLP and the attorney of record for the defendants and judgment
creditors, Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini
(collectively referred to as "KPC") in this action. I first became involved in the handling of the
post-judgment enforcement efforts in this action in mid-November 2012. I am also the attorney of
record in another lawsuit involving judgment debtor Stephen Gaggero against KPC for purported
legal malpractice. Since that time I have become familiar with the pleadings, records and files in
this action including the appeal and the amended judgment, including numerous transcripts and
various lawsuits in which Stephen Gaggero has been a party.
2. KPC obtained a judgment against Mr. Gaggero on May 19, 2008 in the amount of
$1,327,697,994.50 and amended on December 28, 2010 to include attorney fees and costs after
Mr. Gaggero unsuccessfully appealed the underlying judgment. KPC's judgment as of December
28,2012 totaled $1,841,535.80. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy ofthe amended
judgment.
3. I personally drafted 38 Requests for Pl:oduction of Documents (Set Two) pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure § 708.030. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the
requests served on January 31, 2012. The requests were specifically drafted to obtain information
to aid in the collection of the judgment including information relating to Mr. Gaggero's estate
plan, entities and assets within the estate plan, and third parties who have knowledge, possession,
or control of Gaggero's assets. Mr. Gaggero's respons_es were due on March6, 2012..
4. Mr. Gaggero's counsel ofrecord, David Chatfield, on March 1,2012 sent a letter to
our. office requesting a.30 day extension due in part to Gaggero's travel schedule and other
litigation. As a professional courtesy Mr. Chatfield, on March 2, 2012 was granted a two week
-14-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUJv.IENTS

15. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0.. 12-I
-I
13
0::: 14
W
-I 15
-I
~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
extension. Mr. Gaggero's deadline to respond was extended to March 20, 2012. Attached as
Exhibit C are copies ofthe letters relating to the extension.
5. Mr. Gaggero, through his counsel, served responses on March 20, 2012. No
documents were produced with the responses. A copy ofthe responses is attached as Exhibit D
6. After receiving and reviewing the responses I sent a letter dated April 2, 2012 to
Mr. Chatfield proposing to meet and confer on April 6, 2012 in an attempt to avoid having to
bring a motion to compel. Attached as Exhibit E is a copy ofmy letter to Mr. Chatfield.
7. Mr. Chatfield responded by email on April 3, 2012 stating that he was not available
to meet and confer on April 9, 2012 but was available any time after 10:00 on April 12, 2012.
Based on Mr. Chatfield's response I proposed to meet and confer on April 12,2012 at 3:00 pm.
Mr. Chatfield responded by email on April 6, 2012 agreeing to meet and confer on April 12, 2012
and extending our deadline to file a motion to compel to May 11,2012. Attached as Exhibit F is
a copy ofthe email.
8. I received a call from Mr. Chatfield's secretary on April 11, 2012 stating that Mr.
Chatfield could not make the scheduled meet and confer on April 12, 2012 due to an urgent
matter. Mr. Chatfield's secretary further informed me that he would be available to reschedule
the meet and confer to April 19,2012 at 3:00 p.m. and that we would also receive a one week
extension to file a motion to compel to May 18, 2012. I sent an email to Mr. Chatfield
confirming my conversation with his secretary. The email is included as part ofExhibit F.
9. On April 19, 2012 I called Mr. Chatfield to discuss the responses to the request for
production of documents. Mr. Chatfield agreed to (1) provide supplemental responses removing
all boilerplate and/or or inapplicable objections, (2) provide a "privilege log" for documents
withheld pursuant to a claim ofprivilege, and (3) produce all documents that are responsive to the
requests·that are not privileged. The deadline to provide supplemental responses was April 30,
2012. A copy ofmy email to Mr. Chatfield confirming our discussions is attached as Exhibit G.
10. Mr. Gaggero, through is counsel, served supplemental responses on April 30, 2012.
Mr. Gaggero again did not produce any documents. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct
-15-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST TIJDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

16. (L
....J
....J
a:
W
....J
....J
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
"10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)
copy of Mr. Gaggero's supplemental responses to the request for production of documents (set
two).
11. After reviewing the supplemental responses served on May 2, 2012 it became
readily apparent that Mr. Gaggero had no intention of producing the requested documents. My
agreement with Mr. Chatfield to allow him to supplement his responses to April 30, 2012
required him to comply with the three conditions to which he agreed. Mr. Gaggero's
supplemental responses did not include a privilege log or any document production. Additionally,
while the supplemental responses have removed the "General Objections" each objection
continues to assert imorooer boilerolate objections.......L .a. oJ ,
12. I sent Mr. Chatfield an email on May 2,2012 inquiring whether he would produce
a privilege log. Mr. Chatfield did not respond. Attached as Exhibit I is a copy of this email
communication.
13. I sent Mr. Chatfield a twenty one page meet and confer letter on May 11, 2012
addressing the deficiencies in the supplemental responses, limiting the scope of certain request,
and clarifying the requests. Attached as Exhibit J is a copy of the meet and confer letter sent on
May 11,2012.
14. In the letter I provide Mr. Gaggero to respond to the Meet and Confer no later than
May 15,2012. Mr. Chatfield emailed me on May 14,2012 requesting a two week extension of
our respective-deadlines due to a deadline to file an opposition In a reIated motion. I responded
on May 14,2012 agreeing to provide him a one week extension to May 22, 2012. Attached as
Exhibit K is a copy ofthe email correspondence.
15. On May 21,2012, Mr. Chatfield's assistant, Dawn Masters called me to request an
additional two day extension for Mr. Chatfield to respond to the meet and confer letter dated May
11~2012.(agreedto provide Mr. Chatfield until May 24, 2012 to respond conditioned on a two
day extension for filing the motion to compel to May 31, 2012. Attached with Exhibit K is a copy
- -- ---
of my email to Mr. Chatfield and Ms. Masters confmning my telephone conversation with Ms.
27 Masters.
-16-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

17. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12-l
-l
13
0::: 14
W
-l 15
-l
~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Z8--
)
16. Mr. Chatfieldemailed me on May 24,2012 at 9:59 p.m. to state that he has filed a
motion for protective order. Attached as Exhibit L is a copy of Mr. Chatfield's email to me and
the proposed protective order. After reviewing the protective order I believe that Mr. Gaggero's
purpose in seeking the order is to prohibit KPC from using evidence obtained from post-judgment
discovery against him in his pending legal malpractice lawsuit against KPC. (Exh. L, ~ 4
Protective Order). I previously explained to Mr. Chatfield in response to a protective order in the
debtor examination proceeding that we will not agree to any protective order that will allow Mr.
Gaggero to commit perjury in prosecuting a lawsuit against KPC while also precluding them
from enforcing their judgment. This is documented in my email attached with Exhibit L.
17. I responded to Mr. Chatfield's email on May 25, 2012 to clarify his misstatements
that were confirmed in my emails. I also informed him that we would proceed with filing a
motion to compel based on his client's failure to cooperate with post-judgment discovery.
Attached as Exhibit M is a copy ofmy email to Mr. Chatfield.
18. Mr. Chatfield responded requesting further meet and confers on the discovery and
requesting that I do not file a motion to compel. In response I emailed Mr. Chatfield to confirm
that he produced with his May 24, 2012 supplemental responses the privilege log he stated he
would produce on April 30, 2012. Mr. Chatfield confirmed that he has not produced a privilege
log and intends to comply. I explained in a response that his client's deadline to respond was May
24~ 2012requiring actual -compliance and not another assertion of an intent to comply. Attached -
with ~~itit-M is a copy ofthe email.,~',,:;',.,.';; :.~,,,~./ .... ;.' '.
19. KPC subsequently received 15 pages of documents produced in response to
Request for Production of Documents (Set Two). The documents are considerably insufficient in
responding to KPC's requests.
20. On May 29, -2012 KPC'sMotion to Amend the Judgment to Add AdditionaI"
Judgment Debtors came on for hearing before Judge Robert L. Hess. Judge Hess granted the
motion adding Pacific Coast Management, 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad
Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske,
-17-
MOTION TO COJ:v1PEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

18. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12.....J
.....J
13
0::: 14
W
.....J 15
.....J
2:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2-8--
,
.1 )
trustee, of the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante Foundation as judgment
debtors. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of the Motion to Amend the Judgment
and signed order.
21. Mr. Chatfield notified me immediately after the Court granted KPC's Motion to
Amend the Judgment that he will file a notice of appeaL Based on Mr. Chatfield's statements
and Mr. Gaggero's numerous appeals I believe that he will appeal the Court's ruling and continue
refusing to cooperate with post-judgment discovery on that basis.
22. Based on Mr. Chatfield's and Mr. Gaggero's tactics in abusing the discovery
process I believe that any request for further meet and confers is solely as a delay tactic and will
not result in the production of any documents. As a result, it has been necessary to bring this
motion.
23. I personally drafted and reviewed each request in the Request for Production of
Documents (Set Two). Each of the requests is likely to lead to information that will aid KPC in
enforcing their judgment.
24. In order to bring this, I expended no less 20 hours preparing the motion and
accompanying separate statement, declaration, and exhibits. Additionally, I spent 20 hours
reviewing Mr. Gaggero's responses and supplemental responses to the request for production of
document, preparing the meet and correspondences to Mr. Chatfield, and meeting and conferring
with Mr. Chatfield. I expect to spend additIonal five (5) hours preparing-any reply briefs and
attending the hearing on this matter.
25. My hourly rate is $240. I seek an award of attorney's fees for $10,800 for 45 hours
ofwork at $240 per hour, plus the $40.00 filing fee for a total of$10,840.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing IS true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May g/,2012 at Los
Angeles, California.
-18-
MOTION TO COJv.lPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

19. Exhibit "A"

20. ./~.;.
(t .•.. )
..~ ....'
:~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
~I
lV
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
:24
25
26
27
2-8
MILLERLLP
Los ANGELES
RANDALL A. :MILLER (State Bar No.. 116036)
LORI S. BLITSTIEN (State Bar No. 149004)
. VIKRAM SOHAL (State Bar No. 240251)
lfiLLER LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: 213.493.6400
Facsimile: 888.749.5812
Attorneys for Defendants
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI,
Defendants.
CASE NO. BC 286925
(P.D:QP~~l AMENDED JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
The California Court ofAppeal having affirmed this Court's findings that Plaintiff
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO ("Plaintiff") failed to C81TY his burden ofproofwith respect to any of '
his cla.irD.s, and a judgment having been-enteted infavor· ofDefendants KNAPP, PETERSEN & .
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
. . (collecTIvely.,·"Defendants''rancfa.gamst:f>Iallitiffon each cause ofaction ofthe SecondAIllended
Complaint and awarding Defendants $1,202,994.50 in·attorneys' fees and $124,702.90 in costs,
[pROPOSED] ANIENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS

21. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1A
IV
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
~8-
MILLERLLP
Los ANGELES
• <
plus post-judgment interest at the legal rate, and this Court having now heard and ruled upon
Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs on Appeal in favor ofDefendants and against
Plaintiff,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
1. Plaintiff shall take nothing by way ofhis Second Amended Complaint and
judgment shall be entered as to all causes ofaction ofthe Second Amended Complaint in favor of
Defendants KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE, STEVEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN HARRIS
and ANDRE JARDINI and against Plaintiff STEPHEN M. GAGGERO;
2. Defendants shall be awarded attorneys' fees in the sum of$1,395,718.40 (which
figure includes the award of$192,723.90 in attomeys' fees on appeal) and costs in the sum of
$125,224.90 (which figure includes the award of$522.00 in costs on appeal), plus post-judgment
interest at the legal rate; and
3. Defendants shall be awarded $320,591.78 in interest accrued on the previous
judgment as ofNovember 18, 2010 at the rate of$3.54.24 per day for 905 days.
Dated: ~"-=·a~b.",,,.,-.!~~·*,___
-2-
[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS

22. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
_PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident ofthe State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to the within action. My business address is MILLER LLP, 515 South Flower Street, Suite
2150, Los Angeles, California 90071. On December 13,2010) served the within documents:
D
D
D
D
NOTICE OF LODGING OF [PROPOSEDl.AMENDED JUDGMENT
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. -
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California
addressed as set forth below.
bv causing to be nersonallv served to the nerson(s) at the address(es) set forth
below. ~ .L • ~ . L ' , • ,
By causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office ofthe
addressees'.
by causing such document(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed
such document(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed
to the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below and I placed the
envelope/package for collection at a drop box provided by Federal Express.
David Blake Chatfield
Westlake Law Group
Gary L. Bostwick, Esq.
Jean-Paul Jassy, Esq.
Bostwick & Jassy LLP2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
I am readily familiar with the fum's practice ofcollection and processing correspondence
for inailfug.Under that practice ifwoUJ.d De deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that sariJ.e
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on
motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for mailing in affidavit.
_I declare under penalty ofp.erjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above
is true and correct.
Executed 011 December 13, 2010,at Los Angeles, California.
Susy Koshkak ' .
--
~-----------2~1I-----------------------------------------------------------------------1--
MILLERLLP 1Lt'lS ANl~E1.F-" .
PROOF OF SERVICE

23. Exhibit "B"
i
I

24. ,
a..
.....l
.....l
-
0::::
llJ
.....l
.....l
-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Randall A. Miller
ScottNewman
Austa Wakily
MILLERLLP
(BarNo. 116036)
(Bar No. 238788)
(Bar No. 257424)
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
Attorneys for KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M. HARRIS
and ANDRE JARDINI
SUPERlOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC286925
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Honorable
Judge Robert L. Hess, Department 24]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN
M.GAGGERO
~URSUANTTOCODEOFCnnL
PROCEDURE § 708.030]
20 PROPOUNDING PARTY:
21 RESPONDING PARTY:
22 SET NUMBER:
DEFENDANT, KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
PLANTIFF STEPf.fEN M. GAGGERO
TWO
23 Defendant Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
24 sectiQUS 70S.030(a)and 2031.010, et seq., requests that plaintiff, Stephen Gaggero, provide a
25 written response under oath and produce all documents resJ?~nsive to the fol!0wing~e9.ttests for
26 Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service, to the -law offices of Miller LLP,
27 located at 515 South Flower St., Suite 2150, Los Angeles, California 90071.
1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -
28
REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUlv.1EN:rS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

25. c....
--l
--l
c=:
W
--l
--l
~
1
2 1.
DEFINITIONS
"YOU" and "YOUR" means Responding Party and his agents, employee,
3 employer, attorney, accountant, investigator, or anyone else acting on Responding Party's behalf.
4 2. "COMMUNICATIONS" should be construed ill the broadest possible sense and
5 includes, but is not limited to, any transmittal and/or receipt ofinformation, whether such was by
6 chance, prearranged, formaJ. or informal, and specifically includes conversations, telegrams, audio
7 or media visual letters .or memoranda, formal statements, press releases, and newspaper and
8 magazine articles.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. "DOCUMENT" means any writings or recordings as defined by California
Evidence Code section 250, including recorded or graphic material of any kind, whether prepared
by YOU or another PERSON that is in YOUR possession, custody, or control. The term includes
agreements; .contracts; letters; telegrams; inter-office COIV.IMUNICATIONS; memoranda; reports;
records; instructions; specifications; notes; notebooks; scrapbooks; diaries; plans; drawings;
sketches; blueprints; diagrams; photographs; photocopies; charts; graphs; descriptions; drafts,
whether they resulted in a final DOCUMENT; minutes ofmeetings, conferences, and telephone or
other conversations or COMMUNICATIONS; invoices; purchase orders; bills of lading;
recordings; published or unpublished speeches or articles; publications; transcripts of telephone
conversations; phone mail; electronic-mail; ledgers; financial statements; microfilm; microfiche;
tape or disc recordIDgs; and computer print-outs. The term "DOCUJv.lENT" also includes
electronically stored data from which information can be obtained either directly or by translation
through detection devices or readers; any such DOCUMENT is to be produced in a reasonably
legible and usable form. The term "DOCUMENT"includes all drafts of a DOCUMENT and all
copies that differ in any respect from the original, including an)T no!a.tion, un4erlinirlg, marking,_or _
information not on the original. The term- also includes infonnationstored ·in, or accessible
throug1J., computer or ()t11er}'nf'orm~[tioD. r(;:trieval systems(ine.ludiognany .computeLarchives or
back-up systems), together with instructions and all other materials necessary to use or illterpret
27 such data compilations.
28
-2-
REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

26. 0..
......J
......J
0:::
w
......J
......J
1 4. ENTITY includes but is not limited to corporation, limited liability company,
2 limited liability partnership, general partnership, trusts, foundation, .or other partnership or·
3 association.
4 5. ESTATE PLAN includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
5 administration and disposition of YOUR property, owned by YOU at any time in any capacity,
6 before or after death including will, trust, gifts, or power of attorney, or any other method of estate
7 planning. ESTATE PLAN also refers to the "Estate Plan" YOU testified about during the
8 GAGGERO V. YURA trial. ESTATE PLAN further refers to the transfer of any assets owned by
9 you at any time to any PERSON or ENTITY.
10 6. "GAGGERO V. YURA" refers to the Los Angeles Superior Court case, Gaggero v.
11 Yura, etal, Case No. BC239810.
12
13
14
15
16
7. PERSON" or "PERSONS"· means any natural PERSON, firm, association,
organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, and private or public ENTITY.
8. "938 PROPERTY" refers to real property located at 938 Palisades Beach Road,
Santa Monica, California.
9. "PROPERTIES" refer collectively to the real properties located at 938 Palisades
"17 Beach Road, Santa Monica, California; 940 Palisades Beach Road, Santa Monica, California; and
18 944 Palisades Beach Road, Santa Monica, California.
19 10. "RELATE," "RELATING," "REFER," or "REFERRING" means containing,
20 constituting, considering, comprising, concerning, discussing, regarding, describing, reflecting,
21 studying, commenting or reporting on, mentioning, analyzing, or referring, alluding, or pertaining
22 to, in whole or in part.
23 11.· The singular ofany word in.clu~esthe plural and the:plural includes the singular.
24 12. The terms "or" and~ "and" shall be read in the conjunctive and in the disjunctive
25 wherever theyappear, andne~tller 5>f the,S~ words E;hall beiut~r:pretedto limit:the scope oLa
26 request for information.
27
28
-3-
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

27. c..
-I
-I
.IY:
W
-I
-I
2
1
2 1.
INSTRUCTIONS
In responding to the following Requests for Production, YOU are required to
3 furnish all information and items within YOUR possession, custody or control, including
4 information in the possession, custody or control of YOUR employees, agents, attorney, or
5 investigators, and all persons acting in YOUR behalf.
6 2. If YOU object to any request because YOU contend that YOU have previously
7 produced some or all responsive DOC1JJ.1ENTS, or that sonie or all of the responsive
DOCUMENTS were produced by the DEFENDANTS or are in DEFENDANTS' possession,
custody, or control, include in YOUR response the Bates stamp number or otherwise identify with
particularity all DOCUMENTS that YOU contend relieve YOU ofllie obligation to respond to the
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
requests.
3. If any requested DOC1JJ.1ENT was, but no longer is in YOUR possession or
subject to YOUR control, or has been misplaced, destroyed, discarded, or otherwise disposed of,
please state so, and for each DOCUMENT provide: (a) Its date; (b) The identity of all
PERSON(S) who prepared or participated in preparing the DOCUMENT; (c) The identity of all
PERSON(S) who received the DOCUMENT; (d) The number of pages ofthe DOCUMENT; (e)
The subject matter of the DOCUMENT; (f) Ifmisplaced, the last time or place it was in YOUR
possession and a description of the efforts made to locate the DOCUMENT; (g) If disposed of,
the date and reason for disposal, the manner of disposition, the identity of PERSON(S) who
20 authorized disposal.
21 4. For each DOCUMENT withheld under a claim of privilege state the specific
22 privilege asserted and: (a) The type ofthe DOCUMENT, e.g., a letter, memorandum, etc.; (b) The
23 title ofthe DOCUMENT, ifany; (c) The date the DOCUMENT was prepared; Cd.) Theidentity of
24 its author(s); (e) The identity of all PERSON(S), who prepared or participated inpteparing the
25 DO~UI1El'rr? (f) _Th.~ id~ntity ofthe:PERSQN(S}to whomit was addressed andfol"to whom the- . -
26 copies were directed to be transmitted; (g) The identity of the PERSON(S) to whom the
27 DOCUMENT or a copy was transmitted, directe~ delivereci or s~nt; (4) The present location of
~-
28
-4-
REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

28. 0..
....J
....J
~
W
....J
....J
1 the DOCillv1ENT and the identity ofthe PERSON(S) who presently have custody ofit anc1!orwho
2 have in the past had custody ofthe DOCUMENT; (i) A sufficient description ofthe DOCUMENT
3 to identify it in its subject matter without revealing information for which a privilege is claimed;
4 G) All other facts that support YOUR claim for privilege.
5 5. TRUST PROTECTOR refers to any PERSON or ENTITY appointed under the
6 trust instrument to direct or restrain the trustee in relation to the administration of the trust. The
7 TRUST PROTECTOR holds a power to direct the trustee in matters relating to the trust.
8 6. In responding to the following-Requests for Production (Set One), YOU must make
9 a diligent search of all records in YOUR possession or available to YOU or YOUR
10 representatives. If YOU cannot comply in full with these Requests then YOU must comply to the
11 fullest extent possible and specify the reaSons for YOUR inability to comply with the remainder.
12
13 DOCUMENT REQUESTS
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1.
15 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Arenzano Trust.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2.
17 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Giganin Trust.
18 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3.
19 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Aquasante Foundation.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4.
21 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust or foundation that is part of YOUR ESTATE
22 PLAN.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5.
-24 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6.
26 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any CO:MMIJNICATION REFERENCING YOUR
27 ESTATE PLAN.
r-----------I-
28
-5-
REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

29. I
0:::
W
.....J
.....J
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7.
2 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are the trustor regardless of
3 YOUR present income or financial interest.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8.
5 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a TRUST PROTECTOR,
6 regardless ofYOUR present income or financial interest.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9.
8 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a beneficiary, regardless of
. 9 YOUR present income or financial interest.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10.
11 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class of beneficiaries,
12 regardless ofYOUR present income or financial interest.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11.
14 All DOC1Th1ENTS that RELATE to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid on YOUR behalf by
15 any PERSON or ENTITY including, but not limited to, Pacific Coast Management and Avalon
16 Corporation since 2001.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12..
18 All DOC1Th1ENTS that RELATE to travel expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
19 ENTITY on your behalf since 2001.
20, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13.
21 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
22 ENTITY on your behalf since 2001.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14.
24 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset ·owned at any time by YOU in
25 any capacity.
26 /11
27 /11
-
28
-6-
REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCU1v.IENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

30. c:::
W
.....J
....J
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15.
2 All DOCUJv.[ENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time by YOU as
3 part ofYOUR ESTATE PLANNING.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16.
5 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any postjudgment discovery in any matter to which YOU
6 responded.
7 REQUEST FORPRODUCTION NO. 17.
8 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any judgment debtor exam ofYOU since 2001.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18.
10 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY ofwhich YOU are an officer or member.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19.
12 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any property at which YOU have resided since January
13 201l.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20.
15 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to real property located at 3501 Canada Larga, Ventura
16 California, 9300l.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21.
18 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any tax DOCUMENTS filed by YOU or on YOUR
19. behalf.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2i-
21 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any taxes paid on YOUR behalf, including but not limited
22 to, in YOUR capacity as the equitable owner ofany ENTITY.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23.
24 All DOCUMENTS that RELATEto any income tax returns including, but-not limited to,W-
252's, 1099's, K-1's, whetherprePctred for fe4e!~,~tate,91" m~(;:ipal that R:ELATE to X()psinc~
26 January 1,2005.
27 / Il
28
-7-
REQUEST FORPRODUCTIQN OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

31. 0:::
W
..J
..J
1 REQUEST F.OR PRODUCTION NO. 24.
2 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to anymoney givento YOU for any purpose since 2010.
3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25.
4 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any income earned by YOUR since 2010
5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26.
6 All banks statements for any personal or business account in which YOU have legal or
7 equitable interest.
8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27.
9 All savings accounts in institutions that represent accounts in which YOU have an equitable
10 interest.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28.
12 All deeds, leases, mortgages, or any other DOCUMENT evidencing any interest or ownership,
13 including equitable interest or ownership, by YOU in real property at any time since 1997.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29.
15 All DOCUMENTS evidencing any inter~st or ownership, including equitable interest or
16 ownership, by YOU in any asset at any time since 1997.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30.
18 All stock certificates or other DOCUMENTS evidencing ownership of stocks and bonds held
19 by YOU in any capacity.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31.
21 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Pacific Coast Management Corporation.
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32.
23 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Avalon Corporation.
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33.
25 All DOCUMENTSlillLATING tOatlY ENTITY ill. which Pacific Cost Management
26 Corporation is a general partner.
27 III
28
-8-
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHENM. GAGGERO

32. c..
..J
..J
--
i
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34.
2 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Avalon Corporation is a general
3 partner.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35.
5 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any lawsuit in which YOU are involved as a representative
6 for any PERSON or ENTITY.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36.
8 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to insurance policies that insure loss to any property, real or
9 personal, which YOU own, including equitable ownership, individually or jointly with any other
10 PERSON.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37.
12 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any debt incurred by YOU since 2005.
13 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38.
14 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to payment ofany debtincurred by YOU.
15
Dated: January 31,2012
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- .. - - ..
24
25
26
27
28
MILLERLLP
By: ~ WAL"~ t
RANDALL A. MILDrR'~Q.
. SCOTTNEWMAN,-ESQ;
AUSTA WAKI:LY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray
Garcia,.Stephen M. Harris, and Andre Jardini
-9-
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF S1EPHEN M. GAGGERO

33. 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
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-j
. PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident ofthe State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action. My business address is Miller LLP, 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150, Los
Ange~es, CA 90071.,.2201. On January 31. 2012, I served the within documents:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO
o
n
D
o
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles~ California addressed as set
forth below.
by causing to be personally served to the person(s) at the addressees) set forth below
on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office ofthe
addressees as set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by causing such document(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed
such document(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed to
the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below and I placed the envelope/package
for collection at a drop box provided by Federal Express.
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice ofcollection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on
motion ofthe party served, service is'presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for ma.ili:hgin affidavit:
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of Californiathat the above is
true and correct.
-10-
REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

34. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a.. 12....J
....J
13
a:: 14
W
....J 15
....J
~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Stephen M. Gaggero
3501 Canada Larga
Ventura, CA 93001
SERVICE LIST
Attorneysfor Plaintiff, STEPHENM.
GAGGERO
Ph. (805) 267-1220
Fax: (805) 267-1211
Email:
Plaintiff
Ph.
Fax:
Email:
-11-
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO

35. "
)
-- - --------------- -----------
Exhibit "C"

36. IVIt:l1 V I I C. I 1 •..,,",1-' VllVVI"IY' ........... _.,,. - ....... -.~
DAVID EH.AKJ;; CHATF'II':I.D
I'!:MAI1..: DAVlbBL,.AKEC@HOTMAfL,COM
Scott Newman
MillerLLP
'WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2625 TOWNSGATE ROAD' SUITE 3S0
WESTLAKE VILLAGe;, CALIFORNIA 9136'1
(80S) 267-12.20
PAX (805) .267-121 1
'March 1,2012
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071~2201
Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail
Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al.
No. BC286925
Dear Mr. Nevvman:
lam writing this letter to request a 30 day extension to respond to the Request for Production of
Documents to Plaintiff Stephen M. Gaggero currently due on March 6, 2012 in the above
referenced case. As you are aware, when these Requests were served, Mr. Gaggero was in trial
and, in addition, Mr. Gaggero has been out ofstate for the past two weeks and will only be in
tOWTI for one day next week, not returning until March 23.• 2012. In addition., what little time.Mr.
Gaggero had between the trial and his trip was spent going over approximately 1OO~OOO
documents to find documents responsive to your production demands in the case ofGaggero v.
Knapp, Petersen & Clarke relating to their bandling ofthe Yura case.
I have had absolutely no time to work with Mr. Gaggero on his responses to your extensive
document Requests in thls case and will be unable to do so until afler his return. on March 23,
2012. Therefore, werequest that youprovide us with a 30 -day extension so that! may have a
reasonable opportunity to work with Mr. Gaggero to provide meaningful responses to your
Requests and allow for a diligent search for responsive documents. Mr. Gaggero's unavailability
is well known to your firm as it has been disclosed by Mr. Gaggero's counsel~ Blecher and
Collins, in the other Knapp, Petersen & Clark case in relation to discovery served in that matter.
Kindly provide us "vith your agreement to the requested extension by tomorrow, March 2, 2012.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter.
DBCIk't

37. LOS ANGELES
MILLER I LLPCITY NATIONAL PLAZA
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
213.493.6400
TEL: 800.720.2126 I FAX: 888.749.5812
www.rnillerllp.com
VIA MAIL AND FASCIMILE
David Blake Chatfield
Westlake Law Group
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake·Village, California 91361
Facsimile: (805) 267-1220
¥arch 2, 2012
Reply To:
scott@mlllerllp.com
RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court
(BC286925)
Mr. Chatfield,
This is in response to your l~tter dated March 1, 2012.requesting a 30 day extension to
respond to the post-judgment request for production of documents propounded to Stephen M.
Gaggero. Notwithstanding:Mr. Gaggero's vacation schedule, you have had sufficient time to
respond to the documents. We wi1i, however, grant you a 2 week extension to respond as a
matter of professionril courtesy. The deadline to both provide responses and produce all
responsive documents is now March 20, 2012. .
ScottNewman
:MILLER ILLP

38. Exhibit "D"

39. -_._--.._. --. -----..-..-.__.. -_. -_.__.- ...._- _... --.. j._.__._----_._-_..._._-_. -._..- -_..__.__._---_._----------) ._--- -_.. - -- ._. _._... _- _... -_. ---- --_._-
1 WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2 David Blake Chatfield (State Bar No. 88991)
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
3 Telephone: (805) 267-1220
4 Facsimile: (805) 267-1211
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Stephen M. Gaggero
6
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, an individual, )
)
11
12 VS.
Plaintiff, . )
)
)
.)
13 KNAPP, PETERSEN AND CLARKE, a . )
California corporation; STEVEN RAY )
14 GARCIA, an individual; STEPHEN M. )
HARRIS, an individual; ANDRE JARDINI, )
15 an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )
. . )
16
Defendants.
17
CASE NO.: BC286925
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO'S
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT KNAPP,
PETERSEN & CLARK'S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCtION OF DoCUMENTS
[PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE § 708.030]
18 PROPOUNDING PARTY:
19 RESPONDING PARTY:
. DEFENDANT KNAPP, PETERSEN & CL.A1tKB
PLAINTIFF STEPBBN M. GAGGERO
20 SET NuMBER:
21
22
23
24
·25
.26·.
- - - •• _ •• _. __ ~• • • • ___. _ ._._ ............ -: ___ ._ ••• __ ••••••••• _ • - M" •••• _ •• ___ • • • _ •• _ _ • • • • . , _ .
ONE--··
-- --------··---'-2T- :- -.----- ---. --.-.-- ..-- -.----~.-.~-.- - -:-- .--~----.:. -- .-. -~..-: ---.- -- -.--- ~-- -.---:-:-.- .~------.--.-- ---------------- - - ---- -..--- ---. -------
..........._... 2.b

40. ......._..._- ..- -- . __ ._...._, .'..... _..... -.- -- ...- .._..........._. _.. -_...._.... _-/')- .... - .-... - .. _........-: "-'-_.. _-'- _..
1 PlaintiffStephenM. Gaggero (''Plaintiff') hereby responds and objects to Defendant
2 Knapp, Petersen & Clarke's (''Defendant'') Request for Production ofDocUlP.ents. The response
3 contains both general and specific objections, which are incorporated .into each individual
4 response.
5 PRELThfiNARYSTATEMENT
6 Nothing in this response shall be construed as waiving any rights or objections that might
7 otherwise be available to Plaintiff, Plaintiffmakes this response subject to and without waiver of:
8 (1) the right to make additional objections or seek protective orders in the event additional
9 review offiles results in further information;
10 (2) the right to object to other discovery directed to the subject matter ofthe Requests; and
11 (3) the right to revlse, correct, supplement, or clarify the response.
12 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
13 1. Plaintiffobjects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Request, on the
14 grounds that they are. overly broad and unduly burdensome and harassing in that they are clearly
15 not li:r.i:rited to docUment~ necessary to aid in the enforcement ofthe judgment for fees and costs in
16 this matter. Requests for documents relating to assets transferred, sold or liquidated over a decade
17 ago are clearly irrelevant to this judgment enforcement and will not be produced byplaintiff.
18 2. Plaintiffobjects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Request, to the
19 extent that they call for information protected from discovery or disclosure by anyprivilege or
"-:' --.---:~--.: .,-.:-~~ -.-~'~ :--: --.~'.'--.-.",::.--._-._-:.- "._." :~"- .... "___7 ....."._" _. ~ ", __ :"_.: ~~_~_~ .... "'~.._ ~ _':_.'.'_-. .' ._. .. _.....: ..._.._~ . . . . . _. _ ....
20 doctrine, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
21 doctrine, and anyprivilege or doctrine that protects infoITnation from discovery or disClosure
22 because it otherwise reflects the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research, litigation plans
23 or theories ofPlaintiffs attorneys. By providing certain information requested herein, Plaintiff
24 does notwaiveanypriyilege or protection that is or maybe applicable to such information.
25 3. Plaintiffobjects gel?-erally to the Requests, and to each individualRequest; to the
-26 - -extentoiliattb.gycallforIDiorrnatien-proteotedfrom·discov€ry:oLdi.sclosurebytheIights QfIJriyl3.c.y
_.._-.. --- - ·--~T -.·gUaraD:teeaoy.tJie-catirormaConstitutibn-®a::tD.e-oniteI't-States.-C<Y.llstitu.!iQE-:Eyprgyiqing-cert-a:jn,-- ._..._--
f.-=====d8= -,w-€J~atiBE-:re'i:aestru:1J:l~i:R,Rl.a~.Qes--not...w.aiV:e....arL~I2.tivilege_oL12.I.ote.c_tio.n...th.atjs or may be
1

41. /--, ... -_._.-- ... _.. - _ ... _...... -_ ..._.-._._.. -.-._. ).... __.. __...... -
1 applicable to such information.
2 4. Plaintiffobjects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Request, to the
3 extent tha{theypmport to impose upon Plaintiffobligations beyond those imposed under the Code
4 of Civil Procedure or Court Rules.
5 5. Plaintiffobjects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Request, to the
6 extent that they request information that is in the possession, custody or control of:Defendants.
7 6. Plaintiffobjects generally to the Requests, and to each individual Reqll:est, to the
8 extent that they seek information that is not in the custody or control ofPlaintiff. Plaintifffurther
9 objects generally to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is publicly available,
10 or to which Plaintiffhas aCcess equal to as Plaintiff, or which PlaintiffOr Plaintiffs counsel could
.11 obtain with equal effort.
12 7. Plaintiffobjects generally to the Requests, and to each individual request, to the
13 extent that they seek disclosure ofinformation that is confidential and/or proprietary.
14 8. Plaintiff objects generally to the Requests, and to each Request, because they are
15 vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, undated, unsigned, and overly broad, in that they contain
16 undefined terms or pmport to impose definitions that are both internally inconsistent and
----------n- ·-mcompatltrle witlrb1'ditrary,-common;-·orestablished-meanings:--Aecordingly,·iti.-mterpreting-and- .-----._.-
18 construing the requests, Plaintiffwill give words their ordinary meaning, common, and established
19 :ine~g~, s?_that._tJ:1e.r~SIJonses and objections will not be subject to misinterpretation. When the
__ .. "..... :. _':_'::::" __ :.:~ .. _M. __ .~. __.::_ ...._ ••" __ ' __ '_::-.__.::-'..::_..__ .. " ..,': .... _. :__ ~.•.. _ ~_.-: ... . _...... .
20 response uses the present tense, plaintiffwill presume that defendants are referring to the present
21 time. When the request uses the word "since" plaintiffunderstands the word to have the meaning
22 set forth in Webster's dictionary "after a time in the past.;'
23 9. Plaintiffobjects to the definition ofthe terms "you" and "your" set forth in
24 _Paragraph 1 ofDefendant'spe:fi.nitions in that it collectiyely n~fers to Plaintiff, together with his
25 a.gents, eri::llJloyee~-ern:ployet, attorney, accountant, investigator, or anyone else acting onPla:ifitiff's
- 26 -behalf, on the groundthatsuG-hanj~~xpansiy.e_use impose.s-aburden,gJ::efl.t~r thEtI:l.wll,atisr~9....uJ:tfig,"by
---.--.-.- .---·-2T~ llie-:-Ca1If6rmaRUleso:f-CI.VlI.-PrQce1im~rIDrdlJI.a:k~rtr~-r~:q-g:~~t~-oy~rly-broad'1IDd~y-1Jm:.de~oIl1~-·------ .--
!--======4cl9t=Cl..B.!-!U0J~l1Q.t..other:Wise-reasonably-calcnla1e.di.o~e.ad to me discovery ofevidence relevant to the
2

42. .' .- . - ..- ..- ..- .... -_...... -. . .... ... _... _/~.-... _.. _..
J
1 claims or defenses ofthe parties. Plaintiffwill respond to the requests o:iJly on behalfofbimsel£
2 Because the definition includes Plaintiffs attorneys, Plaintiff also objects to the extent that the
. 3 requests seek information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege; the attorney
4 work product doctrine, and any other applicable privileges.
5 10_ Plaintiffobjects to each and every request oli the grounds, and to the extent, that it
6 seeks information outside the relevant time period.
7 11. Plaintiff objects to the definition ofthe definition ofESTATB PLAN set forth in
8 Defendant's Definitions in that it includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
9 administration and disposition ofPlaintiffsproperty, owned by Plaintiffat any time in any
10 capacity, before or after·death including will, trust, gifts, or·power ofatton;iey, ot any other method
11 ofestate planning and further refers to the transfer ofany assets owned by Phrintiff.at any time to
12 any PERSON or ENTITY·collectively on the ground that such an eXpansive group of definitions
13 imposes a burden greater than what is required by the California Ru1es of Civil Procedure ahd
14 makes the requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or not otherwIse reasonably calculated
15 to lead to the disc·overy ofevidence relevant to the inquiry into Plaintiffs Current assets, which is
16 the sole subject ofthis discovery_
-~. -----..·---17-· ..------. _ u _ _ • _ _ _ • • _ • - • • • - • • • - -:-RESP{)NSE8-T(j-D(jeUMENT.RE0l:ffiS!{,·S·_-·-.-------.- --.---------. -.---___._.
18 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.1:
19 All DOCillv1ENTS that RELATE to the Aremano Trust.
-": -:-- "- --.:~-:- -"."."- .. _. - .
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUEST NO.1:
21 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
22 though fully set forth herein. Plairitiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
23 undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it .
24 seeks.documents that are neither relevant !lor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
25 adillissible eVidencem this action: Plaintifffuttherobjectsto this request orii:he grounds that it
-26 -calls-for thepI0duc-tionofirrele-yantdo_G:um~ntscthatare__pI.Qtect{';)9-ir9111~Q.lo§ill~1JYj>1~l1.tjJf)
- .- -.-:-- -~27 -:-anQt:lJlXd.parneS'"~Constiru:t1onaTI:y.PIQte.:-ct~dTightQrFriya;cy.-P-l-aiP.1i;f:f-:furtb:er:-objeet-s-t~d:bi?rectuest- .._n~••• _ _ •
l---======'~ _0fl-th~~at-i.t.seeks-documentsJhai.are 12IOte.cte.d1to.m..disclosure by: the attorney-client
3

43. /--- . ---- - ... - ----- -- - - --- -
1 priVilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
3 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
4 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2:
5 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Giganin Trust.
6 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2:
7 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
8 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
9 undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
10 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
11 admissible evidence in tbis action. Plaintifffurther objects to thi$ request on the grounds that it
12 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected fromdisc1osure by plaintiff's
13 and.third parties' Constitutionally protected rights ofprivacy. Plaintiff further objects to this
14 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attotney-
15 clientprivilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
-,
16 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
-- -'-------1/--- -ag-folloWs:-Ptamttffliaffno-dbcuments-resp'OTIsive-to-tbis-reqnest-irr-bis-possession-or--col1tml~----.------ -.--.----
18 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.3:
19 All_~.O~~~S tha~;RELATE to theAquasante Foundation.
..• .0_. .•. ",":", _". : .~" ~
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUEST NO.3:
21 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
22 though :fully set forth herein_ Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
23 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
24 seeks.documents that are neitherreleV'ant norreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
25achriissible evidence irithls action. Plaintifffurther objects to tJ:lls request on the grounds that it -
26 - -Galls for the productionc-ofirrelevantdocUID.€nts tb.at~are.pIOtected~fr.OrrHlis.Closur~by pla.:irl.ti:Ef's _'.
- --.- -----£7ana:tl:lifdp~es"'-~Cofi$fimtlonaJlyprntecteah~t-=a:tpriya:cy::Pl~t:iff fuJ:th~rQbj-~pts:-to-:-tbi-s:-request- --" --.
4

44. iI
1 privilege and/or the attomeywork-product doctrine.
2 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
3 as follows: Plailltiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
4 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.4:
5 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust or foundation that is part ofYODRESTATE
6 PLAN.
7 RESPONSE TO DOCUl.ffiNT REQUEST NO.4:
8 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
9 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
10 undulyburdensome and harassing. 'Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
. 11 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculatedto lead to the discovery of .
12 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from .disclosure by plaintiff's
14 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
15 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
16 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
--- ---------.-t?- -.------------Subjecttcnl11_d-withoutwai-vrngthe-forego:ing-objecticns-and Jimitations;--Plaintiff-respl:mds-------- .
18 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
19 DOClJMENT REQUEST NO.5:
20
21
22
23
24
25
... -26
....: -.-- .. - -- - ... :_.., "7'~:-:'.:'~.':. '.~ -." .__ ..
All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.5:
Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad,
.un9-uly burdensome and harassirlg. Plaintiff:furtIJ.er objects to this request on the grounds that it
seeks documents that are neither-relevant riorreasonablycalculatedtb leadto the discovery of
,admissible evidence m-tbisaGtiQn._PlaintifIfurthercobje.ctsjQ,tbiSIe'lu.~st()lJ.J:l:le_gr,plIDq§1hatjt...
------. ---:-- -L,7-: ~cans~-ror~t11e-pr.o_ductt<TIL!J.firre-lwant-dQ:c.1IDl~utsib:~t-We'1'rotect~d-fr9~-:disclcSUTe-by-pl~~s----..- - ------
~=====-,?~8!=l=-&l,a..ill-{-ld;bir:d-;t:!arties' Constitutionally:J2I.o:te_cj:~d.Jight o£privacy. Plaintifffurther obiects to this re uest
5
I

45. } ..._.... __ ._.._ ..... --...__ .-. __._- .. __ ._--_... /).__. --_._.
1 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
2 privilege and!or the attorney work-product doctrine.
3 Subject to and without waivrng the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
4 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this requestin his possession or control.
5 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.6:
6 All DOCillv1ENTS RELATING to any COM1v.[uNICATION REFERENCING YOUR
7 ESTATE PLAN.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQDEST NO.6:
9 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
10 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
11 in time and scope and as such are·undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects that
12 the req1l:-est on the grounds is vague and ambiguous such that plaintiffcannot fOrin a meaningful
13 response. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
14 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence in this
15 action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request On the grounds that it calls for the prodUction of
16 irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure byplaintiff's and third parties'
--··-·----·---rr-·--C6;iistltutionallyprotected-rlght-ofprivacy.-Plaintifffurther-obj-ects·-to--tbis--request-·on-the--grounds---·-·-·----·--
18 that it seeks documents that areprotected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and!or
19 the attorney work-product doctrine.
.....:. ::'..~. ,-:- -::_,"'.:'...._--- ~-.--...-~:-. '_."-'" :":'.- .'.' . . . .
20 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.7:
21· All DOCillv1ENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are the trustor regardless of
22 YOUR present income or financial illterest.
23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.7:
24 Plaintiffincorporatesby reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
25 tliough fully set forth herein. Plamtlff0bjecls fotliis request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
..26 unduly burdensome.andharassing,~PlaintifffurtheLQbjec.tstQ_tbis;re_q.u.estQn the gr~:n.U1.dsJ:b.at it.
- -._.-.---. ---2T ·-seaG3--documerits11iatare.Iiettlier.r.eIevantn<5Ire.-a-s-o"1fa:b-lTG~ai-c-giate-d:tQ-:-le.-a.d.i~:r-:th.e-9isc.overy~()f··-· -~--- ----.-.:--
~===='1:6:.i)1]0000t:=aElmj-ss-jb1.~~Jl.~m-tbis-actiQn~ P.lam:tifffuItheLobj_e_cisJ:.o-1his...r.e_qJl_e.sj: on the grounds that it
6

46. t • - .. _ .. - •.•.
;
. . .. - .. ( ..--').. ... _. ..... _. " _. - ... -_.... - _._-
--->
1 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents thatare protect~dfrom disclOSUre byplaintiff's
2 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to tbis request
3 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
4 privilege and/or the attomey work-product doctrine.
5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
6 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in bis possession or control.
7 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.8:
8 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in wbich YOU are a TRUST :PROTECTOR.
9 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.8:
10 Plaintiffincorporates by reference'each and'every General Objection set forth above ·as
11 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds.that it is overlybroad,
12 undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
14 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
15 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure byplaintiffs
16 and third parties'. Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
..----._-- -'--'17-'- -on tD1l"grouna.stna:tit-se-eks-dtrcumentsihat-are'protected-from-disclosure-'by-me-·att0mey"'c-lient· '-' .-.-.-----
18 privilege and/or the attor;neywork-product doctrine.
19 Subject to and without waivingthe foregoing objections and lii:nitations, Plaintiffresponds
',.-': .... -.-.-,... -.~--.-----:-' .. ~ ~ ...~ - ~:. ~ "-' :'"-.': ---.... _.... .--.:.-.::....- .. ":- ::-,: -" .-.. ',' . ~ ......., .. ',:'~ ~-.: .... - -' ' . - . - - .-:."
20 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
21 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.9:
22 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in wbich YoU are a beneficiary; regardless
23 ofregardless ofYOUR present income or financial interest.
24 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.9:
25 - Plaintiffiricorponites by reference each and every General Objection set forth above.as
.--26 .,thQugh fullysetforth.herein. ..Plainti:ff.obje_cts.tQ~tbkr.e_que8t.onthe_gcolJ.l:l,ds that.itis,.()vpr]y"b;tIt~g., ,
.~- -----~L.7- --unaUly15uta.ensome allil-haraS"BID:g-;-~Plaintifffg;rth-erqb.j~·ct~;-tQ-t;bis-r~ql1est-~m-fue-grelil14~-fuat-:it-:-.-: -~--
1----=====":'')1,0Q-~==I"P"~"iO>~d,ftc.JJm.ents..:that.are..neitb.er...r.ele.Y~t.n.o.I..Ie.as.anabl)U<.aiculated to leadto the discovery of _
7

47. j ....................._......_...... '). _....
1 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds that it
2 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure byplaintiff's
3 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
4 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attomey-client
5 .privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
6 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
7 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
8 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:
9 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class ofbeneficiaries,
10 regardless ofYOUR present income ot financial interest.
11 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.. 10:
12 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
13 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the groUnds that it is overly broad,
14 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to tbis request on the grounds that it
15 seeks documents that are neither relevantnor reasonably calculated to lead to the· discovery of
16 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
.-.-.-.....-.- ····-·17----ca.1t§f6r-tne-production·of:irretevant-dacuments-that-are-protected-from-disclelstITe-by-plainti:ff.s-····_---.-.-.
18 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
19 on t11~.W?~ds t~~t _its.ee~__~ocuments that are protected fro:rn disclosure by the attorney-client
• • • • • • ~ __. : . _ •• _ •••• _ _ _ .0 • • • ~ • • • • : _.__ .~ :'::'~'• • _~~_~'" • • • • _. "." • • •.'.: • • • _. _ . , , _ • • • _
20 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
21 -Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
22 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
23 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:
24 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to bills, f~es; irlvoices, or charges paid on YOURbehalf
25 hy any PERSON-orENTITY ili.bluding, but notl.itnited to, PacmcCoastManagementand A'Valon
_.. 26 (Jmporation smce 2001.
...--....-.---."--2"'7- -o-UcrD10>1.'SE·-To-n·O-C'i"-'m~T.cp-n'E'-O'F'FE'-Qq:>.N()-11~--------------------.--.-.---------.-.- ..------- ----... •., ~~-"J;.}-~.l-~" _~ . ", -. • .Ul.UEil.~~..~. _UJ,!J.O:_~~_ .... ,- . . ~. . . . . . _ .
----,========<7Jb RlaiJJti.;f;Ej;gco:kpO-Iates.b_r..r.eferenc.e each..and eye Gen.e.raLOb.ection set forth above as
8

48. i
/
...-._..... J)..... ...:'. _1
1 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
2 as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
3 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
4 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this
5 request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected
6 from disclosure by plaintilfs and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
7 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
8 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctr:iile.
,.
9 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
10 All DOCUMENTS ·that RELATE to travel expenses paid byYOU or anY-PERSON or
11 ENTITY on your behalfsince· 2001.
12 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
13 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
14 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
15 as to time and scope as to be undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
16 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
.-_.--........-'-'17' ··to le·a:d·tQ-tne-msc-overy-ofac1rn±s·sible-eviderrceintbis-actron:·-Plainti-ff-further··ebjects-te-this-····--- --.------"--.
18 request on the grounds that it cG-lls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected
19 fro~ cl?-sc~?.sut~_bYI'.~~~ffs ~~ ~~~~~S'C?l1S~!U~?~~ll)T}')rot~c~edright ofprivacy. Plaitltir:, ..c.
20 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents' that are protected from
21 disclosure bythe attorney-client privilege and/or the attotneywork-product doctrine.
22 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:
23 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
24 ENTITY onyour behalfsince 2001.
25 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQtJESTNO. 13:
- 26 -Plaintiffineorporates byreferenG€_eacaaIldeyery Gene:tal Qb.jecJiQ:r:l.-setJ9rthaboye .~p....
-_..-- --- ... '-'27'-- ~ougfi:I'illlyserfQfE1f"nerein.--Plainttf:fo:bj~Gtrt:Q"1biST~-qg;~t-Ql.:rtJ:r~·grounds1:1J.at-it·i-s~-over}y-bre>ad-:-. -:-"....-- .-
~====~").~Q-=H::a~Y,nd3.k.Q -e-as to-b.e-undubw.urdens.ome..andltar.a.ssin ...J:laintifffurther ob·ects to this
9

49. I " ...... _.... - ' " .._.... . .._.... /) -'. - ......
.....1
1 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
2 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this
3 request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documentsthat are protected
4 from disclosure by plaintiff's and thirdparties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
5 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
6 disclosure bythe attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
7 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:
8 All DO~NTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time by YOU in
9 any capacity.
10 RE~PONSE TO DOCUMENT'REQUESTNO. 14: .
11 Plaintiffincorporates byrefetence each and every General Objection set forth above as
12 though fully setforth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad
13 as to time and scope so as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
14 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant not reasonably calculated
15 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in tbis action. Plaintiff further objects to tbis
16 request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected
--·--------·---·-li-·-fromilisclosu:re-by-plaffitiff''s"andtbird-parties2
-Constitutionall-y-pi'0teetea-rightofpri-v-ae-y-;-P-laintiff .----.-
18 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
19 .. ~sc1o~~e.by th.e attorney-c~~~t p.r:i~lege andlor :the_~ttomey workwptoduct doctrine.
.~ -- ':. .- . ' . . ... _.
20 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:
21 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the transfer ofany asset owned at any time by YOU as
22 part ofYOUR ESTATE PLANNlNG.
23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:
24 .. ... l?laintiffincorpora!es byreference each and every General Objection set forth above as
25thougli fully set Iorfuherem: Plaintiffobjects to thisrequestonthe grounds thatit is overlybroad
... - .. 26 .. as to hothtime_and SG0pe that is und1!lyJ2'l1:td~:r:tEi()m~._ang_J:J.ar~~~igg._:Pl~ti.fffH;ti:1le:r 9bject~_t~tltiE_
-- -- -.- ..- --"'27- ~iequesron fIle-grounds-tha;rirS'e-e-krlm;;mP;~;Q.t~~tb:atw.e-n~itb:er-rel~v:ap:t-n:m-Ieas01'l~b.l-y-ea:le.lliateEl~-.'-.'-- .---.
--=====,<18~.=IJdi.Q,Jead to-the..disco~eI¥ of.admissible eYidence in this action. Plaintiff:further 0bjects to this
10

50. ,~
~.. _.... _.. --j
. _.................. ~ l- ... '" ... . . . " - .... - ....-_..
. (/
I request on the grounds that it calls for the production of:irrelevant documents that are protected
2 from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
3 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protect~d from
4 disclosure bythe attorney-client privilege and!or the attorney work-product doctrine.
5 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:
6 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any post judgment discoveryin.anymatterto which YOU
7 responded.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUESTNO. 16:
9 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
10 though fully set forth herein.·Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
11 as to time and scope as to be unduly..burdensome and harassing. Piaintifffurther.objects to this
12 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
13 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this
14 request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected
15 from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
16 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks docuinents that are protected from
----·-·...··----...17·-- jdlsclosure··15y the-a'ttonrey:.-c1ient"privile-ge-·andlorib:e-·attomey-work-=-prod:uet-doetrine;--- ..........--_. .... ....--.......
18 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:
19 ..__ .. . ._A.1:~ DO~~N!~ i?:at RE~!?-!E.:~o:.aIl~J~dgment d~b~~r~xam.ofYOU since 200l..' ..... -.~ ::...........
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO..17:
21 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
22 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
23 as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
24 request onthe grounds that it seeks documents that are neitherrelevant nor reasonably calculated
25 to lead to the discovery of admissible-evidence ill this action. Plain.tifffurtherobjects totbis
.26 requeston the grounds thatitca1ls.for.tb.eproduGtion.ofirrelevantdocum..ents.1h~ta:reprotec;t~cd
- ......... -.----- ·-Z'T -.from-msclosUie.oy"'plallfiiffs anCl.~t1llrCl. parn:es'":"e.bnstituti:an:lIlly:p::rQt~(,)te-d-right-of-Pri:~ae-y:-Pl-aiJ1~
--====:=k~-=It::fI.:Jrth.~I::.e1>j:€..G.:ts.=tQ...tbi.s...:r;e'luest.on....tb.e~o.undsJ:b.atit.se_ekB-dnc_um.e.n:ts that are rotected from
11

51. . __ . -- -"'- .. . __ . -', --} ... . ... _ .. _._----)- ._- .. -.,.- --.
1 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and!or the attorney work-product doctrine.
2 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:
3 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY ofwhich YOU are an officer or member.
4 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. J8:
5 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
6 .though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
7 as to time and scope and therefore undulyburdensQIile and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to
8 this request on the grounds that it seeks dOCu:r:i1ents that are neither relevant nor reasonably
9 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to
10 this reauest on the QIounds that it calls for the production of-irrelevant documents that are.J. _ _ .
11 protected from disclosure byplaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right of
12 privacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks docu:r:i1ents that are
13 protected from disclosure by the attorney-clientprivilege and/or the attorney work-product
14 doctrine.
15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
16 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request.
-.--- ---- ·--YT·-nO-CUMENTREOUESTNO.-19:--·---··-- --.----------..-- ...--------- '__'_'_H ____.__,.__u _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - " - - - " - - . - . - - - . - . - - - -
18 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any property at whichYOU have resided since January
19 2011.
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:
21 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
22 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
23 undulyburdensome and harassing_ Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
_24 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to leadJO the discovery of
25 admissible evidence in this action..Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the gtotinds that it
--- ..26 -0aB~~foFthe-preduGtion,ofirreleovantdoouments·ib.at.areprotected.£rom.disclo.sureob¥_plaintiffs
-.-.-..-:-.~.-----~Z7 andtliITa:pames-:'-:-CQnsfifutionaIly-pr.Qte.Gtei1rig1In>:fpriyac_y.~£ll-aintiif:fgrtl;rerobje-cts1::o-tbis-request- -:- - -:----
~====;bi1= -@R=tJao®=gf~a-8=fuat..fl~ks..-<loCJJments.Jha:La:re"pmtectecLfro:milisclo.su.re. b;¥ihe atto.mex-client
12

52. . - _._ .. -_. /) ... - - - .._. " ' - .. - ....._... - ._... _- -.- .__..- .._...) ... ----- _..... - _... _.. _..__.
. /
1 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
2 Subject to and·without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
3 as follows: Plaintiffdoes not own any real property.
4 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20:
5 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to real property located at 3501 Canada Larga, Ventura
6 California, 93001.
7 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20:
8 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
9 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
10 unduly burdensome and harassing'. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
11 seeks doCUDients that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
12 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff:futther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from. disclosure by plaintiff's
14· and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
15 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attomey-:c1ient
16 prjvilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
_..--- --_.. '-17"-' -....-.-. --.. ··:Suoject·tcyand wit116iIt-waiviIrgilie-'fore-gomgnbj-e-cnons-and-limitatiorts,-Plaintiff-responds-·----.----..
18 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request.
20 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any tax DOCUMENTs filed by YOU Or on YOUR
21 behalf.
22 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21:
23 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
. .....- ... -, . _..... -- .. -_.. .. -- . • ••• •• - I"~ -', • • - .••
24 _thQugh fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
25 undulyburdensome- arid harassing...Plaintifffurtherobjects to'iliis request on the grounds that it
26 -seeks, Q.ocuments lliatare neitherrelev..ant.nor_Ieasonablyccalculatedto~ lead.t~Lth~LdisQ.QYt2.ryQ.f _
--.-.--- '-IT radillissThle eViaencemws-action.·-Plainttfffurtli:erQ:bj-eJrts""tQ-:tb±n~-qg~s:f;o.D,-tb:e-gro1Jllds-tb.cttjt--·-:-- .------
~====h6ig~==Ga]J&f-0±=th€kpmd11G.ti.Q±l4J£in:-e.le..v:aJ1t..dO'CllDlents..fb.at..aJ::e ;rn;;01e.c1e_ditanLdis_closure byplaintiff's
13

53. "
.......... '--- _.- ....- .-.... ' .. ---..-- ..) _..... _.. _... "'- - _...-.. - .. -.. - _.. .I
1 andthird parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther 0bjects to this request
2 on the grounds that it seeks documents that ate protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
3 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
4 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22:
5 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any taxes paid on YOURbehalf, including butnot limited
6 to, in YOUR capacity as the equitable owner ofany ENTITY.
7 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22:
8 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
9 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
10 undulyburdensome arid harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
11 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
12 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
14 and third parties' Constitutionally protected righ~ ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
15 on·the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosuteby the attorney-client
16 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
-.-----.---- --17-·-- ---.-··---SuDjecno~ifilll-wifuoutwaivirrgtb:eToregoing-obj·ections-and··-lirtritati:ons,-Plaip:tiifTespends- .-..------
18 as follows: Plaintiffis not the owner of any Entity. and therefore, has n~ responsive documents in
19 .hJ.s_pos~~~~i0I?-..()r..9?~tr?I:.....
20 DOCUlVJ:ENT REQUEST NO. 23:
21 All DOCUMENTS that RELAtE to any income tax returns including, but not limited to, W
22 21
s, 10991
s, K-l 's, whether prepared for federal, state, or municipal that RELATE to YOU since
23 January 1, 2005.
24 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23:
·25 Plairitiffincorporatesbyreference eacb and every GeneralObjection·set forth above as
.. --26 -thQugh fullyset.forthherein.-BlaintiffobjeGt.s-tG.this.IequestQn.the~gr.ounds_that iUs.o:verlybroad,...
-:: -------.-- '7,7 .UJldUlY0Uraensorneancniarassmg.._}>laintlftfcirtlTer::qbje-gts"1~rtb±Q1"eq®.st-Qn~e-grounds-:thctt-it-.--- - ~--:---~
f-======k!~ ik&dQJ,;;um.~~at..e"neij:hek-reley-antnOIJ:easonab] _alclliat~_d_to~e_a.dio the discove. of
14

54. - .-• • • - __ A _ _ •• __ • _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ••• ___ . _ . _ • • • _ _ • • • • • - _ _ _• ) _ . _ ._ _ _ _ • • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ • • • _.
)- -----_._-- ----- - -- .. ----- ------- - -_. ---- - -.- ----- ---..-
1 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
2 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure byplaintiffs
3 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
4 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
5 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
6 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24:
7 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any money given to YOU for any purpose since 2010.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24:
9 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
10 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and
11 ambiguous, overly broad, undulyburdensome'and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
12 request on the grounds that it seeks doctlments that are neither relevant not reasonably calculated
13 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this
14 request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant docUinents that are protected
15 from cUsc10sure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
16 :furt1iet objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks docUIhehts that are protected from
-'-----'---- -- ---1/---dtsclosure-bytlre-atrorrrey-=clrentprivilege--and!orthe-att-omey-work~pre>duct-doc-trine;----- -.-----------...------------
18 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25:
19 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any income earned by YOUR since 2010.':' ..-~ -- ' .. -:' .- -.--- : ....-:--_..:. '--'-. -_. ---_._-_.-_.. _._--_... - ..._. - ._- - '-'.' - .. -,' -= .- ....... :-:-.-.... ".-'-- ..... - .. .
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25:
21 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
22 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad,
23 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
24 seekf] dOCuments that are neither relevan! nor rea.sonably calculated to leadto the discovery of
25 admissible evidence in tills action. -Plaintifffurther objects to thisTequest on thegrblifids thatit
2(5- "Galls-forthe preduG-tion-of.m.elevantdQQ]:U:ll.e:I1ts=that~are;PJ:QteclEldJi:9ll1.cli§clQsl.l!~JJYJ~)JaitJ,tiif§, __"
- -----" ----"-~~2'J'- "ancl~1:1i1I.d-p.aro:es>-:Cons:qtuti::Ql1liliypI:Qte:Q:te:d.lightQf:priY.:;;J;Qy.-:-I?-l:airtttef-:furt1l~r-e>bj~~~-s.:-:to-t¥-S:!_~'1ues:t~- ---~~~--_-
28 oIl-the..gr:Ollllds--thatit-&e_e:k:a..do_cumentsJ:hat are pLoJe_cJe_<ifrom disclosure bythe attorney-client
15

55. .0
,/'" ._- - .- -...--.-.---.-.---.-.---.---.-.--~.---) ... _---_ ........ _-_ ...._ .. __ ...... _-- ..
1 privilege and/or the attomeywork-product doctrine.
2 Subject to~d without waiving the forego:ing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
3 as follows: Plaintiffwill produce any documents responsive to this :in his possession and control if
4 the propounding party agrees to limit the document request to the relevant time period.
5 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26:
6 All banks statements for anypersonal or business account in which YOU have legal or
7 equitable interest.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26:
9 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
10 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad,
11 undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
·12 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
13 admissible evidence :in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it
. 14 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected fr6m disclosure by plaintiffs
15 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff further objects to this request·
16 on the grounds that it seeks documents that ate protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
--..- ······--··--TT- pfiVilege-andIOf1li{ntttomeywork..:ptoduct·do-ctrIne-:------------.----_.-.-_..---.----.---------.----. -..- ..---._--.._-.._-
18 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
19 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request.-"'-' ..__. ··::-.7-:·~· _'~~-. -.-.--•. -:-:: •._.. _~._:._- ... :.-_--.~_:-- .:":'::"'::'.'_'~'_":.'::- __.-:_:.~ ..._:: . ___"_ .~._. ":._~'-:-.'____ '_".-:' ..•__ •___ .• __
..--_ ......... -- -~~'..'.'.'-.' .. :- ~- ..--_':--:-_- .'--7'"~--._-
20 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27:
21 All savings accounts in institutions that represent accounts in which YOU have an
22 equitable interest.
23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27:
24Plaintiffirlcorporates 1:>yreferenceeach and everyGeneral Objectionset forth above as
·25 though fully set f()rth herem. Plaintiffobjects to thisrequest 011 thegrolifids that it is oveilybroad;
-26· undulycgurd€llSOme and harassing:." Rlaintifffurtb.~r,ol>j~GtsjQthis,Iequest on the.g(Quud~Lthati1..
.----:--._.~~2T -.s®®KB ·documeIifS1liat ar.e neiUler.reJ:evantnor.I,easona:lJly:c~a:lcmate_d.-t~rl~miho:ih~Q:j:s:Q"Qy~r.Y-Qf~-~_:_:
~=====:'),6j'Q~-=H=aElmis·sihl€l=&vifI&II.Ge--i.tJ-tbj..s-a.c.~tifLfin:t:het...~s..ioJ:his.J:.e.g,ue.s:LoJLth.e=R;r..Ounds that it
16

56. "'"- -, ._,--. __ ._- ..._---- ----- .__.._...._.-..__._-_._-"'-'"--
1 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure byplaintiff's
2 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
3 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
4 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
5 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and furritations, Plaintiffresponds
6 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request inhis possession or control.
7 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28:
8 All deeds, leases, mortgages, ot any other DOCUMENT evidencing any interest or
9 ownership, including equitable interest or ownerShip, byYOU in real property at any time since
. 10 1997.
11 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28:
12 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
13 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad
14 as to scope and time that it is unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff:further objects to this .
15 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
16 to lead to the discovery of acLrnissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this
------------'11"-- --re'qttes"t"on-tlie-grotiITd"s-tIrattt-c-alts-forthe-pruductioIT-ofmelevant-documents-that-are-pmteeted----- -. ----.-- .
18 from disclosure byplaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
19 further objects to this request on.the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
- - .. _- -_. . .•• -- ...••_.__......•••. __._-__",",_ -:----,'...'-:::-- .-:-:-:- .7-: -.• ~-_'.' ·_-_·~~":7.-_:-·· .--","" ','_":'_--; _~.-_. _--":'_. __ -_~:_'-_.-_~ : "':",' ._ •• "_-:-_ ...• ':"._.•... "_'.' .''':'''",'M'' ••• __
20 disclosure bythe attomey-clientprivilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
22 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
23 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29:
24A1lDOCUMENTS evidencing?D-yinten~st or o:vvn:ership, includiJJ.g eguitable interest or
·25 oWnership, byYOU in any asset atany time since 1997.
~- :--- --.~7~ :~-.~-:::P.lamttf[inCDrp.orates byIefeIe.n:c~e.-=e:a.::c.h-=an..d-::e:V~JY~u~rat-epj:YQti9D,;;et::(0;rtQ.a.:p.:oy~s-:-~-:~.__ ,~- ::-.~
---=====22 _thGllgn-full¥-Set...fQItb.-her:ein......:Plainti:ff.obje.cf,u(Ltb:is..Ie_q.ue.sLon..."the ..ounds that it is overl broa
17

57. 1 unduly burdensome and harassing in both time and scope. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
2 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to
3 the discovery of admi_ssible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
4 grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
5 by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther Objects
6 to this request on the grounds that it seeks dOCIiments that are protected from disclosure by the
7 attorney-,-client priVilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine_
8 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30:
9 All stock certificates or other DOCU1v.ffiNTS evidencing ownership ofstocks and bonds
10 held by YOU in any capacity.
11 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30:
12 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
13 though fully set forth herem. Plamtiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
14 undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
15 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
16 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
-------------"17-- --calls-f6Y"tlie-pr5o.uctlonofirr-elevant-dnc-uments-that ate-protected-from-disclosure--by-plaintiff'-s------------- -
18 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
1~____<E.1 ~~~9.l!D:~~!1?:~~_it_~e~~s_~?.9~~E:t~ !~~t are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
. :._...•....-.-::-~_: -'-:.-:':~':- ..--.:.~-._- ".=-".:.- ".:-'-.-" .... ···'···'· __ .M. _._ .............. _.,. "'M •• _.
20 privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plamtiffresponds·
22 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or conn-ol.
23 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31:
24 __ All DOGUMENTS REr.,ATING to PacificCoast Management Corporation.
25 RESPONSETO DOCUMEN1' REQlJES"TNO;31:
26 .,- - --E:lainti-ffmoorporates·~byreferenGeeaG~and_eyery. .QeIl~ralQ.bjection s.~t JO:rth ab()v~,~s_
~-~-:---~ -.~--:~Z7- 1liougEt-ftillyset:ffiffl1.Jierem.. J:llainttlI.o.Dj_e_c.ts~tQ tbis_T~KI!I~§t-o;g,"ihe-gl.Q@,Q:$:1.b.-at:-.iti~Y~r.ly::"bre~42-:-~_-~. ~~.
l-----======k-~ -1J.T-1Q;g,l1=-"1:±.mdensQIDe..aJlcLhar.assing.----:ela:inti:ff.furtheLubie_cJs tn tbis-r.eguest on the grounds that it
18

58. ) .... --.-~ -- .. .,_.... - ..-- ... _.- ~-- .. .-- _...- .. _-
1 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery of
2 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
3 calls for the production of:irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure byplaintiffs
4 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff:further objects to this
5 request ou the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure bythe attorney-
6 client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
7 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
8 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
9 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32:
10 .All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Avalon Corporation.
11 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32: .
12 :Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
13 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overlybroad,
14 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
15 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
16 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the groU1J,.ds that it
------.--. --'--11- -·calHrfort1:i:e.produ-ctran-af-irretevant-ao-cuments·tb:atare·-protected-from-disc1ostrre-by-plainti-f.P-s--·--·----.-..
18 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
19 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from ,disclosure by the attorney-client
.,-.-_ -.c'· .---·._-:..-"--.-·- ....-c..--,,----c·---·-----""--- '-c.- --:~ ---·--· .... -c~ .......:--· ---- ... -. --.-... _:---::~..::-........ ,,- -....::..- -- .. -.-.-~" ..---- ------ ....
20 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
21 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections arid limitations, Plaintiffrespo:iJ.ds
22 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request:in. his possession or control.
23 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33:
24 All DOC~NT~ RELATING toany E~TITY in which Pacific Cost Management
25 Corporation is a generalpart:rler..
-::--:·--·----.~2T.. --::--~·:_:_:::pla:rilf:i.If.inc-orp.orates nYIeference..e.aclr_an:d-::e.'Y.Je'Iy-ctener:a:-1:-.Ghje-Qtrou-::s-etiQrth:JJ'b-9Y~--fl,'$-::-~ __ .-.-_-_-
l-====::::!!~~-~·:H=~~fuI1:y..,set,.f-G;rth-her:ein~aiIrtif[ohi.E:ctsj:o~e-qlk~LQ;QJh~ _Q,1J:[)"ds=thatjtis~Q.~~rly]JrQ'?:9: ... __..._.
19

59. _.. .- - -- _ .. - _._..--_.. -_...- -- ..._-_._. _.__..__. --. _/~: _._- -_.._...._--_.._.._.- ----_.- .__......--_ .. _.. _.._..... -
j.
1 unduly burdensome and harassing_ Plaintifffurther objects to tbis request on the grounds that it
2 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
3 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to tbis request on the grounds that it
4 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure byplaintiff's
5 and third parties' Constitutionallyprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
6 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure bythe attorney-client
7 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
9 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in bis possession or control.
10 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34:
11 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Avalon Corporation is a general
12 partner.
13 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34:
14 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set fo$ above as
15 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad.
16 Plaintifffurther objects to tbis request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither
.---.--.--.------..-17-· .relevantnorreasonablycalculated-to-lead-to-tb.e·-discovery-of·admissible-e-videnee--m-this-actieR;------------
18 Plaintifffurther objectsto this request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirtelevant
19 documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally
20 protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this ~equest on the grounds that it seeks
21 documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and!or the attorney
22 work-product doctrine.
23 . Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and litnitations, Plaintiffresponds
24 ~sfollows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in bis possession or control.
25 DOCtJJ.V[ENTREQUEST NO.. 35:
:-:--....~-.-..-:""2..1.::~ -fOI..an..y P'ERSJJN~Cl.I:-ENTITI~'--~-:-:---:------: ---~:~---.---__~.~~...:~ ___:-._.-:~~--=-.-.~~:-_-::-:-~____~:-.--..-~-~.____~
2.8
20

60. J--- .. ___A ._• • • • • - - - - • • •- - , - - _ . - . - • • • • • • • __ • __ .. _ _ • . -.. _..-._- .~.-........... _.._--.....•.._...._-_...__._._.
1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35:
2 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth. above as
3 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this requ.est on the grounds that it is overly broad,
4 burdensome and oppressive. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
5 documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
6 evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grottnds that it calls for the
7 production ofitrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs and third
8 parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
9 grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
10 and!or th~ attorney work-product doctrine.
11 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36:
12 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to insurance policies that insure loss to anyptoperty, real or
13 personal, which YOU own, including equitable ownership, individually or jointly"With any other
14 PERSON.
15 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36:.
16 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
..._. --. _.-- --1'1-- ··tlrouglrfu11y-setibrtlr"h"eniin:J>lainti:f:f-objects·to-ihis-request-ohthe'·grounds-that-it-is-ovetl-y-btoad;-·-.-.-..- ...
18 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
19 calls for the production ofitrelevant documents that are protected from disclosme byplaintiffsM _ _ • ___ . : _ _ _ •• __ '_,":, _ _ -::' _ _ _ _ _ '_,' _ _ • • • _ : _-:: • " . _ _ _ _ _ • • • • • __• _ _ • • • • • • • • • _ . _ •• _. _ _ _ • _ _ _ A. • _ _ _ _ •••• .._~:~:_ ••___• __ . _ • •_ _ • _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ . _ •••• : . _ _ A _ _ _ _ _ _ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _. _ _ ~:.._ ••• __• • • • •_ ••• __• _ _ • • • • • , ____ _
20 and 1:hird parties' ConstitutibnallYprotected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff further objects to this
21 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
22 to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to tbis
23 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attomey-
24 clientprivilegeap.d!or_theattoIlleywork-prodllct d()ctJ:ine.
25 Subject to and. without waiving the foregoing cibjections andlimitations; Plaintiffresponds
--:---:-.---_-'l1~ :-nnC11MEN.'i."..REQTI:ES.T:.Nfi~'::-...:--:--~ ~.-. -~--:~-=-=:-_-=-~-=~~~-=-.-:::~-..-...-..-.--..-.-...-..-..-.--_-.-.-...-.--...-..--:::-:~.--=--:-~.
? g Jill DO.cUMENXSJ:hatRELATE.i:o..,an.y.Aeht,incJ.lII:e_cL~XOJ:1 sjn.ce2.0c05.
21

61. ·... . ..- .- ........ '-"'1-- --... -.- .. -. ... - .- ..__..... -- ._. - ....... - ._.- - .- -.... " - ' - .__..:/'-). ---- --_......-. _.. _. -'_.,_. . --_._-_.- .__ ..... _.._.. _.-
J
1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37:
2 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
3 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that by its failure to
4 limit the scope ofthe request it is overlybroad, undulyburdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther
5 objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the -production of irrelevant documents that
6 ate protected from disclosure byplaintiffs and third parties' Cbnstitution~llyprotected right of
7 privacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this-request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
8 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this
9 action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
10 protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product
11 doctrine.
12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
13 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
14 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38:
15 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to payment ofany debt incurred by YOu.
16 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38:
.'.-.-...--·-···_···---1'r· .-----._.-.-·Pla'nJ:tiff-mc-orporates·byreferenc·e-each-arrd-every-6erreral-0bj-ection'set-fort1i-above-as---···---·--_..-
18 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that by failing to limit
19 .:~~S?~P~_~~.~e..P~~?~~r.~e_~~~?:~~t.i~.i~ ?:,~;~?:,_~r~~~,~~~Y_1J~~~~~~~_~~~.?~~~~~~:._._.... _....
20 Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant
21 documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally
22 protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
23 documents that ate neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
24 evidence intbisacti0ll' _P1a.in!ifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
25q.ocumentsthat are protected from. dIsclosure·bythe attorney-clientprivilt:~ge a:iJ.d1or the attorney
.26 work-product-doctrine, ...... - _ . ..
- --- -- ---
-.~-- .~. -.-~~7:- _.-:- :.---'~S-:d15je.ctlo .anTIwit1i::mi.twaivllrg~t1refoIj;fg.Qing:-:abje-c.1iDnK:andi±rni.tf!.ti:911S;::::?tqjq.ti:ff.:t~~g;g:d~' _r::---
?R as-fo.ll.ow-s.: Elaintiff-has no cdo.cnments..res.p-OnsiY..e-1o..i:hiR.r.e_Cbue.st in bjs_po~s§~ssi()J:l,.o:r: cOIl,troL
22

62. 1
Daten: 5,. 20 ,2012
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-j....--.......----...-.-..--..-----'---""--" -......-....--....--',..)-......--- ... -...-..--....-............-........-- ..-.... -..1·
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP J
r!
I
1f
i
~
~
i
I,
l
~
1i
~
i~
1'.,
;:.
?i'
iij.
fi
I~
j
I
Il
I
I
l
'''''-'-''''......-..·17--.--.---.-...-.-.......-..--....:..-.. ---.-- .--.-.-.......- ........-..-........-......-..-.-..-....----- .........-...--. -.....-...- ........,-.- --........--.....-...-.....--..-..~. -........-... -..-.--..--1-
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~
~
~
J._. -_._- - _. ... _..."-" :-:-- ..:._.-....... _...- ...... - -_ .... _..._._.... - .- ----- - - _.. t-··
1
I•1,
[
f:r,
'f,
.. '---1
! -
i;-
~
- -l---
l
-·-..-·-..·--~c ...-_---..-----...-..-.--..~.-.. -.-::..-:::-:.-:=-~.._::~-.:-:.:---:-:-:--:.~~-.~_:_::_:_-.-.-..-.-.. --::~..~-:::-.~:_-..:_::. --.-:::-:-:~-:-:---::.~.-. --:--:-:.. . .j
f
28 f
23

63. ----------- -------- --- - ----- --- -- ----- ----- - ---- ------(-"'------- --- --- --- --------- - --- -- - ---- - ---- --- --- -- -- --- ---
J
VERIFICATION
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, C01JNTY OF VENTURA
3 Jhave read thf;"! :!:bIego~g documentdescribed as:
4 PLAINTIFF STIi:I,l"HEN MA GAG~ERO'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT KNAPP,
PETgRSEN & CLARJ{~S REQUt):ST FOR PROI)UCTION OF DOCUMENTS
5 lPURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 708.030]
6
7
8
and know its contents.
2L,...[ !iID apgty to this. action. The-mf:l,~ smted in it ~ true of-my ownknowl.edge except as
to ThO@. ma1ietS tlJaj, are sl.a.le.d on informati9fi @.d beliefawi, as to diose ma.tters, I beljeve th.~ to
9 I betrue-
l-
10 1
fj I$l1 officer; directQt~ partner, andlorman~g ageiJ.1 ofaparty to this aption,. and am
11 ~
12
I autho_rt7.m to ~e this verification fOT and (m i1;5 be.nalf~.and Jmake thjs verifiC$lo.n for tha..t
13
~n. I ar:ninfOlmed and_believe. ~ Q.o.that basis allege thatthe matters sta,l¢init m;e 1roe~d
14 co~t.
I
15 I I
-----------------I6-1----~-.,..-J-~~-9~~-~Lth.~~1@l~Y.~J~~J~.!tis_acE~~_:__~!_!.~_:p~__~_~~~nt_~~_~~!:~_~!Y._________1______ ..______
17
where_-such atto~s have th~ir offices, and I make this vc-riticatio.Q.for ~ on bc~oft;bat party
forthat tea$On. I am informedand believe~ and on thatbac;is alloE;ge that tbe ma~ statedin it .are
18
- - -- --::--- - ---:-, --- - --- -.- --c: ---ffUc'aiiaCOii:-€Ct::-- ----c--- ------- --------- --- ------ --, --- ---- -- -- - -- --- -- -: --: --- -------- --- - --- --:--,,---,- ---: - -- - --- ------- --- - --- - - --
-19 - --- - - - -
2{)
21
I ~lm-e under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifomia that$e fOJ:~gQU1g.
I is thatthe-foregoing; istru,c-a;nd <:orrect
22 I- I
i
23 -I -- ---- -
&.e_cuted O:t;l %"'f;..1:-;- ._~ __->2012. at We(fl;lake.. C;ilifqrpja. .-
24

64. 1
2
. .- _.- .,- - ._._.- -----_. _..__._--- ...... --- ..--_. - ")_.. _----..-... ---- ...-.....:.. .. ---. --- --_._. -_..._-....-..- . -_.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(C.C.P. §1913.3; 2015.5)
~ ··i;~.";.~:<tL:';'~)?"~~~·:::~.~~,~.~.~~~~~J'~~' :;~:~:: :
3 /; ':.,:
· STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNtY OF vE:NTuRA~4 ";,.::,,:
I am employedinthe COUntiofVeii~'S'tafe'o(California I ~ overthe age ofeighteenandnot a .
5' .:party to the Within action. My business address is 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village,
.California91361.
6
. . On March 20,2012, I served the foregoing docriment(s) described as: :PLA.1NTtFF
7. :StEPHEN M. GAGGERO'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT KNAPP, PETERSEN &
·~CLAjU('S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS on the interested parties in this
8 action as follows:
9 .'Randall A. Miller
· Scott Newman.
10 AuSta Wakily
MILLERLLP
11 51S.south Flower Street,. Suite 2150
.. :Los Ailgeles, CA 90071-220.1 .
12 ..ph;'-SOO:.720-2126
'. 'Fax 888..749-5812
13' .
14· ,>X·· .BYMAIL I placedthe above docmnent(s) in sealed envelopesthatI placed for deposit withthetJ.S~ .
;' :"..' . Postal Service at Westlake Village, California, with postage there9h fully prepaid. I am readily .
15 ....' ". ,.' familiar with the firm1s practice of collection arid processing documents for mailitig. Under that
. ",.' . . practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that Same day with postage thereon :fully
16' . •. ....- pr~aid at Westlake Village, California in the ordinary course of business. I am awar~ that on .
-_...--..-..------.---...:~ --'-~-.~:----- monon-of'the'party-serv~-sefViceTs-presumed-irivatia-if postafCariceI1a:tiOliClate or-postage mefe'£"_..----
17 .... date is more than one day after date ofdepositfor mailing inaffidavit. . '
18 _ BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I placed theabove·docmnent(s) in sealed envelopes and placed.them
.. -"-19- "'~.'. ___fo! 4~~~tt~~f.~~r~)~~~t~~~~p~~~~.fQ..r.:p':~~~r.~~¥:Y_~ty:___...__ ..._·... :..---......... -:-...--..- ~ :..-----:-.... -......-... _
20
•. -.'_., BY..FACSIMlLE I transmitted the above document(s) by facsimile transmission to the parties and'
'. . facsimile nmnbers setforthherein, ' . '
..........
-21 ..
' - '
-BYPERSONAL SERVICE' .
22·' .'.X' State: I declare under penalty'ofperjury urider the laws ofthe'State ofCalifornia that the' above is -
true and correct. .
.. 23· ....
24
Federal: I declarethatI am employedinthe office of a member ofthebarofi:biscourtat who~e
directiohthe servic.e was.made..
25.. Executed onMarch20, 2012 atWestlakeVillage, California
1
PROOF OF SERVICE

65. I
E ----hebet "E"-- X--I--} ---

66. Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mr. Chatfield,
Austa Wakily
Monday, April 02, 2012 5:18 PM
'davidblakec@hotmail,com'
scott@millerllp.com
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (BC286925)
4.2.12 Meet and Confer Re RFD (Set Two).pdf
The attached document addresses your responses to defendant KPC's Request for Production of Documents (Set Two). I
propose we meet and confer this Friday at 11 am. Please let me know if that time does not work for you.
Sincerely,
A • •_40"", .,_1,;1",
I"'U~La "van.uy
Miller ILLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@millerllp.com
www.millerllp.com
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
1

67. 1-
LOS ANGELES MILLER I LLP
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA
#515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
TEL: 800.720.2126 I FAX: 888.749.5812
www.millerllp.com
213.493.6400
VIA U.S MAIL & EMAIL
David Blake Chatfield
Westlake Law Group
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, California 91361
davidblakec(cUhotmail.com
April. 2,2012
Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, et al
Los Angeles Superior Court (BC286925)
Mr. Chatfield:
Reply To:
austa@millerllp.com
I write to address your responses to Defendants Request for Production ofDocuments (Set Two).
I propose that we meet and confer on Friday April 6, 2012 at 11:00 am to allow sufficient time
for filing a motion to compeL Alternatively, please amend your responses no later than
Thursday AprilS, 2012 to remove all boilerplate objections and address the improper responses.
I appreciate your cooperation in resolving these matters expeditiously.
GENERAL RESPONSES
1. Improper Boilerplate Objections
Boilerplate, blanket objections are prohibited under the discovery statute. Such objections
provide -no~explanation as to how the objection- is proper or how-it-appliesin the context used.
See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516-1517.
Plaintiff has included eleven (11) paragraphs of boilerplate objections which are incorporated
into every response. The boilerplate objections make it impossible for defendants to determine
which documents have been withheld, if any, and the extent to which a particular objection
applies to a Request.
2. Privilege Log
~ -- ---- - - - - - - .-- ----- - -- - -- - - -- --~- . - - -
California Code of Civil Procedure Section ~031.240(b)(1) requires Mr. Gaggero to
identify with particularity documents withheld pursuant to any objection, including but not
limited to claims of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 29l.
--Mf:Uaggerois~ requrrea--foseCfoItn-dearly-llie-exreri.lof,-ana-the-specific-grounQTor,~llie- -
objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall
be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work
+--____producL1mdeLChapt~cmnrnencin~ILRediQn 2018 01 O~Lclajm shalLbtLexpre=ss~]Y1--____
asserted." Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.240(b)(1), (2).

68. April 2, 2012
Page 2
Plaintiff must provide the following for each document withheld pursuant to any claim of
privilege:
1) Identity of each document;
2) The author(s) ofthe document;
3) Recipients;
4) Date ofpreparation; and
5) The specific privilege(s) asserted.
The purpose of a "privilege log" is to provide a specific factual description of documents
in aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document
production." Hernandez, supra 112 Cal. App. 4th 285 at 292 citing Korea Data Systems Co.
supra 51 Cal. App. 4th at 1516-1517. The information in a privilege log or accompanying any
other claim of privilege must be sufficiently specific to permit the trial court to determine
whether each withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court
(1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1217, 1228.
Attorney-Client Privilege: The party claiming the attorney-client privilege "has the
burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a
communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship." Costco Wholesale Corp.
v. Superior Court, (2009) 47 Cal. 4th 725, 733 (citations omitted). The attorney-client product
privilege does not apply to independent facts, such as disclosure ofnames of witnesses, existence
of photos, meetings, persons in attendance and subject matter of the meetings and other
evidence. Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 5, 11; State Farm Fire & Casualty
Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 625, 639. The privilege also does not apply to
documents prepared by a party simply because the documents were presented to the attorney.
Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 119. To the
extent Mr. Gaggero is withholding documents pursuant to the attorney-client privilege he must
provide a privilege log.
Work Product Privilege: Plaintiff also is required to provide a privilege log for all
documents withheld through the work-product privilege. Mr. Gaggero fails to state the specific
grounds for the objectioiuls required by Code of CivilProcedilleSection 2031.240(b)(2): "The
burden of showing need for such protection is upon the party claiming such need." San Diego
Professional Assn. v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 194, 204.
Confidential and/or Proprietary- Right to Privacy: Mr. Gaggero also asserts,
generally, objections pursuant to the right to privacy for himself and on behalf of unidentified
third persons. Plaintiff is required to state which documents, if any, he is withholding on the
grounds that the documents are protected under a right to privacy.
Please provide a privilege log for each document withheld pursuant to any privilege no later
than April 6, 2012.

69. April 2, 2012
Page 3
3. All Documents Relating to Mr. Gaggero's Estate Plan
Mr. Gaggero states in his general objections that he refuses to provide any documents
relating to relating to his estate plan by asserting that "[r]equests for documents relating to assets
transferred, sold or liquidated over a decade are clearly irrelevant to his judgment enforcement
and will not be produced by plaintiff." We completely disagree with this objection.
We are, as you know, aware that Mr. Gaggero created an estate plan in or about 1997. As
part of the estate plan Mr. Gaggero transferred approximately $30,000,000 from his personal
portfolio into various entities, including limited partnerships and limited liability companies. At
the time of the transfer Mr. Gaggero was sole the owner of all the entities into which he
transferred his assets. He subsequently transferred his ownership interests in the entities. into one
of his self-settled trusts. Mr. Gaggero continues to retain control over all assets that he
transferred as an "asset manager" for the properties. Further, he has appointed his estate
planning attorney, Joseph Praske, as the trustee for his trusts. Mr. Praske refers to Mr. Gaggero is
the "decision maker" with respect to ail assets in the "estate pian." Further stiil, both Mr.
Gaggero and Mr. Praske refer to the estate plan as comprising Gaggero's estate. These
documents are relevant to not only the creation of the estate plan, but information as to whether
Mr. Gaggero retained any control over the assets in the estate, including his current access the
resources in the estate.
Based on Mr. Gaggero's and Mr. Praske's testimony during the Gaggero v. Yura trial,
Mr. Gaggero's transfer of his assets into his various entities and subsequently into one of his
trusts is nothing more than an attempt to shield his assets from creditors. Mr. Gaggero is the
equitable owner of all assets that are a part of his estate plan and KPC as the judgment creditors
are entitled to all documents relating to his estate.
4. "YOU" and "YOUR"
Mr. Gaggero improperly attempts to limit the scope of the judgment creditors request by
re-defIning the term "YOU" and "YOUR." The term "YOU" and "YOUR" is defmed as
''Responding Party arid his agents~ employee, eriipl()yer,att6riley, ·accoililtfult; investigator;· ot·
anyone else acting on Responding Party's behalf."
As discussed under number 3 above, Mr. Gaggero as part of his estate plan transferred all
ofhis assets and money to·various corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships,
general pminerships, and other business entities. Mr. Gaggero now operates his business and
personal matters through these entities. For example, Mr. Gaggero's legal fees in several cases
were paid by PacifIc Coast Management and Avalon Corporation. He also acts as the
.. -"representative" on behalf of the various-business entities, such·as 511 O.F.W.LF,-Malibu
Broadbeach, LP, and Marina Glencoe,LP, to name a few.
.Einally,thedefmitionQ("YQ:U"_and. "YQlJR"in~lQdedmfu~Regllest f'Q1:PrQdjlctio1J.9:f
Documents (Set Two) is no more expansive than the defInition approved by the judicial counsel
in Form Interrogatories. Mr. Gaggero's assertion that the defInition of "YOU" and "YOUR"
"imposes a burden greater than what is required by the California Rules of Civil Procedure" is
~--------~u1ll~reiel~hDuhneri~t.----------------------------------~-------------------------

70. I
April 2, 2012
Page 4
5. "ESTATE PLAN"
ESTATE PLAN includes but is not limited to the preparation of any plan of
administration and disposition of YOUR property, ovvned by YOU 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. ESTATE PLAN also refers to the "Estate Plan" YOU testified about during the
GAGGERO V. YURA triaL ESTATE PLAN further refers to the transfer of any assets ovvned
by you at any time to any PERSON or ENTITY.
Mr. Gaggero objects to this defInition as "over broad, unduly burdensome, and not
otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence relevant to the .inquiry into
Plaintiffs current assets, which is the sole subject of this discovery." Judgment creditors,
KPC, have not limited the scope of this discovery to Mr. Gaggero's current assets. KPC is
entitled to all information that will aid in the enforcement of its judgment against Mr. Gaggero
and that includes all information and documents related to Mr. Gaggero's estate plan, regardless
ofthe date of creation. KPC is entitled to all documents requested.
6. Publicly Available Documents
Plaintiff objects to documents to the extent that they are publicly available or to which
Defendant has equal access as to Plaintiff. Defendants are entitled to request documents, albeit
public, that are in Plaintiffs possession, custody, or controL To the extent plaintiff is refusing to
provide documents pursuant to this objection, he must identify the documents to which he refers.
Plaintiffs objection on this ground requires defendants to guess which documents have been
produced, thus, is inappropriate. KPC need not guess what publicly available documents are
responsive to each request.
7. Vague, Ambiguous, and Overbroad
Mr. Gaggeto includes among the general objections that each Request is vague,
ambiguous, intelligible, undated, unsigned, and overly broad. The objections of "vague,
.ambiguous, ullintelligible'; is atechnical objeCtion ana cai:uiofbe a basis·for-refusing to produce·
documents. Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 CaL App. 3d 898, 901.
Vague and ambiguous: Such objections are valid only if the question is totally
unintelligible. Where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information
sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response. Deyo v. Kilbourne
(1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783.
. Unduly Burdensome: ·Plaintiff has' asserted this nuisance objection without any facts
quantifying why the production would be unduly·burdensome; The scope of discovery is broad
and the judgment creditors, as discussed below, are entitled to all the documents sought in the
. . .. Requestfor ProductionofDocuments,SetIwo).
I·
I
Overly Broad; This is not a valid obj€Gtion to any ofoth€ r€qu€sts. As diSGuss€d below, the
judgment creditors are entitled to discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is likely to aid in
r------ilie enforcemenfOfjudgment.

71. April 2, 2012
Page 5
8. Relevance
Post-judgment discovery is accorded the widest scope for inquiry concerning property
and business affairs of the debtor; the object of the proceedings being to compel the judgment
debtor to give information concerning his property. "Public policy does not support a judgment
debtor's attempt to be less than candid about his assets and ability to pay the judgment especially
when a defInite legislative policy has established a procedure for aiding judgment creditors
collection oftheir judgments." Young v. Keele (1987) 188 CaLApp.3d 1090, 1093.
KPC, as the judgment creditors, therefore, are entitled to conduct the full panoply of
discovery in obtaining information related to Mr. Gaggero's assets, i.e., his estate plan.
Mr. Gaggero also objects generally to the Requests to the extent they seek information
"outside the relevant time period." All documents requested are relevant to the enforcement of
judgment against Mr. Gaggero including documents relating to the transfer of his assets 'and the
creation ofhis estate plan.
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
Requests 6, 11, 12-17,21,23,24,29, and 35 includes only boilerplate objection without further
indication as to whether the documents exist or will be produced. Mr. Gaggero must produce all
documents responsive to these requests or provide a privilege log substantiating the privileges
asserted no later than April 9, 2012.
Requests 1-10,14-15 seeks documents related to Mr. Gaggero's estate plan, including Arenzano
Trust, Giganin Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation that Mr. Gaggero's estate planning attorney,
Joseph Praske, identifIed as part of Mr. Gaggero's estate. The trustor of each trust is Mr.
Gaggero and the trustee is Mr. Praske. Requests 1-3 are limited specifIcally to the three trusts
and are not limited in time. The remaining requests 4-10 seek documents relating to all trusts,
entities, or foundations that relate to the estate plan, but which have not otherwise been identifIed
iriRequests: Requests14 aridl) also seek documents relating -tOilietrallster ot Mr~-(}aggero's
assets as part of his estate plan- as he testified in Yura. All documents relating to the estate plan
will lead to information of his continued ownership interests or the value he received as part of
his transfer.
Requests 11-13,24,37-38 seek documents relating to the payment of various expenses on Mr.
Gaggero's behalf. As a result of Mr. Gaggero's estate plan he claims to have retained nothing in
his personal name. He claims he does not have a checking account yet he lives on a 1,500 acre
-- ranch. --Mr;-Gaggeropresumablyhas some -living~expenses,-inc1udinghis constant out of state-
traveling. As stated above, Mr; Gaggero's litigation expenses were paid for by PacifIc Coast
Management and Avalon Corporation. These entities also paid for Mr. Gaggero's personal bills,
such asutility._andJris_ dog's~v.eterinary~bills,basecLoll-his_testimouyinthe_underlying case on _
August 2, and 7, 2007. KPC is entitled to obtain all documents relating to any'income Mr.
Gaggero receives from any entity, paid in any form, inGluding through the payment of his
expenses.

72. April 2, 2012
Page 6
Requests 16-17 seeks documents relating to attempts of other judgment creditors in enforcing
their judgment against Mr. Gaggero. We are aware that Mr. Gaggero is and has been a judgment
debtor for other cases. Some ofthe other judgments have been paid offby Mr. Gaggero or one of
the entities in his estate or his trustee. Clearly these requests relate to Mr. Gaggero's finances and
are relevant to our clients attempt to collect on a $2,000,000 judgment.
Request 18- This request seeks all documents related to the various entities Mr. Gaggero or his
attorney established in which he continues to act as an officer or member. There is no basis to
. withhold these documents.
Requests 19-20 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 part of Mr. Gaggero's
estate. All documents related to these requests are relevant to enforcement of KPCs $2,000,000
judgment against Mr. Gaggero.
Requests 21-23 Mr. Gaggero's tax documents are an independent method of confIrming his
income, including those derived from assets within his estate. Because Mr. Gaggero has refused
to disclose information relating to his assets we are left with no option but to seek tax documents
to clearly ascertain his financial information.
Request 25 seeks all documents related to Mr. Gaggero's income since 2010. Mr. Gaggero
stated that he will produce responsive documents if we agree to limit the request to the relevant
time period. We will not agree to limit the requests. Mr. Gaggero's income earned in the last 2
years is likely to lead to information to aid in the enforcement of a judgment. Further, there is no
explanation in the responses as to why request should be limited.
Requests 26 and 27 seeks all documents relating to accounts with a fmancial institutions,
including bank statements for personal or business accounts in which Mr. Gaggero has a legal
or equitable interest. Mr. Gaggero testified in Yura that he provides money to Pacific Coast
Management and then uses its checking ·account. Mr. Gaggero has an equitable interest in
accounts include Pacific Coast Management. Mr. Gaggero is required to produce all documents
relating to bank statements for personal arid business accounts in whicli neisan-equitable oWner, .
i.e., where he has authority to issue checks to pay his expenses or expenses associated with his
assets.
Requests 28-30 requests all documents evidencing Mr. Gaggero's ownership interest, at any
time, in any asset, including property, stocks and bonds, held by him in any capacity. These
requests seek to obtain information on all assets owned by Mr. Gaggero since 1997 to determine
what he transferred as part of his estate planning and determine the value he received for each
- transfer. - - - ...... --- ~ -
Requests 31-34 seeks all documents related to Pacific Coast Management and Avalon
Corporation..Mr. Gaggero,. personally_orthrough his_attorney,set up both thes_eCOIporationsand
as such should have access to all documents. These corporations are part of his estate plan and
are relevant to KPC's enforcement ofjudgment..

73. April 2, 2012
Page 7
,~
/
Request 35 seeks all documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's relationship to other entities. Mr.
Gaggero has been involved in numerous lawsuits naming the corporations, limited partnerships,
and limited liability companies in which he transferred his assets as a party. Mr. Gaggero's
involvement has been in his personal capacity or as a "representative" on behalf of an entity.
Documents responsive to this request will provide information relating to Mr. Gaggero's
continued equitable ownership of all assets in his estate, via the business entities, and on that
basis is clearly relevant.
Request 36 seeks insurance policies that include Mr. Gaggero as an insured for any real or
personal property. These documents are relevant to establishing Mr. Gaggero's ownership or
equitable ownership ofhis assets.
Please contact me immediately to meet and confer on the deficiencies addressed in
Plaintiffs responses above. I propose that we meet and confer on Friday April 6 2012 at 11:00
am. Alternatively, please amend your responses no later than Thursday April 5, 2012. Ifwe do
not hear from you by Friday we will be forced to file a motion to compel to protect our clients'
interest.
Sincerely,
Austa Wakily
MILLER! LLP

74. I
I
I . - -. -
I
I[
.')
/
I~
:", .J
- - -- - - - - -------------------- --------------~-------------- - - - - - - - - - - -
Exhibit "F"

75. Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
david chatfield
Friday, April 06, 2012 12:37 PM
Austa Wakily
Subject: Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (BC286925)
I agree.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2012, at 12:32 PM, "Austa Wakily" <austa@millerllp.com>wrote:
I have not receive a response to the below email. Please let me know if you agree to the meet and
confer date and motion to compel deadline.
Thanks}
Austa
From: Austa Wakily [mailto:austa@millerllp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:46 PM
To: 'david chatfield'
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (8C286925)
Mr. Chatfield,
How about April 12 at 3:00 pm? I appreciate your offer to extend the deadline to file a motion to
compel, which we will need in order to attempt an informal resolution of the discovery requests. Our
current deadline to file is May 4, 2012. We would like a one week extension to May 11, 2012. Please
let me know if the time for the meet and confer is acceptable and whether you will agree to a one week
extension to file the motion to compel.
Austa
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:58PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (8C286925)
Dear_M$. Wakily, _ __
I was out of the office yesterday and have not yet had an opportunity to review your meet and confer
letter. I do note your proposal for a meet and confer this Friday, but that date does not work for
--- me. Acttlally,-I-amnotavaiiable-tintil-next"Fhtlrsday-the-1-2.th-and-I-am-clear-anytime-that-day-after
10:00 a.m. If the 12h does not work, M am available on the 16th or 17. If, you think that you may need
an extension ofyour deadline to file a motion tocompelj let me know. I will await your confirmation of
the meet and confer date.
1-------8aviE~€Aa1fieIEl~--~~------------~------------------
1

76. This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.c. 2.510-2.52.1 and is legally
privileged. This information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone (805) 2.67-12.2.0,
and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or
otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2.62.5 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
91361 phone: (805) 2.67-12.2.0 fax: (805) 2.67-12.11 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
From: austa@millerllp.com
Date: Mon, 2. Apr 2.012. 17:18:14 -0700
Subject: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke (BC2.8692.5)
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
CC: scott@millerllp.com
Mr. Chatfield,
The attached document addresses your responses to defendant KPC's Request for Production of
Documents (Set Two). I propose we meet and confer this Friday at 11 am. Please let me know if that
time does not work for you.
Sincerely,
Austa Wakily
Miller ILLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@milierllp.com
www.millerlip.com
image001.jpg
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2

77. Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Austa,
david chatfield
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:53 PM
austa@millerllp.com
RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke (BC286925)
Thank you for granting my extension request. I intend to meet and confer with you in good faith and hopefully resolve
the issues without the necessity of court intervention.
David
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C.2510-2521andislegallyprivileged.This
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic
message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by
te!ephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
91361 phone: (805) 267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
From: austa@millerllp.com
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:13:01 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke (BC286925)
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Mr. Chatfield,
I just received a phone call from your assistant. She informed me that you would not be able to make our scheduled
meet and confer cal! tomorrow due to an urgent matter. She informed me that you would like to reschedule to April 19
at 3:00. I agreed to the new date on the condition that we also receive a one week extension to fHe a motion to
compel. She stated that you would agree to those terms. Our meet and confer is set for April 19, 2012 at 3:00 and the
deadline to file a motion to compel is May 18, 2012.
~ _.. -- - _.. - .
Please note that we will not agree to any further extensions to meet and confer and, if necessary, will file our motion to
compel on April 20, 2012. Additionally, I have agreed to the extension to allow you sufficient time to review our
responses and expect a good faith effort on your part to reply and produce documents that have been improperly
withheld. If you have no intention of producing the documents please let me know now so that we proceed accordingly.
Sincerely,
Austa
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmaiLcomj
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 12:37 PM
n):justaWakily _ ...... ___ ..._ ___
Subject: Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke (BC286925)
ragree.
Sent from my iPhone
1

78. Fl,,/
On Apr 6, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Austa Wakily austa@millerllp.com wrote:
I have not receive a response to the below email.· Please let me know if you agree to the meet and
confer date and motion to compel deadline.
i Thanks,
Austa
From: Austa Wakily [mailto:austa@millerllp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:46 PM
To: 'david chatfield'
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke (BC286925)
Mr. Chatfield,
How about April 12 at 3:00 pm? I appreciate your offer to extend the deadline to file a motion to
compel, which we will need in order to attempt an informal resolution of the discovery requests. Our
current deadline to file is May 4, 2012. We would like a one week extension to May 11, 2012. Please
let me know if the time for the meet and confer is acceptable and whether you will agree to a one week
extension to file the motion to compel.
Thanks,
Austa
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:58 PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke (BC286925)
Dear Ms. Wakily,
I was out of the office yesterday and have not yet had an opportunity to review your meet and confer
letter. I do note your proposal for a meet and confer this Friday, but that date does not work for
me. Actually, I am not available until next Thursday the 12th and I am clear anytime that day after
10:00 a;in~ If the 12haoesnot Wbrk;fV1amaVaila5Ie.onthe 16tfl-of 17~··If; yoU ttiiliRtnatyou· mayheea
an extension of your deadline to file a motion to compel, let me know. I will await your confirmation of
the meet and confer date.
David Chatfield
This e-mail is covered bythe Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U;S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. This information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
.responsible for.delivering .this_electronicmessageto.tbeintendedxecipient,_youare. notified.tbatanY'
dissemination, distribution or copying of thi?c().IllI11l.Jlliqltionisstrict:IYJ)rQbll:Jitecj.Jfyouhaver~ceived
this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone (805) 267-1220,
and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or
_. otherwise. 'Fhank-you.Davicl-BlakeGhatfielcl,Esq.262·5TowFlsgate-Roacl-Suite338-Westlake·Village,GA
91361 phone: (805) 267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
1-------FFGmi.-ol:lstil@mj.!J@rU!hCoGRl
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:18:14 -0700
2

79. (:)
Subject: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke (8C286925)
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
CC: scott@millerllp.com
Mr. Chatfield,
('.,J
The attached document addresses your responses to defendant KPC's Request for Production of
Documents (Set Two). I propose we meet and confer this Friday at 11 am. Please let me know if that
time does not work for you.
Sincerely,
Austa Wakily
Miller ILLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@millerllp.com
www.millerllp.com
image001.jpg
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
3

80. () C)
--- ----------------------- --- -
Exhibit G

81. Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Chatfield,
()
Austa Wakily
Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:33 PM
davidblakec@hotmail.com
Meet and Confer re Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)
This email will confirm our meet and confer regarding the defendant's Request for Production of Documents (Set
Two). Per our agreement you will (1) provide supplemental responses removing all boilerplate and/or or inapplicable
objections, (2) provide a privilege log for documents withheld pursuant to a claim of privilege, and (3) produce all
documents that are responsive to the requests that are not privileged. The agreed deadline to provide the above is April
30,2012.
During our call you informed me that the anticipated response relating to the trusts is that Mr. Gaggero does not have
possession, custody, or control of the documents because those documents are in ~v1r. Praske's possession. As!
explained Mr. Gaggero at a minimum must request those documents from Mr. Praske. Mr. Gaggero cannot place
documents within his control to another party and refuse to disclose them on that basis. Mr. Gaggero retained Mr.
Praske as an estate planning attorney to implement his estate plan. Mr. Gaggero is the trustor of the trusts and
continues to exert full control and influence over Mr. Praske relating to not only the trusts but all assets in the
trust. Mr. Gaggero can request from Mr. Praske, his attorney, all documents relating to the implementation of his
estate plan including the trust documents. Mr. Praske as his attorney has an ethical obligation to comply with that
request.
Finally, you informed me that you intend to limit the dates for the documents, however, you will specify the dates in the
supplemental responses. This will allow me to review and determine whether we disagree on the proposed
limits. Please note that we will not agree to limit the relevant time frame to post entry of judgment, particularly with
respect to documents relating to the estate plan. As you know, Mr. Gaggero's estate plan was implemented in or about
1997 and since then he has conducted all business and personal matters through the trusts or entities owned by the
trusts. Limiting the timeframe of post-judgment discovery will preclude defendants from obtaining key information
relating to Mr. Gaggero's true financial status.
~-
We look forward to receiving the supplemental responses no later than April 30, 2012. We will reply to your
supplemental responses and meet and confer, as necessary.
Thanks,
Austa Wakily
Miller ILLP
0: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
~ uausta@millerllp.com --
www.millerllo.com
515 South Flower Street
~ .~ Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
1

82. Exhibit II

83. '!To •••• ~ 11
1 WESTLAKELAW GROUP
DavidBlake Chatfield (State BarNo. 88991)
2 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
3 Telephone: (805) 267-1220
4 Facsimile: (805) 267-1211
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5 Stephen M. Gaggero
6
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10 STEPHENM. GAGGERO, an individual, )
)
11
12 vs..
Plaintiff, )
)
)
)
13 KNAPP, PETERSEN AND CLARKE, a )
California corporation; STEVEN RAY )
14 GARCIA, an individual; STEPBEN M )
HARRIS, an individual; ANDRE JARDIN!, )
15 an individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )
)
16
17
Defendants_
CASE NO.~ BC286925
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. GAGGERO'S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT KNAPP, PETERSEN
C~SREQUESTFORPRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS .
[pURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE § 708.030]
18 PROPOUNDINGPARTY:
19 RESPONDING PARTY:
DEFENDANT KNAPP, PETERSEN CLARKE
PLAINTIFF STEPHENM GAGGERO
20 SET NUMBER:
21
22
23
ONE
.24.
25
··--····---2-0-·· --.--- .--.~. ~'-'.' .- .., -.--~ ...-...-.-=-..---- ---.'-~...--_.0.- ... -~---..- ..- -.. -•. '--.--..'- .- -=----. - •.-- -- '.-..-._-..-'. -..-•. - - .'''.' ...-...•... _.•--.~....,.

84. 1 ·PlaintiffStephenM. Gaggero (''Plaintiff'') hereby responds and objects to Defendant
2 Knapp, Petersen Clarke's (Defendant) Request for Production ofDocuments.
3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
4 Nothing in this supplemental response shall be construed as waiving any rights or
5 objections that might otherwise be available to Plaintiff, Plaintiffmakes this response subject to
6 and without waiver of:
7 (1) the right to make additional objections or seek protective orders in the event additional
8 review offiles results in further information;
9 (2) the right to object to other discovery directed to the subject matter ofthe Requests; and
10 (3) the right to revise, correct;, supplement, or clarify the response.
11
12 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
13 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.1:
14 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Arenzano Trust.
15 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.1:
16 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
17 and harassing and unlimited as to scope and time. Because plaintiffdoes not control the trust, and
18 is not entitled to any distribution from the trust, pla:intifffurther objects to this request on the
19 ~o~ds ~~t it. ~eek~ d~.cm.:nen~s ~~t.are.n~ith~~.r.el~YCl:llt no:r r~~s~n.a~l:y.~ctll.a~~~ to.l.e~d to ~e .. ....... __. --
20 discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
21 grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
22 by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects
. . . . . . .. . _ . .
23 to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the .
24~ttQfl1~y-cl!ent prtvil~ge.and!o:rth~ att0I1!eyWOJ.~-p:rociu.c;tciQ(;t:riJ}~~'f!1Qs~clO~.DJ11~!lt~ iD.c!lli~ ...
25 communications between plaintiffand hls counsel, thetrust cindtheir colifise1; and the beneficiaries
- .. ·.C .,,- ·.~.,.·,.2p.· :::3Ild..-fueir-,eeUE:sel.:~· - _..- .- ...-::--,-- ,,,.- -,..--_.,.-._.- -:---C·.-: --_ ...-.~.-:_=--::: ,-'_.. ·~·-::-::·.-.-,,·::,-:-:c - ~.,-:: =-~.-.-:.-.:C,..=.~ ..:::-.:·c.,. ___ ......

85. t-~,
! !'
1 The trust is irrevocable andPlaintifthasno control orfinancial interest in it. The trust was set up
2 over 14years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto
3 be in the possession and control ofthe attorney and Trustee, Joseph 1. Praske, however, the
4 requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are
5 otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth above.
6 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2:
7 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Giganin Trust.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.2: '
9 Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
10 and harassing and unlimited as to scope and time. Because plaintiffdoes not control the trust, and
11 is not entitled to any distribution from the trust, plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
12 grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
13 discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
14 grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
15 by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects
16 to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the
17 ,attorney-client privilege and/orthe attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
18 communications between plaintiff and his counsel, the trust and their counsel, and the beneficiaries
19 and their counsel.
20 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
21 as follows: Plaintiffhas no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
22 The trust is irrevocable and Plaintiffhas no control or interestin it. The trust was set up over 13
.. ~. - . -
23 years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto be in
24 .th~poss.e.ssiQn_and contrQI oftbeattprneyand Tmste.e, JQseph I..Praske ,_howeyer,th~reql.lested_
.25 documents are irrelevantto the propounding parties' juagment collection efforts and are otherwise
. '.'...' ,. ,-0,,-26-·· _:ahj-eet-t-ootb.e-p:civileges·,antl·p:r=iva6y,right-s-,set,-f-oIth-ab@veic,~.... _. ~ --- ·-c . -- -- --., -- - - --'-' ...~. - - - - ,.,--~,_--,-, . __
.same.JWum1. .

86. ( ~I ;---). ;
. ~~
1 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.3:
2 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
3 - and harassing and unlimited as to scope andtime. Because plaintiffdoes not control the trust, and
4 is not entitled to any distribution from the trust, plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
5 grounds that it seeks documents that are-neither relevant norreasonably calculated to lead to the
6 discovery ofadmissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
7 grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
8 by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects
9 to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the
10 attorney-client privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
11 communications between plaintiffand his counsel, thetrust and their counsel, and the beneficiaries
12 and their counsel.
13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
-14 asfollows: Plaintiffhas no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
15 The trust is irrevocable and Plaintiffhas no control lor interestin it. The trust was set up over 14
16 years ago, well prior to defendant's judgment. Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto be in
17 the possession and control ofthe attorney and Trustee, Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested
18 documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise
19 su~je~~ to_~e l?~y.il~~~s.an~ p~vacy' right~ ~etfb~_~o.,:~...
20 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.4:
21 All DOCUMENTS thatRELATE to any trust orfounda1ion that is part ofYOUR ESTA1E
22 PLA-~.
23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.4:
24 __ PlaiJ1tiff()bjeg~ toth~ d~fu:t!ti6~_()tE~'I'AIE:rL.tN~_~t foIi:b.i!J:1?~fe~Cla.Il,r~_])~firri1ionsip. '...
25 thatifincludesbut is notlimited t6the preparation afmy plan 6fadrtiiniStratloiiaJid disposition of
- -- --. ----.,-2-6- d!l:-aintifEs-,pr-epeFty:.;:eW:tled,-by:P-lain13:E€:-at~y-::1imemaay:£apaci1y~,bef0Ee=-0LafteEdeath-inell.i.rung.. ,-,- _ _u

87. ,
r
1 on the ground that such an expansive group ofdefinitions imposes a burden greaterthan what is
2 required by the CaliforniaRules of CiviLProcedure'and makes the requests overly broad, unduly
3 burdensome, oppressive, harassing andlor not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the
4 discovery of evidence relevant to the inquiry intoPlain1:i.:ffs current assets, which is the sole
5 subject ofthis discovery.
6 Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any relevant
7 scope and time period. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
8 documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
9 evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the
10 production ofirrelevant documents that are protectedfrom disclosure by plaintiff's and third
11 parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
12 grounds that it seeks documents that are prote'ctedfrom disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
13 andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
15 as follows: Plaintiffhas no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or controL
16 Trust documents are believedto be in the possession and control ofthe attorney and Trustee,
17 Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevantto the propounding parties'
18 judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth
19 above.
20 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.5:
21 All DOCUMENTS thatRELATE to YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
22 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.5:
23 Plaintiffobjects to the definition ofESTATE PLAN set forth in Defendant's Definitions in
.. .2!Lthatitincludes.butis notlimited to the.prepaJ'atiQILQfany'plalLQfJ1Qmilli.s1Iatioll.aIlcldi~pm;i1:i9Il.QL .
25 Plaintiffs property, ownedbyPlamtiffafariytime ill anycapacitY, before or after deatliinc1uiliIig
.. -.-'.~ .-'.,---.',-.c2;6~ ~wi1:4·Ws15-,gi.ftS5·-o:riC}wer,C}f-attomey:j=OI'-an.y.=other~method=C}£estate=planninganEb:finfI1efmfersto- ...
'--:-:.. '.::'.--.-~ -::-:ZT: .tlie:rr.ansreY.Gf.an:f-assets:~;iw;ii.eab¥~Iamtrff-at~#:.pme-:to.:an#-,P-RR-S-ON-OtE:Nllxy.:col1.eCfiii:ery~.-:.
~====~=H=9:n4k~gr.gH+l~~g£G~finjtioDs.-impQS~~~ak:;·~=I==-_

88. 1 required by the CaliforniaRu1es ofCivilProcedure and makes the requests overly broad, undu1y
2 burdensome, oppressive, harassing andlor not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the
3 discovery ofevidence relevantto the inquiry into Plaintiffs current assets, which is the sole
4 subject ofthis discovery.
5 Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limited to any relevant
6 scope and time period. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
7 documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calcu1ated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible
8 evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the
9 production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third
10 parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
11 grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
12 andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
14 as follows: Plaintiffs estate plan was set up over 14 years ago. Plaintiffhas no documents
15 responsive to this request in his possession or control that are within any reasonable time period of
16 the judgment. Plaintiffs estate plan is irrevocable and was established over 14 years ago. Estate
17 Plan documents, as plaintiffinterprets the definition, are believed to be in the possession and
18 control of attorney Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevant to the
19 propounding parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to attorney clientM •• M • • _ . M . • . _ _ , ' _ ' . • • • • • • • _ . . • • • • • • • • _ OM • • • • _M _ •• ,_ __
20 privil~ges and the otherprivileges and privacy rights set forth above.
21 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.6:
22 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any COMMUNICATION REFERENCING YOUR
·23 ESTATE PLAN.
1---- ---,-----
24 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.6:___________ _
I
25 plaintiffobjects to thedennitiolJ.otESTATEPLAN set torth in Defendant'sDefinitlbns in
-- --- -_.. -_~~,c-2G-that-:itin.cludes.,but-is-not.Jimited.,.t-o-:th€:-pr-eparatiBn,ef-any.,-pla:n,ofoadministI.=aUBD:and·mspesmeu-aL-···c
- __.___..,_::: -..:._-2'i:: .PJaintlfP.s prQP.eDy.,..owned-hy::Plaintlffat.an.y_Dmein..an.jLcapacl1y.;,JJ.efore.:m:-:-.afteLdeatn includIng..~ ..:. ,-~.
,....or: power ofattorney, or any other metbocLo

89. 1 the transfer ofany assets ownedby Plaintiffat any time to any PERSON orENTITY collectively
2 on the ground that such an expansive group of definitions imposes aburden greater than what is
3 required by the California Rules ofCivil Procedure and makes the requests overlybroad, unduly
4 burdensome, oppressive, harassing and/or not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the
5 discovery of evidence relevantto the inquiry into Plaintiff's current assets, which is the sole
6 subject ofthis discovery.
7 Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it is not limitedto any relevant
8 scope and time period. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
9 documents that are neitherrelevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible
10 evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds that it calls for the
11 production ofirrelevant documents that are protectedfrom disclosure by plaintiff's and third
12 parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
13 grounds thatit seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
14 and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. The documents requested relate to and include
15 comml,lnicationsbetween plaintiffandhis counsel over 14 years ago.
16 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.7:
17 All DOCUMENTS thatRELATE to any trustin which YOU are the trustor regardless of
18. YOUR present income or financial interest.
19 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.7:
20 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
21 and harassing and unlimitedto scope and time. Because plaintiff, does not control any trust and is
22 not entitled to any distribution from any trust, plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
23 grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
24 _di~Qovery Q:fa.dJTJjssible~vidence iJ:ltllisJtQti.Qn.__Plam.1:iffftui:h~I Qbje_g~to i:bi~Iell1~! gJ1J1J.:l..
25 grounds thatit calls for the production ofirrelevant aocume:nfstliat areprbteci:edfiomrusc1osure
-,bY--f1ai-ntiff-s-,-and·thIT4farties-',oGoB:Stiru:1i0na11~pr-et-e6ted.£ght-':0£pFi¥aG¥'J?lamtiff:fu.rtheE:0bj,eGts._,,-:··,· '.
'~~··_-·_-._~.:·~~n-~. f6Ih1srequeSf1}IfIhegrorrndll11ax:itseeksooo]menrllllarale{fOIectOO:from:'ojsc1:osw:ej)~Ti1ie':~~.-::~': :...:.-:.':-'
~====='~iJ=4!YM!~~~~~.dlor-tb..e..a.ttom~:r:k- A)d.uct..d.oct:r:.e.-T..hose..docIlments-inclu

90. 1 communications between plaintiffand his counsel, the trust and their counsel, and the beneficiaries
2 and their counsel.
3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
4 as follows: Plaintiffhas no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
5 Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto be in the possession and control ofthe attorney and
6 Trustee, Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevantto the propounding
7 parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights
8 set forth above.
9 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.8:
10 All DOCUMENTS that RHIA1E to any trust in which YOU are a lRUST PROTECTOR.
11 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.8:
12 Plaintiff·objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
13 and harassing and unlimited to scope and time. Because plaintiffdoes not control any trust and is
14 not entitled to any distribution from any trust, plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
15 grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
16 discovery ofadmissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
17 grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
18 by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects
19 t? this.!eq.ll:est on.~eJ~r?~d~.~~~ ~~ se.e.~ d.?cUJJl.e1?:ts.~at ~e p'r()tecte4.fro~dis~losure.~.y ~.~
20 attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
21 communications between plaintiffand his counsel, the trust and their counsel, and the beneficiaries
22 and their counsel.
23 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
24 ctS~oll~VT§_:Plainiiffllasl1_o docU1IleIlts respo~iv:eto1:bi~!e.9!le~t iI!J:ri.s_P_O.sfl_~s.si()11~()!.c.;.9P.1:r-01.J.'11J.S(..
25 documents are believed by plaintiffto be in the possession and conttoldftheattorney and Trustee,
_... --....:~.: :-2.6-~I-0.seph·J..~·f:as-k-e;·h0wever~·-the:-FeEJ.uestea-4e0Wn-eRts··afe-..melevanH0~the:fr-epounem-gparties:?~=.

91. )
r
/~. )
,:;~
1 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.9:
2 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in whichYOU are a beneficiary, regardless
3 ofYOUR present income or financial interest.
4 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.9:
5 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
6 and harassing and unlimited to scope and time. Because plaintiffdoes not control any trust and is
7 not entitled to my distribution from any trust, plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
8 grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
9 discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
10 grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
11 by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects
12 to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the
13 attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
14 communications between plaintiffand his counsel, the trust and their counsel, and the beneficiaries
15 and their counseL
16 Subjectto and withoutwaiving the foregoing objectionsand limitations, Plaintiffresponds
17 as follows: Plaintiffhas no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
18 Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto be in the possession and control ofthe attorney and
.....19__.. ,:!-,~~t~~? !().s~ph!:.Ir~!:~,}l,o~~ver~_t.1I~~r~g~~~~~.~?c~~nt~_~e}l!e.~~:v:~!_t0:t?-~,P~:P.():':n.1~~$. ,.__ .',, ...
20 parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights
21 set forth above..
22 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:
23 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class ofbeneficiaries,
.25 RESPONSE TO DOCUM:ENT REQUEST NO.10:
-- --..~·-.O ,-~,·~5-~~-,-,--~P.lainiiE-,ebjeet-s-t0-=this-FeEtHe~1h.e~-elillil-s,;j;hat,it--i~everl¥-bF0aa,~undB1y-bUFdellseme~,~-.~ ~~..
.'..-':'-~~_~'-=::~2:l' ·-ctI1arassing.imcIJulU-miledwscope auUime.:=Recause.plaiDfiffflnesnoLconftol any-;:-ttU~IDlctJ:K;,~ :.'=_~'=.
J---c====~=IIdl..Qi;,m:t;i;t;kdJ;G-an¥Jiist.tihuti~~bObj~bJ.,Ljli:ls,:d,T.P.i!:qIy,w;]e;iilru:k4)u,u.1.1.1--===-!==_

92. r )
I C)
·1 grounds that it seeks documents that are neitherrelevant nor reasonably calculated to lead tothe
2 discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the
3 grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure
4 by plaintiff's and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects
5 to this request onthe grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the
6 attorney-client privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine. Those documents include
7 communications between plaintiffand his counsel, the trust and their counsel, and the beneficiaries
8 and their counsel.
9 Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
10 as follows: Plaintiffhas no trust documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
11 Trust documents are believed by plaintiffto be in the possession and control ofthe attorney and
12 Trustee, Joseph J. Praske but that said documents are irrelevant to the propounding parties'
13 judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subject to the privileges and privacy rights set forth
14 above.
15 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:
16 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid on YOURbehalf
17 by any PERSON or ENTITY including, but not limited to, Pacific CoastManagement and Avalon
18 Corporation since 200L
20 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that the term on YOURbehalf' is overly
21 broad and compound. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
22 as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
23 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant norreasonably calculated
24 toleadtothendiSC9'Lerynof aClIllissibl~ ~YidYllc~igj:l:Ij~Jl.nctioIl__ ~PIMIltiff:furtl!e~Qbj~ftl)1:Q1:bil)u_nn __ ._n
25 requestonthe grourids that itcalls·for the prodlictionofirreIevanf doci.irilents that are protected
~-,- .- ·~-,~=.,2Q.--ftem-ill-scl-0Sl:lFec9¥'fllain~-s~and~thi=r4parties~0BS!:i-tl:l:1i0B.-allY=flF0teGted-1ight.,,0-f'PIi¥.aG~·F-lai-l:rtifE -'--:~ --...
-- .- - - -. --..._- ... ...-..... _._. --... _.- , , -_ ... - --,.. ' - ---'-:--~:'. -:--._ .......... _.. -'.' ... - .... - . _.. ---.. - --.... - .._- - '-'.

93. 1 Subjectto and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
2 as follows: The specified time period is overlybroad and unrelated to any reasonable attemptto
3 collectthisjudgment. Ifthe propounding party agrees to limit this request to a relevant and
4 reasonable time period, Plaintiffwill produce documents reasonably responsive to this request in
5 plaintiff's possession and control that are not privileged. As to fees paid by plaintiffthat are not
6 privileged, those documents have already been produced in discovery in this action and the
7 Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke action currently pending before theLos Angeles Superior
8 Court in which the propounding parties' legal firm is the firm that prepared these discovery
9 requests.
10 DOCUMENT REQUEST.NO. 12:
11 All DOCUMENTS thatRELA1Eto travel expenses paidby YOU or any PERSON or
12 ENTITY on your behalfsince 2001.
13 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
14 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that the term on YOURbehalf' is overly
15 broad and compound. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
16 as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
17 request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
18 to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this
19!~qu.~s~ 9n tht: gr~~4s_!!J.~t}t_c~~.for.~e~ro~l!.ct.i~~ _~firr.~l~~~~_~~~~~I?:~st!I~~_ar_e.:e~0!~~te4 .. - - - - - - - .
20 from disclosure by plaintiffs andthird parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
21 further objects to this request on the grounds thatit seeks documents that are protectedfrom
22 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andJorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
23 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
24 .a~ :fQUQws~The time_p~riQ4is ovellyhroa.d andJ.lIlJela.t~(Lto.agy I~ag)!lJLhleatteIIlIt 10_CQll~~ti:1li.s._
··2'5 judginent. Should the propounding party agree to liinit this Request to·a relevantand reasonable
-,- -- --0-- ==-=-2e--time-period-Plainti-ff:.will-,pr-eaueecaee1:Ul1ents-Teasenahl3-r:espensive-te::thi-s=l'equest-.iJrplamtiff'-s =-::-
~..::.~:'_~-___~~~2L f::possessl.Qn~.a~:CQn1f..ol::iliat:a:t.e:.nQt.,p.rl¥.iJ.eged;.~~~~~~---~~~- -.~;-:':-':'~~~~-'''':'=--~~==-=-~'=~:':==~-~-.~.=--=-=:::=-~:':':::---'=-:
?R

94. 1 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:
~,
; )
2 All DOCLThffiNTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or any PERSON or
3 ENTITY on yourbehalfsince2001.
4 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:
5 Plaintiffobjects to thisrequest on the grounds thatthe term '~on YOUR behalf' is overly
6 broad and compound. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad
7 as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
8 request on the grounds tliat it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
9 to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurtherobjects to this
10 request on the grounds that it calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected
11 from disclosure by plaintiff's andthird parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff
12 further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from
13 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
15 as follows: The specified time period is overlybroad and unrelated to any reasonable attempt to
16 collectthis judgment. Should the propounding party agree to limit this Request to a relevant and
17 reasonable time perio~ Plaintiffwill produce documents reasonably responsive to this request in
18 plaintiffs possession and control that are not privileged. As to fees paid by plaintiffthat are not
19 J2~'i!~~~d?_1:!?-~~~_~g~~J?-!~.~~ye.ctl~e~4J'.bC:~l1.,.pr?~~?'~9:.n:_~s~'~y'~!¥}n :t.b:is ~~(:)ll_~~.th~
20 Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke action currently-pending before the Los Angeles Superior
21 Court in which the propounding parties' legal :firm is the firm that preparedthese discovery
22 requests.
23 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:
24hllDQ~:o:MEmS_1hatREL.ATBto:the transfer ofany: assetQwued_atanyj:im_Etb_y YOUin__
25 any capacity.
-'-,-'-·'c-:::-:2-6-RES}l-{)NSE=T-Q:-Df)GHMEN-:r-B.-EQYES~-NO;-c-14·:·~,,~,····-·'--'-~'--'~~.~'~-'-~-.-.~'-.'---.-'-- -~.-.'.'.~. _. ~'.'-.-
~.'.:':.-.~=-~~._=-.:21:' '-~=~--~EI:am.~J.ects=ro.1lJiS-IeqIlestb1illie..gr:-OUliaS-fliafiLiS:OveIl#=15f-OIt(r asXonm.elUl.G:soopaas. .~~..~-~
----:===~~j=I~~~~mg~ntifffi]rtherg~S4(;btI:ll,,J~les:k.Qll4ll~~mrl
'~_'._' - . _ • • _ • • • • , .~. _ _• • • • • _ • • • • w , • • _ _ _ _ _ _ • • • • • • • • • • • • . . _ . _ . __, _-: • • _ • • ~_ _ _• • • • • • • _ _ • • • • • • • _ . _ _ _ _ _ -: • • • • • • _ _ • • • • • _ . _ • • • • • , , ' _ . , , . .~ ._-,,~. ,~._.,

95. 1 it seeks documents that are neither relevant norreasonably calculated to leadto the discovery of
2 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds thatit
3 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
4 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
5 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
6 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
7 Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
8 as follows: Plaintiffis not aware ofany assets he has transferred since the entry ofjudgment in
9 this matter.
10 DOCUMENT REOUEST NO. 15:
11 All DOCillv:1ENTS thatRELATE to the transfer ofany asset owned at any time by YOU as
12 part ofYOUR ESTATE PLANNING.
13 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:
14 Plaintiffobjects to the definition ofthe definition ofESTATE PLAN set forth in
15' Defendant's Definitions in that it includes but is not limited. to the preparation ofany plan of
16 administration and disposition ofPlaintiff's property, owned by Plaintiffat any time in any
17 capacity, before or after death including will, trust, gifts, or power ofattorney, or any other method
18 of estate planning and further refers to the transfer ofany assets owned by Plaintiffat any time to
. ......1~.....?Jly-P~QP.~~-~JT~, ,?~1.1_e~v.:e~;Y9l?:.1:h~~?~~~~~.S1!.?~..~,,~~£~si~~~{)~p-. ~f_dC:?~?i.~?Il~ ..
20 imposes a burden greater than what is required by the California Rules ofCivil Procedure and
21 makes the requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and!ornot otherwise
22 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of yvidence relevant to the inquiry into Plaintiffs
23 current assets, which is the sole subject ofthis discovery.
24
25 scope and tlmeperiod.Plruntifffurtherobjects to this request on the grounds that it seeks·
. ~..,~. ·,··~,,-~d..fi- deeument-s-tb:at.,.ar-e.l1either-1-elevan:j;-nery,easenabl¥~al-eul-atecl~t-e,lead~tfr.theodi-seeve~:-admi-ssible· - .....-~....
':.:..:..=--~:.::::. -~-ZL ~nence.:ni.mr.s..:a.cli.:Oii:=~J:am'tift:ffi.fEl1et=nDj:ectS:tilfiiS-r'.eqUest:On-the gf.6:ilnijS::ttfa,'riI,.cal1S:fOT-::the=::.= .~-=.:..~
~===,,:;,)~RFJ:_::;JBJl....r.rwhIJ·cCti~1;J.lmeDi.sAha;tcll;t:~~L-Qte~~4l:!iI:d===I==~
. --- ...- -:-- -- --.----:-- --- .......- ......_- .--. -.~--- ......- ... _ ... _- ..-. ---

96. -
c------
:~)
1 parties' Constitutionallyprotectedright ofprivacy. Plain1iEffurther objects to this request onthe
2 grounds that it seeks documents that are protectedfrom disclosure by the attorney-clientprivilege
3 andlor the attorney work-product doctrine.
4 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plain1iEfresponds
5 as follows: Plaintiffs estate plan was setup .over 14 years ago. Plaintiffhas no documents
6 responsive to this request in his possession or control that are within any reasonable time period of
7 the judgment Plaintiffs estate plan is irrevocable and was established over 14 years ago. Estate
8 Plan documents, as plaintiffinterprets the Request, are believed to be in the possession and control
9 ofattorney Joseph J. Praske, however, the requested documents are irrelevant to the propounding
10 parties' judgment collection efforts and are otherwise subjectto attorney client privileges and the
11 other privileges and privacy rights set forth above_
12 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:
13 All DOCUMENTS thatRELAID to any postjudgment discovery in any'matter to which
14 YOU responded.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:
Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objectsto this request on the grounds that
it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
a~s~~~!_~.~~~!?-~~ ~~th.i:s_.a?~~m...~!~.ntif:f.~~~,?~j~~~.~o.~i~ ~~9cl!.~~~.~E: th.:~~?un.~ ~~~ i~.,
calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protectedfrom disclosure by the attorney-client
. . . .. .~'.. ... _... - .. . _.. . ._.- - _..... -_. . ....
privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
n _ _ _ _ 2.4 ____n _ Sll.bjecttoatldwitllOut-waivi1.1gt1:t~foregQillg_obj~G1ioll_S illl!lJimit~tLo~_ Plaill.ti:fIr~sp_Qllfts_n
25 -asfollows: Plaintiffhas no documents after entry ofjuCI.gDienfilltliis casetliat are responsive to
--~.c~~--~-.~_-,,26---thi-s-r-eElues:f;.e*-eept-f0E4he-El.iseev-eryA0ne-m-thisG-a-se;,--whiehA0euments:Me=-akeady=ifr:p0SSe-ssi0n~.c--c:-=---
~.__._-~__-~:~_::__n.. .::.ofIlfereq1]esting-paff}L=~--:::-:-=_~~. =.-~:~-::___':'=-__,_~=:_._-':':::~_''':'~:='':'~=~~__~-=__.._-=::__~~~:~.:.-:~~==...:.='-::=-::-..=::-~:::''::''::::'--:-=:''
?R

97. 1 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:
2 All DOCillvlENTS thatRELATE to anyjudgment debtor exam ofYOU since 2001.
3 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:
4 Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds thatit is overly broad as to time and scope as
5 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
6 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
7 admissibl~ evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther·objects to this request on the grounds that it
8 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
9 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
10 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protectedfrom disclosure by the attorney-client
11 privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
12 Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
13 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents after entry ofjudgmentin this case that are responsive to
14 this request except for the discovery done in this case, which documents are already in possession
15 ofthe requesting party. In addition, the requesting party is in already possession of all judgment
16 debtors exams taken ofplaintiffsince 2001.
17 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:
18 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY ofwhich YOU are an officer or
19 member.• ~ . 'M_ .••.•_ •.• _ •• _•.• ____ .•.••.•_. __.•.• ___ • ___ .____ _ _ •• __ .____ • _ . _.. • ••. _ .• __ . • .• ••. •___ ••. __ ••
.- -
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:
21 Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
. . . . .
22 to be unduly:burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
23 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
____~4__ a~JJ);s§ibl~_eviden~eillt4isa~ti9n._ R~aiJJ.1:iffJl.lrtl:l~LQ1:.i~ct§t()tl1i~1~qllest QnJl1e---Er()lll1isJ:1:J.~tit _._ ..
.. . . ..
25 calls for the production ofirrelevanfdocuIiients thaf are protectedfrom disclosUreby phiinliff's .
.. ._._....._- -.--~-f)-:- .anci4hi-rci-:pame?€onstitufic.:mally::-pre1eetecl:-rightJ:tf:priwfteJ-:cPlaintiff--fartb.eF-0bjeeEs-::t·frthi-gr~EjUes·k =-.- --..
~- ..-~: _.-:.-:-:rr ·-Dn~llie:-gr.GiiD.dS.lliaf.lt=s~cUmentsl1iaurr.e.::pi-Qrectea:.jT,Qm:ru:ScT.(}SUr~t1i.e~tEQmey~lienT:-~--·-:':~-:--­
........ __.H')~__ _.....r1..,.;lAg:aR~.Q~rk:'flWduct,dGctr:ine__ .

98. 1 Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
2 as follows: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiff
3 responds as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request.
4 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:
5 All DOCUMENTS thatRELA'IEto any property at which YOU have resided since
6 January 201l.
7 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:
8 Plaintiffincorporates by reference each and every General Objection set forth above as
9 though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
10 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
11 seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculatedto lead to the discovery of
12 admissible evidence in this action.. Plain1ifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
14 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
15 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
16 privilege and!orthe attorney·work-product doctrine.
17 Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
18 as follows: Plaintiffdoes not have any documents responsive to this request that are relevant to the
_..... _)Y.. P.~,?pq~~?-g.P_~~~'.~ol!~~~~.e.f~'or:t~~ tWs.~a~~r.:__...
20 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20:
21 All DOCUMENTS thatRELA'IE to real property located at 3501 CanadaLarga, Ventura
22 California, 93001.
23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20:
25 to be unduly burdensome and harassing.PIaintiff:furtb.er objectst6 tliisrequeston the gtotilids that· .
.. .-.... -::~=-.-:-Z-6::::- jt-:se~ecumentS::ihat·ar-e:-Jlei-ther-::-rel-evant-:::ner-:-I-easenably::eal-eulated::tfrlead-::t-e4b.w-sOOy-efjl.::0:t. -~ ..:: ..-_
.:..... ~:~ .~_~~..=2'L ~ClmT.sslbl:e:m.dence.m:Thl.s:.aCti.Qn..:as-pramtiffis.:nGtE1~WJiei...o:r:sai.a=:r:eaJ.=:pr:ope'tt¥..-Pl:arnti.ff::=--..:~..:.-:~ '.:...-.~­
.?R. ~'..-th,... ~Gt-t~-es:kG1Hh~w~t~~d~~

99. 1 that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs and third parties' Constitutionally protectedright
2 ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents that are
3 protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work-product
4 doctrine.
5 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21:
6 All DOCUMENTS thatRELATE to any tax DOCUMENTS filed by YOU or onYOUR
7 behalf
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21:
9 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
10 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
11 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead tothe discovery of
12 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs
. 14 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintiff:further objects to this request
15 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protectedfrom disclosure by the attorney-client
16 . privilege and/orthe attorney work-product doctrine.
17 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22:
18 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any taxes paid on YOUR behalf, including but not
'_' ...... 1.~...J-i.!lrit~~!g2..~YQ~ ~_!P~9.t.Y.~~ t~~ e.~t~le(J'ilp':~r.~t~y_~ _.. __ . _..
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22:
21 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds thatthe term on YOUR behalf' is overly
22 broad and compound. Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds that it is overly broad• _ . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - - • • • • • _ . • • • - • _ . . •• •••• • •• • ••• •• _ . , • ___• • _ . - • • • • • _ . - • .. ••••• • • _• • • • • _ • •M. • • • . . _
23 as to time and scope as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this
24 Ieqll~~ton the grOllll!s:thatit§e~ksiQ_gtlJ:Ilt~Il1:S that_8.[eJ!~il:h~IIel~Y~1!t!1()Lr~~~01J.aJ:!y~a19Q1~t~(L_ ..____
. . .
..Z5 to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidencein tliis action. Ilaiiitifffurther objects t() this
..-:- ---0 -~~~-.--~~:Q_6~ -xeq1:1:est-on1:he-grounds-tb.at-it-cal1s-for=tb.e-pmd1:1:cti-on~of-:i1Televa:nt-:documents=that-:aLe=pLoteeted--=~' - :.~~~: - _
~~.~...:~~:~=---2-T- Ir-0ro.=rusGIGSYi.(?.1))Lpl.amtiIf'.:s=ana=illli.Q~partt~s:~nStJ..tlltt.f)naII:y--pI0t-eGT.e(f-RgIlt--Q.-r:.PI±:v:acY~1!lai:Rm~- ~--~~
. ... ____ m____ 'Jg. +;,.,-f.h:ere..*_at.Sto:tbis re~ onthegrnillldthat-it-seek-deGtJ:!3:l€ntsth~~~~===r==~

100. 1 disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
2 Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
3 as follows: Plaintiffis not the owner ofany Entity, equitable or otherwise.
4 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23:
, 5 All DOCUMENTS that RELA1E to any incometax returns including, but not limited to,
6 W2's, 1099's, K-1's, whether preparedfor federal, state, ormunicipal that RELAIE to YOU since
7 January 1, 2005.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23:
9 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
10 and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds that it seeks documents that
11 are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence in
12 this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds thatit calls for the production of
13 irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties'
14 Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds
15 thatit seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor
16 the attorney work-product doctrine.
17 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24:
18 All DOCUMENTS thatRELA1E to any money given to YOU for any purpose since 2010.
._, ... ~?.....~~~.~~~E.~()~9.C~~T.!ill9~STNg..~.~.:.........., .... ,.._____ . ___........._ ,.'... __ ...
20 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad,
21 unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds that it
22 seeks documents that are neitherrelevant nor reasonably calculatedto lead to the discovery of
._.. . ~ . ... .~ .
23 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
_... _.. __11..c.all..$ mrthe pro9uctiol1(}fir:releyantdg~l.@~ntstbaj:ill~ prQte..Qt_~cJft91!l4!s~19sureJ2YJ?1~tif:t§. _______ ..._
25 and third parties' Consiitutiomillyprotectedright ofpTIvaey.Plamtlfffurther objeCts to-this request
- -'-C'''--:-'''O' ·-=-=2~ -c0frthe,-gr-e1:l!lds-{hat-i-t-seeks-deeument-s4at~-el')r-eteetecl..-ft-eJI1;,cli-sel-esl:1£--e:b¥ccthec:attemey....elient-::-:::::c:-c··:.i-:-=--=. _
.',-'..~~._~,:~._~2i-· r-rfi-vi:lege.:a.natrit'lb.'e aItOme)LW6i:K.~ptl5iliiCEdOctruie:,:.=-:'::':':'--~:':':~=-==:.:-~===~.=.:.:~--=~:'~~~:::..--:..=---·=. '=..~..~.r-=--.::::...
?R

101. 1 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25:
2 All DOCUMENTS thatRELA'IE to any income earned by YOU since 2010.
3 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25:
4 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
5 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther obje6ts to this request on the grounds that
6 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
7 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
8 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
9 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
10 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
11 privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
12 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
13 as follows: Plaintiffwill produce any documents responsive to this Request in his possession and
14 control ifthe propounding party agrees to limit the document request to the releyant time period.
15 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26:
16 All banks statements for any personal or business account in which YOU have legal or
17 equitable interest
18 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26:
___ _ ____ }~_________}~1~~ti_fi.~~t~5~!~t? ~s r~9.~~~t__??-~e _~?~d~_~!!~_~t.__~~__~Y.e.~!I__br~a~_~ t'~_I!.l~_~~s~9J?e.__a~_
- - - .~. - ---- -
20 to be unduly burdensome and harassing_ Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
21 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
22 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
23 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
24~cl!1rird p~es' G9~stituti(}na!ly_plo!~~t~4!ig!lt~fJlrtVa~y_~1a!n1:iftJl.l.rtheI52~je.~_t()_~~!~C!l:l~st__._
--25 ()n the grounds that·it seeks doCuments that areprofected from disclosutebytneattomey;.ciient·
------ ----=_-26-c-, :fri:vilege:-ancll-er-th.e-:att-emey-wer-k-pr-eciuet-:d0emn~ _
::-:.:.~-_~_-~ ~~_---2,- ---- --~ubJec-Cto.1iDd:w.il1i(5UfwaiV1ngI1ie.fOr.egolTIg~ai.onslm(t]Jmita1i.oiiS;ElaihliIDesPo:ffit--­
?R '' *,.Q.ll.ows;...P...lain:ti.£fllas.J1.o.Aocumen~.si:v;eA _ - _. - -.est-.heGaus_eJl:e:,do_~:tlQt.~ __

102. OJ
1 accountin which he has a legal or equitable interest.
2 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27:
3 All savings accounts in institutions that represent accounts in which YOU have an
4 equitable interest.
5 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27:
6 Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds that it seeks documents that are
7 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence in this
8 action_ Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
9 irrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's and third parties'
10 Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy_ Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds
11 that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or
12·' the attorney work-prodt.:tct doctrine:
13 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
14 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control.
15 because he does not have a bank ~ccount in ~hich he has an equitable interest_
16 DOCUMENT-REQUEST NO. 28:
17 All deeds, leases, mortgages, or any otherDOCUMENT evidencing any interest or
18 ownership, including equitable interest or ownership, by YOUin real property at any time since
19 1997.... ':'.._.- '--:'~' -:~'.-:-- - - . '::-.-- .. _.. --:-' .: - ,---, '--.:-'- ':-':.- :-.- -_._- -:-,- ,,-'.- ':.:-- .- ::~.- -':...' - .~. _..- ....,_.:-- ......_.- ...... _.... _.
20 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28:
21 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds thatit is overly broad as to time and scope as
22 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
23 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
I~____ . _______ ?4 __~_d:g!!~si»te~videnQ~.mtllisa.ction.. :tl~n.i:ifffurt:b.~rQpje_C1s t9j:1Ji~_reqll.~s_:tQIl,:t:b..~PlJ!l.Qstha.tjL _ ._
I-
--25 calls for the production ofirrelevantdocuments that areprofeCted from'disClosure by phiirltiff's .
.---''-',,-,~,,--=~2~ -ancl4bir-a-pa.ffies~-eB:s1itati.-ena1lY--fr-eteGtea.-:r:ight-,e£p:ci'V.aeyd:~I-aintii:fiu=th.er=0bj:eet1)-t-etbis-r-eEj:uest, ,,--=--= -
_______.. .- '-r7- nfCflJe-gr.{)lii1ds-t1iatit:Se.ehdocU:tiiem§.lb.at.ar-e-pr-OreCreCLft.Qm:::QiscT.o:S'ur-e-15¥$e~tney~Glf.en:t=:~- . ..~.~-=:-_
i-=====,,?~R1=I_~~tt~-k=PIDdud;..d.QMTinp.
' • • • • • _ •••
~
•
_
~
.
_ • • • _ ••_._._ •••• _. ___ ._._ '. _ _ _ •• _ ••••• _ • • • • • _ •• _ .. _ ••••••• _ . ' 0 __ 0' _ •• .,. •• _._ _ .:-_: _ _ . _ • __
~
.
__ •••. __ •• _ _ • • _ • • _ _ _ _ .,,_, ••••• _._

103. ( )
1 Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
2 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control which
3 would evidence any interest or ownership held in real property after entry ofjudgment in this
4 matter.
5 DOCUMENT REOUEST NO. 29:
6 All DOCUMENTS evidencing any interest or ownership, including equitable interest or
7 ownership, by YOUin any asset at any iime since 1997.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29:
9 Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
10 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
11 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
12 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
14 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
15 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
16 privilege and!or the-attorney work-product doctrine.
17 Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
18 as follows: Plaintiffwill respond to this request should the requesting party limit the request to the
__________..1.2__ ~~~~~gt_Q~~rsl§.£._~f.~~Yp':?n-e~~~?I~_t.~~~~t_~4__~~~p.e~_~€?..!~1!:!!_as~e~.______________________________________-- . - --- - ~.. ... ~.
20 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30:
21 All stock certificates or otherDOCUMENTS evidencing ownership of stocks and bonds
. . . - '
22 held by YOU in any capacity.
23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUEST NO. 30:
.. ______2Ll- ___ .. ___ __Plaintiffobjects.totbisreque.st_.on_the.grouudsthatitis_olerly'brQad.as.tQJim~_CIDclS~QILeaJl__ ____ _
25 to be Unduly burdensome and harassing: Plaintifffurt:herohjectsto this requesfon tn.e gr6undsiliat
... ~-.-,,.,---,,,--2-0,- .•it~eek-s-do~lID1ent-s=that-ilTe-neither.Televant'nol~easonably~a1eulated=to-=lead=t-o=tD:e-diseovery=o£.,,-=-=
- - -
~:...-.--:--- - ----~2T ·-~amlsSili1:e.:e¥idence..m=tliiS-aGtJ.oo~~-J?~fiJrtI.lel=-G6j:eGtS=t.Q::tbis-request-Gn~egr-G~:s=:tliat--l-t-------~~~=
~~ ~~llo~~~+h~~ ~- ·~~~~.~~~GG~s4h~:~Ell~~~~~~~HHE£===F==~
•••• __• • • • • •_ ,_ •.••• ___ •• - • • • __• ____ . _ •••
~
_. _ ••••• _____ - •• _ ••• ,._ . ' __ , ' . '_0 ••••••• o. _...... ',' ,___ ___ ._, __ ... __..•. __ .•._. _-__ .____ ...___ . _ ._.. -, ... -- .

104. 1 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objectsto this request
2 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
3 privilege andforthe attorney work-product doctrine.
4 Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
5 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsiveto this request in his possession or control.
6 DOCUMENT REQlJEST NO. 31:
7 .All DOCUMENTS RELATING to Pacific Coast Management Corporation.
8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQlJEST NO. 31:
9 Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds thadt is overly broad as to time and scope as
10 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
11 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably·calculated to lead to the discovery of
12 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
13 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff's
14 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
15 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
16 privilege and!orthe attorney work-product doctrine.
17 Subjectto and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
18 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and
19.~~~~~_th~ ~~qllt?~~is__~.?_~y'~~IJ..T.E.~?!.l:~_as._~?..~~~~~~£?~t?~ p~~~}sE:D:Ii~!e.~?_p~?yi~e~~i~€?~!i:tY....
20 of any individuals who may have responsive documents.
21 DOCUMENT REQlJEST NO. 32:
22 .All DOCUMENTS RELATINGto Avalon Corporation.
23 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQlJEST NO. 32:
..___u_ ~4 _.____ _.J?lain!iffgpje.ftsJ9_t!ri~regu~s.ton_th~_grQt:m.dsJ1:@titj~_9Y~lly_b.I()a.Q.a.S!Qti.TI1~ a,rLd_s.~op~_a.s.u _...
25 tobe unduly bUrdensome and harassing. Plru.n't:ifr'furtIier objectsfoThisiequesforii:hegrounds that
c--..-=- -·,,:-=44-:- ::-it-::seeks-cl.eeument-s-:-that-ar-e:-neither..,-r-elev-ant-nef-f'-easenably::ealeul·atecl:::tedead-:=t-etheili-seevery:~:f-:-c..,-c-, __~---_._
~----:'=.--'-=~.2:L.. 1fdi;ijissilile::e.vi.aei1ce:.iiCt1lls-acti.Qn.'::ElaintiIElUi:tlier~:ectS:.tQ:lliis-r..eques'E.on:1h~::Oiliias:tliat.iL-:'':' ...~.:;~.
!--====~?~:fl::~t'~':!;!;;!'~~~~{;)~~dfrom discI.osure by plam .

105. - - - - -
1 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
2 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
3 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
4 Subjectto and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
5 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
6 unaware of anyone who would be in possession ofsuch documents.
7 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33:
8 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Pacific Coast Management
9 Corporation is a general partner.
10 - RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REOUEST NO. 33:
11 Plaintiff objeels to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
12 - to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
13 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
14 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
15 calls for the production.ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs
16 andthird parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
17 on the grounds thatit seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
18 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
19 ___. _.__ .__~~~It?_C.t._!9_~~~~~l!t._~~Yin£~~_~?~eg?~~g_?~j~~~1!~.~4__1~~~t:i?!l.s~_~l~g~r.e..~£9_n4~__.. .. - . - -
20 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
21 Unaware ofanyone who would be in possession ofsuch documents.
22 DOCUMENT REOUEST NO. 34:
23 All DOCUMENTS RELATINGto any ENTITY in which Avalon Corporation is a general
24 J2_?I1D-e:r-.
25 -RESPONSE TO DocuMENT REQUEST NO. 34: ---
~-----~-::':'=-=--27~ fQ:$e:::tiiidilW~m.aeRSQm.e.:an-:a=liamssmg~~e~b]eGts-T.Q~s=:r.equest.:OJUlie:gr-Guna.s=tI;i.at- -:~:-::-~
w ___ _ _ _ ?~___ ;+_s@eks-d.g~~~r-:I~~e~ul-a:t-ed--,~G{)¥@rr..f ____ .

106. 1 admissible evidence inthis action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds thatit
2 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs
3 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
4 onthe grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
5 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
6 Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
7 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control and is
8 unaware of anyone who would be in possession of such documents.
9 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35:
10 All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any lawsuitin which YOU are involved as a
11 representative for any PERSON orENTITY.
12 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35:
13 Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
14 to be unduly burdensome and harassiog. Plaintifffurther objectsto this request on the grounds that
15 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
16 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request onthe grounds'that it
17 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiffs
18 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
._ _...._ ~? ...~~ .1J.1~.S!:~~4s !h~t. ~!. ~~_~~s.E.?~~~t~..!ha!.~!~ p~'?!~~~~.fr..~~ .c1!~?J.o_~e.?I~t? ~~?!P-~Y..:-~~.~~t .......... ..- -- - -
20 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
21 Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
22 as follows: There are none.
23 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36:
24
.2501:- personai, which YOU oWn, including equitableoWnersbip, ilidividillillyorjointly-with: any other
-..---.=-·---......,....20-PE.S8N:--c·-:-..=--.-::--.-:--_--'--...-.. _-------__-.---.-.----..-. -. ------:::-_.:-'_~-.. ----:-_.~::-'.~ -:.::::::-...---
....•...• -''Y?- -n'E'.sn-nil.Tc:rIi·.........fl·-nY1l(;UMEl..,.rr:RE01Tli'Crpl.Tr.;..-'2-r~· ..- ... - .........h . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . - - • • - - ... - . - . . . . h -
.-.-----:_-.~ -.tU..t!-:I;...J:l~-~J1t---L--Y-..I:.J-V - .':l~--I:-~!-~J.:lli~..y..-.J.u.:---.-..-.--------.-----._._____.~._.A_ ..___ -.--

107. 1 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
2 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
3 admissible evidence in this action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
4 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff:s
5 and third parties' Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects to this request
6 on the grounds that it seeks documents th~t are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
7 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
9 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control
10 because he has no legal or equitable oWnership interest in property.
11 DOCUMENT REO-UEST NO. 37:
12 All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any deb~ incurred by YOU since 2005.
13 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37:
14 Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as
15 to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
16 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
17 admissible evidence inthis action. Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
18 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plaintiff:s
...... . ...I..?_ .~~_~!.~E.~~~'__C;;o~s~~~~~I!!11:_p!~~e~~C!_Jj~!.?f_pIiy~~y.:R~~J?:tif[~_~~_~~J~9.!~.t~.~~~.E~ql!~~t. __..__._. . -- --
20 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
21 privilege andlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
22 Subject to and withoutwaiving the foregoing objections and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
23 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control
___ . .__ ___~1 _Iel?-.:t:i!lgJ.9ap.y..9-(;lbtin~UI!~d_aft~r 1h~j}!dgtIl~ntirlmi~_~(l.s_e lJ~c;Cl.ID.~fi!!aJ.· _____ _______.____
.-25 . DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38: -
.... LJ--RES;eONSE:r-O:::nnc:u.:MEN.T~REQUES.'J:.N03~- -. =..:...:-=-:.....=:..:.:.:.::.::--~=.:.:::::::..-=-=-:..~:=..:..::.=--~~:.....:..:::.~-=-. -.:=-..:
?R ~bj.eGt.s.;t~~tmdtha~lybroad~4-s~~=~

108. 1 to be unduly burdensome and harassing_ Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that
2 it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to leadto the discovery of
3 admissible evidence in this action_ Plaintifffurther objects to this request on the grounds that it
4 calls for the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected from disclosure by plainti:ffs
5 and third parties? Constitutionally protected right ofprivacy_Plaintifffurther objects to this request
6 on the grounds that it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
7 privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine.
8 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objecti.ons and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
9 as follows: Plaintiffhas no documents responsive to this request in his possession or control
10 relating to any debt incurred after thejudgment in this case became final.,
11 Dated: Apri130, 2012
12
WESlLAKE LAW GROUP
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.--':', --~:--,c=~-
~-='_'_-.-.~:2.I
--------- ______0_-__-_-------_._------------ _____.______. _____-- ----- - - ---- ----- - - -- --- ------ ----- ---- -- ----- ----- - - -- -- - -- --- --- ---- --- - ---
-.,-.-,---~-,---- ---:----,--:-:-:-------:--,----------:-~.-----:-.--.---:.------ --,---------- .
- - ._••• _A, • __ •• - ••• _ _ ____.._ - _. •• __ ._. _ • • • • • • • - __ •• ___ • ___ ... _ _ _ _ - ••• __ _ _________ • • • _ ••• ______ • - • - - ._ - •• _._._. - ••• _. - __ ._ • __ - _ •• - 0', __ • _____ A _._. _ • ___ ._. _ _ _ • __ •• _. ____•••
. . - - -- --

109. _._...'-._-_ .... --.. - -._--'--._-- ._--- --------_..._...

110. '
1
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am a resident ofthe State ofCalifornia, overthe age ofeighteen years, and nota party to the
.., within action_ My business address is 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330, Westlake Village,
-' California 91361.
4 On April 30, 2012, I servedthe foregoing document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF
STEPHENM. GAGGERO'S SUPPLEMENTALRESPo.NSES TO DEFENDANT KNAPP,
5 PETERSEN CLARK'S REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS
6 [pURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 708_030]
7 _X- BYMAIL I placed the above document(s) in a sealed envelope with postage thereon:fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at Westlake Village, California, addressed as setforth below. I
8 am readily familiarwith the finn's practice for collection and processing ofdocuments for :m.ail.i1ig.
9 Underthat practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage
thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness. lam aware that on motion ofthe party
10 served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date orpostage meter date is more than
one day after date ofdepositfor mailing in affidavit.
11 _ _ BYFEDERALEXPRESS I placed the above document(s) in a sealed envelope and placed
it for deposit withFederal Express, prepaid for next day delivery, addressed as set forth below.
12
13 -- BYFACSIlY.IILE I transmitted the qbove document(s) by facsimile transmission to the fax
number(s) set forth below on thi§. d~ty.J;?~ef.9...r~ ?;;:QO;::Jt~; and received confirmed transmission
14 reports indicatingthat the doClIl:Q.~p..t(~were:siiccesSfullytransmitted_ .
15 _:.... BYPERSONAL DEL$Y'jj'pla6ed iliirkbove::document(s) in a sealed envelope and
caused them to be personally de~vered by 4~4 to't1!-~J?yr.son(s) setforth below.
.:::.:..:=--:::.:~:.:.::-..:.~~~!~::.~~-;.:..::.::. :.:......~ ::~':.'
16 Randall A. Miller
:MillerLLP
17 515 SouthFlower Street, Suite#2150
18 Los Angeles, CA 90071
19 . I declare underpenalty ofpeJjury under~t?J~~§_9ft1;l~Stg,t~_of.Californiathat.the-4hov-e.is-.....--..-.
. ---···-··-··-····--'····--··;.,-.'e..antt'c··o..,-e-c:t---···-·...-.-~.-.--- ..-- ...-.:-........ -:.--- . - - . - -... -. - -------. 20 U U - J . . L • ~
21
22 .
Executed on April 30, 2012, at Westlake Village, California.
-.- -- .--. ..' --23-- . . .-- --~ .... - -.----
24
25
26 __________..____-___.-----------.----
------------~~- - - -=-'-=~ - - - ..------_.__._-_._--=--.-
..- -21 .. - - .- - ...... . '--'-' _..
- -_.......-'--'-- .. -----~:;;:-.;;;.-----.---.-.---.-
28
--_......--_._-----------_._._---------------
.-. -_. --- - - ---_.-------.- - -..•-

111. -r---------------------- - E kebet 1--1-------- - --= ~ ~ -XiII ---:} -- -: 77- - --- -------
!
ir--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

112. Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Austa Wakily
Wednesday, May 02, 2012 3:22 PM
'david chatfield'
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al (BC286925)
( received your supplemental responses. Pursuant to our meet and confer you were to remove all boilerplate objection,
produce documents, and provide a privilege log. No documents have been produced. The responses include objections
based on privilege, among other improper blanket objections. I also do not see a privilege log, which you agreed to
provide no later than April 30, 2012. Please advise whether you have produced a privilege log.
Sincerely,
Austa Wakily
Miller ILLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812 Iausta@millerlip.com
www.millerlip.com
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
1
r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

113. /~
/
Ir · .-- ...... - - .
1- ---------- ---- ------Exbibir~~~------------------
:IT--------------~--·------------·-·------·--------------------.------.-------.--------.-----.-.-- -.-------

114. LOS ANGELES
CITY NATIONAL PLAZA
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
213.493.6400
VIA U.S MAIL EMAIL
David Blake Chatfield
Westlake Law Group
MILLER i LLP
TEL: 800.720.2126 I FAX: 888.749.5812
www.millerllp.com
May 10,2012
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, California 91361
Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al
Los Angeles Superior Court (BC286925)
Mr. Chatfield:
Reply To:
austa@millerllp.com
I write to address your supplemental responses to Defendants Request for Production of
Documents (Set Two) dated April 30, 2012. After reviewing your objections we have agreed to
certain limitation. A substantial number of deficiencies remain, notably, the fact that your client
has not produced any documents or a privilege log. Nevertheless, we will provide you one more
opportunity to produce all responsive documents, subject to the below limitations no later than
May 15,2012.
Pursuant to our agreement we will file a motion to compel no later than May 18, 2012. We will
extend your deadline to produce documents by_one week to May 22, 2012 if you agreeJo allow_
us to have until May 29, 2012 to file the motion to compeL In light of your failure to produce
documents and a privilege log by April 30, 2012, which was a condition of the April 30
th
extension, and given your client's history of refusing to comply with discovery requests,
documented in his over forty lawsuits, we cannot agree to any extension beyond May 22,2012
absent a good faith effort by your client to comply with the discovery requests. The present
discovery requests were served on January 31, 2012 giving Mr. Gaggero sufficient time to
comply. ._.___ __ . __ __ ..__
The following briefly summarizes facts relevanfto KP-C'sRequestfor Proaliction ofTIocuments
(Set Two) followed by general deficiencies in Mr. Gaggero's supplemental responses. Finally,
we address specific responses that KPC seeks to compel the production of documents.

115. May 10,2012
Page 2
/
STEPHEN GAGGERO'S ESTATE PLAN
Mr. GaggeroI, fifteen (15) years ago, transferred all of his personal assets, worth $35,000,000,
as part of an estate plan. His estate is comprised of two trusts, one foundation, multiple
partnerships, and multiple corporations. The two trusts are the Giganin Trust and the Arenzano
Trust. The foundation is the Aqua Sante Foundation. The Giganin Trust is a qualified personal
residence trust with the ownership of Mr. Gaggero's primary residence, a 1,500 acre ranch in
Ventura, California. The Aquasante Foundation is believed to be an off-shore foundation that
either owns or manages Mr. Gaggero's trusts and entities. The Arenzano Trust is an off-shore
trust organized under the laws of Anguilla. Typically, with these off-shore trusts, the trustor
purports to give away the legal ownership interests to the trust yet continues to enjoy their full
use and benefit. Additionally, as is the case here, the trustor retains substantial control over the
administration of the trusts and trust property. Mr. Gaggero has testified under penalty of
perjury that he is the asset manager of the two trusts and foundations and all assets within the
estate plan.'; As part of this Mr. Gaggero stated that he is responsible for refinancing, dealing
with tax issues, insurance issues, making decisions to... buy or sell the asset, to improve the
asset, overseeing any improvement to the asset, financing, designing some ultimate disposition
ofthe asset.
Implementing the estate plan involved two steps. First, Mr. Gaggero transferred his assets into a
limited liability company or limited partnership in which he had full ownership either through
shares or membership interests. Second, he transferred his ownership interest in these entities to
one of his trusts or foundation. By 1999 he had absolutely nothing in his personal name.
Immediately after the implementation of the estate plan, Joseph Praske, the estate planning
attorney and trustee of the trusts, appointed Gaggero as the asset manager of all assets within
the estate plan. Although Mr. Gaggero transferred legal title to various entities ownedby trusts
and a foundation- his accountant, James Walter testified under penalty of perjury that the gains
and losses for the assets in the estate plan ultimately flow through Mr. Gaggero's tax returns.
According to Mr. Gaggero's testimony, every asset prior to the completion of his estate plan was
owned 100% by him either by virtue of his membership interest in the company, shares in the
-corporatio.l1s,oroirecftiUefotlie-properly.------ - -. _._- --.. - ------ -
Mr. Gaggero attempts to circumvent KPC's discovery requests by asserting that the trusts are
irrevocable Qr that he is not entitled to any distribution is baseless. There is no doubt that
Mr. Gaggero is the true owner ofthe trust property and has financial interests in the assets within
the estate plan as all gains on the properties flow through his tax returns.
-. --- --ill lignt -of meaD6Ve,-YOl:.n)mf1lnclerstand-our·client's hesita:ti:61Yifracceptiffgthaf Mr.- Gaggero
--~---gave-away-assets-werth-$-3-S,000,000,manages-it-fer-the-tbirEl-party-fer-neminal-ineern.e,anEl.- is
now personally destitute.
1 All references to Stephen Gaggero or Jv.f.r. Gaggero in tbis letter refers to Stephen Gaggero (including any variation
l - - - - - - - . . . l l L . . . l l l » c..llaJlll!~.s....suc.h...as...Sj:~enBlanchar.d) in his pe.rsonaLc.apac'-iity1----____________~

116. May 10,2012
Page 3
RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
Post-judgment discovery is accorded the widest scope for inquiry concerning property and
business affairs ofthe debtor; the object ofthe proceedings being to compel the judgment debtor
to give infonnation concerning his property. Public policy does not support a judgment debtor's
attempt to be less than candid about his assets and ability to pay the judgment especially when a
defInite legislative policy has established a procedure for aiding judgment creditors' collection of
their judgments. Young v. Keele (1987) 188 CaLApp.3d 1090, 1093.
The critical timeframe in ascertaining Mr. Gaggero's assets is approximately 15 years ago when
he implemented the estate plan. Mr. Gaggero seeks to curtail the scope of discovery to assets in
his personal name after the entry of judgment and in some cases to his current assets. This is
plainly wrong and contrary to case law. Troy v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1006,
1114 Gudgment debtor required to answer questions relating to the transfer of any assets within
the last 10 years). Here, Mr. Gaggero's estate plan was implemented over 15 years ago, thus,
where relevant the requests properly seek documents dating back to the implementation of the
estate plan.
KPC is also entitled to information relating to his business affairs. Troy, supra 186 Cal.App.3d at
1114 citing Martin-Trigona v. Gouletas (7th Cir. 1980) 634 F.2d 354, 360 Gudgment debtor is
obligated to answer questions relating to partners, co-shareholders, co-offIcers and co-directors,
and the contents of a will could reveal the existence and location of assets owned by the
judgment debtor). Additionally, documents relating to a judgment debtor's employment records
for the preceding five years are relevant and proper inquiry for post-judgment discovery. fd.
Continued objections and refusal to provide these documents on grounds of Constitutional right
to privacy, third party privacy, or irrelevance will clearly be in bad faith.
KPC's requests seek documents concerning the following categories, discussed in more detail
below.
.. . ~state-Plan:iequests·l:6,15 seeks docuiiierits-refatirigto llieAIemano Tritst~· Gigariin Trust,
and Aqua Sante Foundation and all entities or assets within the estate plan. Mr. Gaggero
established the estate plan 15 years ago and is the trustor of these trusts and within a class of
benefIciaries. Documents requested in this category seek infQnuatiQU about Mr. Gaggero's
assets that are in the possession and/or control ofa third party.
Trusts and Foundations Generally: requests 7-10 seek documents relating to all trusts or
. foundations that Mr:Gaggeromayhaveassets,-but WillenMt.Gag·geto ma)nlsseftarenotparUf
-_.--~the-'.'estat€-plan.''-An-e*ample-is-the-1'effa-Mar-trust-ass0eiated-with-Mr~Gagger0o-.- - -
General Finances: requests 11-13,25, 37 seeks documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's ability to
.live alavishJifestyle, including vac.ationingoyerseas, living on.al,500 acre ranch, and spending
.- ._..u___ -.-hundreds-Q£thQusands-Q£dQllar-s-p:ur-suing-law-suit.s,.whi1~Glajmjng-h~is-destitut.e.-+hes~request-s.-.... --
seekinfotrnationconceming Mr..Gaggero's sources 6fincome, fiiianciallJenefIts,nght Qraccess
to payments ofany kind.

117. May 10,2012
Page 4
Assets: requests 14,20,28,30, and 36 seeks documents designed to elicit infonnation about Mr.
Gaggero's current assets, millions of dollars he transferred to third parties, and information about
his ownership interest in the Canada Larga ranch. These documents,will aid KPC in identifying
the present legal title of the properties as well as ascertaining the consideration Mr. Gaggero
received as part ofthe transfer which can be used to satisfy the judgment.
Post-Judgment Discovery: request 16 seeks documents relating to attempts of other judgment
creditors in enforcing their judgment against Mr. Gaggero. We are aware previous judgments
against Mr. Gaggero have been satisfied. KPC is clearly entitled to all documents relating to Mr.
Gaggero's involvement in post-judgment discovery.
Business Entities: requests 18,33-34 seeks documents relating to any entity, broadly defmed as
a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, general partnership, trusts,
foundation, or other partnership or association in which Mr. Gaggero is an officer or member in
his personal capacity. The requests also seek information relating to any partnership in which
Pacific Coast Management or Avalon Corporation is the general partner.
DUTY TO CONDUCT REASONABLE SEARCH
Although I addressed this during our meet and confer on April 19, 2012, and confrrmed in my
email on the same date, I will repeat it in this letter based on Mr. Gaggero's supplemental
responses. Mr. Gaggero at a minimum must request those documents from Mr. Praske. Mr.
Gaggero cannot place documents within his control to another party and refuse to disclose them
on that basis. Mr. Gaggero retained Mr. Praske as an estate planning attorney to implement his
estate plan. Mr. Gaggero is the trustor of the trusts and continues to exert full control and
influence over Mr. Praske relating to not only the trusts but all assets in the trust. Mr. Gaggero
can request from Mr. Praske, his attorney, all documents relating to the implementation of his
estate plan including the trust documents. Mr. Praske as his attorney has an ethical obligation to
comply with that request.
Mr. Gaggero for requests, 1-5, 7-10, 15, asserts that responsive documents are believed to be
-in.-Mr~Praske'spossessioii -orcontr6l: Firsf,MI. -Gagge:fo~ pmslianf [6-the Code-6fCivil
Procedure Section 2031.230, must affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiIy has
been made in an effort to comply with that demand. To the extent Mr. Gaggero claims that he is
unable to comply, he must state whether the inability to comply is because the partiCUlar item or
category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced or stolen, or has never
been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody or control ofthe responding party. The statement
shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by
.. thaflfarty to-have- possession;-eustoay or-control of th:atitem or-categ-ory-ufitem:11- Second,-we-·
----~~~are_aware_that-Ivfr-;-GaggeF0~in-an0ther-lawsuit-has-fileEl-a-m0ti0n-f0r-pf0teGtiv~0fEler-felating-t0~-~-·-~-­
his trust documents. Clearly he is fully aware whether Mr. Praske has possession of the trust
documents, but is intentionally refusing to comply with his obligation.

118. May 10,2012
Page 5
PRIVILEGE LOG
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240(b)(1) requires Mr. Gaggero to identify with
particularity documents withheld pursuant to any objection, including but not limited to claims
of privilege. Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 285, 291. Mr. Gaggero is
required to set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an
objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an
objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under
Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted. Code
Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.240(b)(1), (2).
The purpose of a privilege log is to provide a specificfactual description of documents in aid
of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production.
Hernandez, supra 112 Cal. App. 4th 285 at 292 citing Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court
(1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516-1517. The information in a privilege log or accompanying
any other claim of privilege must be sufficientiy specific to permit the triai court to determine
whether each withheld document is or is not privileged. Kaiser Found. Hosp. v. Superior Court
(1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1217, 1228. Gaggero has not established that any ofthe documents he is
seeking to withhold is subject to any privilege.
During our meet and confer you stated you would produce a privilege log, which you have failed
to provide. Please note that objections made to requests for production of documents that do not
exists or are not in the attorney's or party's possession violate an attorney's ethical duty under
the Business and Professions Code to act truthfully and constitute bad faith. Bihun v. ATTInfo.
Sys. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 991 n 5.
Attorney-Client Privilege: The party claiming the attorney-client privilege has the burden of
establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made
in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Costco Wholesale COlp. v. Superior Court,
(2009) 47 Cal. 4th 725, 733 (citations omitted). KPC's Request for Production of Documents
(Set Two) seeks information relating in part to Mr. Gaggero's estate plan. Mr. Gaggero retained
an estafejJ1anningattomey;1bsephPhiske,m-6r aoourr99Tt6-fuiplemeiit Ills esfate-plaii. Upon-
the completion the estate plan Mr. Praske continued to provide·services to Mr. Gaggero in his
capacity as a trustee and officer of the various entities in which Mr. Gaggero transferred his
assets. Mr. Gaggero has the initial burden ofproviding facts that demonstrate the communication
subject to the attorney client privilege objection was made during the course ofan attorney-client
relationship and not in Mr. Praske's capacity as a trustee or officer of an entity.
- .Additionally~-Mr. -Gaggero -cannot withhold-documents under the guise-of-the-attorney-client --
--~---pI'ivilege-that-inlude-independent-fats,suh-as-Elis10sUfe-0f-names-0f-witnesses~existenGe-0f
l- -- -
I
documents, its authors and recipients, and the subject matter. See Smith v. Superior Court
(1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 5, 11; State Farm Fire Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.
App. 4th 625, 639._ The privilege also does noLapply tQdQclmlentsprepared Qyapartys@ply
--- because-the-documents.. were-presented-to-the.-attorne-y..- -Wellpoint--Health-Netwo1'-ksrJnc.-v~ --- -- -----
SuperforCourt (1997)59 Cal.AppAth 110,119..

119. 1--·-
I
May 10,2012
Page 6
-Work Product Privilege: The attorney work product doctrine protects the mental processes of
the attorney. The privilege does not protect notes made by attorney while attorney was acting as
business agent for a client. Watt Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court of City and County ofSan
Francisco (1981) 115 CaLApp.3d 802. Similarly, a report which is not the product of an attorney
or his agents or employees is not an attorney work product, and an attorney cannot, by
retroactive adoption, convert the independent work of another, already performed, into his own.
Bank ofthe Orient v. Superior Court City and County ofSan Francisco ( 1977) 67 CaLApp.3d
588. Information regarding events provable at trial or identity and location of physical evidence
cannot be brought within work product privilege simply by transmitting it to attorney. Mack
v. Superior Court In andFor Sacramento County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7.
Mr. Gaggero, as the party who is seeking to assert this privilege has [t]he burden of showing the
need for such protection. San Diego Professional Assn. v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal. 2d
194, 204. Mr. Gaggero must provide a specificfactual description for each document withheld
sufficient to substantiate a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document
production. Hernandez, supra 112 CaL App. 4th 285 at 292 citing Korea Data Systems Co. v.
Superior Court (1997) 51 CaL App. 4th 1513, 1516-1517.
Mr. Gaggero has asserted the attorney client and attorney-work product privilege for every
response without identifying which documents, if any, is subject to a particular privilege.
Additionally, for each response, in addition to the attorney-client and attorney work-product
privilege, Mr. Gaggero asserts numerous other objections. Such objections, as previously
explained, are improper as it provides no explanation as to how the objection is proper or how it
applies in the context used. See, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd v. Sup. Ct. (Amazing Technologies
Corp.) (1997) 51 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1516-1517. Mr. Gaggero is required to provide a privilege
log for every response.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Constitutional Right to Privacy: Mr. Gaggero asserts in response to each request an objection
based on his and third parties' Constitutional right to privacy. Because Mr. Gaggero failed to
-identirydocuments- ptirsuiinl -tf anydaiID-oCpnvilegeas requrredby Civir -Code Sections
2031.240(b)(1) and (2) it is entirely unclear to what extent or what documents Mr. Gaggero
purports are private. Presumably, these documents relate to Mr. Gaggero's assets, estate plan,
and other finances. As stated above, these documents are directly relevant to KPC's enforcement
oftheir judgment in this case. 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
CaLApp.3d 313,316 (1982) (citations omitted). One such interest is uncovering the truth in legal
·prdceemng-s15yallowmg-blOatl discovery.-]a.-~ - --- - --- . ---
Mr. Gaggero and Mr. Praske testified in considerable detail about the estate plan and its structure
in Gaggero v. Yura. The testimony included information about the amount of money Mr.
Gaggexo_transferred. into the esta.1e; the tax.consequences_ofthe_estate_planfor Mr. Gaggero,.Mi,
-.. ----- -----GaggerQ.:.s-1=etentiQn--and-cQntrQl~Q:ver-the_transfer_,__Sa1€,-disPQsitiQn-Qf.assets-=-in~the-estate-plan,-the- - -------.- .
implementation of the estate,ahd the million dollar properties purchased by the entities Within
the estate plan from 2000-2005.

120. May 10,2012
Page 7
--,,)
Although Mr. Gaggero was candid about his estate plan in the Gaggero v. Yura trial he has taken
every opportunity to impede KPC's efforts to obtain information relating to that estate plan. He
has provided frivolous objections and no documents in response to any ofKPC's post-judgment
request for production of documents. You are aware that KPC filed a motion to compel
responses to post-judgment special interrogatories. Rather than provide further responses, Mr.
Gaggero appealed the trial court's ruling. Mr. Gaggero even refused to answer the simple
question ofhis current address claiming he had a Constitutional right to privacy.
In fact, it is precisely because of Mr. Gaggero's refusal to provide information about the estate
plan through post-judgment special interrogatories that KPC has been forced to expend time and
resources in requesting documents dating back to the implementation of his estate plan, assets,
and asset transfers. There is no doubt Mr. Gaggero continues to have full access and control over
the assets and money transferred into the estate, yet he has refused to satisfy his legal obligation
toKPC.
Mr. Gaggero has not and cannot set forth a compelling reason to assert the Constitutional right to
privacy on his and third parties behalf in this enforcement proceeding. Mr. Gaggero cannot
selectively assert the Constitutional right to privacy relating to his estate plan when it is to his
benefit.
Finally, because each response includes multiple objections it is entirely unclear whether any
documents have in fact been withheld on this ground. Mr. Gaggero must identify documents
withheld pursuant to the Constitutional right to privacy and identify whether he is asserting it on
his behalfor on behalfof a third party.
r......---....--.-.------..--.
I

121. May 10,2012
Page 8
SPECIFIC RESPONSES
/)
The following addresses objections asserted for each request other than relevance, attorney-client
privilege, work-product privilege, and/or Constitutional right to privacy which has been
discussed above.
ESTATE PLAN
Request No.1: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Arenzano Trust.
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that the request is unlimited
as to scope and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing, and (2) the trust is an
irrevocable trust created 14 years ago, Gaggero does not control the trust, and is not entitled
to any distributions.
As discussed above, Mr. Gaggero's objection that the trust is irrevocable, created 14 years ago,
and that he does not control it or is entitled to any distributions is baseless and an improper
ground to refuse to comply with this request. Mr. Gaggero, after completion of the estate plan
and transfer ofall legal title retained substantial control over the assets. While he now purports to
have no control and it not entitled to distributions he clearly has full control and authority
over the entity or individual that does have control of the trust. In any event, KPC is entitled to
all documents relating to the Arenzano Trust to aid in the enforcement oftheir judgment.
Additionally, to the extent that the request is expansive- it is directly because of Mr. Gaggero's-
decision to implement an estate plan designed to cheat his creditors. We will not limit the time
period for responsive documents; however, we will limit the scope of this request to the
following categories ofdocuments relating to the Arenzano Trust since its inception:
e Arenzano Trust documents or any document establishing the Arenzano Trust;
e Documents that are incorporated by reference or referred to in the Arenzano Trust
documents, but which do not constitute the Arenzano Trust documents;
e Amendments, revisions, or modifications to the Arenzano Trust;
e Arenzano Trust Property, including all documents relating to the disposition, acquisition,
fmancing, sale, transfer, or exchange;
e Management ofthe Arenzano Trust;
----------e-Ownersbip-of-the-Arenzano-Trust;
l-
I
e Trustor, Trustee, Beneficiaries, Nominee Trustee, Registered agent, and Secretary, if any;
--- - -e---'frust-AQ:visof.,-'I'-rust-P-J:otector(sj-or-an:y-per-sol1,-entity,--or-£oundatioll--with-an-y--r-ights--or---
authority over the administration ofthe Arenzano Trust otArelizafiO Trust PfOpertySmce
the implementation ofthe Arenzano Trust;

122. May 10,2012
Page 9
)
• Letter of Wishes, Memorandum of Wishes, or any other document that provides
guidance, directions, or instructions to any Trustee, Trust Protector, entity, individual, or
foundation that has any control, ownership, management, or authority over the
administration ofthe Arenzano Trust and/or Arenzano Trust Property;
• Registration of the Trust documents with a registrar, company, department of foreign
ministries, or Anguilla's Commercial Online Registration Network system (ACORN);
• Stephen Gaggero.
Request No.2: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Giganin Trust.
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that the request is unlimited
S +0 sco-~ ~-d +~~e oue-ly 1--~~d ~;J,,ly 1-'urde~so'e aI'd 1-.arass;~g f2 +he .....s+ ;s aI'Cl L pc; a.u L.l.lH, v.l U.l va. , LU.lUU.l U H H.l .l H .l.l.l , } u U u- L ~ ~
irrevocable trust created 13 years ago, Mr. Gaggero does not control it, and is not entitled to
any distributions.
We are aware, as you know, that Mr. Gaggero transferred his ownership interest in his 3,500 acre
ranch to the Giganin trust and is the beneficiary of the trust. KPC is entitled to all documents
relating to the Giganin Trust to determine Mr. Gaggero's interests in the property. Mr.
Gaggero's remaining objections are without merit.
We will not agree to limit the time period for responsive documents, however, we will, agree to
limit the scope of this request to the following categories of documents relating to the Giganin
Trust since its inception:
• Giganin Trust documents and any document implementing the Giganin Trust;
• Documents that are incorporated by reference or referred to in the Giganin Trust
documents; but which do not constitute the Giganin Trustdocuments;
• Amendments, revisions, or modifications to the Giganin Trust;
• Giganin Trust Property;
• Ownership ofthe Giganin Trust;
1~--------·--Management-of-the-6iganin-'Frtlst;
Ir- - -
I
• Trustor, Trustee, Beneficiaries, other individuals or entities with rights or obligations
-under the-Giganin Trust;

123. May 10,2012
Page 10
)
• Trust Advisor, Trust Protector, or any person, entity, or foundation with any rights or
authority over the administration ofthe Giganin Trust or Giganin Trust Property;
• Document that provides guidance, directions, or instructions to any Trustee, Trust
Protector, entity, individual, or foundation that has any control over the administration of
the Giganin Trust and/or Giganin Trust Property;
• Stephen Gaggero.
Request No.3: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the Aquasante Foundation.
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that the request is unlimited
as to scope and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing, (2) the trust is an
irrevocable trust created 14 years ago, Mr. Gaggero does not control it, and is not entitled to
any distributions.
Mr. Gaggero identified the Aquasante Foundation as the foundation that is part ofhis estate plan.
KPC is entitled to documents that will reveal information about the foundation, jurisdiction of
the foundation, and Mr. Gaggero's interest, rights, and assets in the foundation, whether direct or
indirect via his entities and trusts.
We will not agree to limit the time period for responsive documents, however, we will, agree to
limit the scope ofthis request to the following categories of documents relating to the Aquasante
Foundation:
• Declaration of Establishment or any other document relating to the establishment of the
Aquasante Foundation;
• Founder, Guardian, Beneficiary, Secretary, and Registered Agent;
• -Folinaation-CoiliiCiI-anClIor Managefnetit BoClyincludihg individuals;-ehtities,trtIsts~ -ot -
other foundations;
• Supervisory Board;
• Foundation Charter and!or by-laws;
• - Foundation properlY,-assets,-arid -endoWinent,iricltidirig,Dufiloflfuiited to, ownership-of -
-~---~--~~~entities-andfor-trusts;
• Provisions for management and administration of the foundation not included in the
Declaration ofEstablishment;
1- -- -- - ----------- ------- --. -- -- - - - ~ ~ ~- -- - ---~ -~- - ~ ~- - - - - - -- ---- ---~- ~-- ------ ------------~~ -~ - ~
I • Amendments, modification, changes, and revisions to the Declaration ofEstablisbment;

124. May 10,2012
Page 11
• Duration, termination, or dissolution ofthe Aqua Sante Foundation;
• Certificate ofRegistration;
• Stephen Gaggero.
Request No.4: All DOCUMENTS that·RELATE to any trust or foundation that is part ofYOUR
ESTATE PLAN
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents because (1) definition of Estate Plan is overly
broad and imposes a 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.
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 of KPC'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.
We will, however, agree to limit to this request to the following categories of documents,
regardless ofhis present income interest, relating to the Estate Plan:
1. Trusts in which Mr. Gaggero is or was the trustor, trust protector, trust advisor, at any
time since January 1, 1997;
- -- ------ --- - --- - ---- - ~ ----
2. Trusts in which Mr. Gaggero is or was the trust manager or asset manager for the
trust including in his capacity as a consultant for an entity at any time since January 1,
1997;
3. Trusts in which Mr. Gaggero has transferred any assets at any tinie since January 1,
1997 and in which he has at any time had authority relating to the disposition,
acquisition, fmancing, sale, transfer, exchange or other rights in the trust property;---- - --, .- - --
----------4:--T-rustsin-whichlhe-:A:quasante-F-ourrdatiun~-ar-any_tinre-sirfc-e-January-t;-t~~i-;-lras-lrad---------­
any ownership interest;
5. Foundations that are associated -with the Arenzano Trust~
6. Foundations, in which Mr. Gaggero is a founder, nominee founder, guardian, at any
t~e since January 1, 1997;

125. May 10,2012
Page 12
7. Foundations in which Mr. Gaggero is a manager of the Foundation or an asset
manager for the Foundation property, including in his capacity as a consultant for an
entity, at any time January 1, 1997;
8. Foundations in which Mr. Gaggero has transferred any asset since January 1, 1997
and in which he has authority relating to the disposition, sale, exchange, transfer, or
other rights in the foundation property;
9. Trusts or Foundations that at any time since January 1, 1997 had any ownership
interests in any of the following: Pacific Coast Management, Co., 511 OFW LP,
Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House
LLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, Avalon Corporation, Avalon Farms, LLC., Blanchard
Construction Co., Inc., Avalon Development Corp., Avalon Sunset Corp., Sulphur
Mountain Land Livestock, LLC., Classic Excalibur Holdings, LLP., Canada Larga
Land and Lifestock Co., LLC, and any other limited liability companies, limited
partnerships, and corporations that Mr. Gaggero and Mr. Praske referred to in their
testimony in Gaggero v. Yura.
For the items above relating to the production of Foundation documents KPC seeks the
Declaration of Establishment, Foundation Charter and/or by-laws, and documents referencing
Mr. Gaggero. For the items above relating to the production of Trust documents KPC seeks the
Trust documents, letter of wishes, memorandum of wishes, and any documents referencing Mr.
Gaggero.
Request No.5: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents because (1) definition 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 andtime. -
We will agree to limit this request to the following categories of documents that relate to the
estate plan:
1. All documents filed with any state relating to Blanchard Construction Co. Inc., d/b/a!
Avalon Development Corp.;
2. All documents filed with any state relating to Avalon Sunset Corp. d/b/a! Avalon Farms;
3. All documents filed with any state relating to Pacific Coast Management, Inc.;
4. All doclifiiehts filed with any state relating to Clipper Development Corp.;

126. May 10,2012
Page 13
5. All documents fIled with any state relating to any limited liability company in which Mr.
Gaggero, at any time since January 1, 1997, had over 75% of the membership or
ownership interests;
6. All documents fIled with any state relating to any limited partnership since in which Mr.
Gaggero, at any time since January 1, 1997, had over 75% of the membership or
ownership interests;
7. All documents fIled with any state relating to any limited liability partnership in which
Mr. Gaggero, at any time since January 1, 1997, had over 75% of the membership or
ownership interests;
8. All documents fIled with any state relating to any corporation, limited liability company,
limited partnership, and limited liability partnership in which Mr. Gaggero, at any time
since January 1, 1997, was the sole shareholder or had all membership or ownership
interests at any time;
9. All documents fIled with any state relating to any corporation, limited liability company,
limited partnership, and limited liability partnership formed as part of the estate plan
designed by Mr. Praske;
10. All documents fIled with any state relating to any limited liability company, limited
partnership, and limited liability partnership in which PacifIc Coast Management was at
any time since January 1, 1997 the general partner, limited partner, or the managing
member.
Request No.6: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any COMMUNICATION REFERENCING
YOUR ESTATE PLAN.
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents because (1) defInition of Estate Plan is overly
.. - - bioadandiiriposes greaferbtirdenfuarirequrredbyCaIifornia RUlesofCiviTProcedille,T2) KPC-
is only entitled to request information about Gaggero's current assets and, (3) the request is not
limited to scope and time.
We will agree to limit this request to communications between Mr. Gaggero and any party
relating to the following categories:
- 1. All-co:fi:i1fiumcatiollsrela:tmgto the sale, purcnase,-transfer,-or excnange-of Mr~ Gaggerc-'s·
interests-in-any-entity;
2. All communications relating to any changes, revisions, or amendments to the estate plan
. docum.~nts; .
3. All communications relating to adding a trust, foUhdation, entity, or management fund to
the estate plan.

127. May 10,2012
Page 14
The request includes any communications to Joseph Praske in his capacity as the trustee, trust
protector, or as a manager, general partner, limited partner, or officer of any entity. The request
is further limited to all communications since January 1,2009.
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.
Gaggero refuses to produce documents because (1) defInition 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 cun'ent assets and, (3) the request is not
limited to scope and time.
We will agree to limit this request to categories of documents relating to the following:
1. Document fIled with any county relating to assets owned by Mr. Gaggero in his personal
capacity at any time from 1990-2005;
2. Documents fIled with any county or state reflecting the transfer of property owned
personally by Mr. Gaggero to any third party, including an entity, trust, or foundation at
any time from 1990·2005;
We will not agree to any further time limitations as this request seeks information relating to the
assets, estimated at $30,000,000 by Mr. Gaggero, prior to the completion of the estate plan.
Additionally, this request seeks documents prior to 1997 based on Mr. Gaggero's testimony that
he started his estate planning prior to meeting Mr.Praske.
TRUSTS AND FOUNDATIONS GENERALLY
Request No.7: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are the trustor
re1~~ardTes-s--ofYOUR pr-eseiifmcome 6r-fJiiancia1-iiiteie-st~- -- - -- -- -- ---- -
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that the request is unlimited as to
scope and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing, (2) Gaggero does not control
the trust and is not entitled to any distributions.
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-ofoff;..-snotetrustsand foundations
.c . 1 _1~ hi 1..... l' 1...:1' 1 ...:I~-~--·~~as~part-01.-an~asset-pF0t€Gt10n~pan~mi::U;:es-- -·s-0tJJeGt10ns~reatlllg-t0~G0ntr0 -an:l.-entlte:l.~~~~·--
irrelevant and an invalid basis to withhold documents. Additionally, this request is directed at
trusts that are not part ofMr. Gaggero's estate plan. We will agree to limit the defInition ofYOU
in this Jeql.lest to :Mr. GaggerQ.inhis perSQll.al capacity.

128. May 10,2012
Page 15
/
Request No.8: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a TRUST
PROTECTOR, regardless ofYOUR present income or fInancial interest.
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that the request is unlimited as to
scope and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing, and (2) Gaggero does not
control the trust and is not entitled to any distributions.
The request is limited to any trust in which Mr. Gaggero is the trust protector- the request is
clearly limited whether he is presently a trust protector. Again, Mr. Gaggero's use of off-shore
trusts and foundations as part of an asset protection plan makes his objections relating to
control and entitled irrelevant and an invalid basis to withhold documents. Additionally, this
request is directed at trusts that are not part of Mr. Gaggero's estate plan. We will agree to limit
the defInition of YOU in this request to Mr. Gaggero in his personal capacity.
Request No.9: All DOCUIvIENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are a benefIciary,
regardless of YOUR present income or fmancial interest.
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that the request is unlimited as to
scope and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing (2) Gaggero does not Gaggero
does not control the trust and is not entitled to any distributions.
The request is limited to any trust in which Mr. Gaggero 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 objections relating to control and
entitled irrelevant and an invalid basis to withhold documents. Additionally, this request is
directed at trusts that are not part of Mr. Gaggero's estate plan. Finally, we will agree to limit the
defmition of YOU to include Mr. Gaggero in his personal capacity.
Request No. 10: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any trust in which YOU are in class of
beliefICiaries~fegar(ness6fYOUR present mcor:rie-6f-filiancia:t ihteresC -
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that the request is unlimited as to
scope and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing (2) Gaggero does not control
the trust and is not entitled to any distributions.
The request is limited to any trust in which Mr. Gaggero is in class of benefIciaries - the request
is-clearlyl~ted whetherhe-is presentlyin-c1ass-ofbeneficiaries: Agairr, Mr. 6'aggero's use of -
---~·-~--0ff-sh0r€}-trusts-and-f0undati0ns-as-part-0f-an-ass€.t-pr0teGti0n-plan-makes-bis-0fjeGti0ns-r€.lating--~---­
to control and entitled irrelevant and an invalid basis to withhold documents. Additionally,
l-- - ---
I
this request is directed at trusts that are not part of Mr. Gaggero's estate plan. We will agree to
limit th~_de:finition o:(YOLJ in.this_requ~stt().Mr.. Qa..ggeroin.bi$ personalc~pacity,

129. [-
I
May 10,2012
Page 16
GENERAL FINANCES
Request No. 11: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid on
YOUR behalfby any PERSON or ENTITY including, but not limited to, Pacific Coast
Management and Avalon Corporation since 2001.
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that term YOUR behalf' is
overly broad and compound and (2) that it is unlimited as to scope and time.
For the purpose ofthis request YOUR behalf' is limited to bills, fees, invoices, or charges paid
for the benefit ofMr. Gaggero, in his personal capacity and not in his capacity as an employee or
consultant. This request seeks documents relating to the payment of Mr. Gaggero's daily living
expenses, such as food, clothes, rent, toiletries, utilities, vet bills, dog bills, entertainment
expenses, and any other living expense by third parties. According to Mr. Gaggero, his vet bills
and utility bills are paid for by Pacific Coast Management and/or Avalon Corporation. Vet bills
are cleariy not an expense he incurred in his capacity as an empioyee or consultant. We win
agree to limit the requests to bills, fees, invoices, charges paid on Mr. Gaggero's behalf since
January 1,2009.
Request No. 12: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to travel expenses paid by YOU or any
PERSON or ENTITY on your behalf since 2001.
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that (1) that term YOUR behalf' is
overly broad and compound and (2) that it is unlimited as to scope and time.
For the purpose of this request YOUR behalf' refers to travel expenses paid for the benefit of
Mr. Gaggero in this personal capacity, and not in his capacity as an employee or consultant.
Travel expenses include Mr. Gaggero's car payments, plane tickets, expenses paid while
traveling out of state or out ofthe country, food expenses paid while traveling out of the state or
out of the country, and any other expenses related to traveling. We are aware from our history
with Mr. Gaggero that he is often out of the country for vacation which is clearly unrelated to
-biswofK~ Trusreques1·seeKs-documenfsre1atiriglo-t1le paymenfofthose-expensesby any person, ..
entity, or by Mr. Gaggero. We will agree to limit the requests to expenses paid since January 1,
2009.
Request No. 13: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to litigation expenses paid by YOU or any
PERSON or ENTITY on your behalf since 2001 .
... Gaggerorefusesto-pToduce-documentson the grounds that (1) thanerm YOUR-behalf' is
- - - -~0verly-breaa-ana-G0mp0UIla-ana-t2-)-tb.at-it-is-un1·imitea-as-t0-SG0pe-ana-time.
For the purpose of this request YOUR behalf' refers litigation expenses paid for the benefit of
Mr. _Gagg~rQ,in his personal capacity. Litiga,tiQn e~penses include attorney fe~s, filing costs, and
.-~ other-expeIlses--associated--with~fi.ling-a-Jawsuit.~We will-agree-to~ljmjt-this-request-tQ-.Qnly~ -
documeiitsreflecting the identity of the persOn or entity, including Mr. Gaggero, and the
amounts paid for expenses incurred by Mr. Gaggero. For example, all documents related to the

130. I
May 10,2012
Page 17
payment of attorney fees in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al in the Los Angeles
Superior Case No BC286924 and Bunge v. 511 OF. W L.P., et al in Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. SCI00361 are responsive to this document. Documents reflecting the identity of the
person or entity making payments for Mr. Gaggero's personal litigation expenses are not
privileged. KPC is entitled to information relating to third parties who provide fmancial support
to Mr. Gaggero. Additionally, KPC is entitled to all information relating to Mr. Gaggero's ability
to pursue costly litigation while claiming to have no money. We will agree to limit the requests
to expenses paid since October 1,2008.
Request No. 24: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any money given to YOU for any purpose
since 2010.
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that the request is (1) vague and
ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing.
YOU in this request refers to Mr. Gaggero, in his personal capacity. These documents are clearly
relevant in identifying third parties that have possession, custody, or control of Mr. Gaggero's
assets or money. There is no basis for refusing to produce documents responsive to this request.
Request No. 25: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any income earned by YOU since 2010.
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that the request is (1) overly broad as
to time as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Mr. Gaggero responds that he that he will
produce documents limited to a relevant time period
YOU is defmed in this request as Mr. Gaggero in his personal capacity. 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.---- -- - - ---~- --- ------- -------- - ------ -- - ----- -- ----- ---
Request No. 37: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any debt incurred by YOU since 2005.
Mr. Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that the request is (1) overly broad as
to time as to be unduly burdensome and harassing. Mr. Gaggero's response limits the request to
responsive documents afterjudgment becamefinal.
~----'--~We-wil1~limit~this~request~t0-d0euments-relating~t0-any--application-ofered:it,loan,or-funds-by-~-~-~ -
Mr. Gaggero in his personal capacity. This request includes documents that include Mr. Gaggero
as a borrower and/orjoint borrower. This request will aid KPC in obtaining information relating
to Mr. Gaggero'sstatementstoany lendeIIelating tohls.llcomeandassets. _Additionally,
~-Ig?G'-s~n~qu(i}st -dating--t0--200;5~is~:fI0:fer.--'I'h(i}:F(i}·-is·-110--basis~t0-witbh01d·-d0Gllments~0n~this -- -_.
frivolous -ground.KPC is entitled to documents responsive to this requestwiiliout furl1ier
limitations.

131. May 10,2012
Page 18
ASSETS
Request No. 14: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to the transfer of any asset owned at any time
by YOU in any capacity.
Gaggero refuses to produce documents on the grounds that the request is unlimited as to scope
and time, overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing.
We will agree to limit the scope of this request to the transfer of Mr. Gaggero's interest in
personal property (cars, boats, equipment for any business owned by him, 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, since 1997.
Request No. 20: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to real property located at 3501 Canada
Larga, Ventura California, 93001.
Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as to be
unduly burdensome and harassing.
We will agree to limit this request to documents relating to the following categories of document
relating to 3501 Canada Larga, Ventura, California 93001 (property):
1. Legal title ofthe Property by Mr. Gaggero, in his personal capacity;
2. Legal title of the Property by a corporation in which Mr. Gaggero, in his personal
capacity, owned more than 75% ofthe shares;
3. The transfer of any interest by Mr. Gaggero, by direct title to the Property or as the
majority shareholder of a corporation with title to the property, to any third party;
5. The transfer of the Property involving any of the following entities: Blanchard
Corporation, Clipper Development, Avalon Sunset, Sulphur Mountain Land and
Livestock, LLC, Canada Larga Land and Livestock, LLC, and Pacific Coast
Management.
6: Qualifiea. Personal Residence Trust documents ~
7. Rents or income generated from the Property.

132. r
I
May 10,2012
Page 19
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.
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 responsive to
this request in his possession or control which would evidence any interest or ownership held in
real property after entry ofjudgment in this matter.
Mr. Gaggero's response again improperly limits the scope of the request. This request seeks
documents that will provide information relating to Mr. Gaggero's ownership interests in assets,
notwithstanding, that legal title is held by an entity, trust, or foundation. Documents responsive
to this request include Mr. Gaggero's ownership interests in any asset via his ownership or
control of any trust, foundation, or entity. As stated above, KPC is entitled to information since
1997 when Mr. Gaggero fraudulently transferred $30,000,000 worth ofassets.
Request No. 30: All stock certificates or other DOCUMENTS evidencing o.wnership of stocks
and bonds held by YOU in any capacity.
Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as to be
unduly burdensome and harassing.
This is an improper basis to. refuse to comply with disco.very requests. This request seeks
documents relating to Mr. Gaggero's o.wnership of stock celiificates and bonds held by Mr.
Gaggero in his personal capacity or through his ownership or control of an entity, foundatio.n, or
trust that holds legal title to the stock certificates and bends. We will agree to. limit this request to
documents since January 1, 2009.
Request No. 36: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to insurance policies that insure loss to any
propeiij,feal-o.r perso.nal,-wliicnYOU oWri,iriCludiiig eqmfa1Jleownership;individual1Y()f --
jointly with any other PERSON.
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 respo.nds that he has no. documents responsive
to this request in his possession or control because he has no legal or equitable ownership
interest in property
.~-- 'Fhis--request-seeks--deeuments-naming-Mr-;--Gaggere-as--an-msured--relating-te-any-real-preperty-.-------
As a result of the myriad of lawsuits filed by Mr. Gaggero we are aware that he is named
personally as an insured for real property located at 3501 Canada Larga Road, Ventura,
. California._This re.quests.eeksdocuments_J:.elating to..the Canada Larga.property and any other
- --property-iuwbiGh-:M±.--Gaggeroisidentifi€d-personaUy-as-an-insUf€d.--Wg..wil1-agr€€-tolirnitthis-
requestto documents sinceJanuary 1, 2009.

133. May 10,2012
Page 20
POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
Request No. 16: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any post judgment discovery in any matter
to which YOU responded.
Plaintiffobjects 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 documents by limiting the scope to the entry of
judgment. The request is directly relevant to KPC's enforcement efforts. Additionally the
request seeks documents that relate to any post-judgment discovery. We will agree to exclude
from this request any communications relating to Mr. Gaggero's responses with his attorneys,
however, KPC is entitled to the post-judgment 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 scope of time as it will be naturally limited to post-judgment
discovery involving Mr. Gaggero. Of course, we will exclude from this request post-judgment
discovery served in the present collection efforts.
BUSINESS ENTITIES
Request No. 18: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE to any ENTITY ofwhich YOU are an officer
or member.
Plaintiffobjects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to time and scope as to be
unduly burdensome and harassing.
This request seeks documents relating to any entity, which is broadly defined in the Request for
-. Production ofDocuments (Set-'Two), andincludescorporation,lirnited liability company,limited
liability partnership, general partnership, trusts, foundation, or other partnership or association,
ofwhich Mr. Gaggero is an officer or member. The request is clearly limited to the present, thus,
all documents responsive to this request as ofJanuary 31, 2012, when it was initially served must
be produced. We will agree to limit the request to Mr. Gaggero in liis 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 substantiating the assertion ofthe specific privilege.
Request No. 33: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Pacific Cost
Management Corporation is a general partner.
. PlaintiffoOjectst(ytills request on-the·grounds that itis overly broad as to time and scope ·as to -be
--~- unaUIY-biira:ensomeanal:i.arassiiig-.~. Gaggero~respona:s-thatlienocro~c1iTI1entsresponsrveiO­
this·request inills possession or control and is unaware of anyone who would be in possession of
such documents

134. May 10,2012
Page 21 ...
·Mr. Gaggero's assertion that he does not have documents responsive to this request is subject to
his objections pursuant to attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, and
Constitutional Right to Privacy, among others. If Mr. Gaggero is withholding any documents
responsive to this request he needs to provide a privilege log sufficient to support the claim of
privilege. Alternatively, ·if Mr. Gaggero is not withholding any documents responsive to this
request the assertion ofprivilege are improper.
Request No. 34: All DOCUMENTS RELATING to any ENTITY in which Avalon Corporation
is a general partner.
Plaintiffobjects 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 responsive to
this request in his possession or control and is unaware of anyone who would be in possession of
such documents C .
Mr. Gaggero's assertion that he does not have documents responsive to this request is subject to
his objections pursuant to attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, and
Constitutional Right to Privacy, among others. If Mr. Gaggero is withholding anY'documents
responsive to this request he needs to provide a privilege log sufficient to. support the claim of
privilege. Alternatively, if Mr. Gaggero is not withholding any documents responsive to this
.requestthe assertion ofprivilege 'areimproper.
During our meet and confer you stated that you would produce documents no later than April 30,
2012, remove boilerplate objections, produce at least some responsive documents, and provide a
privilege log. After a review ofthe responses it appears that your statements during the meet and
confer were not in good faith and that you had no inte)1tion of resolving any discovery disputes
without court intervention. Further, as you know, we are well aware of Mr. Gaggero's delay
.tactics and abuse ofthe litigation and discovery process. Nevertheless, we provide you with this
limited opportunity to comply with' KPC's request for production of documents, subject to the
above limitations, no later than May 15, 2012. Again, because you have reneged on your
-asslmmces that you -W:ouIdproduce atieast some documents aiidaprIvlIege log by-April' 30, ..
... ..________..._.2.012_we_are_not.willing_to .grant.furtheLextensiollS..:withollt.a..go.o.cLfaitlLsho:wmg.b:y..Mr._Gaggem....
to comply with the request. Recall, these request were served on January 31, 2012. Four months
later and we have received no docllinents. Mr. GaggeJQ has had ample time to comply with these
requests. Please feel free to call me ifyou have any question or concerns related to this letter.
Sincerely, .
f---~-'~~'W~
Austa Wakily
.MILLER I' LLP
r
I

135. --- - ._--._- .._- _.-.- - . __. . _--- - .._..
- ---Exhibif~K --- ---- --
!
·f·--·--··--·--··--·------··-···---·-·-----·-----··--·.--.------.--.----.--.-----.---...- - - - . - - . - - - - - - -..---.--.----.-.---.-.-.-.... ---.--...---.--
i

136. · Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Chatfield,
Austa Wakily
Monday, May 21, 2012 4:16 PM
davidblakec@hotmail.com
'dawn.m.masters@gmail.com'
Request for Production of Documents (Set Two)
Ijust spoke with Ms. Masters regarding the Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) and the protective order
requested in the debtor examination. First, Ms. Masters stated that you were seeking a 2 day extension to respond to
the Request for Production of Documents. She indicated that you would produce documents, however, that was not
clear. Nevertheless, I agreed to the 2 day extension conditioned on a similar extension for our motion to compel. The
deadline to respond to Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) as revised in my meet and confer dated May 10,
2012 will be extended from May 22, 2012 to May 24, 2012. Our new deadline to file a motion to compel is May 31,
2012. There has been substantia! de!ays in producing responsive documents so this wi!! be our !ast extension.
Ms. Masters also inquired whether we would be willing to reconsider our position to the protective order in the debtor
exam. While we remain willing to address Mr. Gaggero's right to privacy we cannot agree to the protective order as you
have filed. First, the debtor examination proceedings are public and there is no compelling interest to justify excluding
the public in this case. Second, the protective order seeks to preclude KPC from using the debtor examination in any
other proceeding, including in defending against the present malpractice case. We cannot agree to those unreasonable
restrictions. At this time we plan to oppose the motion, however, we are willing to discuss a protective order agreeable
to both parties:
Sincerely,
Austa Wakily
Austa Wakily
-MillerTLLP~ ..
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@millerllp.com
www.millerllp.com
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
1

137. Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Yes.
david chatfield
MondaYr May 14r 2012 1:56 PM
austa@millerllp.com
RE: Gaggero v. KnaPPr Petersen Clarker et al (BC286925)
image001jpg
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic
message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by
telephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
Q1 ~h1 nhnno' (QOt:) 2h7_122n fay' (snt:) 267-1211 omail. naliriRlalror@fahnOrOmwlJ...-!V.L t-'IIVII v J VI..L V I A. VJ I..I...L..L ...... ,1 II ....... Vl.. .....,'-'-' 1 .IV- .0 III
From: austa@millerllp.com
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:49:55 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al (BC286925)
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Dear Mr. Chatfield,
During our previous meet and confer you stated that you would produce some documents and a privilege log by April
3D, 2012. We have received neither of those. We are not interested in pushing the deadlines solely to delay the
discovery. As I state in my letter- we will provide you with a one week extension and upon the showing of some good
faith effort by your client to comply with post-judgment discovery we can discuss further extensions. Please confirm
whether you would like the one week extension at this time.
Sincerely,
Austa
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:45 PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al (BC286925)
Importance: High
---DeaLfll(s.~Walik¥,~--~-~~----~------~ .
As you are aware, we have an opposition due tomorrow so I will not be able to address your letter dated May 10, 2012,
which came in today in our mail. Due to other pending matters with deadlines, I would like to push back our respective
deadlines on this by two weeks. Please let me know if you agree. Thank you.
-David-Ehatfield - . .----- ---
This .e~rnan is Govered by theG;leGtroRiGCornmunfGatioRsRrfvaGy Act,;UllJ~-S.C;- 2510~2-52T and is TegallyprivilegecLThis
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
f-----IFeaaeF-ef..tR1s-fFlessa§j-AeMRe-iHteAaeEl-reEii3ieAt,eHAe-ernpleyee-ePa§jeAffeSpSAsi13le-feF-EieliVeRH§4i1is-eleet:t'6AiE----
message to the intended reCipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
1

138. 1
I
--..)
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by
telephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
91361 phone: (805) 267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
From: austa@millerllp.com
Date: Mon, 14 May 201213:18:08 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al (BC286925)
To: davidblakec@hotmail,com
Dear Mr. Chatfield,
I want to follow up on my letter to you dated May 10, 2012. Please let me know if you plan to provide responses by
tomorrow or if you would like to push back our respective deadlines out one week pursuant to my email below.
Alternatively, we are prepared to file a motion to compel production of documents by May 18, 2012.
Sincerely,
Austa Wakily
----------------------------'.,-------------------
From: Austa Wakily [mailto:austa@millerllp.com]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 10:35 AM
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Subject: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al (BC286925)
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Chatfield,
The attached letter addresses the continued deficiencies in Mr. Gaggero's responses to our request for production of
documents (set two). The letter states that we will provide you until May 15, 2012 to produce documents, however, we
are willing to allow you an additional week to May 22, 2012 if you will agree to extend our deadline to file a motion to
compel to May 29,2012. If however, you do not intend to provide any documents, please let us know so that we can
proceed with filing a motion to compel.
Sincerely,
Austa
Austa Wakily
Miller ILLP
D: 213.493.6432
F: 888.749.5812
austa@milierlip.com
www.millerIiD.com
515 South Flower Street
Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2
-f-.·--. ----.-- -------------._------.--------------..-------------.-------- -----------------.------------------.---- -------------------------------_.-------.-------._-

139. ----- - -- - - ---- - --- ---- -- - - - --- - - -- -- - -- ------ -- ~-- ---- - ----- - -- - ---- - --- - - --- -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -

140. Austa Wakily
From: david chatfield
Sent:
To:
Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:58 PM
austa@millerllp.com
Subject: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,
Below is the cover letter for the documents that were mailed to you today.
David Chatfield
Austa VIakily
MillerLLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
BC286925
Dear Ms. Wakily,
May 24,2012
.~
)
This letter is in short response to your letter ofMay 10,2012, that was not received by me until May 14,2012
and, because of that, I was unable to provide you with a substantive response by the May 15,2012 to the
deadline. A more lengthy response will follow under separate cover to address in more detail the assertions
made in your May 10, 2012 letter. Attached to this letter are some documents responsive to your Requests for
--Production,-we are-still gathering documents-thatwill-beprodueedin-thenearfuture;-In-addition, we intendto - - _. -..
produce additional documents after the court enters a protective order in this matter. We have filed a motion for
protective order because you have not agreed to stipulate to a protective order relating to the discovery in this
matter. Ifyou are willing to stipulate to the Court's entry of the proposed protective order we have filed with the
Court let me know.
At this time we are in the process of completing the second supplemental response to KPC's Second Set of
Production responses that have been modifiedandlor limited-by your May 10, 2012 letter including our -
~--,s=ta=tement of comQIiance and additional comQIiance conditioned u:gon§ntry ofthe :grotective order. I ex:gect to
have the second supplemental responses completed by tomorrow at which time I will be sending it to our client
for review, comments and/or verification. As soon as I receive back a returned verification to the responses I
will send them to you.
Very truly yours,
David Blake Chatfield
1

141. This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.c. 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. This information is confidential information and is intended only for the use ofthe individual or
entity named above. Ifthe reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying ofthis communication is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this
transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy
the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank
you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA 91361 phone: (805)
267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@vahoo.com
2

142. 1 David Bla1ce C4atiield, StateBar No. '88.991
, WESTLAKELAW 'GROUP
2 ,2625 TownsgateRoad, Suite330 ,
Westlake Village~ 'California 91361
3 ''teLephone: 805,267·1220
Facsirnile:805..267-1211
4'
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
, STEPBEN M~GAGGERO
()
7
8
SUPERIORCOURTOFTHE STATE OFCALlFORt'l1.4
FORTru;'COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9 ',STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
10
15
16
1:7
18
--t~~---
20
,2'1
,22
23 --
'yo
Plaintlff.'..
'CA:SENO.::BC2S6925
,Filed: Decemberi2? 2002
Ass~gnedTo Dept lA
:Pate;, luly2Q,20f2
Time: 1:30'pm.
Dept:; 1A
-~~~~-'~--~c-j+~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~--~'--~~- ----,~~~~~-~~-~--~--~~--~-~~~-~- -~-~--
'24
25
r- ~ --,16-- -:----- --- ~ - ----
I 27
28
[pROPOSED] ORDER OFP'B;01'ECTION

143. 1 ITIS HEREBY 'ORDEREDTHAT:
2 1. Any documents to beproduc.ed hyplaintiffStephen 'M. 'Gaggero that contain 0r
3.compris.eco:0::5dentiril fi.J1ancialinfotqIauoJ;i CGotrli4ential :M~terial) shall 1:Je ;gov:~edbyiliis
40rder~andshali he identinedhyaffixmga':Confidential Information Subject'toProtective Order
5 legendim'a conspicuolls manneron'eachdoofurieIit so~ciasslfied.
6 2. All Confidential Material wi1lbeentitled to protectionfi'om ,disclosure under
'7 • ':Califomialaw.
3.. Any :other:p~J?ets :filed with the cplUt ihatcontam or quotear).Y Confid~nfra1
:gMateriaLshali he:subjecttb iilirfg'undexthe following procedure: Tfthe document to be filed with
10 the coUrt pertams to ,a .dtsCf/l-my motIon ,or ,discovery proceedmg, it shall he filed In.asealed
elwelope:on which shall he affixeda'copy.oftheca,ptionpage.of'the:document, pIllS the;wotiis11 .
.'. . CONFmENTIltL: ~'FILED; UNDER SEAL, SUBJECT TO {J0NFIDENTlALITY 'ORDER;'?J2,
'1.3 . Aillitttedactedcqp¥;Qfthe:;(locuru:ent Ine.d'uQqer'sealshall~lso,·be· deliyer~d tpthe, CPllljlpqtl1·pf
thejud,ge assigriedto thisactlgn, trlaikeJi''JI,1D,GE~S,GOPY;~~d 'cP11tawingibes:tateme;ntbn'the14,
15 .' caption:page: 'FIDED fiNbER:8EAl.;,·S1JBJ:ECT TO·CONFIDENTIAI':I;n:'0RDER, Ac6pyo:f ,
16 .1hedocument filed· under:seal ,Shall he serVed :dnallpatties as.o.therW'isereqhired. tinder:thedode
17 .'Qf;GiyiIProced:ure'~a.'tlIeCalifo:rniaRUlesof'C.ourt.
4. AI1;C9i'tIip,en,tial :Mah~rial shalI be used solely for the 'Purposes '·ofthis proceeding
.and :foihootherptoceedfu.g orpUtpQse.No.confidentiaLMateria:l ml,Y be disclosecVtoanypersoll:t9~'~-··-···-· ....---- ~- ._~ ____~._. __..~_c__ ._. - - .-- - •.. ~ --..- .-----. . . . - ..-.- ... - . - - . - - ..•: .• -- -- -
bilietiliahthe fdllowiiIg.:.:
20
a. Tbe:Jiamedpart1es.
21
b~ ;CounseLo!recoid~ andtheiro.moe.staff.
22
c,Gourtreporters who:$hall a,gree 011- the record.ormwriting to,-abidebytheteITIi~
23
i~---~--~-I- __________o£this_:DrdeL..of.~__
24
5.. NQtljfug ill the fOregoing provisions shall preclude plaintiffor any affected third
25
.. .-~.. -patty-from seek:ing:-such;~addi.tleIiaJ:ptoteGtionwithr€gard.t€rth(;,GoJifidentialit¥-of~he{);mfUie13.1ia1
-..Qf}.-.,,-.- ~. --.-.-. -.- -- _..'~::' -----.--~~.--------- -...- - -- .. -- .--....-.- _ .. -. -. -- -- - ---.._.- .. - ... ---- - --- - -~ - -~--,-
27
.'Jv[menaLastliatJ?artymay,deem~apprQPiiate
r-----~-+t_--~.6.,.;..--_--.;lI~~.o.un.ael is .sewed With a 'Sllhpoetia fcit ·production of an:
28
1
[pROPOSED] ORDEROF PROTECTION

144. /
1 GonfidentiaIMaterial.thatplaintiffhas produc.ed, the subpoenaedpartyshallpromptly give written
2 notice to :plaintiffprior to compliance with the sul1poenasoas to allow the plaintiff and any
3 affected thirdparties timetoseekprotection bythe.court.
4 1. Finaltenninationofthisaction, inqludingexhaustion of appellate remedies an4
5 judgment. enfotceme:ritshall not terminate thelimitationsoll use and disclosure imposed1lIlder
6 this ·Order, UponfinaI tennination·ofthis actioll,all ConfidentialMaterial. and .all.copiesthe);eof
7 shall be delivered to'plaintiffs counseL This includes ·CO!rlidential Material .filed with tbecourt;
8 whetherornoifiled under seal; .ptovideq,however, thatcounselofTecordmay retain copies of
.9 do:cumentsfiled withthe CourtandattomeywdrkproducHhat cont?insor consfitutes Confidential
. :. Material so long.. as.such documen.tsaremaintainedinaccordance with the nrovision~.ofthis10 J;'
nOrder..
Thenamedparlies?a.ndrill third parties:sribjed to discoverylniliis proceeding
13 .'1l!l,d1or·wlJ,o ryceiv:e 'a,cop¥'ofthis 'Order herebY,c,onsent. tothe.j.urisdicti,ol1,ofotmscopri: Jbrthe.
p~1')se,ofenfofCemeJ,1t:ofthetermsand,pt:ovislons·ofthis;Order withre~pectto:thls.proceeding;
14
1:5 .. ; and the.cormherebyteta,fu~ju:risclictijnto.interpretandenforcethls Order under the laws ofthe
16
State,otCalifornia.
11
pATED: May~2()12
18:
-- .1~ -
20
2{ /
'22
'23-
24
25
--~n
28
2
[pROPOSED1 ORDER OFPROTECTION
r-------- --------------------------------------.--.-------------------- ---.----------.----------------- -.----.------------ ------ ----.------.----------

145. PROOF OFSERVICE
2 '. . t am.a residentofthe.State ofCalifomia~ .6vertheage~ofeighteel1:years,andnot:apartyto
thewithin .action..My business address IS is 2625 TownsgateRoaq, Suite 33Q;Westhike Vi11age~
3 California9136L .. .
4. 011 May :23, 2012, Isented the :f(,)tegoil1g doc1JlIlent(~) :desciibeda:$; '[PltOP.()SEIJ]
5
6
:7
8
9
10
11
12
1$
;
li4
ORDERQF PROTECI'ION
-L
,'-.-
BY MAIL I placed the above.document(s) in a .sealed envelope With postage,thereol1 Mi.y
prep.aid,in. the United States mail.at Westlake ¥i11age)Califomi~ addresseClas set forth
below; I arJJ. readily familiar'wi1h the firni's practice forcollectiol1 andprocessi~g o.f
doctllnentsJofmailing~ Undertliatpracticeitwould'bedepositedwitbU$Post;ll Service on
that same. day with.po·stage tliereonfully pt¢p.aidm t11eordfuary'conrse'Of-business. I,am
aware that on motion ofthe party seri'eq,.service:is:presumedinvalid ifpostaT cancellation
dateotpostage:meter date ismorethan()ne.dayafterdate~ofdeposit:formai1i:qgm:affidavit.
'BY FEDERALjj}xPT{E8Stpla;Gedthea.bqvedocunient{s)in,a.'sealed'c:mve,lopeaudpl(lced
it for ,deposit'With Federal Express, prepaid for next Mydeliyery; ;addressed,as set'fonh
below.
BYFAJ';S,IMILE JtraJ.1~nritted :tb,e :a;bove dpcument(~) ,byfaosimile transmissio:nip 'the fax
llumher(s) ~set. forth b.elowol.1 this date before :5:00 p.m'~f!nd ~eceived~()nfm:nea.
tra:i:lsmissi6nreports;indicatin,g'tlrat·:fhe.dOPument(~)'wetejsubc-essfully'fr~srhitted,
llY: :PE~QN~ DRLWERY I;placedthe,ab.0ve:document(s)·in ,a serueuenvelqpe and
Gaused.:fhemJQQepers():tla11y;deliyeredhyhandtQ me,p.erson(:s}setiforth;below,
15
•.RandallA.Miller·
16 ; A'U~ta'Wa:ki1y
.MillettLP .
17 ;'S7lS'SouthFlow#:r$tteet, $uite4J50
'TIosAngeles~ CA:~0011
18 •. Facsirnile: -888'-749.;5812
Id€GlatellIiderpenalty dfperjury under the laws ofthe StateofCalifomia.thatthe.;abO've IS
tiue;atidcoi:rect..
2:t .Executed~onMay 2@, 2012, atWestl.ake VillClge, California.
22
2-3
24
25
--20 - -
27
28
[pROPOSEP] ORDEROF PROTECTION

146. 1 David Blake.ChatfieJd,StateBarNo. 88991
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2 ~625 TovmsgateRoac1,Suite330
Westlake Village, California 9:1361
:3 Telephone:805··t267..:1220
-Facsimil~: 805-267-1211
4
5 'Attomeys forPlairitiff
STEPHENM; GAGGERO
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURTOFTHE STATEOF'CALIFORNIA
FORTBE:COUNTYOFLOSANGELES
9 STEPHENM~GAGGERO... ... . . .. '
11
12 ,JCNAPi;,PETERSENCLAR:KB;STEVEN
RAYBARC!A; SIEPBEWM. HA..RRIS;
L3 ,ANDRE JARDOO; :arrdD.GES1.tmrqgh'5Q;
jnd~;;iv:e)
14
15
16
1'7
18
-- 1'9-
20
21
22
23'
24
25
- ---26- -
27
28 '
Defendants.
CASENO.; BC286925
Filed: December12, 2;002
.AssignedTo Dept. lA
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICEOFMOTIONAND
MOTION,FORPOSTJUDQMENr '. .'
ENFORCEMENT PR()n:CTIVE-ORPE~
{QECLA.RATIONrOFDAVID BLAKECHATFIELD ,. , ,.,
Date:. ,July29,2Ql~
rID1e; J-:3D:tdri.
Dept lA
'.
MOTIONFORPDSTJODGMENT ENFORCEME1'lT PROTECTIVE ORDER

147. 1 TOALL PARTIES AND'THEIRAT':fORNEYSiOFBECDRD:
2 NOTICE IS.HEREBY GIVEEtTHAT;onJ1;ily.20; 2012, ,at 1:30 P.m. cor as:soon thereafter
3 ·.as:coWlseImay be heard,,:i1:l D~partn:ient lAofthe;aboveflrititledcq:ufj:. locatedjitJll 'North Hill
-4 Street, :L08 ..A1lge1es~California.. 90012, plaintiffSt~phen,M.Ga,ggerowill movethisCourtToran
5 order ofprotection, pursuant to Code,ofCiYil ~F.r:ocedur.e Section 2031.060, -to restriot-the u~ce·o:f '
6 ,plaintiff'sconfiderttialinfornlationsoughUo be.pr.oduced by defendants
7 The. Motion for ,Protecth'e Order will be based on the grounds 'that the
;8defendallts/juqgment creditors,have'propo:unded,postjudgment,c1iScQYe.ryin the form dfdocumelit
9 :proo.uctioudemandsthatseek documents relating to Gaggero's private Jinancllil :affa5.r~, and the
IQ '.privatefinancial affairs ana. 'trade secrets of n;umerous third ':parties;andihis :info:r;:tllation ;js
11 ',protected Illidef'$tate,and federril constitutional:rights ~bfprivac:y~GoQdcausethus :exists ror the
1'2 ,reqp.ested :Ie1ie~aJ1a ~t1iere i8no l.egitirriate reason f6r:·a.6malthereofas thepmtective' measru;es
'.13 .:sc)ltghtwjll;notpreju9j'ce::de'feJ.).dants{jp.q;gmeJlt'creditors iIlthe'irjuQWeni'coIleciion'effbrtS.
14, .' ;this MotidiJ..for:Protective :Orc1erwilltie nased:on fuisNoticeJiJia,:Mofi0!:f.;ionthe attached
15 ' Memorandum':ofPtimtsai.td.Aritnorifles, on.i:he:attachetLDec1aratloIlofDavid:Bhike Chatfi61aon. -'.. , ;
1'6. the c'oIl1pjetecDur1;tiles,a111',te'GOr(i8in tb.i$ ,action, '~nd 'pn :any,Sttch :otb:et .()r~:19.rdObl.lmentary
17' .ev.1deiice;atJ:(l.argumerita.s:m~ybepresenteaatfheJie,aifug.
'1'8 D;A'fED;1YIaY4$.,20t2-
.-. '19- ...
20
11
22
23'
WESTLAKELAWGROUP
1
~24C
25
I'
I
I 27
28
1
MOTIONFORPOSTJUDGMENT.ENFORCEMENTPROTECITVE ORDER
- - -..- .....- ....-- ...__..._------- _.. _... __... __..._--- ---, _._-_...

148. 1
2 I.
)
MEMORANDUM'OF POINTS AND·AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF RELEVANTFACTS
3 This was an:action fodegaLrnalp:ractice. In December2002:plalntiffStephenM. Gaggero
4 filed two suits against Knapp~ .P,etersen Clarke, Steven Ray Garci~ Stephen M. Hru:ris, 'and
5 Andre Iardini (collectively, KPC,,), the lawyers he had .retained to represent ,him, In the first
6 'action,a c.omt tria:Icommenced in July 2007. In .February 2008 the court entered judgment in .
7 favor of KPC~and in May 20Q8the judgment waS amended ioaward ;KPCSl;327,697;5 in
8 .attomey fees and costs. Tn .May2010,. the Court ofAppeal affinned the judgment. In December
.9 2010 the trial court awarded :KPC their fees and costsonappeal,andamep:dea the judgment to
10 refleot a to.tal fee;andcostawa.rdof$1,;520~94330; plus interest.. The :secondactiollbetween
11 GaggeroandKPCis pendinginLos Angeles:Supeno.r:Coult
12 KPChasprqpounded;a delTIand 'for productlqnofdoc;uments 'tq Gaggeto, which seeks
13 .,dbctimel1tsrelating1lotorilyto·thecpn:fictetltialfiti.anci~Iaffairso£Ciaggel;oindividual1yhttt:also
14 .·theconfideritialfIDancial;affaitso'i'numerous:sep;1tatethiidpartie.s,Bytfri$l11oiio1J;;Gf:tggerp'seeks
'15 ,a'protective order'to restrict.the'use of.theconfidential.fuformatibIlthatKPChas dentanded be
16 . produced. Thereqliested relief is 'warranted ~because Gaggeto and me third :PartlesaIl,have a
17collsfitutiollal'right ,ofprivaqy,in 'llieirrespective :financ'ialaffairs, .andaQsetit:aPJ'Qte9llve order
18 '. thatti.ghtofprivacywi11;beviotated,andtheconfidentiatinfonnationmaybelln,properlYl1sed.·
-1'9- -;H~- ---~GOOD~CA:USE-'EXIST:S'FOWT.HE-fSSU:A'NeE-(:JF-PRO'fEeTI¥E:(j-RDER
20 Jnanypost judgment discoveryprocee.dinga judgmentcreditOI m~y demand the
21ptodnction,andinspectiOIi ofdocuments. and the procedures of the Civil JDisco:vel'yCodetlJe
22,}pplicable to the ,enforcement of suchdemand,s; (G.C;P. §708,03D(c);j Code 'ofCiviLProcedure
23 .cgec:/;iunl,031;06G'providesthat-the,party to whom a,deman.dfor~prod:UGtionofdocutnents is ..
~'-~------C:-24--:---+ directed may move for :the is~liance of a protective order; Justice requires the issuance of the
- -
I
I
25 protective order requestedhere.
- - . ~6 ~. - - .... ··:It ls--UllQisput-eutllatGag.ger:oc:nasc.;~ollstitutioIlal--rigl.ltc:.Qf-PlivaG-y-'-in--hls-finan~ialcaffai1.:s. ~.
27 .(CaLConSt.;o Art. T,§' 1; Moscowiiz v. Sup;Ct; (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 315.) It is also
28 undisputed that business entities also have such priva~yrights. (lI M Associates v; City olEI
2
MOTION FORPOST JlJDGMENT E1FORCEJYIBNT PROTECTIVE DRDER
r -- ....--...-.--.-~ ~----.-.~.--..-----..--~-- .. ~-.---- ..- ---.~.~. ~---- ..- ..-.~-.-----~------~~--.--- ....-. -- ...~ .... --~

149. !
1 .Centro (1980) 109 CaLApp.3d399,4.09.) This.constitutional right ofprivacy,includes theri,ghtto
~2 , be free Hom unnecessary disclosure ·of financial information. (Richards v. Sup.Ct. (1978) 86
.3 ·Ca1.:App.3d 26S. 272-73.) The right to privac;y IS also guaranteed 'by the Unified States
4 Gonstitution. :(Grinvold v. Connecticut (1965) 3'81 U.S 479 484; Palay y. Sup.Ct; (1993) 18
5 '. Cal.AppAfu919,:931J
6 . In recognition of the well settled constitutionalrlght ofpriva;cy'inone'.sfinancral'affairs,
7 'theaiscovery.stawt~s :h:ave,nu.rnerou$ safeguards,to'in$metha,t litigants ahd third parties will ,get
8 advance notice of potentially intrusive discovery and v:jU have anopportumty to protect their
9 priyacyinterest, For ,example) Code of Ciyll Procedure section '1985.3 mandates that all
10 individuals be ,notified, wneneverfinancial; medicalernployment,or other confidential
11 .information.!s sOllght This noj:ice:a110ws 'the affectedpersontb obtain a'voluntaJ:Y a,greemeIitas to
12 the scope Qt-useoftb;eiI,lf.ormation, prseek:an apptopriatec()urt;remea:y~(tC'P'$;§ 1985.3(b)
13 : (C),{ej,al'idfgn It.isweltsettled'thattlie cbrtfideIitialftnanciaLaffiirs·of:thlrdpersonsare;entitled
14 to· priva;~y~, and, th~t this maylitniidiscovewpyonepari;y-'from,theofhet; {J7a'1~y B.,ank·olNe-valla
15 v.,Bup,Ct,(1})75}15 Cal;3d652,6S8t)·
16 C()deofCivllBrocedure.section.203L060thUs provid.esthaforders pfprotection relating
17' ito .a;. demand £,orprqducnon o;fdocu:n:t:@ts mayjncludethe fqlIowiIlgteml~:[t]l1a;t all or;SOille ,0:[
]58 . the, iterns.orcafegones ofItems inihe ;dem.and).1eed,tl,Cithe ,produced or'made 'av.ailaole.atal~~'
--19-- '''[t]naltIierilispectf()l:r~ 'cop}ling;lesnng,'or-samp1ing--5e-mad~f:(ii11y'onspecmed terms-:an:d
20 .condiuQllsta:J:lc1[!)h(ita trade secret ,or otherc0nfidenti~ rese'=lrch,develQpment, or'co11:l,IJ.1eri)ial
21 'infointationnotl~e;01so1osed,ofbecdisqlosed:pnlyt{rsp,ecin~ql?e~so:tI!roron~y;inaspecifieaw2,Y:'
22 {C;C~P,§. 2Q3-1.060 (b).) A protective orderisappropnate When sought to prevent or restrict
23- - 'uisCiosure- -ofsensitiye'infonnafroIT such -as privarefiI:ranciat docUl:l1ents. ·(1n 'fe' ProvitlittrtCtedi,
~--~-I--~
24 Card Cases(2002)96 CalAppAth.292, 29K....99~ :th. $,)
25 .Arightofpnvacyin one~s financial.affairse:rists even where the information isrelevant to
.,--:26 't1ie-1itigation~ feity-of£iliriie.l=Br-Pfi(f''''Si4-1t;YO#n~{±970):Z-C-a,l3d'Z59;~z6B~ Harrisv:~upfet;-~ --
27 (1992) 3 Cal.AppAth 661,664-,65; Fortunato v. Sup.Cr; (Ingrassia) (2003) 114 CaLAppAth 475,
1 - - - - - - 1
28 480-81.)10: such Cc:tSes, the collrt must carefullybalance the right ofprivacy against the need fot
MOTlONFOR.POSTJUDGMENTEl'i'FORCEl'vIEN'J,'PROTECTIVE ORDER

150. , ,,--
)
:::
:1 disClosure. (Britt v. Sup.Ct. (1978)20 Cal.3d 844, ,i85:5~5:6JEvenwhen ,an intrusion on therigl:lt
'2 of privacy.isdeeIIled n~cessary _tinder fhe.Circtunstancesdfa parlipulat cas~, any ;sllch intrusion
3 'should be the rriiniInuinmtiusion nec.essary to ,achieve its objecfive.H
{Rlanned Parenthood
4 Goliie:n 'Gate v; Sup/Ci. (100'0)-83 .Qal.ApP)fth347, 3~8-59 [citations oIIlitte4J.) Restricting ;the:
:5 . disclosUre of even relevant 'financlaLinformatibn to only cbUrisel'is proper to prevent a privacy
6violaiion 'ormisuse,ofthe inforrnation~particularly whereasheretherecord.:shows (:a.:gre~t-deaJ, ,of
7 ,.animus';'bemeen the p'arties~ (OT, Inc, v.sqp.Ct. (12:8.4) lS1 Cai.App.3tl748,75:5-56.)
8 E'ven:in :cases inv61vlngpnniti:v:e damage Ciaims, the p~y'whose nnancial.information is
9 .sqllghti$ en his Dlo'tion presUlTIptiyelyentitled'toa,;pr.otecti:ve:o:rderJ1i.a:tiliein.fortrlationne,ed.be
10 '..revealed:oruyto c01llisel forthe ,discovering party or'tocouhsel~s: repiesentatlv:e.:andthat once so
11 re'ealed.'the informatiqnmaybe-used:ontyforthe'purposes:tof the lawsuit'? (Ricnarii8'1';Sup~Ct'j
12:$ifPra., :86Cal.:ipp:3,dat272-;).
13.',
14
15
16,
17
'~Resp'oi1Se:to disoovery se_ekiig$riaUCiB:tiht()rirlatioi1pl~~es,asevetehurden:ort:the
l'es.ponder; ;':In:addition;thetejis,usual1ythepo:teIltiaLthafunfowai'a;disc1osure of:
the information o1tainedrnay ;insoIIlew~yor ;other'reacl :adv;ersely against 'the
dis.d.losingpar:tyclorteasons fota.l1Y,U1lrc:Ja:t~d'tothe.·lawsuit. '1'4ep0ssibilitiesrun:all
the way :fromgr,ea,t¢:t',t~J(pOslire :io't:he~p.ot$o ;geljtle:sdliqitatjoIJS;ofs{j!I1ech@1taple
organiZatiohS.to the PQssi1:}ilit;Y of rdi:$age ,to: th:edisGipset m:fhecomj;)eutive
bus'inessar.eila.,(la.,at271.) . ,
'rhc:nght 'Qf,pri:v:a~Y'bQ:P:tii1llesafter'en:try ,ofjuq:grnent.Despitefll,1:: brgadsyqpe'ofillquitY
18 'peri:hitted a1 :ajudgriient debtor exartlinatioIi; the judgrnent,ct,ebtotis jertt1tled to assert :the same
_.. --- .-r9~ 'pnYl1~ge-s'tliaffl.~tii31:wifu:essmayassertas:abastsforrefuslng-to IIDswer~questionKoTre~pondto­
.20 '.requests for :inforb;laiionpt+t.ie him.I{Jiqoserv. Sup.Ct. {200Q) 84 Oal.:i~.ppAth 997;,~004~.) ThlJs;
21 .~basedon:art -appropriate; cshowmg,a judgment debtol' lllay 1:efuse.to respond eto: iequestsfor
:Z2 'Privileged.'it;ifonnation: (ld;:atl003,[citations 0niitbid].~'
.. 23'
--~---
24 .infoinIa:tion 'of Gagger6~ plus' detailedfma,iiclC:iiart9. ttades,e.Cret imorti1ationdf.numerous :thiid
25 J)rties jnc1lldmg trusts,partnerships, andcorporationsm which :Gagg.ero has no interest or
-- .2'6'- ,control {iaggeto-~asCasserted-'1'rlvacy:~p.je:cti6ns -eJ;J;h-~llal:f-e:n1iwself+and: the~e-iliirEi-:,paEties~ -- ~ - -L .~...
27 'G~ggero has offered 10 produce documents ,pursuaht to 'a l1r~tective order thatwill protect his
28 privac¥ ,rigJits~ and limitthe ,use of th~c(mfidential ihformation. KPChas refused to stipulate to
MQTIONfOR.p.oST,TPDGMENT ENFORCEMENT.PROTECTIVE ORDER

151. I
I
1 any:order ofprotection.
2 'In this case, Gaggero h~sl1ever w'.liVt::d his right to privaqY'in his'private flnanciaLaffairs.
3 This'nghtwiIscnotwaived'by the filing ofthe coinplaint, byfue entryofjudginent,o:r'byserViceoi'
4.the,deman,d for production 'ofdocuments. There, is :a long history ofpersonaJanimO$itybetween
.5 tliepartiesln:t1iis,action, thes'econdmalpractic,eactiOri iscurren:tlypendillg hetWeentheparfies,
,6 ,and thepoteritialofmisllse,ofGaggero'1s cconfidential information is great 'On the other:hand,a
7 protective b:rdero:p,th~ term.$, ~pU;ghtwilll+ot iI:t1,p~de I(PC's l~gifimat¢effQI:ts eto 'co'l1ect 'oli'the
8 'judgrilent, .orprejudice::r(FC 1ft 'ahy ,way:: Abserita protective order,however~ Gaggero's
:;J Jon,stitutional nght,toprivacy 'will beviohlted,. Under these :circumstances, the ,fssua:nceofan
10, ordet,'ofprotecfiolllsclear1y;manda,ted.
11 ill. :CONCLUSION
12 Bas~,d QIXfb:e foregoing, 'pJainfiffs~14o:ti()11for ;Protective Qrder 'Sl1oulQ.p'e gr3!].~e,d., 'Tms;
1:3 court should 'erltefan,bfderof,'F'ifStectibil Q pre:serve Jhepriya¢YJ:i:~tsof praintlff'fuida.ffectdl
14 1:liP:d,Parlies..·~dl@itirrg di$serrill1a:tJ,ondfthe,conndential Infofmatlon,providedmresponseto:tl,1e
15 doc1Iii1e:ritpt:bdltctl0lidem~d )tp0nly:cQtillsel:foI l(fi.o~d '$ut;h :otherp¢:t:s9ns Who ar:e directly. . ,,' . ,. ~ ,
l~ .: ~nv:oLvediiIlthe,:co1iectioIiotthejllagriient.
Xi? .:Q,A'rEP:: 1v1a,y2~,ZPl2
t8
······19-·
20
21
22
'23
24
25
::2:6-
27
WESTLAKELAWGRODF
MOTIONF0RPOSTJUDGMENTENFORCE:MENTPROTECTIVE ORDER

152. 1
'
)
DECLARATION OF DAVID BLAKE CHATFIELD
2 I, David'BlakeChatfleld declare. as follows:
1. I ani IDlattotneydUly licensed topracfice before the .Courts ,of Callfomia,and
·4· before this Court. I 'anH)lle~ofthe attorneys ofrecord for'Stephen,'M, :Gaggero, the;plaintiffinthe
'5 . .above-'entitled a¢tion. I have personal 'knowledge .of'the Jacts.set forih in this Declarationan~ if
'6 called as;awitness~could and woUld testify competentlytherelo.
7
'8
Thi~ Declaratio:p, i~ $1;ihl,11itted ins1:l,ppotj::qf-plaintiffs':NIption:fprProtective Order:.
'During; the 'post juqgrherttdiscQveryin thismattet) KPCs,erVed'plaintiffWith
9 'docllment ,Prodt!,ciion ,demands that sought confidential '.financialinforrnationof plaintiff and
1.0 ':nUi:i1etdus.t1rird parties.Attached;heteto ,asJ3xhibitA isatru¢,and ~Co:rrect ',copy' ofKPCs demand
1:1 •• forprQduction:.ofdocuments.
12
13 ;' well as theaffededthlrd 'patttes; Attached neretoasExhibit B :ar:e tiUe and correct :copies ·'of
14 'plain'tiffs:sllPplemenlaLresponsest(}KPC~sptoa:lictiondem.linds;
fs '.5.
a~6 meet ;andcbmer'andcometoan ~gjeemeIit ,on :a :sti.pu:lated l{lrotectiveQrdet .for po:st jud.grnent
t7 disc,ov~J:Y.
--~:l9 profecnve-ordef:llia:rw6ul1lmali1taiinn:ecconfldentlaiiy'OI't1re-uQcumeftts'prodncetl.lspecrfically- .
2:0 'tequ:estedthatWeld1y $tipulate to the entry 'Of a protective:oider;to.preservecthe:'privac:,Y rig4ts:of
21 •:plaintiffand. the: affected'thirdpart'ies and to liniit :di~selJlmatiQn ofihec¢nndential .inIbrttla:tlon
22 'provided inre$ponse i:o,KPe~s dociifuelit production demands to 'ontyco:tirisel for 'KPCandsuch
23 'otJiet];5ers:6ns'who:ate-:direct1yinvolv~d intlrecoUectioRofthejudgment.
24 .Ms. WakityrefUseatoagree; tp aIlY oJ:i:b:~above proposecIterfns, or to the entry,of
25 an orc1erofpr:otec.tion on.anyierms whatsoever,thusnecessitatihgthls motion;,
27 ' f{);regoing is true and correct.
28
6
:MOTIONFOR'POST;rtJDGMBNT ENFORCEMENT PROTECTIVE ORDER

153. 1
:2
3'
4
S
,6
7
8
'9,
to
11
12'
:13 .
14
ItS
1.6
rt'
,18
, , '-19- ,c
20
21 '
22
23
'Executed on,May 23i 2'012 in,WestlakeViIl~ge,; California,
--,----H-~---,-,
24 :,
25
'26- .
27
28
7
'MOTION FORPOST JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT PR01'ECTIV:E ORDER

154. 1 DECLARATION OF'DAWN MASTERS
2 I, DawnMasters;,deClare.as.follows:
3 1. Iamthe'asslstant.·to .·J.fr.Chatfield,an.,attotney duly licensed to practice before the
4 conrtsofCalifomia, and :before this Court and one ofthe attorneys.of'record for StephenM.
5 Gaggero,.theplaintiffin the·above..entitled action. I have personal knowledge ofthefactssetforth
6 inthis.Declaration anti, ifcal1edas.aWitness, could and wouldtestifycompetent1.Ythereto.
7 2 This Decllrrationis.su.bmittedinSlWPottofplaintiffsMotionforProtectiveOrder.
8 3. On May 22, 2012, 1 ~poke'WithA1ista Wakily.counsel forKPC~in anatfemptto.meet
9andconfet:andcometo an agreement ona:stipulatedprotecfiveordet forpostjudgmentdiscovery.
104. Tasked Ms.Wakilyif she was willing to reconsider her .ear1ierposition that KPC
11 . wouidnoLstiptilate:to.a':protectiveorder.
12 5.MB.. 'Wakilystaj(;;d'lhaishewasnotinclin,edtochangeher;p0slllonaildthafKPC'would
13 .Tecbnsiderits,pr~YiotiSrefu~~tostip1.ilateto·plafutiff's'pr()poseaprotectiveordet.
14 . l:deelare 11!lder'pemUtyofpeljury tinder the laws of the State ·cifGalifotniathat the
15, foregQ~g;istrueanacorrec~~
16 ExecntetLonMat23,20tl~in Westla1ceViUage,Ca:lifo'illia.
11
18
--1~9--- --- --- -- ----
2,0
~21
22
23
·--~--I~---
24
25
·-26
27
28
r·_·-----._-_.---------..----.-.- .
Dawn.Masters
MOTIONFORPOSTJ1JDGMENTENFORCEME1'T PROTECTIVE ORDER
.,

155. i
I - .
I
I
I
~ -
I

156. 1 WESTLAKEL:A:W GROUP
. DavidBlake Chatfield«~tate BarNo. 88991)
2' 2625 Townsgate,Roaa,Suite330
Westlake Village,'CA '.9'1361
3 Teiephone:(8Q5;):267:1220
4 Facsimile: (805) 267-1211
5
AttorneysforP4intiff
. StephenM.Gaggero
6
7
8'
9
SupERIORCOIJRT OF1?HESTA-TEQF QALIFORNIA
FOR 'J;?HE~OUNTY'UF,LOSANG:ELES
1:0'· ST;EPBENMGAGGERQ,anindividual. ')''
11
:12
.J
)
:)
)
)
13INAPP•.PETERsENAND CLARKE,,a )
·Califorhiacorporano:q; $TEVEN:RA.Y ;
l4 .·G'~G~;anJn~i~~ual;STEJ.JIENM... )
:HARRIS:animdiV1dual~'ANDR:EJARDINI )
1,5 ctrihldivid:uii1;DOEStfhtough 50,inc1u$ive~ :,~
:Hi IJefendartts,.
CABENO.:,BP286925
'pLAIN'I1F:FS'I'EPHENM.GAGGERO'S
.SUPPLETh1ENTALRESFONSE8:rO· ,
.DEFENDANl''KNAl'P,BETERsEN.8t
,CLARl{':g~QlJEst :)¥ORPaODUCLION
OF DOCUMEN'IS .
LPURSUANTTGCODEOFCJ:YIL
PR:OCEDl)RE§ VOKQ3QJ '.
17
IsPROPOtJ;NplNGPARTY: ,DEFEJ5U1ANTKNAPP~PETERSffir:{}LA$KE
1
19 RESlONDIN(lPAl{TY: PLAJ]fI'lFFSTEPHENM.GAGGERO
- 20 .. -SETNUMBER::--
21
22
23
24---
2;5,
26.
- ---Q{f-·-
28
.. --- ---UNE-------------· ---
I
I

157. r-
1
IPlainfiffStephenMGaggero(Plaintiff')herebYl'esponasandobjectsto Defendant
~ I,Knapp, Petersen ,Clarke?s (Defendant) Requestfor,}roduction ofDocuments.
,i I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
41 Nothingin this supplementalresponse shallbe constmed as waiving.any rights or
5 objectionsthatmight otherwise be-availableto:Plaintiff, Plaintiffmakes this.response subjecuo
6 andwithoutwaiver of:
7 (u;theTjghtto:m,ake'additional obj~ctionsot seekprotective orders-iniheeVentaddinOIlal
8 !review offiles.resultsin furtherinfonnatio!l,~
9 (2) the rightto'objecttoother.discoverydirectedto the·stibjectmatieroftheR.equests; and
TO (3}therighttorevise, correct,sllPplemen~or clarify·the.·response.
11 '.
:12 S11PPLEMENTALRESPONSESTO DOeIJ:MENTREQUES'I'S
13;nOCl:IMENT'REQUESl'.NO.l:
14 . AllDOCUMENTSthatiffiLAlEtofueArenzano Trust.
1:S .RESPONSE·TO:DOCUMEN'fREQIJESTNO.t:
16 l~lciinfiffol:!jects totbisrequest:onthegroundsth:atitisoverlybroad,iundtllyburdei.isome
17 'andhatassln.g.andllhlimited'as·to·.SGOpe andtifue..Bec@se.p4Untiffd6es:n:ot·conftolthetn:tst~·and·
i.8 'jisnotentidedto any distribufionfrom thetrust,..plaintiff'further;Objectsto thisTequest on the
19:9rollIi~th(ltit.seeksdocumentsthatare.neitherrelevarttnorreasona.blY'~a1cu1atedtoleatito:the
-----2ir -djioov~ry:pfadnnsslbie .eVidenC;IhtffisadfiQn,-PlamtifffurtherobjeCts:t{)~thi~Teques£ontlle
!
t
'21 ; grot$dsthafit callsrot'iliepmdu,cti()Il'9firrelevantdocumentsthatareprotected.fromdis~losure
.22 ~byplmilfifP;s.andfllirdpafties' Constitufiona1ly'il?toteoted:righi:orp:ri'V~c)tP~amtifffurther obj'ects· .
23 to this request.onthegrQUJidsthatltseeks doc~eIlts'tnatareptotectedfrolllrlisclosurepythe
--Z4attomey.:;clientcprlvilegeanOJor-tl;re~ttorney~work-produci~doctrine,TlTcrse document~rmc1ude' --
25 .communications between p1aintiffa;o.dbisuoUIise1,.fhe trnstan4theirc6unseI~and thebenefidaries
2qand.their.cotmseL
--27- '-.- -- ---:subjeGt..,tQ:andwi-thoutwa1v.ing::th~f{)tegQing.:;obj.ections;mid.lirrritaiion~'P-laintnfcresponas_.c_
28 ',asfollows:j;'laintlffhas no trUstdocumentsresponsIvetotisrequest.inhis possession or control.

158. 1 Thetrust:is irrevocahleandPlaintiffhasno control :orfmancial interestinit. Tbe'trust'Was,:Setup
2 over 14years,ago, well priortodefendant'.sjudgment. Trustdocumentsarebe1ieved. by :plaintiifto
,3b,einthepDssessionandcontroloffueattomey,andTrustee,Joseph J. Ptaske,howeve('the
4 requested documents areirrelevantto thepropounding:parties judgment collection:effdrts and are
5 'otherwisestibjectto,theprivilegesandpri:vacy'ri,ghts setforthabovec
6J)OCUMENTREQIlEST NO.2:
7 All DQCtJ:lMENTS thatlffiLATEto'theGigarun Trust.
·8 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUESTNO.'2:::
9 Plaintiff;objects to this request onthegroimds,thafit is overlybxoad, unduly-burdensome
]'0 Iand harassing and unlimited asio scope.:and:time. Becauseplaintiffdoes ,noLcontrol theirustandl
11 isnot.entitledtoanydistributionfromthei.:rust,.plaintifffi.JIth~rol:jectstothis,request onille
J'2gtoundsthatitBe¢ks,documents thatare.neitherre1eva.ntnor'reason'cl:bly calqu:lated tol~d tothe
1;3 disco:very ofadmissible evidenceinfhisactioIi. Plaintifffurtherobjects,tothis,requestonthe
14.·grolinclstl1afit,calls'for;the.pr:oductioflofitre1evant,documentsthatare.protecied,ftom disclosure.
'IS ; 'byplruniiff'sElndthlrdparties' :Colls1itutionaIlyprotectedrigb:tofpriyacy.Pchrintiftfu.rther Qbj~cts
16 ' tothis,reque$!on;tilegrouIJ,dsfhat.itseeks doqrimentsthatare~pJ:9tectedfrorn disclosureby~flle
'17attome.y~{;lienl.prl:vilege.andJo:r·th;e,a:ttorne.M·w:()r1c-:.PToduct'doctrine,Those,dQcurn:eIlts~1,lclude
l:8'communicanonshetweenplaintiffaIiCl.:hiscounsel, t1J:etrust;,.and.'theircottriSel,,andtlIe'i:eneficiaries.
19 andtheircourrseL
20 SubJectto,andwithoutwaiving theforegoing objections andliniitatioll.s,Plaintiffresponds
21 asfqUpws: Phrintiffhasnotrustdocurnentscresponsivetotbisreql,lestinhls possession.or control.
22 The trustisirrevocabteand'Plaintiffhris noconfro!orirfteresfinit TlJ.Ertru:sfwassett:l:p. overT3
23 years ago, weU priorto,defendantsjud.gthent.-trusfoocumentsarebeli.evedby plainti:EPtobein
24 ~tlieJj.ossesSlonanlcofirr61 of'tlre.attarney--and-Trustee, JosephJ. Praske,;ho:weyer)1:h~requested
------~~I-~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~-
25 dgcum:enJSare irrelevanttqthep!-{}po!1IlciiIlgparties' judgm(:!:!l,tp{Jl1ectiot! effort? ll!ldare otherwise .
26 subjectto the privileges andpri'Vacy rights set forth above.
28 . All DOCUMENTS thatRELATEto theAquasante Foundation.
I~
II
I

159. II ,- -')
r !
1 JnSPONSEl'O DOCUlVIENTREQUESTNO.3:
,
2Plaintiffobj.ectsto this'request on the;groundsthatit is.overly'broad,.unduly burdensome
3andharassing:andunlimited asto scope andtime. B¢causeplaintiffdoes notcontroLthetrust, and
4 is.not entitled'to,any distributionfrom thetrust, plaintifffurlher objects totbisTeqnestonthe
'5 grounds !hatRseeks documentstllatareneitherlelevant;nor-reasonably calcu1ated:to leadtothe
6discoveryof.admissible.evidenceintbisacnotLPlaintifffurther{jbJecrs totbisrequest'On the
1 grounds.thatitcallSforthe production ofitrelevantdocumentsthat are protected fromdisc1osure
8by pbuntiff'sandth.ird:parties'Constitutionally protectedrlghfofprivacy.Plaintifffurfuer objects
9 I to this tequestonthe;grounds tba.tit seeks 40cumentsthat'are;protectedfromdisdlosureby the
I .
10 attotney-clientpriVilegeand!orthe attorney workproduct:'doclrine; Those:documentsinclude
1
!
tlcommunications~betWeenplaintiffandhis;counse1. the trust andtheiicounsehandthe benefictaries .
r;g 'andtheir counseL
;13 ;Stipjecftoandwitholftw,aiving.tneforegoing:objections.'and)iniitanons;,Pl~ntiff.,responds
14asfollows:Plaintiffhas'llotruStdoCU!I1ents.::responsi:veto:fl:iis:1.'equestInlns;possessiQnorcontroi.
.15 The'trusHsllIevocable:and,Plaintiffhas flQ confr6Lorin,terest:init The'1::riJ.st'was set,:up'overJ4
16 ..years'ago, wellpnortgdefendartt':sjuqgmenLTnfst'dQcUmen'tsiate helieved by,plaintiffto be in
17 't1ie~pbssession:and.contrCll offl1e~att{}rney,and Tiustee,):oseph l Praske, 1iowever~ the requested
1:8 :d{)cumentsareiFrelevant:to.the'prQPoundi~gparfies'judgfuent:conectionefforls:andare otherwise
19 ,sllbjecttothe:piivilegesand'pliv.acyiighfsset'Iorlh:ab.ove.
-zo- D~mllEQUESTNQ4:- ____u n _ _ _ _ m - - _ _ _m _
21 AllDOCtJ:tv.tEN'[Sfuat;:RELATBto:anytrust,orfoundati6nthatispart ofYOURBSTAmE .,
1Z:2.PLAN'.
23 'RESPONSETODOCUl4ENTREQuEST-N0~4!'
24 .-Plaintlf:fobjectsto'fhed.enmtion-cofE-S'I'A1'E.pL~set forth inDefendanf's Definitionsin '
-~------I~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~--~~'~'~~-~~~~~-~~~~~~-
25 thatitincIudesblltls'notlimitedtothepreparation.of:anyplan ofadniinistrauQnand disposition of
26Plaintiff'·s property,:ownedby Plaintiffat any timein arty capacity, before or afierdeathincluding
_21~- -:~Ii,hnsr;@fts,--OLpow~-ofcattOl;.~~,m::atL3Lothermet1ili.dnf.estate~~~er1:efers.t~-:- .
28 . the transrerorany assets.QWlledby·Platliiiffat-anYfiIne:io.anyP:ERSONor·EN'TI'J:'Y·c6I1eciivelY
r---~--- ---..-.----..---------..~---~--- -----~.--~-----~-. --------------- -----..-----~-- -------..----------.-----..--.------~--- ---..-----------.-------

160. f
1 onthe groundthat such an expansivegroup ofdefinitionsimposesabllrdengreaterthan what is
2 required by theCalifomia: RuJesofCitdlProcedureandmakes the requests overly broad,.unduly
3 ·burdensoID.eQPpressive,harassi~gand1orJl;ototherWise:reasonabl;y calcUlated'to1eadto the
4 discovery ofevidencerelevant totheinqUirylntoPlaint:iffs current assets,wmchisthe sole
5 subject.ofthls discovery~
6 Plaintifffurther objectsto tbi:s requestonthe grounds thatitis notlimitedto,a:nyrelevant
7 scopeandtimeperiod_Plaintifffurth:er,objects to'fhisrequest on the grounds thatit seeks .
I
8 documents thatateneither.reley~ norteasonablycal.culatedtolead toiliediscoveryofadmissible
9 evidence.in this action. Plairttiff'fur!:herobj'ects-tcythistequestonthe grounds that it calls fortne
LOproduction ofirrelevant documentsthat:areprotectedfromdisclosme:byplaintiff's ancHhirdI
11 'Ipames' Constitutionallyprotectedri,ght,ofprivacy.Plairlfiff.further.objects tothis requestqn the
12 !·grounds.thatit.seeks.documenfsthatare:protected,.from.di~closurepytheattorney..;c1ie11t.priv'il~ge
13 Iand/orthe.•attorney·work~productdQctcine~
:14 . Stibjectto'a,ndvJithQutwaivingtneforegoing,objecti.ons and Iimitatibns, Plaintiff,resj:)onds
1'5 lasfoI1~WS:Plaintiffhas~o'trust d~ents.~sPo~ive t~.this.requestin:hiSd,ossessiml;of'control
16 Trust:d0cuments;are'be11evedtobelnthepossesslOnanilcontrolofthe att0.Qleyand T~te~,
17. JosephJ.,Pmske,howevet:, the:reque$fedd()cum:ents~irrel~vanttothe·propOl.mdingpa:rties
18 judgmentcollectioneff'orts'and.areo:tb.erWisesribJectto theprivl1egesandprivacyrlJ$lrtssetforth
1:9.·abov.e.
----------~- ~------- - - - - -- ----- ------~------ ------------------
201)OCUMENTREQUES'fNO.5:
21 All DOCUNIENTS·thatl{ELATEtoYOURESTATEPLAN;
22 . 'RESPONSE TODOCUMENT-.REQUESTNO~.5;
23 :J?Iaintiffcibjectstothedefiriition!}fESTATEPLANset forlhfuDefendanfs Definifionsin .
24tna:ritincllIdes:but!s'notlimitecllo~t1:reprep}1tation'ofIDlY-plan: oradministratlonandmspositioll of .
-~~-------1-------
25 J?laintiff's:property owned by Pl~~ntiff atanY ntne'in any ,cw.aci:ty,pefQreor ~eI d~a,tJ;tillchfwng
,26 'will, trust, gifts, otpower ofattomey, orany othermethod ofestateplanning and ~er:retersto
~-~!);C7 -- ::1he=tFansreFofcany-assets'-oW1ledbyJ?laintiffat,any-timetoatly.;PIffi.£ON-Qr~TY~Gollecli¥ely~ ~ - -- -_ ..
28 ' on the groundthat.such:anexpansivegroupofdefinitionsimposes abUrden greater thanwhatls

161. I'
I
1
11requiredbyfue Calif~aRul~ofCivilJrocedm:e~malres tberequeslS JNerly1nuarl,unduly
:2 Iburdensome,.oppreSSIve harassmg and/ornQtotherMse:reasonahly calculated to lead to the
3!disCOVeryOfevidenceTelevanttOtheinquiryjn:J:oPlaintiff'g,cu,rrent'assets1 whichis the sole
4 1subject ofthis discovery.
5 Plaintifffurther objectsto tms.requestonthe grounds that it:isnotlimitedt0aIly.relevant
6 scope and tim:e'period. Plaintifffurther objects-tothis:requestonthe:groundsthatit seeks
7 !do.cuments that areneitherreleva:ntnorreasomiblycalcrilatedtoJead tothe discovery ofa.dmissible
I . .... . . '..
8 'evidence inthis.action..Plaintiff.furiherobjectsto this request onthegroundsthatit callsforthe
9 ,production ofirrelevantdocuments:iliat,areprotectedfromdisclosur:e.byplainiiff'sandthlrd
10parties'ConsiitulionalIypr:otecteq right ofprlvacy. PlaiIl'tiff:fiufher objectsto tl::iis request:Onthe
11 grounds thatit seeks documentstbatare protectedfrom disclosureby'thea.ttomeY'9I1etltprivilege
12 .andJot'theattorneywoik..:ptodp,ct:doytrl.ne.
13 ·Subj.ectto·.andwithQut'waivin~~th:~:for~gbillg.obJections..andJimitation~~.l?laintiffresponas· .'
14 'a.s:follows:Plainiiffsestateplmwassetupovet'l4years,'ago,;Plaintiffhasno,docnm.ents.
15 !(;8.ponsive to this requestinliispossession.orcontrol:fhat,'arewithinanYteasonabletimeperlodif' ,
16 thejtlbamentPlainti:ffsestateplanlsirr~'Vocable:ano,wa,s·established.over14 y'earsago. Estat¢:
17 .'Plati.docurnents..;a.splaintIffInteIJtets'fuedefi1lit;ioJ:l~.:arebeHeyed10 hem:th~:PQsses'sidn'and
l:g : .con;troiofattorney Josepb.:J. RraSke,howev,er?theTequeSted.iioeumentS ardrrelevantto the
19' propoundingparn.es~ judgruentbollection·effortsandare'otherwise subjecttoattorneydient
----- _..-- 20 , prlvilegesruiatne-ofueii)nvileges-an(rpnvacynghts.$et:Ioit1i~abve-,-- -
21 DOCUMENT REQUESTNO.6:
22: AlIDOCTIMEN'I'S RELAT1NGtoanyCQ~CATIO~RBFERENl;~a-YQTIR
23 ESTATE:PL:AN~
~4- '.RESPONSE:!fO-DOCIJMEN'F.REQlJES:rNO~6!'·
Plainiiff6bjects tothe definition;ofESTATE:PLANsetforth inDefendfWY'sD.efuiitions'in
26 Ithat itincludesbutis ntitJimitedto thepr~paration ofany plan ofadrrrlnistratioIi:and dispositionof
_.2.7_.I1ru.ntifes-p~~pertY~.o.Wlled:b¥.::pJai~tiffll.LaD#1ime~pa~..:bef{}~~,or.afte);rleath.incl~di~g~-':: -
28 '¥in, trust glfts~orpowerdfattomey,oranyotbermethod o:restate:planning and further refers to

162. 'I ')
'
)
1 the i:ransferofanyassets owned byPlaintiffatanytimeto any PERSON.orENTITYcollectively
-2 on the ground that:such:anexpansivegroupcofdefiniiious imposes a hurdengreaterth~ whatis
3 required1:ythe,CalifomiaRules ofCivilProcedure and;makes'the requests'ovedy'broad,undUly
4 ',burdensome,oppressive harassing,andiornototherwisereasonablycruculated'tolead to the
5 discovery of evidence relevantto thejnquiiyjnto,Plaintiff'scurrent~ssets:~ which isthe sole
6 subject ofthis discovery.
7 Plaintifffurtber,objectsto this1.eqlJestonth,egroundsthatitis potlirnitedto any relevant
:8 'scope andtime,period. Plaintifffurther dbjectstotbisrequestortthegf{}tindsthafitsee1ci
9 ,documents that.are;neitherrelevantnorteasomibly calculatedtoleadtothe iliscovery.ofadn:tissible
10 .'eVidenceinthis action.P1aintiff,furtherobjecl~to,this,request,onthe;grounds thaHt,calls fotthe
:11. production ofirrelev.anfdocumentsthatarel)rotectedfrom disclosurebyplaintifrsand.'.third
'12parfie$'Con?fi1u1iomillYJ?rotectedrightofpriv:;r;cy.Plalntifffurther.objeCtstot1ii~ requestonihe
13 ~ groundsthatitseeks documeIitsthaf:ate~protected.ftoJ.i1.:disC1(j$UF~:by:fheattomeJ.;client.priYilege
14 ··,andlorthe;attorn~work:~productdoctrine.'I'he'doeurnents'fequeSted,r¢l~tedoandinclude
15communicationshetweetlplairitiff.andms,c()J.U;lselcover14year;r~o.
16 :DoCUMENT.REQlJEST NO. '7:
17 ; AHDQCtJ]Y.{ENTS thatIffiLA:T.Eto'imyuuSi:in.wllic);'YOU:atefhe't:r1l~tottegatdless:of
18 .Y01.1Rpresentincomeor,flnanc1aJ:lriterest
19 .' .RESFONSETO;])OCUMENTREQUESTNO. 7::
2DPlrunfiffobjectsto this requestoD;the'grounds thatit is.pverlr broad, undulyhurden$ome
21 . ,ruidharassin.g and Urili1;nited to scope,and time~Beca1:J:Seplainfiftdoesnotcontrofahy'i;nlstand is
22 :nofenti:ileiito.;lllly distrlbution.f'1;omanY'tffist, ;plalntiff:f'uB;h~ro1;:ijects tcrthlstequestol1the .
23 . 'r0Uridsfhatifseeks documentsfuatarenei1;hert~levaiir norreasonably:ci;ilculatedtolead:tothe
'24 I,cliscoveryor'admi$sible'evldencejn'thls~cfiofi.P11lln1ifffitrth~bbJ.ectsto thls.requestontlle'
25 ,.lgrounds thatit calls'forthe pmdlJ.9fi@ofirrelevantdQC1.11;A~!l,tstha,ta:reprotecteafrom disclosure~-. .
26 :byplaintiff'sandthitdparties' Constlfutionallyprotectedrightofprivacy. Plaintifffurther objects
,.. '27- ~tcTilii'Screq:uest-onthe~gr-0:an:Gs·that~it'Seeks-dBeumeatsc1ihat;are~prote.Gted.fffim~disG1BStIrebY'the
'28 ' attomey--clientpri...iilegeandlorthe attorney work-'product doctrine. Those docLl,1I].en'ts include
I
I,

163. lI
I
lcommunicationshetweenplaintiff-and bis counse1.thetrust and theirccnmsel, and thebeneficiaries
2and:tb.eircounseL
I
3 r Suijjf;1yt to;andWithoutwaivingtbeforegoingobjectionsandJimitations,.Plaintiffresponds
4 as follows: Phlintiffhas no~trust:documentsrespo,nsiveto thlsrequestin.1:Us,possession·orcontr.ol.
,5 TmstdocumeI1tsare:believed by plairififftobeinthepossession and control oftbeattorney.and
6 Trustee, Joseph J. Praske.however,the.::requested documents are.irrelevanttothepropounding
7. parties'judgmerttcollectionefforts and are ofherwise;'subjectto fhe,privilegesand privacy rights
8 . setforthabove,
9 DOCUMENTREOIJESTNO.8:
:10 AllDOCUMENrStbatRELATEtb:anytmst:lnwhich YOU are·aTRUSTPROTECTOR..,
11 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUES'fNO.,8:
12 ..Plaillti:ffdbject!:rto this.reque~~;ont1:regr:O:uhdsthatit;is;overlybroad,u,ndtil:y: bmdensome
13'and.haraSsing·andunlimitedtosc.Qpeiandtime.Becauseplaintiffdoesnot;corttrol any l:rusfa:q.dis
14·:noteJititledto,anydistrlbutronfrOD1.artyJ:ru.sf:,;PhiinfifffUtfherGbJectsto,ffiis·request.oI1 the
15 .•;groundsthat'i1'seeks;documentsiliatareneimerteievant:110rre(l'SoDaJjlyci1culated.to.leadto,tlie
16 'discQvery-,ofadpri,ssibleeVidence1lltliisaction .J?lmntiff:furtherobjects~othisr(;tluest'()nthe
11 .groilildsthafit,cal1:sd·oftbeprocIuG1!QfiofhTelevantdoeurnents th1itare~pr;otectedfrori1disc1osure
1'8 .byplaiI1tiff's''aIldthitdJ?arties'C6I1stiiitti:orta11y,protected,nghtofprivacy.~ Plruntif'f'further6pjects
;1:9 . to this requestQnthegr.oundsthatit'seeksdocumentstb.atareptotected.from aiscle}sure by 'the
20attorney-y1ientpn~ege andior:ilieattomeywork,,:productdoctrine.'Those doquments include
21 communicationsbetweenplaintiffanci'hi:s.counse1 thetlUstamithelf.couns(;l,and,:the:benefiCiaries
22 and,theircounsel
23 Suojecttoand Withoutwaivingihef~regQm2iobjecfionsand:1irmtat1ons,Plairitif.ftes!londs
II
24' .asfollows:Piaintiffnasl10dn~ct;n:rfents-TesponsIve1o~thtSi:equestinhtspossessioti 'Or-control.TruSt .
25 , .dQCllI11ents arebelievedbypla:igtifftobein the possession .and contr,oloftheattonieyandTrt1.stee, .
26 .JosephJ. Praske~ nowever, therequesteddocumeIits-·areirreleyantto ilie'propopnding pames'
-
28 above.

164. l
I·1 DOClJMENTREQUEST NO.9:
2 All DOCillv1ENTSthatRELATE to anytrust inwhichYOU are abeneficiatyregardiess
!
3 ofYODRpresent.mcomeotnnanciaimterest.
4 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUESTNO. 9:
5 Plaintiffobjectstothis request on the groundsthatitis.ovetly broacl'unQuly burdensome
6andhanissingandunIimitett:toscope andfune.Becauseplaintiff doesnotcontr()Iany trust and is
7 not~entitledto any distributionfrom anytrust,plairrtifffurther obJectstothis request on the
'8 !groundsthatitseeks·o.ocumentsthatare.neitherrelevalltnorreasomibly calcUlatedtoleadto the
9 ,discovery ofadmissibl~~evidencein this.action, 'Plaintiff:f'uQ:her.objectstothisrequest on:fhe
1O'gtounds thatit ca11sforthe'ptoduction,'Ofirtelevant docmnentsthat areprotected from ,disclosure
11:byplaintiffsandtJ:m-dpartiesConsututionallY:jJtotectedri:ghtofprivacy. Plaintifffhrtherobjects
12 toiliisrequest on the groUridsthatit$eeks docrtmentstha.t,arep:rofeCted.fromdisclosurel,Jythe
13 ·fJ.ttortley-c1ientprivil~g£;}.ancllortl1e·attorneywotk~prod;uctdoctri!:l~. Thosedocumentsinclude
14,cQmm.~icafioru,;betWeen:plaii1tiffand·his;counsel~thetnIst,andilieir.couns.et·at:ldfh~hel1~~ici4rles,
15an(Ltheir:counseL
16Subjectio andwithoutwaivin,gt1ie'fot~gofugobJectionsandlimitatiohs~Plainti:ffresponds·
17 .'a.sfol1ows:Plaintifflias not1ustdocunrentsresponsiv:ejoi:his requestl1:his;possessipn or control.,
1:8 Trostdocuments are:bE;llievedb:vplaintiff~obe.ii1 the.possession andconi:ror'ofthe attorneyand
19. Trustee, JosephlPrask~; however7thetequested documentS/Ife:irrelevanttothe'Pfopounding
20 parties~judgrnentcol1ection.efforts and·areotherWisesubjectto thepriyileges'and:privacy nghts
21 $etforthabove.
22'DOCUMENTREQUEST.NO.10;
23 All DOCUlMENTS,thatRELATEto anytrusfillwID.ch YOUareindass,6fbene:ficiaries.
24 ·regafd1essof'¥dtJ:RpJ:(;~seni mcomeornmmcia.11nterest ..
~-II~------------~·----~~--
25 J RESPONSE TO DOCIJ11IENT REQUEST NO. 10:
,
26Plainti:ffoQjectsto thisrequeston,thegroundsthatit'isoverlybroacluuduIy burdensome

165. 1 1 f)
,1 Igrounds thatit seeks documents;thatareneitherrelevantnorreasonablycalculatedto lead to the. '
21 discovery of.adniissibleevidenceinfhisacfion, Plaintifffurtherol?jectstotliis,request:on'the
'3j,grounds thatitca11sfor:thepraduct1.onofirrelevant documentsthatareprotecte:dfroII1disclosure
I '
I '
41byplaintitrsandthlrd parties' Consfitutionallyprotectedrightofpri¥acy.Plaintifffurtherol?jects
51 tothis requestonthe groundsthatit'se,eks ,documents:thatare protectedfrom disclosure bythe
61,attomey-clientPljvilege,andlortheattorneywork:'7productdoctrine.ThosedocumentsJnclude
1 II comnnmicationsbetweenplainfiffand his CounseL thetrustandtheirOOIlllSel, and the D,,ciarles.
8 'landthcirrcounseL
I
I
9 I Subjectto,andwithoutwaivingthefon:;going,objections,and Iimitations~PlaintiffTe~PQnds '
10 'asfollows: Plaintiffhas:notrustdocuments,responsivetothisrequ~stinhispossessi011or,c:ontrdL
11 Trust documents arebelievecflyplaintifftobeinthe:possessionan,dcontroloftheattomeya,nd
12 Tmstee, Joseph):. PraSke~hutthatsair;l documents arejrreIev:Mttbthe,propotrndlngpar:tles
13 judgmentcoliedion efforts and are,6therWisesubject'tothe'priviIeges,andprivacy':rightssetforth
14abpve~
lS:DOCUMENTREQUESTNO.ll:
16 ,A1lDOCIJMENTS'fuatREIA$tobiIls,feeE1.inyoice~.'~'charge~tl'aidon ~OtJRbeha1f
1.7 j'byariy2PERSQMor'ENTITYinclumng,hutnotJitnited to, :l?acific CoastManagementand,Avalbn ;
18 'C6rponition 'slnc¢,'2QO.1,
I
19 I'RESPONSETODOCUMENTREQUESTNO.l1:
-- ------- ---- --~---- --- - - --- - - - - - - - - - ------ ---- ------- - ------------------------- ~------ -- --------- - - - - - -- - ---- ---------- -- --- ---- -- -- -- _. ---- ----------
20' ,PlaintiffopJects totbisrequestontlie groundsthatthetenn~oll YOlJRbehalf' is overly
,21 bmadand,colllPound.PlaintifffurthernbJectstothisrequestonthe:groundsthatitisovedybroad
22 'as to±imeand~yope as tOheu,nou1y bu:rC(ensome'anu:hfu'assing, :p1ainfitf:!iiffiiet',Qojecrs:toiliis
23' ,request onthegrou.ndsfuatit;seeks documents'that.areneithern:ilevanfnor:reasonablyca}'culated
-24 ! -to1ea{n(ftne:-discITTery:ofadmtsslliIe~evidehce llItbis;actlol1. -cplrufitltr'fi.m:herobjects-:tcn:llls
~----~ , ~~--'~-:---~'--c-~~~-~~-~~~~-----.l--~--
25 request onthegroundsthatit callsfor the production ofirrelevant documents that are protected
26 from disC10sureby plaintiff'.sandthirdparties' Constitutionallyp:rotectedrightofprivacy.'Plaintiff
- - -
28 disclosure bytheattomey..,client privilegeandlorthe attorneywork::-productdoctrine.

166. i
ij
1
] I' Subjectto,and withoutwaiving theforegoiIlgobjeclions and limitations, Plaintiffresponds
2;[aSf6UowS: The specifiedtime penodis overlybroad andunre1ated toanYTe$onableattemptto
,3 I·colle.ctthlsjudgment. Ifthe propoundingparty agreesto limitthis requesttoarelevantilnd
4 reasonable time period, Plaintiffwillproduce documents.reasonably'responsive tothis. r~questin
5plain1;iffspossessiQn.andcontrol that are notprivileged. As tofees paid]:)yplaintiffthatate'not
6 privileged, those documents haveah:eadybeen producedin dlsc¢very iritbisactionandthe
7 Gaggerov.Knapp~ Petersen,and Clarke action currentlypendingbeforetheLos Angeles Superior
8 Courtinwhich the propoundingparties'legi:llfirmisfhefirm that prepared these discovery
9 requests.
10 DOCUMENT REOlJESTNO.12:
II AlLDOCUrYmNrS thatRELATEtotraveleXpensespaid'by YOU OL1lD.Y PERSONol
12 ENTITYonyourb€ihalfsinc~2001.
l$RESPONSKTO nOCUMENTREQIJESTNO.12!
14 Plain~ffobjectstotbistequestonthegrQ'j.ll1ds,thm;theterm,i'ollYOIJJ,tbehalfisov~r1¥
15 'b:toad~and·compound~Plaintifffurtherobjects'tothlsteql;testonfhegr:otinds thatiti-lsover1yhroa.d
16, asto1:ime.ahd:scope asto'beundulyhil:f:densome:and.harass1ilg~ 'Plainti:lf:fuJ:lhepobjects totbis
17' req~eston fhe.grounds thatit seeks d()C1;!IIlen'tS that!are,neitherrel~v~t1ior teason~lyca1cu1ated
18, to leadto the discovery .ofadmissibleeYiclence'ihthisactiQn.PlaintiffTurtherobjec;tstbthis.
19 requeston theground$thatitca11s:f'ottheproduct1on'9firrelevl:li1t docu:rnentsthat;a:reptotected
20 from disc1osurebyplaintiff's andtJ:iird parties} ConstitutlOIla11yprotectedrightofprivacy.Plaintiff:
21 further objects to this requestonthegrotinds thatitseeks·documentsfuatare ptotected:ftom
22 .disclosure b,ytheattomey-,c1ientprivi1egeand!or.theatt6meywork~'Product'doctrine.
23 SubJect to.and withoutwaiving the foregoingobjectioIls,andlimitations; Plaintiffresponds
24 '. asfollows: Theiime period isoverlybroad andunrelatdLToanyreaiOnable attempuocollecN:1ns
25 judgment. Should thepropoundlngparty~gr.eetolimitthis.Requesfto a'relevantand reasonable
.26 time periodPlaintiff'Win producedocuments reasonably responsiveto thisreguesHn plaintiffs
-27 I-possession andc-ontrottha.'t-arenut1Jriilltfged~
215 j
f-- .----_ ..._.----..-_.---._-..- ---------------------,,---------,,--------.---,,---,,---------------.,,----.-----.-,,--------

167. 1 tDOClJ1i1ENT REQUEST NO. IS;
2 11 ,AllDOCUMENTS tllat RELA'TEtolitigatton expenses paidbyYODoranyPERSON·or
t .
31ENTlTYonyour'behalfsince2001.
4 jRESPONSE TO DOCUMENT.REQlJESTNO.13.;
51 Plaintiffobjects.1:o'thisrequeston.fhegrounds thattheterm onYOURbehalP·iso'ler1.y
6 II broadandcompOlind..Plaintifffurthero1?jectsto thisrequest:on;:the groundsthatitisovetly broad
7asto.timeandscope'asto'beundulyburdensomeand harassing. Plaintifffurtherd!?jects:totbis
E request on the grounds thatit seeks documentsthat are neitherrelevant norreasonably Clilculat~d
9 tolead tothe.discoveryof:admissible evidence:inthis action..Plainlliffjmher.o1:jects'totbis'
.1'0 .request on the groundstbatiticalls·fofthe production .of1'lT:elevantdocumentsthatareproteeted
11 from disclosure,byplaintifrsandthird:parties' Constitutiona1~yprotected'right afprivacy~ Plaintiff'
12, ~furtberabjectsta,tffis.request,onthegroundsthat;it seeksdacumentsthat:areprotectedirom
I .
13Iilisclosure,'bytheattam.ey,£lie:ritprivil~geandJarthe.attam~ywork~productdoCtrine~.
I '. .' '. '. '. ....... ..... ...' . .
1:41 Su1?jedtt():andWithoutwaiyirlgtlleforegoing o1?je~oIis'aridlimitatioIis•.Plain1iffresP?nds
t5'asfollows: The~J?ecifiedtim~ periodisovetly:bJ;Qad.a.11dunrelatedfo~ r:¢aso.l1(lbl~a1t~mlytto
t~icollectt1llsjudg;rrleti(Sliould,:thepr()poundii1gparw.agr:eetol1nilttbisRequestto al'elevant'and
17'reasollaJ)letlmepenod:Plainflffwill produce,documehtsrea.sonablyresp,pnsiVe,tothiS:request in.
tS • plaintiffspossessiqnandc9nn:ol thatare,notpriVileget .:Asto:rees~paid~yplaiIltifft11at~enot
19· 'piivil~ged, those docwnentshave.:already he..enproducedir:t discoyery in this:action(Lll(].the
20 Gagge.roy.Kna,pp,Petetsenan4'Clarkeaction:currently'pendingbe£bn~ theLQ~.Angeles Superior
21 . Courtin~which the propounding parties' legalfmnis tUefutntbatprepar;edth¢sedlsCQvety
22. Tequests~
;nOClJli:1ENTREQUESTNO. 14:23
24-
25
26
I ~AJIDOC~S~iliafRELATE to1:he-tfansfeFof'ariy,asserownea-afanyfuiH~by YOU in
anycapaci1:y.
,RESPONSE TO DOcu:MENTREQUEST NO. 14:
'-27':--' '-~-PlaiIl~ffcobjects-fo:@srequest-(mthei?;tbtirids-11iafit1sover1ybrbaa:asto-:time-andcscopea:' .
28 to be unduly burdensome.andharassil1g. Plaintifffurtherobjectsto thisrequest.on'fue grounas that

168. 1 it seeks documents that are.neitherrelevantnorreasonablyca1crilatedtoJeadto the discovetyof
2 admissible evidenceinthis action. l?laintiff1Urther objectsto this request:onthegrounds that1.t
3 calls.forthe production.ofirrelevantdocuments'thatareprotectedfromdisc1osuretrypla.in1:iffs
4. andthirdpames' Constitutionallyprotecte.dIightofpriUlcy.Plainlifffurthenjbj.ects tothisrequest '.
S .onihegrounds.thatit seeks'documentsthatare'p:r:otectedTro.rndisclosurebythe attorn~...;c1ient
·6 privilege andlorthe attorney work~producLdoctrine.
7 Subjectto:andwithoutwaivingtheforegoingobjectrons.andIin1itations,Plainfiffresponds
8asfoUows: Plaintiff1snotawareofany.assets.hehastransferredsincetheeniry ofjudgtnentin
9 this.matter.
10· DOOUMENTREQUESTNO.15:
11 .All DOCUMENTS thatRELATEtothetranSferof:anyassetownedat.any~timebyYOUas
12 .tartofYOUR.ESTATEP.LANNING;
13 'RESPONSE.TO])OCUl1ENTREQlJES'I'·NO.15:
'14 Plairi1;iffobjectsto the definition ofthe d¢trriitibh.dfBSTATEPLANsetforthin
15 'DefendanfsDeflniti6ns.in·fuafifincliIdes]:mt.ls·1ibtlimitedto the'preparation ofanYplan of
16 .adrriinistrationand:diposition·ofPlain1iff'sproperly?,ownedby;Pl8intiff~tanytimeinany
17 .capaCity;.beforeer:afi:erdeath·:inc1udiIlg-w.i1Itrust,:gms, orppwer'of,~t1:0rIl~~bt EP:y·othennethod '.
18 . ,ofestate:planningandfuItherrefers'tothe,transferofanY assets.ownedfy Plaintiffat any tiIlle·to:
T9 :any'PE.RS()NQf ENTITY collectivelyont'he:grou:ndthat.suchan·ex.panSlvegraup qf·defiriitions
-------- - - -- ---- - - --------
20 imposes aburden-,greaterthanWhatisrequired.by,the~CaliforniaRulesofCivil Procedure and.
2:], ,mak;esthe.requests.ovetlyhroad, undlilyburdensome~oppressive~ haras~.ng,atld7ornotofuerwise
22'reasonably ca:1ctilated:t61eaato tlie ffiscovery ,dreVidence:re1tWantt6tlie:mquiJjriritoPlaiilnff'.s
2.3 current assets, which ~s the sole subject of:tbis'discovery.
- -24 - - -, -Plaili:tifffUMerobJects totbls.re€:J.Uestunthe:grounu~thatit-'isnot~~imittfd-to-anyr:elevant: '
25 scop~and tin:teperiod.Plaintiffii;utherobjegts to this reque~ 9hfuegro:tJ11qsthatitseeks
26 documentsthatare neither relevatltnorreasonablycmculated tolead to the discovery ofadmissible
- . -- _. - - - - - --
28 production orirrelevantdocumentsthat:are protectedfrom disclosurehy plaintiff's and'th1rd
..... . .. .... .~ .•...... - -..~ ... -'
. - ---------------- ---------_ .._-----_.._-----------------_._----------- -------- ---------_._--_ .. __.._----- _._--- -----_._-- ._------

169. ....•,
1 parties, Constitutionally protected rightofprivaCfY. Plaintifffurther objects to:this request on the
'2 Igrounds·thatit,seeks .documents:thata:J;'e:protectedfrom.rlisd1osurebythe:attomey-client,privilege
311andJorthe attotney wotk-PIoduct doctrine.
i
4 I Subjectto:andwitholltwalvingthe foregoll1gn1:)jections andlimitation{;,Plain1:iffre:sponds
5 asfoILows: :Plaintiffsestate'plan was,set u,p over 14 years:ag(LPlaintiffhas no doc.uments
,6 responsiveto this requestin his,possession'orcontrol'thatatewithin any reasonable time period of
7 thejudgment. Plaintiffs estate planisirtevocable and was established over14years,ago. Estate
8 Plan documents,asplainfiffinterpretstheRequestare:believedtoheinthe possessionandcontr'ol .
90fattomey JosephJ.PraskehQwever1 iherequested,documentsareirre1evanttotheJ)T()pounrung
:10 parties' judgmentcol1ectioneffortsandare,othe!Wise'stibjecttoattomey client;privilegesand,the
11 IQilierprlvilegesandptiVacy rlgb1sset~above. .
12, DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.'16,:
13: ,A1,lDOd~S·fhatIffiLA1?B.:l{),'any;postjlld~ntdiscov:ery,W'anY'DIattertowru:eh
14 ·YOIJtt;:sponded.
lSRESPONSE.TDDOClIMENTREQlJESTNOc 16;
15 'Plailltiftobjectstothisrequestol1)fue~grbundsthatitis6verlybro~,aSto!titne,and. scope/as
17 :to,he'unduly burdensomE;,~dhar(lss~g~ ,Plaintiff'fuitheroojectstotliisrequest on ,the:ground$~at'
18 ' itseeksdocun:lIqnp that;ar~l1either:reJ.evantnor:reasonablyca1ctila~ed toleadJ:o:the,di,scQveryof
19 Iadmissible evidence inthis.,action.PlaillufffurtherQbjects to:tlii:srequest onthe grounds'thatit
.2D calIsfor the produCtion dfirrelevant'documentsthatareprotected from disc1osure'byplairitiff's
21 andthirdparties'ConStitutiomdlyprotectedright.ofpnvacy, Plainiifffurther'objectstothis.request'.
:22 ,omihe,grounds that itseeksdocuments'that~ate,protected from :disclosure:1?ythe attorney-clIent
23 privilege'and/orilie attorney work~prodnctdoctrine.
24 SubJectto andWithoutwatvfngfueforegoing 6bjectlonSand1imltcii100s~Plaintiff:r~s:pondS
25 laS;f()llOWS~ Plaintiffhas no documents after entry ofjldgmentintbiscasefhatareresponsivet.o
26 Ithis request exceptforthe discovery doneinthis case, which documents are:already in possession
- -27- -:o£tlrerequestlI1g.paItY~ --.- ....-- -- -
28[
r- --,.-,----._. --, --,-- - ------ ----,----,- -, - --,-- --,----._------., --- .------- ,..,---.. ,-- -- - -----,-,--, ,----,--,--------_..-, - - ----,----.,. --- --,.--

170. ,
f ~
1
1 I,DOClJ.lVlENT REQUEST NO~17::
I '
2 AIl DOCUJY.IENTS thafRELATE to,anyjudgment debtor,exaIDofYOU since2001.
3 ,RESPONSETODOCUMENTREQUESl'NO.17:
4 Plaintiffobjectstothisrequeston:thegrounds thatitis overly broad as to time and scope as
5 ,to'be unduly burdensome and harassing. Plaintifffurther objects tofhisrequeston the grounds that
6 itseeks documents that are,neitherrelevantnor:reasonablycalculatedtoleadto the discovery of
7adIriissibleeVidenceiniliis action.PlaiD:tiff;further obj~ to thisrequeston,thegtounds thadt
8 calls for the production ofirrelevantdocumetrts'tnatare protected fromdisc1osure'byplaintiff's
9and:thirdparties' Constitutionally protected rightofpnvaqy.'Plainfifffur:ilier ribjectstothis request
lO:on,ilie groundsihat itseeks documents that'are protectedfrom disclosurehytheattorney..,client
11 ' .prlv.i.legeandJor the attorneywork-product.docmmt
12 Subjecttoand Withoutwaiv~'thefuregoii1g obJections and Iimita:tion~•.Plaintiffresponds :
13 :asfollows: Elainfiff:nasn6:documentsifter:enttyofjud.gmentin,thls.casefhat:are·resp0uShmto
14 . ;thi~requesfexcept:for,fhedisc()verydoneiIithi$ case~ whichdocmnents,areaireadyinpossession
15 ' ':otthelequesfingpart,Y~Inaddition.,.thetequestillgpart.yisinairea4¥possessiondfaIljudgm:ellt
16 . debtors exams'ta,kenofplaiI),tiffsinee,'z(JOL
1'J:DOCUMENTREQUESTNO.. 18:
18A.l1DOCUMENTSthatRELA'IEtoanyENTITY,ofwhich YOU are:an officer or
19 member,
- - - ~ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- ---- - - - -
20 RESPONSE TO DOC1JMENTREQUESTNO.18:
21 Plaintiffobjects to fills requeston the,ground$ thatitjsQveIiy'broacl'as'toiimean-d scope:as
22 toheundulyburdens6meand,harasslng, Plaintiff::furtherxllJjects toihls requesto.tt:tne,grounds that
23 .it seeks documents tbat,areneitherreievantnor reasonabiycalcu1atedtoleadtptheruscoveryof
._~_:_4_·(:::;:e:=:::::~:=::==::::::=:
26 andthirdparties~ Constitunonally protected rightofpnvacy. Plaintifffurther objects to thisTequest
27 ~on-the'woumfsi:liati:tse'ekS-ducuiiientS-th:ataf~otected:'fromilisclosure~byt1ie:attorney:c1ient
28privilegeandlorthe attorney work-product doctrine.
r--- ----- - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . - - ------ .--_.----------------- -------- ------ ----- - - - - .---~- - - - - •.- - - - - - - - ----------.

171. 1 Subjecttoand withoutwaivingth~ foregoingobjec1ionsand limitations~Pla.intiffresponds
.2 asfollows: Subjectwand withollt'WalVingilieforegoingobjectionsandlimitanons, Plaintiff
3 responds as follows:Plaintiffhascno dbcumentsJ::esponsivetothis;request.
4 .DOCUlVIENTREQlJEST'NO. 19:
5 All DOCt.JJ1ENTSthatRELATEto,anyptopertyatwhichYOU have resided since
6 January2011.
7 ,'RESPONSE TO DOCU:MENTllEQIJESTNO.19:
8Plaintiff'incorporatesby:referen~'each;,md every GeIl.~a1 Objection setforth above as
9 though fi.iI.lyset forth herein., Plaintiff'O'bjeats to this request onihe,gt'ounas,thatitls'overly broad, :
to 'undulyburdensbmeandharassing;Plaintifffurth:erobjects.tbthisrequestonthe.groundsthatit
11 ' :seeksdocumentS taatareneitherrelevatit'norreasonably:calculatedtoleadto;the,discovery of
12 )admissibleevidence infhls action. Plainfiff:fj:uther objects totIris request on'thegrouJldsthaNt
13 'lca.llsfor theproductipnnfi:p:elevantdQcutn,entsiliatate:prqtecteg fitJQ:,l disClo~ureby plaintiff's
14 ,landJ:hirdparties''ConstitUfipn~lY'Pro~earightbfpriv~cy.PIaintifffurtb:ert)l:ijects'tmtb.isTequest .
15 ·onthe'grounds thatitseeks doeumentsthataieprotected from,disclosurebyilie.attomey-client
16 ;p:riVil~geJ:l,nd/oFthe :attDmeyw9fk~preductdoc:trine.
'11 SUbJect't9an.c1 withoutwaiVing:the'foregoin,g;;ol:)j-ectiQIls'andJjm.itanol1s,J?Iairitiffxesppnds. '
18 as follows:Plaintiff':dQes nothave'atlY documents·xes;ponsiveto:thi:s'I'equest·that ate'reievantto the..
19 l?ropo-undingparties~ collectiQnefIortsiI;riliismatter.
20 DOCmfENTREQUESTNO.20;
21 ' AIIJ)OCUMENTS'fuatlffiLA'IEtoroo.l property locatedat35QICanadaLarga, Ventura
22 California, 9300L
23 ,:RESPONSETO DOcrrMENTREQUESTNO.2l}:
. .24- - ~PIaintiffcibjectstotfiisrequeSt onthe grotindsthafitis,bvetlybro~ag iofu:rie anc[scope~ .
25 toheundulybur4eJl~omeandharassing. Pla,intifffurth~r_objects tQtbigrequestonthe.grQUlldS that
.26 it seeks documents thatareneitherrelevantllorreasonably calculate4toleadto the discevery of
~zFI ai:I.rirlsSibltrevi-4encei:rrtnis-actfuit~11rlnti£fis1iOfih:ebwner~ofsaid reat-propen.y::- Plaintiff--
28 furthetcobjects to this'request onthe groundsthatit calls for the production ofirrelevant documents'
II
1

172. ~ )
1 Ithat-areprotectedfrom disclosure by plaintiffsandthird parties' ConstitUtionally protected right
2 ' ofprivacy.Plaintiff:furthet objects tothisrequesfonthegroundstthatitseeks documents that are
3 protectedfromd1sclosure by the attorney..c1ientprivileeandJortheattomeywor'k..;product
4 doptrine.
..5 DOCTIMENTREQUEST NO•.21:
6 AlI DOCUNffiNTS thatRELAJEtoanytaxDOCUMENTS filed byYOU arnn YOUR
7 behalf.
8 IRESPON~E.TO~O~NTREQIJEST NO. 21:. . . • . ..' . . . . .. ' ...
9 PlamtiffobJectStotbis:requeston the groundsthatltlsovedy broad asto time and scope as
10 to be unduly hurdensOlD.eandharasSing~. Plaintifffurther obJects.:tothis requeston th:egrounds1hat
11 itseeks documents thatare neitherrelev?l1tnorreasonably calcu1atedtolea~ totheiliscQvery of
12 ...adtnissibleevip,enceinthi$action.Plaintifffurllier.obj-ectstofhi$:r:equestonthe grounds·thant
13 callsforthe produCtion,orirrelevant documel1,tsthatareprotectedfromdisclosUrehy'plaintlffs
14 ,and fhird pat4ies Constitutionally protected.iightofprivacy..oF1aintifffurtherobjectsto:thisreqp.est
15 'On:thegroundsthat it seeks documentsihafare'pnt.ectedfn)In disclosureby th~attomey-c1ie:rit
16 privilege and/or1:he,attomey worJc..;RrQduct,'doc1:J:::iIle~
'17' ])OCUMENTREQI1ESTNO~.22:
18 AlIDOctJl..:1:ENTS thatRELATEto 'anY'faxes'paid:ony't)DRbehalt: including but not
.19 limited to, in1(OURcapaCity.asiheequitabIeownerofany ENTITY.
20 ,RESPONSE TO DOCIJllIENT REQUEST NO.,22:
21 'Plaintiffobjects to ibis requestonthe grounds'iliaftheterm on YO'O:Rbehalf'is overly
22 broad andcompound. Plail1,tifffilrthero'biectstothisrequesron :thegroundsthat,itis.ovetlybroad
23 ,asio iimeand scopeasto be undulyburdensomeandharassing.Plaintifffurtller objectsto this
24' requesfonfue grourids that itseeks documents t!urt,are-neiiherrelevantnorreasonablycalculai:ed '
r--------Ir--------------------------------------------------.-.--------.----------~·------
25 tolea-d tothediscovety ofadmissiblee'vidence intbis action.Plain.tifffurther objects to this
26 request on thegrounds that it calls fortheproductionofirrelevant documents thatareprotecteo.
f .. .. 21'- -fromdtsulnsure1Jy-pbrlni:ifP-s1llId~T(lpartres' 'Corrsti;tuttoqafly protected~right-ofpri:vacy:PJaillfr:f.f,: ..
I 28 further objects to this request on the grounds thatit seeks documents thatare protected from
r·---'-·-··._.- .-.-...---.-.--.------...-.--.--.----..--.----.---.---..-.-.......----.----.--......-.....-..-.....--....-.- .....-.......--..--.--..-..-.............

173. ~-
1 disc10surebyiheattomey-'C1ientpriyjlege~?Ildiorthe:attomeywot1c-'product~doctrine.
2 SubjecHo.and wiilioutwaivingtheforegoing objections :andlimitations,.Plaintiffresponds
3 !'as follows: PhuntiffisnottheownerorCll'+yEntity)eqriitableorOtherwise.
4 DOCUMENTREQUESTNO. 23:
.5 AllDOCUMENTSthatRELATE'to.anyincometax retumsinc1udiI!g,butnotlimited.to,
'6 IW21
s, 10991
s, K-T's,'whetherpreparedforfederalj state or:municipal thatlffiLATEtoYO'Osince .
7 January 1, 2005.
8 ':RESPONSE TOD()CUM]}NTREQlIESTNO.2~
9 Plaintiffoblectstothis.request'onthe,gtounds tbatitis overly broad, undUly burdensome
IDandharassing.Plaintifffurther QbjectstothisrequestOl1thegtounds thatit seeks documentsthat
'11'$IeneitherrelevantnofreasonablYcaIcu1atedto leadtothe'discoveJ;YOfadmissibleeyidence1;11
12· this action. Plainfi£ffurther6bjectsto:thlstequeston the groun(fSthatit callsfotfue'productionof ·
13 ;rrrelevantcdacumetitsthatare:protected.fkom disclosmebypJaint1ifs'andtllltd'parlies'
.14 'Co~stitufiona11y protected rightufpIiva.cy..RlaiD:'f:iffifurthero~iects tothl:s,request onthe:;g:rounds
15 !.that,itseeks..documentsthat.are:protectedfromdisclOSilre,bYthe;'a.tto:rney~1ientpiivilegeand!or
16 the attorneywOfls:product.dotrt:rine,.
17 .:DOCUME:NTREQUESTNO.24:
1Jl I ...AI.1DOCUMENT.... SthatREL~TE.'.to.an...' y..·.m.on.ey:gtvento YO-Cf:forany p~l;Iosesi!lce2{no. ;
J:Q t:RESPONSKTODOCIJl1ENTREQUEST NO. 24:
:20 Plaintiffobjectstotbisrequeston thegtoundsthatitisvagueand ambiguous, .overlybroac;l,
21 unduly burdensomeandharaI?sing.· Plaintifffu,rthergbj:ectstothis reque~tpn thegro:urtd.sthatit
22 '. seeksdocumems that'areneifuerreleva:nt+1orreasonabIycalculated tolead.tothe disgovery of
.23adnlissibleevidenceinthis:aciiQn.P1a,intiff.furtherdbjectstothl~rt:questol::l;thegroun¢is·that it
. 2:4- ,.caUslortneproduclionofmelevaD.t.doci,u:ilen,tS-'tllat;a:reprptectedfrom.rusclosurenyplainiiirs
25~andthird.parties' -Consntu:t;ionallYprqtected,.right ofprivacy.Plainiifffurthero~ject.s to thisrequest
26 .·onthegroundstIlatit seeks docum~nts fhat'llfe ptotectedftomdi$clo~e:by'the;attorney-cIient
'2T-prlvitege:arrdfOrtheattarneywor~w-pdllCtdoctJine: ..
28
i
l~.
I
II
·1'
.'
r--'-..-------.._--.----.---.---.-..-...-..----...----.-.-.-----.-.-...----_......------...-- ---....--.---.--.---.--..-...--.--.._.......-.-..--.-.-..-

174. I
I
I
/)
i
11 DOCUMENT REQlJESTNO. 25:
' -
2jAlIDOCMNT8thatRELA.'11ito allY incomeeamed.byY0Usince2010.
I
3jRESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.:Z5:,
41 Plaintiffobjects to this requeston1:hegroundsthatitIsoverly'broad as to time and scopea,s
51 to heunduly blirdensomeandhara,ssing, PlairitifffUrthet objectstoibis request.onfhegrounds that.
6
1
.itseeks documentsthat are neither relevantnoTreasonablycructilated toleadto thediscoveIY of
7 adniissibleevidenceinthisaction.Plaintiff:furtherobjeetsto thisrequest on the grounds thatit
~.I.callsr~rthel'~oducfiOnOfinelWantdooum~th!it~P~~!lisCltis~~ypl~'
9 Iand third parties' ,Constttuuonallyprotectedrrght ofpnvacy.Plamttfffu,rther obJects tothisrequest
10onthegrOimdsthat itseeks dOCunientsthatiireprotectedfromdlsc!osurebytheattomey..dient
II, .priViiege.andiorfue·attomeyWtitk-product doctrine.
12 Subjecttoand'Withont'w;:iiving,i:he;foregbing'objections and1jmitatio:n$:Plaintiffre~pollds
13!':asfollow$,: Plaintiffwillproduc.eany documelltsres:poMivei:othlsR.eqlle~t1nhispossessiol1:and
14 Jcontrolifthe'propour:i.dingpartyagreestQlimltthe.dQCtirtIenfrequest!tothe'televanttiIneperiod.
ts .lJ)OClJ1IIENTREQtJESTNO.26: .
16' AIlbariksBiatementsforanypersonalotbusmessaccount.IDwliich¥OtJ:.'havelegalor
1'1 equitaPl~interest;
18RESPONSETO])OCUMEN'l'REQUESTNO~ '26:
19 ·PlaintiffubJeotstotJii:srequeston thegtounds:tb.afItisoverly'broadasto,:tlme.and.scope.as
,
.,
~ -~ 20 ; ~iobe~un:dulY]iUideiisome-anQ1iarassirig~PlamtifrfuLtlier-::-obJectSto.:trus:ii;quesioiifuegroundsthat - ~ - ~--
~1 it seeks documents that,areneither,relev;antnorTeasonablycrucrllated tolead to thecq1scoveryof
22 . 'aamiSSlhle:evidenc~,in~this:aotiorr, Plain.1ifffUrtherubjects:totllisreqneston'ihe-grounds-thaHt
23 calls fortheproduc1ion:oflrrelevantdocumentstJ:ratarecpr:..otectedftom disclosure:byplainfiWs
'24and~tbirpartiesConstitutionally;protected right.,.ofpr1v,acy.Phiintmfurtherubjectsto:thlsteguest·
25 onfhegroundsthantseeks docun;tentsthat.areprpteqecLfrom.disc1osurebytheattotney..:cI1ent
26 privilege and/ortheaftomeywotk-proouctdoctrine,
I . u ZL - ·~~--·s~bj~(ito~41:b.otlfwaivfug.~fu.~foregoing·obje.ctionsandljmjtation~.J?1aintifUePond~ __
18 .-as rol1ows:Plarntlff.hasno:documerifsresp011siviiothisrequesfbecrse-he does not haveabaIlk
I

175. J
I1 accountin which hehas.aIegalorequitablejnterest.
2 DOCUMENTREQUESTNO.27:
3 I A11sayiItgsacGountsinjnstitutipnsiliatrepresent:accountsin which YOUhave an
4. equitableinterest
5 RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQIJEST NO.:Z'7!
6 .Plaintifffurtb:erohjeets to this request onthegroundsthatit seeks documentstha:tare
7 neitherrelevant nor reasonably calculatedtoleadtothe,discoveryofa4missibleevidencein fhls
:8 action. Plaintifffurtherobjectsto this request,on the,groundstha.t1t cansforthe production of
9 irrelevant.documentsthatare protectedfrom disclosure,by plaintiff's and'thirdparties'
10 'ConstitutionallyproteetedrlghtofprivaC)T,Plainti:£ffurther.ol:jectstothisrequestonthe-grounds
11 thatit seeksdocuments thatare pr.otecteditomdisdosurebythe attomey-,cIientpnvilegeand1or
12 the,;attorneywork~productdoctr1ne.
13.• 1 Subjecttoca~dyYithoutwaiVingthe foregoingobjectibns'andjiniitafions~Pla!p:tiffrespon¢!s
14 . asfblJows: Plaintrffhasllo docum-ems reJ)po1fS~vetQthisrequeStinmspossessio.niorcontrol.
15 !beca,usehe.doesl1otnave:,abank,accourt:i::irJwhl6hhe'hasanequitable::interest
16 DOCUMEN1RE2UES~NO.28:
17 .Mldeedsj leases~mortgages).orany.otherDOG~,.evidenclng,anyinteres1.or. ': . . .
18owrrership includi:iig:eCiwtableinterest'o.rownership7by'YOlJiuTealproperty.a;taJ.1.ytimesmce
19 ,1997.
20 .RESPONSE TO DOCU1fENT:REQUESTNO. 28:
21 Plaintiffobjects tothisrequeston'the groundsfhatitis oyerlybroad.asctotime and scope as
22 tOibeundUly burden~0IIleandp.arassi~g. Plaidfurther:objects tcrthisrequest'onthegroundsthm ·
23 itseeksdocumentsthat are neitherrelevantnorreasonab!ycalcu1ated to lead tothe:d1scQveryof
24 adillisSlhleevtdenceintIlls action. :Plmnnff::further.objectsto-:t;mirequest Olfiliegioundsihatit
t---~~~~II ~-·-~-I~~~~~
25 callsrortheproduction;ofirrelevantdocumentsthatareprotected.frommsclosurebyplaintiff1:s
26 andthirdparties'ConstitutionaUy protected right ofprivacy. Plaintifffurther:objectsto this request
. - 2it- oJDll:~gro@a:sllfatirsee1csdocuments:-fua.hrr~rot~cted-from'ffis:c-loSri:re-by11i:eiltro~y-'clrenL·· -
28 privilege andlorthe attorney work-produG!: doctrine.

176. )
1 'Subjectto and Withoutwaivingtheforegoing objections·and.limitations, Plaintilfresponds
2 as 'follows:Plaintiffhasnodocuments'responsive10ihis:requestinhis;possession or control which
3 I'would evidence any interest orown:~rshipheldinTealprQpert.Y after entry ofJudgmentinthis
-4 matter.
5 .DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29:
6 ,All DOCIIMENTSeviden,cinganyinterestorownershi,p;inc1ud,l:qg equitableinterestor
7ownershlp, by YOUin any asset,at.anytime since 1997,
,g,RESPONSE'IO DOCUMENT.REQUEST NO.:29:
9 Plaintiff'objects tothis request qn,thegroundsthatitis overly broad asi:o time,and.scope as
10 to be 'undUly burdensome and harassing. Plainti:fffurtherobjects:toibisrequest on the groUnds that
Ii itseeks -documents'that are neitherrelevantnorreasonablycalc'lila:tedtoleadtothe discovery-of
T2adrrrlssibleevidence in this action. ,Plaintifffurtherobjects1e this requeston theground.s.thettit
13 .' caUs~fqrtheprotiucfion ofirrelevantdoq~ents thatareprotecteiLfromdisc1oS1l:(ebyplaintif'Ps
14 .. and third.,parnes' GonstitutionallYJlrptectedlig4t()f'priv:acy~ Plaintlfffurl11erobjectstothlstequeSt .
15 . bIithegroundsthatits~eksdq~e:ntsthat:areptoteGted fromdisclosm;ehxthe'attOmey,,-c1ien,t
16 ·piivilegeandlorthe;attorn,ey'work-iTodlictdocmne.
17 Subjectto-?ndcWithoutwaiving the 'foreg6irigobj~ctionsatidIiniitati6ns~,J?1a.1J:rtin.re~ponds
18 . :as:fdllows:PlaintiffwiltrespondtofuisJe9.uest$houldtb:erequesti~g;party.li:mitthe:requestto the
1$1 . .present ownership oiany non,,;exempt assetand defines fhetermasset.
--- - _ . - .... _------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --_ . . _-- . _ - - - - - - - - ---_._---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_.- -- - -- --_. --- ------
20 .DotUMENT,REQUESTNO~ 30:
21 .' All stockcertificafusorotherDOCtTh:1ENTSeVid.encing ownership ofstocks and bonds
22 .held oJ YOUinany capaeity.
23 ' '-RESPONSE TOfiOClJ:MENrREQlJESTNO.'SO:
24 - .- PIrunfiffobjects tomisrequesfon thegrounasthatitisbverl)fbfdad aslo funeand~scope as
25 to he undwyburdensome~ndharassing: .PlaintifEfurtherobjects totms,request on the grounds that·.
26 it seeks documents that ate neither relevantnorreasonably calculatedtoleadto the discovery of
- -'27- --a:dmisSiQle~evidenci:tJ:'thls--ac1ion.-Plaintiff-furthet~obj-eCtS-totbis-:tequest-c()n-th~grounds--thatit--
28 . callsforthe production ofirtelevantdocumentsthatareprotectedftpm disclosure by-plaintifPs

177. land third parties' .Constitutionallyprotemedright.ofprivacy.. Plaintifffurtheroojectsto this request
2 onthe.grounds'thatifseeks documents that are.protectedfromdisclosru;e bythe,attomey-dient
3 'Iprivilege and/orthe attorney'Work:productdoctrine.
4 Sribjectto.andWithoutwaivingthe foregoing objectionscandJimitations,Plaintiifresponds
5asfollows:Plaintiffhasno docum'ellts responsiveto fhis requestinliis possessionor,controI.
6 .DOCUMENTREQUEST NO.:31:
'1 All DOCUMENTS RELATINGtoPaCific'CoastManagement'Corporatiqn.
'8 RESPONSE TO DOCUM:ENTREQUESTNO.31:
.9 Pbiintiffobjects ;totrus,request ontlie grounds thatitis ovetltbroad asto timeaird.scope as
If) '. to be unduly'burdensome and.harassing.Plaintifffurtherobjecfstothis requeston the grounds that
1,1 1
it·seeksdocumentsthatarelleitherrelevantnorreasomiblycaiculatedtqleadtothe discov~of .
12~dl!lissible eyidenceinfhi$,ac1ion..,P1ru.ntinftmilier.objectstothis requestonthe:ground'Sthat:1t
:11: .1allS~rthep~ductioncb(~e1evantdoeum~-am~p~~'discl~bY)lla~liftil
ra;nd:third:parti:eS' :Const1tutlonaIJ,yprotectedngnto'fpnvacy..Plamtifffurt1ierooJects tothlsrequest.
15 onthegroundsthatit:see1cs:docunrentsthat'areprotected from disclosurebythe:?,ttdpxey-cUent
1.(j. prlvil.ege:an1!orthe·ati:Qrneywork-ilrbduyt:cloctI1ne,
1'1' .: Sl.lbject,tocand:witho1itwalvingthef9regoin~.:o1)jectionsandlimitatio~Pl~intiff~spohas
18:1,~~f01l0WS: plain~ffhaslio documents res:onsh~etPthis;req~e~~ms:possession~r,contr~lan~
--~~__ ~_I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----
I
20 .' ofan,y:individualswhomay'haveresponsive documents,
21 ' DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32:
22 AllJ)OCU11ENTS :REL:ATI~~~GtoAva).on C01;f)()fatioh.
23. .RESPONSE·TO D'OCUM:E:NT'REOIJEST NO.:32:
24-Plailitiffdbjects·to'fhis::re:qu~stollthe grounds-fha-titis 'overly'broad'a:s to ti:mec~dsC{5peas .
25 tooe lln;dtdy Pllrdensomeand harassjlJ,g,. Plaintifffi.u1:her{)oject;sto this request pntllegrounds that'
26 itseeksdoburnents that ate neither:relevantIiorreasonablycalculated toleadtothediscdvexy of
·;;'7-- aElmi-ssible~evldellGe-mti:aGti0a-·~1~nti:ffJlartb(;}r~Qbj€Gts:'tQ::~hisl:€quest-f)B-th~gF0m1dB:that,it-
28c811s for the production ofirrelevant'documents'thatareprotectedfromdlsclosure byplaintiif$
.' . ... ........•.~' .... ..-..;.:,...,,»,,,,~ : ,,,,!, ,'.. .~ ,
._----- ---------~ ------.----.---.---.---~-- .. ------.-.---- ---_.... _- -_._---_._._---_.. __...__... - ---_.. _. --------- -- '----

178. I
r ~
I
. ~.' ' (
.~ ~) } .
_ I
1 and thlrdparties'Constitutiona11y protected right ofprivacy. Plainnfffurtherobjectsto this requestl
2 ) onthegrounds that itseeks documents that:areprotectedfrom disclosure'bytheattomey~Client
3· privilege andlorthe·attorneywork;.product,doctrine.
4 Subjecttoandwithoutwaivingtheforegoing objections andJimitations, Plaintiifresponds
5agfOllows: Plaintiffhasno documents responsive totbis requestin his possession orcontrdIandis
6 l.mawareofanyone who wouIdbe:inpossessionofsuch documents.
7 .DOCUMENT REOIIESTNO~:33:
8 All DOCIJ1SiIE:NTSRELATINGtoanyENll'I'YitiwJjichPacificCoastManagement
9 Corporanonis a general partner.
10 RESPONSETO DOCUMENTREOUESTNO~33:
J1 .Plaintiffobjects tothls·requeston tb.e grounds fuat.itls ov:er~ybroad,'aslonme andscqpe as
12 . tobe undulyburdensomeandh~ssing~Plaintifffurther.o~jects tQthisteqlleston the·,groundsthat
13 . itse.eksdocumentsthat.areneiilier;rele'VIDltnor.reasonablycBlculatedto leadto.the.d1SQQverydf
14 l~nissibleevidenceinthls'action.Plairififf:f'tirtherobjectstothlsrequestonthe,gfoundsfhatit
15 IcaUsfortb.eproch,1ction'ofirr:eleva:ntdocm:nents.thatateprotected,from disclosur~'byplaintiff':s
16'1 arid thirdparli~s~ConstitutionaUyprotected iightofpiiva~y.J?laintifffurther;.objectsto'tl;iis·r¢quest .
1710n.~e.groundsthatit;seeksdocumentsthat:are,p~otectOOfrom discIosureby the,attorney-client
181 pnvllegeandlortheattomey work,:prodllctdoctnne. .
19 SubjeCtto.and'Withoutwaivingthefon:~g6ing'obje,cti6ns:andJimitations,PlruntifftesporidS
26 Plaintiffobjectsto this request on the grounds thatitjg'overly btoadas totime and scope as
I
I
I
I
-~ 2':]~ to-be-unduly-burdensomecandharassmg-i':PJaintifffurther.-(ibjec~to-tbis-~equest-QIl.-fhe:grotmd$i:hat. -''- - ~ ~--
28-itse~ks documents that are neitherrelevant norreaSonabiy chlcU1ated to leadtothediscovery of

179. 1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
:8
!.) )
.aclmissibleeVidencein thlsaction. Plaitttifffurtherobjectsto·thlsrequest onthe grounds that;it
calls for the,production ofirrelevant documents1:b:atareprotectedfrom disc10sureby plaintifFs
.andthirdparties'Constitutlomillyprotected.nghtofprivacy.Jlaintifffurtherobj.eCts tothis-request
.on the grounds thatit.:seeks documentsthatareprotectedfromdisclosurebyfheattorneyclient
privilege ·andlortheattomeywork.product doctrine.
Subjecttb and 'Withoutwaivingtheforego~g objections andlimitations, Plaintiffresponds
as 16iiows:Plaintiffhasno documents.responsiveto this requestin hisPQssessionor conn-oLand15
.unaware ofanyonewho wouldbeinpossessionofsuch.documents.
9 .DOCUMENT REQUESTNO* 35:
10 All DOClINffiNTS RELATINHtoany lawsrut;ll1whlchYOUaremvo}vedasa
11 representatlveforany PERSON..0rENTITY.
t2. ,RESPONSE TO DOCUMENTREQUEST NO. 35:.
13 ..Plainuffobjectsto thls'.requeston'i;he'gI:-Orindsthatitisoyeily broad;astoiitneaudscopeas .'
14' tobeundulYburdensome'andhat:asSing. Pla:1ntifffurtheioPJects'toofmsj;,eque,ston the groundsthat
15 ',ih~eksdocumfrrltsthatare.nei:th~rrelevantnbr'reasomi.blyca1cillated,to.1eadtothe,discoye~ of
'1:6' •admissible:eyidencejnthis action.:P1Rintifffurther't)bJectsto:thi.srequesf:o~fuegroundsthafjt
17 . (~a:ils.forthe'productionofir:televant.docuni~lltsthatiU::e.proteqted rrdllldisclosure:qyplaintiff.s
18 ' ,and;third.parlie~Co:ristitl.l1io!:nll~y ptotectedright ofpn'vacy.BlainIiffnutherobj.ectstothis requ~st'
19 o:p:',fuegroundsthat itseek$·.documentsthat;areproteCtedfrotn;disclosurebyi:he:attbmey~c1ieI;lt
20 .ppvi1ege.'and/ortheattorneywork:-:-product (loctrine
21..' Sribjectto andwithoutwaivingtheforegoing objectionsandlimitation~.::elaintiffrespOlids
22iisfcil1ows: There~enpne~
23 .DOClJMENTREQUESTNO. 36:
- 24 AlIDOCUlifENTS thatRELATEto'lnsutan'CepoIicies~iliatinsuteluss'tb~IDiypfopettY~rea1
25 PIpersonal, wmcg.YOP own, incl1iiling equitahleowtiers~jm:l~yidua11yorJbillt1y wi:illany other '
26 PERSON_
28 PlaintiffobJects tothis request on fue grouri.4s thatitis overly'broadastotime and scope as .

180. I
I
1 ·tobeunduly.burdensomeand harassing. Plaintifffurtherpbjectstotrusrequestonihegrounds that
Z itseeks documents thatare neitherrelevantnarreasonablycalcu1atedto leadtothe discovery of
:5 admissibleeVidencednthis action. Plaintifffurtherobjectstothisrequest onthe grounds thatit
4 ,callsforthe productionofirre1evantdocuments:that;are.·pT.otectedfromdisclosurebyplain1i.fBs
.5 ..and third;parties' Constitutional1yprotectedrightof:piiva~y. Plain.mfurther objectsto:this request
6 onthe.groundsthatitseeksdocumentstbat.are prdtectedfrom..disclasureby.theattorney-cHent
7privilegeandlorthe.attorneywork..,productdoc:trine.
8 Subjectto.and W;ithoutwaiving ihe'fofegoingobjeciions and liniitationsPlaintiffresponds
gasfollows: :elaintiffhasnodocuments,r~ponsiyeto·this.requestin his.possession otcontrol
10 ;because he hasnolegator equitableownershipintetestmproperty~
11 DOCUMENT'REQUEST'NO.37:
12 All,DOCUMENTSthatRELATEto:any:debtlhcurred:by¥OUSince200S~
.13RESPONSETODOCUMENTREQUEST'NO~37:
14 'Elaintiffol:iJe~ to'f1:frsreque$f.ontn~grounds·thatitisqvti~y'broadasto:tim~;and.scope;fis;
15 •fo;ljeimduly burdensome,and,harassing~Plaintif.t:further'o1iJeqtst6'th1g'tequestOhthe grounds that:
t6 itseeks,documents:thafareneither.relevant:norreasonably,'caIeulated.to]ead~to't1iedlscov:er;Y;pf··
17 'admissible 'evidence hUms/action. Plaintifffurtller'objectsto:iliistequestonthe grotmds.th~lit
18calls'fot'the production:ofirrelevantdocument!)thatare'protectedftom disClosure'by'pl'ain:tiff?s,
19 and.third parties Constitutionally'l'r'otecteullghfofpnvacy.Plaintifffucther object'tb.1:hisrequest
-'2;O·'ou'tIie-grotillils-:-thaHtseekSiiocumentstha:farepwteCtedfrotft,.disaosurebyiji~'(ittorneFcfient
'21~pnvi1egeandlcirthe attorney work.,;ptoductdoctdIie.
'22 .: Subjecftoandwithoutwaivingtheoforegoing obJections and limitatioIis,Pla1jj:ti£ffe~pol1ds, ~
23- . asfollows: 'Plaintiffhas.nodOCl1ments'te~otisivet{)this;requestin his possession or'.CoIitrol
-24,-Telatin.gto~anydebt1ncurred aftetthejudgment'infhi's'case'-rrecameiinal-
25 DOCUMENT REOUESTNO.38:
26A,llDOCUMENTS thafRELATEtopaymentofanydebfinc:urred by YOU.
28 Plaintiffo'bjectstothls requesionfue;groUI1ds·thatltis~overfybroadas to time,and·scop.eas
~ -------- -- --- -- - --- ---------- -- - - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - ------=:...:...... _- - - ..~~:~:.::...:.:;~...~.:.......~::.....:'!:~:-.-y.::...:..--- - - - - - - - - - -

181. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
,2,1Tam.:aresident ofthe'State ofCalifomia,overiheageof.eighteenyears,:andnotaparty to the
l't'.w..ithinaction,' M.'..'ybusinessaddressis 2625 TownsgateRoad, Suite 330,WestlakeViUage,
.31 California 9136L
4 ,Ii On AprlL31),2012, [ serVed theforegomKdocument(s) described as:,l'LlINTIll'F
'. .I! STEPHE.N M.GAGGERO'S. S.. up.. ' p.LElVIE.'..•. NT...·•. ~. RE.SP..O.N.. SES TO.. ,..'DEFENDA:NT KNAPP,
5 ,FETERSEN 'CLARK'SREQUESl'FOR,PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I [pURSUANT TO CODROFCIVIL PROCEDURE§708.030]
'6
7(1 _X _ .BYMAIL I placedthe above,document(s)in a sealed envelope withpostagemereonfully .
:8 ,prepaid) in theUnitedStatesmaiLatWestlake Village, Californ1a.,addressedassetforth:below.•I
law readily familiar with thenrm'spractice'f,orcollecnon:and·processing.ofdocumentsfonnailing, .
'9 IUndertha..t;practice}tJ'0uldbe~deposited:wi~p~.Postal SerVice :onthatsame~y'With:postage' .
. Ithereon full?! .p~pa1d lnthe?rdm~ course:ofbusme~s~ I am ·awarethatonmoti:ono.ftheparty
10 Isenred,servlce lspresume4tnvahd!~po~t:a1cance!lafion datepr postage meterdate;lsmore than
1
one,day ~fter date .ofdeposIt fonnrulmgm affiilaVlt.
11 BYFEDERAL.ExPRESST·placedthe(:bovedocument(s}in.a;sealed et1velope:and placed .
'12 itfordepositwitllFederalEJqJress,ptepaidJQrin.extday·tleliv¢ry) address,edas'set~brthbelow,
13 I-....~ . BYFACSIMILEItran~ittedth~;abo¥edoClinient(s)by.facsimiletranSnrission.to,thefax:
'.' 'I nutnber~s)~et~o.rth..}:).elow.ol1thisrl,atl? b~fOre$!p()pan. 'andIe.ce.J.v.~d.. confirmed'transmlSSlon
'14 I.reports'lUdlcatlllgthatthedocument(~)wenesuccessful1Ttransrnrtted.
15 I ..BYPERSQNALDELIVERYTplaced.:the,abovedgcumenf(s)in:asealed;envelope and
'catlsedthem tobepersqn,a11.yd~live:r~4byh~d,toihepers~n('S)'setforfhhe10w: ,'. .'.
1.6 'Randall A. lVfiI1er
'Mi1iet,LLP '.'
17 515'South FlowetS:tree1; 'Suite:#2flSD
18 LosAngeles, CA 90071
19 I I de¢lareunder'pen,~lty df;;peDUWunderthelaws ofthe State ofCaliforniathadhe aboveis
-----20--we,an-a-correci:;------------ --~ ___c .. __ , __________ ---------- - ---- - - - - - - - -- -- - ---- .--._---_.- - ....- - ..--- - - - - - - - - .... - ---------
21 ,Executed on Apri130,2{)12~ atWestlake V1Uage) California.
221
23
1
24 I
25
26
- 27-
28

182. ..~
I PROOF'OF SERVICE
I .arua residentofthe SfatepfCalifo!niC, overlhe age ,of eighteen years,andnotapartyto
theWithinactiCln. Jv.(ybusinessaddress;is is 2625 TOWnsgate Road, Suite 330~ Westlake Village,
3Califomia 91361.
4 ' , On May 23., ,2~12 I served the foregoing docilniel1t(} descrihedas: PLAI:NTIFF~S
'NOTICE OF MOTION A,NDMOTIQN FORPROTECTIVE ORDER;:DECLARATION OF
:5 'DAVID BLAKE :CHATFIELD
:6
.7
8
9.
10
1:1
12-
13
14
15
-X-
' -
. ...
BY ~ I placed'the above do~umeJ,1t(s) in .aseruedenyelqpe'wiiliposta,geiliereo.n :fully
prepaid in'the Unitei1 States mail ,atW~stlake Villqg/::, Ca:1iforriia:, addressed'as.sel forth
below. I ani tead~ly igniliar with thE: ,fithi's pra,dice Jorcollc:ctionandprocesSingof
documents for,rruuli:q:g~'Under tliatpractic.61twoUldbe:depositedwith:U:S.PostalServiceOll
thatsame.day with postage thereon fully 'Prepaid, in. the ordinary.course ofbusitless~, l.fl;m
aware that on m()tion of'the'part,y:served, service:ispresnmedip.valid'ifpo$t;Ucancellation
date br:pos~g~,metetdat~ js,:rnbrethan,one3d~y l3,fter$tefofdepbsitfor.mai~g:in'affidaVit.
BY FEDERAL.:EX:PRESSl.p1aceiitbeabovedocument(s):in:asealeii:envelQpeand,p1a:ged.
it fordepositwiiliEederalExpress, prepaid for next day delivery, :addressedas ,set ;forth
below
BY FACSIMILE Ittilnsniitted the 'above dbeJiment(s) byfacsimile transmission to the:,fax
Il111nbet(~J .set ,forth. helbw on tliis date 'before 5:f:OD' P,Iii.~ and received confirmed
transmissIon rep,orts~1ndica:iii1gthat the dOcU1tlen~(WWere 'sirccessfu'llytransrnittedr
:BYP]j~ONAt DEI.;]N,JfrR¥ Jplacedthe'apoyedOCU1nynf€§tm :~ ea4ed.eltvelQP~' and.
causedthem to pe'persOilal1y~ueliy:eted ,by'hana'tQth~pe:rS()il(s}$etforth be1ow..
16 Randall A. Miller
,Ans~a -W@:ily ,
t7MillerLLP
51KSo;uili EloW:erStreet.,~Suite:$i50
18 LosAilgeles, CA'90071
Facsimile: ~888~749,5'812
.. -. -~T9-:- -.
20
'21
22'
23
'24
25
:26'
27
28.,
Idet:iare.undcrpel1alfy ofperjulyuudedheJaw§ofrl1.e;'State,Qfqaliforniaiha;t:the'abQYels.
1:rt:teand. correct .. . .
Ex:~cuted on MayZ5,2012,.at'Westlake Village, California.
D~-s-te~rn~····..••..~-'--------I----~
9
MOTIOJtFORPOSTJUDO'MENT ENFORCEME:t'j'f PROTECTIVE ORDER
r''-'---'-''---''--''''''---''' --,_. - --,- ..-,--..--~,~- .. -. ----,-------. -~. ,-- , .. ----- ---.. - ..----.- --. -.-.---,-.-.~,- ... - .. - ..,.-.... -,-.--.-.- -- .... -. _. - ..--- .. --

183. 1 'pavid BlakeChatfield, StateBar No. 8899.1
,WEsnAl{ELAw 'GROUP
2 2625 T6wnsgateRbad, Suite.330
, 'Westlake Village, Galifomia 91361
3 T:elephoue:80S.,;267-1220
FacsiInile: '805-267-1211
4'
5 Attorneys IofPlaintiff
STEPBBNM; GAGGERO
6
7' SUPERI0RCOURTOFTHE STATE OF CALIFORl~IA.
:8 FORTH}l:COUN:TY OFLOS ANGELES
9 STEPHEN M,GAGGERO.
10
11 Y.
'CASEI'NCl.,': BC2869l5
:Filed: DeceIrlbet12~ 2002
1.ssignedToDept lA
12'~~JAi~i~~~~~~~~fBN ,[PROPOSED]ORD.EROF·PROTECTION'
t3 •1tNIJJUj J~ll'1l;'mld:DDES 1thro~gh50~
14
16
17
1$
j,inblusiye~
--19c-'c
.
20
2'1
;22
,2.:3
24
25
~6,--
21
28
D:efehdatits. JJate: XulY'AO,:ZOf2
Twe: 1:3'Op,Irl.
. Ilept: lA '
[PROPQSED]OlU)EROFPROTECTION

184. 1 :IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDTHAT:
2 1. Any ,documents' to be ,produced by plaintiffStephen M.Gaggero fhatcontain or
3cCqmpri$ec,onTI.d~l1tiaJ ;financial inforrp:atiop (':{:}on:fidenfial MiiterialH
) shall be :,gQV;er:J;ledb¥ ,this
40rder~and;sha1i he identifietlbyaffixinga:'fConfiderttial InfOlJl1iition$ubjecrtoProtectiveOtder
S. JegendfixLaconspicu(nis mamreroIl'eachdocilmeIitso.dassified.
6 All ;Confidential Material will be entitled to protection from disclosure under
7 . {)alifonrialaw.
8 3. Any .pther .pi:!:pers :nledWifh 'the QPtuj: that contain or quote ,r;my C91lfidential
9 'Matenalsha11be,:suojebt.to.fiTing ui:J.der:thefollowing .procedure:Ifthe tloc,umertt to beJlle,d With :
.lothe court pertains toaiiisc0verj motion .ot ,disc0vettprace:eding, it shall be filed ina .sealed
.envel~pe;on which'Shal1 he affixed a :copyofthe ;ca,pfiol1page .ofthe ·;docurrieIit phis .the ;words1.1 .
ooWUl~mIAL' - 'EILED, UNDERSEAL, SUBJECT TO GONFIDENTJ:A:LITY:ORDER'
12
13
1Ll.: theJuo,ge assrgnedtotIUs action, :mafked'~ltIJ)GE'$00P¥' ancl9l?:ntai;l.1i:qgthte sfate.mep.tol1,tlie
,cap.tion:;n.age~ 'FILED TINnBR 8EALSUBJECT ToeOJNFIDENtIAtm:ORDER, Acop.y.,of '.
15. r.
'tn.'e. ,.do.cumeiit fi.1.ed.• Urider,seal ,Shall he :served :oital1.patfies as QtheJ;Wlse:req·,.·uiredtinder:the CO.de
16'
.''qt:(jiyil Procedure and the'Califonria~RU1es;of'X::;ourt,
1.7
,Lf.. AJ1'C9hfid~ntial-M.ateria:l shfi:ll hensed -solely for :the:}Uf,poses 'of this proceeding
.__~ )~rlcl§9t!l.O~O!1l~:pl-gceed~g ()rptli:p.Q!3e~ No:ConfidentiaLMaterial ma.y be disclose4to.anyperson----- 19 . ... --- ---------,--------------- ------- ------- - --------------------------- ----------,.----- ---- ---------------
other thari.the fonowing.·.:
;20
a. rlrenamedparties.
'21
b; Counsel.ofrecord~,and,thefr office.staIf.
12
c. Courtreporters who'$J;1all a,gree o:qthe recordDrinwritin,gto abideTyihe,terttis
'2-3
f--------~I :~-~---~o£t11i'..OIde,....f - - -______~___~~__________~~_~,----
24
5. Nothing in the foregoing provisions shall preclude plaintiff or any affected third
25
- .-.- •:;pattyfrofuseeking-sueh;addltionaipr-0tee-tion-Witl1regardtlFilie,G0nfidenti~lity·0f~e (}onfidentlct1··~ .
- -26--~-----'- -- ------,,- --- ------------- .------- .. - - - -.--. - ---------------------------------- - --.-. -.---
:··JVfliteIial,asfuafpartfJl1a)qleem~pp:topiia:re~
27
i------~+!~---'!·6h-.. ----4Iff-·'~U~~~,~1ieii~eLissented with a snbpoena fotprodnctjoJjo:t ..I'Il1V~Ct--_ _~. . . . . . . ...
28
1
[pROPOSED].ORDER OF PROTECTION

185. 1 Confidential Material that plaintiffhasproduced, thesubpoenaedpartyshalLpromptlygive written
2 notice to plaintiff prior to compliance with the subpo.ei1a,so as to allow the plaintiff and any
:3 ,affectedthirdpamestimeto seekprote.ctionbythe court.
7. 'Final tenninationofthis action;, inpluding exhaustion of ,appellate remedies and
'5 judgmelit elifo~cemel;Jl,~hallnot terminl;tte,the Jimita'tionsol1,useanddisc!osute imposed under
6 this Order. Uponflnal tennination ofthis action, all Confidential Material ,and allcopiesthereQf
'7 shan,be deliv.ered toplalIitiffs ,counsel. Thisinc1udesGonfidentihlMateria1filedwiththeco~,
8 whetherornoifiled und.erse:~il;provided,however, Jhatcounsel ofrecord'may retam copies of
:9doc@1entsfiledwiththe Gourt antlattome}Ywork productthat contains,or constitutes'Confidential
10 Material so loligas' Sl1Ch documen.tSa:reIn~tained ill ,accordance With the provisions ,of this
11' Order.
l2 ' 8. The ;namedJ)artie~andailtbird partiessnbjectto 4iscovetyln tmsproceeding, ,
13 ',m.d/O!,wl1o n~ceicv'e :~c0,;PY ofthis :Order herebJ' consenttothejunstUctiouOfthis court forthe
,pw:pose';ofeJ1force:m.ent~0f ~e,.te11llsimd,pr:ovi$lons,,'effthis':Graer wit11'.respecttojhls,proceeding,
14
ruidfhe c(}:urt.h~repy J;flta;insjurisdictionto,interpref 'and,eIilbrceJthisOrder.under the laws 'of~he
l~ .'
,State,.ofCalifoniia.,
16
f7 .
18
--- - ---T9~'
.20
21'·
22
. 23'
24
DATEI)::May~2{)12
25
'-2-6-' - '
27
28
Iu(ige,.ofthe.'Supe:rlor'Court'
.2
[pROPOSEDjORDER OFPROTECTION
1----,,-- ,-- -~--- ,--~---~-----,-------~ .-. -- ------ -- .-~-- -, -- ---------~-- ---~,-- --,,--- ..-----------,-----.--, -- ---

186. PROOF OF'SERVICE
2 . '. . lama resident.ofthe.$tateofCaliform1:l, oVerthe age:ofeighteenyears, and nbt:wpartyto
:the within ,abtibii.Mybusinessaddress is is 2625 ·Townsgat¢.R,oad, Suite 3:30, Westlake Village~
3 .Califomia:9136L . .. . . '.
4 .On May ,23, 2DJ2, IserYed the fQregolngdob1:ttnent(s)described,a$~ [PROPOSED]
. ORDEROFPROTE'Cl'IQN .
5
6
7
8
9
10
It
12
13
14
15
X-
. .
..
BY MAIL I placed the above document(s}in a .sealedettvelope'with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the Uriited.States mai1:at Westlake Village, California; addiess.edassetforth
below. I am readily familiar with thefirni's practice lor 'collecfroll andpro.cesiingof
doc:tin1elits.formaili~g. Under thatpracticeitwQuld:hedepositedwithU.s.PostalServiceon
that,same day' with pc/stage thereon fu11ypt~paid in'theordinarycbtjrse .ofhusiness, lam
aware that on motion,of'the partyseIYed~ service ispreslifneditt¥alidifpostal cancellation
date'orpost~ge:meterdale is'morethan:one:dayafterdate ofdepositiormai1i:qg:m'aflidavit.
BY FEDER,AL,lt'KJBESS :tpl~ced. thefl.boye:dOQUJfieilt(~)fuas~aledenvelopea:ndplabed .
it for ,deposit With Federal Express, prepaid for nextd~Y de1iyery~addresse.d ..as .set forth
below. .
BY FA:CSOOLE1 transmitted the ;above document(s) ,byfacsimile transmission to 'the fax
;nfunb;er(~) ,set, IotthJJ.:cilow 011, ful's datebef(~r.e·'5;00' p.m., ~~. receiveq' '~()nf'1r111ed
ttansinissionreportsinmcauug'that·the document(s)Wete,;sl:l,c,ce$.sfu11yfrtm,smitted,
BYfE:RS{)N,AL DKLIVER¥ I,-placed the.abovedocument(s)in:a sealecl envelope IDid
:caused:I;h~lI1 to;be PetsQgallydeIiVe(redbyhandto thepers'on(sjsetforth,below
RandalIA. Miller
16 .A:usta'Wakily
,MillerL1JP
17 . 51S s,outb.'Flo'W;¢rSvee,J, Suite21$0
.LQsAilge1es, CA;90d71
18 : Facsimilet :S88749.;;5812
~--~~ t9~-- -- --------------~---~ - -----------~----- ---~-- -------------- -
Idec1ate;,undetpenaltydfpe!jury under thelaw.Softhe State ofCaliforiiia':fhattneAibove is
20 true.andcortect..
11 Executed onMay2~, 2012,atWestlake ViHag~, CaJjJornia.
22
24
-£6--'-- - -
27
28
DawnMaster
3
[PRo;PQSED] URDER OF PROTECTION

187. r - ~ - - - --- -- -~----- ~ -~-----~ - --~- -- -~ -~- --- ---- --~- --- -- - -- ---- -- - --- --------- ---~-- ~- - - -~-- ------~--- - - - -- -- --- -~~ ----~-- --- -- ---- ---- -- ----~-- - - - ----- -- --- -- ---- ---~- -~ --~--
___~_o _ ___ ___________0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ o_______________________________________________0'___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .o_____ o__ ._o.__ ._.___._o __ .~_ _____ __ ~ ____________ _____ ___ _
i

188. Austa Wakily
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mr. Chatfield,
Austa Wakily
Friday, May 25, 2012 9:30 AM
'david chatfield'
RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Pursuant to our agreement, documented in my emails to you and your response, we agreed to extend your deadline to
respond to the meet and confer to May 22, 2012 and then another extension to May 24, 2012. You are well aware that
the deadline was no longer May 15, 2012 and have had considerable time to reply given that the requests were served
on January 31, 2012 and your assurance that you would provide documents and a privilege log by April 30, 2012.
With respect to the protective order- we would have appreciated the professional courtesy of an informal attempt to
reach an agreement without the necessity of filing a protective order. I briefly reviewed the protective order in which
you state that you attempted to meet and confer regarding a protective order on the request for production of
documents on May 1, 2010. In support of your motion you include false statements about the our May 1, 2012
telephone conversation. You called me on May 1, 2012 for two reasons both relating to the debtor examination of Mr.
Gaggero set on May 9, 2012. First, you stated that neither you or Mr. Gaggero was available for the debtor exam
scheduled on May 9, 2012. Second, you requested a protective order with respect to the debtor examination. You did
not provide any explanation justifying either request and on that basis I disagreed. You filed that protective order 3 days
later to obstruct our efforts to take the debtor examination of Mr. Gaggero. At no time did you discuss a protective
order for the Request for Production of Documents (Set Two).
Your assistant Dawn Masters called me to request that I reconsider my position relating to the protective order for the
debtor examination. My email to you and Ms. Masters on May 21, 2012 at 4:16 pm documents our conversation and
addresses the protective order for the debtor examination.
Nevertheless, we will file the motion to compel in light of your client's continued refusal to cooperate in post-judgment
discovery. We can resolve all issues relating to the protective order before the Court. Finally, we will supplement our
motion for post-judgment enforcement costs to reflect the additional costs incurred as a result of Mr. Gaggero's tactics.
Sincerely,
Austa
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:58 PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: Gaggerov; Knapp,Petersen- Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,
Below is the cover letter for the documents that were mailed to you today.
David Chatfield
r-----------------------------------~~,2D~12~·------------------------------------
1

189. Austa Wakily
MillerLLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
)
Re: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
BC286925
Dear Ms. Wakily,
This letter is in short response to your letter ofMay 10,2012, thatwas not received by me until May 14,2012
and, because ofthat, I was unable to provide you with a substantive response by the May 15,2012 to the
deadline. A more lengthy response will follow under separate cover to address in more detail the assertions
made in your May 10, 2012 letter. Attached to this letter are some documents responsive to your Requests for
Production, we are still gathering documents that will be produced in the near future. In addition, we intend to
produce additional documents after the court enters a protective order in this matter. We have filed a motion for
protective order because you have not agreed to stipulate to a protective order relating to the discovery in this
matter. Ifyou are willing to stipulate to the Court's entry ofthe proposed protective order we have filed with the
Court let me know.
At this time we are in the process of completing the second supplemental response to KPC's Second Set of
Production responses that have been modified andlor limited by your May 10, 2012 letter, including our
statement of compliance and additional compliance conditioned upon entry ofthe protective order. I expect to
have the second supplemental responses completed by tomorrow at which time I will be sending it to our client
for review, comments andlor verification. As soon as I receive back a returned verification to the responses I
will send them to you.
Very truly yours,
David Blake Chatfield__~________~ ___________________________________ L ________ _
This e-maiLis covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. This information is confidential information and is intended only for the use ofthe individual or
entity named above. Ifthe reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any
dissemination, disttibuti6h6Tcopying bfthis COiiii:fiunicatitmis·strictly prbbibitea..·Ifyouftave rec~eivea. this
~~~transm.issi0n-in-err0r,please-n0tify-us-im.m.ecliately-by-reply-e-mail-0r-by-teleph0ne-E8(}§1-26'7~1~~Q,ancl-clestr0y~~~~­
the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank
you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA 91361 phone: (805)
~262-:122nfax:~(8n5)267~121Lemail: DaYidBlakeC@yaho.n..com
2

190. )
Austa Wakily
From: Austa Wakily
Sent:
To:
Friday, May 25, 2012 5:49 PM
'david chatfield'
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Mr. Chatfield,
Your deadline to produce the documents and privilege log was April 30, 2012 and extended based on the narrowed
scope of requests to May 24, 2012 (yesterday). There is simply no basis to rely on your further assurances that you will
comply or are in the process of complying rather than actual compliance. We have expended substantial time and
energy in our efforts to obtain the documents we requested on January 31, 2012. Finally, we fully intend to recoup all
costs that have been incurred as a result of your client's abuse of the meet and confer process.
Sincerely,
Austa Wakily
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25,20125:37 PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,
I'm sure that you must do what you have been instructed to do. Your threatened motion to compel appears to be
unwarranted, premature, and punitive. As stated previously, our second supplemental responses that we are preparing to
send out to you will state whether any documents are being withheld under a claim of privilege and will identify any such
documents as required by c.c.P. 2031.240. We again ask that you reconsider your threatened actions. If there are issues
that still need to be resolved, after you receive the second supplemental set of responses and document production in
progress, then we do so informally utilizing the required meet and confer process.
David Chatfield
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C.2510-2521andislegallyprivileged.This
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic
message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this-communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by
telephone (805) 267~1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
91361 phone: (80S} 267~1220 fax:-(805) 267=12U-email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo;com
From: austa@millerllp.com
Datei- FFi, 25May-2012--1-7~Q4~3-1-07QO
Sl;]l3jeet: RE:Gaggerev. -KRapPi Petersen-GlarKe
To: davidblakec@hotmair:coITl
r-----I-VI-F-.-I...Ha-1'-H·€~-lGw-t:@..SP~-reI-y-r~-pe~~~-fd-I:l.a-ve~d by Apr4WO, 2012. W€c----~
will proceed with a motion to compel as we cannot allow further bad faith delay tactics.
1

191. )
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25,20124:50 PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,
-)
Please re-read yesterday's email to you which explains that At this time we are in the process of completing the second
supplemental response to KPC's Second Set of Production responses that have been modified and/or limited by your May
10, 2012 letter, including our statement of compliance and additional compliance conditioned upon entry of the protective
order. I expect to have the second supplemental responses completed by tomorrow at which time I will be sending it to
our client for review, comments and/or verification. As soon as I receive back a returned verification to the responses I
will send them to you. As stated previously, In our second supplemental responses where previously asserted, as
required by c.c.P. 2031.240 we will either remove our privilege objections, or state the objection and identify the
documents that are being withheld.
David Chatfield
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C.2510-2521andislegallyprivileged.This
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic
message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by
telephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
91361 phone: (805) 267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
From: austa@millerllp.com
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:37:26 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Your response below is not clear. Have you produced a privilege log identifying each document that you have withheld
pursuant to any objection or privilege as you were required and as you agreed to produce by April 30, 2012?
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25,20124:33 PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,
1------+Ais-e-mail-is-E0veFeEi-13y-tAe-EleEtrenie-GemmuniEatiens-PFivaEY-AEI:,18-lJ.S.G.--2-5±Q~2-52-1-anEi-is-le§JaIIY-l'lFivile§JeEl.--Ais--~­
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic
message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
-ls-stfictlypronibifect-Ifyouhaveteceiveo-this-tYansmis-Sion-in-ermr~-plea-se-m::ltify-rrs-imme-diatelvbv-replv-e-;:mail-or-by­
feiepnone T8U5)Z67-12.20, a-na-aesffoytne ofigm-anfansmlssiOn ana-its attacnments WitllOITLreaamg-tnelTl or_saVing _--- - -
them to disk or otherwise. -fhank you; David-Blake Ehatfield,-Esq; z6z.5-Townsgate-Road-Stlite 330 WestlakeViliageiEA
91361 phone: (805) 267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
2

192. From: austa@millerlip.com
Date: Fri, 25 May 201210:01:00 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Mr. Chatfield,
Please advise whether you have produced the privilege log due you stated you would produce on April 30, 2012 with
your responses mailed yesterday. If you have we will reconsider, however, we under no obligation to entertain your
clients abuse of the meet and confer process as a means of improperly delaying post-judgment discovery.
Austa Wakily
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25,20129:54 AM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,
VVith our current document production, the pendency of our motion for protective order, and our acknowledgment that
we are preparing to serve you with a second supplemental response to KPC's Requests for Production of Documents Set 2
(which, along with your May 10, 2012 letter moots the previous responses), your threatened motion to compel appears to
be unwarranted, premature, and punitive. We ask that you reconsider your threatened actions and if there are issues
that need to be resolved, after you receive the second supplemental set of responses, after the motion for protective
order is heard, and after the ultimate document production, that we do so informally utilizing the required meet and
confer process.
David Chatfield
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic
message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by
telephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
91361 phone: (805) 267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
From: austa@millerllp.com
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:30:27 -0700
Subject: RE: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
To: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Mr. Chatfield,
.... Pursuant to our agreement, documented in my emails to..you and your response, we.agreedto extend your deadline to
respond to the meet and confer to May 22, 2012 and then another extension to May 24, 2012. You are well aware that
the deadline was no longer May 15, 2012 and have had considerable time to reply given that the requests were served
on January 31, 2012 and your assurance that you would provide documents and a privilege log by April 30, 2012.
Witnrespecttotne prbte·ctTve oFder::·wewould-nave appfeciate(lthepFbfessional·coufte~yofaninfb-ntjdICfttempltd­
niacn-an agreemenfwltfiouftne necessitY-oTfHTng apr()tectlve-()raer: rbrlefiy-revlewedtheprotectfveor([erTfj-whlc:f)
you state that you attempted 1:omee1: arid confer regarding aproYective order on tnerequest fbI' production of
documents on May 1, 20:1.0. In ~YRRQrt of your rnotign Y()LI inc:h.lt:le fc!l.~e ~tqtemen~ ClPQut tht= our MClY 1, 2()12
telephone conversation. You called me on May 1, 2012 for two reasons both relating to the debtor examination of Mr.
Gaggero set on May 9, 2012. First, you stated that neither you or Mr. Gaggero was available for the debtor exam
3

193. · )scheduled on May 9,2012. Second, you' requested a protective order with respect10 the debtor examination. You did
not provide any explanation justifying either request and on that basis I disagreed. You filed that protective order 3 days
later to obstruct our efforts to take the debtor examination of Mr. Gaggero. At no time did you discuss a protective
order for the Request for Production of Documents (Set Two).
Your assistant Dawn Masters called me to request that I reconsider my position relating to the protective order for the
debtor examination. My email to you and Ms. Masters on May 21, 2012 at 4:16 pm documents our conversation and
addresses the protective order for the debtor examination.
Nevertheless, we will file the motion to compel in light of your client's continued refusal to cooperate in post-judgment
discovery. We can resolve all issues relating to the protective order before the Court. Finally, we will supplement our
motion for post-judgment enforcement costs to reflect the additional c:osts incurred as a result of Mr. Gaggero's tactics.
Sincerely,
Austa
From: david chatfield [mailto:davidblakec@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, ~!iay 24, 2012 9:58 PM
To: austa@millerllp.com
Subject: Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke
Dear Ms. Wakily,
Below is the cover letter for the documents that were mailed to you today.
David Chatfield
Austa Wakily
Miller LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
Re: Gaggero v. Knapg Petersen Clarke
BC286925
Dear Ms. Wakily,
May 24,2012
This letter is in short response to your letter of May 10, 2012, that was not received by me until May 14, 2012 and,
_beCClus~of that,) fllCiS LJn~bleto provic:ieyollwitb a?L1bs1a_ntivere~poDse ,by_th~_May)5L 2012,to thedeadlil}e._A more _
lengthy response will follow under separate cover to address in more detail the assertions made in your May 10, 2012
1~--letter:-Attached-to1:his-letterare-some-documents-responsive1:o--yourR:equests-for-~roduction-;-weare-still-gathering----­
documents that will be produced in the near future. In addition, we intend to produce additional documents after the
court enters a protective order in this matter. We have filed a motion for protective order because you have not agreed to
stipulate to a protective order relating to the discovery in this matter. If you are willing to stipulate to the Court's entry of
._ _-tn.~P~E~-~_~~h~Cl!e~lY~ora~r w.~ lia'le fi~~~~ttlJ:.b.e~ColE!.1~II~:e-krl0~~~--=-=-=::-~-_____~-=-_='-~-_=:---~-~~~'~=:=~='-==:~~'._ _
Annis tImeWe are-rrrlneprocessof completlng-tne secona-sLipplementaf responseloKPC'sSeconaSetofProaUa:Ton
responses that hav~~een mo~!fied 911c1LClr}imi!eclbyy()(Jf_MCiY 19! 2012IettE!r'. indlJ_din~our statemellt of_colT1plIance and
expe 0 ave e secon supp emen a
4
r--.. -------.-.---.---. --------- ---- - ----. ----...-- --- -- -- --..--.------.-..--~.~------ ..-....----------.-..------.---- ----- -. ---..------------.---

194. r
I
responses completed by tomorrow at wrfich time I will be sending it to our client for review, comments and/or
verification. As soon as I receive back a returned verification to the responses I will send them to you.
Very truly yours,
David Blake Chatfield
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This
information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic
message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by
telephone (805) 267-1220, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving
them to disk or otherwise. Thank you. David Blake Chatfield, Esq. 2625 Townsgate Road Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA
91361 phone: (805) 267-1220 fax: (805) 267-1211 email: DavidBlakeC@yahoo.com
5

195. ..
i
r-
I
~-- ...-- --~ -- ---- ----- -~.------ _._-- -_..- - ._-- -- _..._-------_.- ------- --- --- -- - --------- ----- --_._--_._--------- --- ----- _.__. ---- ----------_._- ----- -- ---- -- --- ------ --- ----
,

196. r
I
a..
.....I
.....I
0::
W
.....I
.....I
1
RANDALL A. IvIILLER
SCOTT NEWMAN
AUSTA WAKILY
2 MILLERLLP
(Bar No. 116036)
(Bar No. 238788)
(Bar No. 257424)
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
3 Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
4 Facsimile: 888.749-5812
5 Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
6 M. HARRIS andANDREJARDINI
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11 STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, CASE NO.: BC286925
12
13 v.
Plaintiff, [Assigned for all purposes to Judge Robert L.
Hess, Dept. 24]
14 KNAPP, PETERSEN CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
15 HARRIS andANDREJARDINI,
[pROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC's
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO
ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
28
Date:
Defendants. Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
May 29, 2012
8:30 a.m.
Department 24
Honorable Judge Robert Hess
Having considered Defendants and Judgment Creditors Knapp, Petersen and Clarke,
Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini (KPC) motion to amend the judgment to
add judgment debtors pursuant to the Code Civil Procedure Section 187, and the papers and
pleadings submitted in support oLand_in oPPQsition, and good caus_e appearing, the _Court hereby
- grantsK:Pe's monon. Pactf1c~e(rast-Mruragement;-5-1-1~(JFW-LP;-(J-mgerbre-ad-eou.rt--:tP;-Matibu-~--
[pROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC'S MOTION TO AMEND JUGMENT

197. CL
--.J
--.J
0:::
W
--.J
--.J
~
1 Praske in his capacity as the trustee the Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante
2 Foundation is hereby added as ajudgment debtor.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
Dated:
Honorable Judge Robert Hess
[pROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING KPC'S MOTION TO AlIfEND JUGMENT
-2-

198. CL
....J
....J
0::::
W
....J
....J
RANDALL A. MILLER (BarNo. 116036)
1 AUSTA WAKILY (Bar No. 257424)
MILLERLLP
2 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
3 Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
4
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN
5 CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
6
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
12
13
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN CLARKE,
14 STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
15 HARRIS andANDREJARDINI,
16
17
18
Defendants.
CASE NO;: BC286925
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Robert L.
Hess, Dept. 24J
DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILYIN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT
DEBTORS
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
May 29, 2012
8:30 a.m.
Department 24
Honorable Judge Robert Hess
-- ------ ---- ----- --- =-=-=-=-==-::-::-======-==::-::-=-:-==:::-:-:-==-:=='-------
r
I
19
20
21
22
23
24
___25. __
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT DEBTORS
r·---------- .-----------------.- --------------------------------- .-.-. ------------.-----.-----.------------ -------------.. ----------..--.------------.-.-.---

199. 0...
--I
--I
-
0:::
W
--I
--I
-
~
1 I Austa Wakily declare as follows:
2 1. I am one of the attorneys for judgment creditors Knapp, Peterson Clarke, Stephen Ray
3 Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini (collectively KPC) in the above captioned matter. I
4 make this Declaration based on my own personal knowledge and would be competent to testify to
5 them in court.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy ofthe Statement ofDecision issued by this
Court in the underlying action, Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et ai, Los Angeles Superior
Court (Case No. BC286925). Attached as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from
the Appellate Court's Decision affirming this Court's ruling in the underlying case. Gaggero v.
Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et al (2010), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District,
Division Eight, (Appeal Case No B207567) (Trial Case No. BC286925).
3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Amended Judgment filed in the
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et ai, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC286925).
4. Attached as Exhibits C IS a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Transcript on Appeal of Stephen Gaggero's Direct Examination on June 27, 2005. Gaggero v.
Yura (2008), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case
17 No. B203780) (Trial Case No. BC239810).
18 5. Attached as Exhibits D is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
19 Transcript on Appeal of Stephen Gaggero's Direct Examination on June 28, 2005. Gaggero v.
20 Yura (2008), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case
21 No. B203780) (Trial Case No. BC239810).
22 6. Attached as Exhibits E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
23 ~ Transcript on Appeal of Stephen Gaggero's Direct Examination on June 29, 2005. Gaggero v.t - - - - - - - - I
24 Yura (2008), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case
~Z5 ~~No.B2031.80}(IriaLCaseNQ.BC232810).
--~. --- .-~---- .- - _.- -------~- --._._.- --- ----- --~-- -- ---. -- -- -----..---- - -- - - - --.- -- ---.- - -.--. --._-- -._- ---- ------_.- - - - --- _.
26 7. Att~()l1ec! a.§~~lit§ f i§a trll~~dc:()rrect c()pyof ~xcerpts:fIomthe Jleporter's Transcript ~
t--_ _ _ _-'Z=7'------'HI-'0=n---'A=:l2Qeal of Joseph Praske Direct Examination on June 30. 2005. Gaf!f!ero v. Yura (2008),
28 -2-
DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT DEBTORS

200. a..
--.J
--.J
0::
w
--.J
--.J
1 California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case No. B203780)
2 (Trial Case No. BC239810).
3 8. Attached as Exhibits G IS a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
4 Transcript on Appeal of Joseph Praske Cross Examination on June 30, 2005. Gaggero v. Yura
5 (2008), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case No.
6 B203780) (Trial Case No. BC239810).
7 9. Attached as Exhibits H IS a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
8 Transcript on Appeal of Stephen Gaggero's Re-Direct Examination on July 15,2005. Gaggero v.
9 Yura (2008), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case
10 No. B203780) (Trial Case No. BC239810).
11 10. Attached as Exhibits I is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's Transcript
12 on Appeal of Stephen Gaggero's Re-Direct Examination on July 19, 2005. Gaggero v. Yura
13 (2008), California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, (Appeal Case No.
14 B203780) (Trial Case No. BC23981O).
15 11. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy ofthe Reporters' Certificate for Transcripts
16 on Appeal for the Reporters Daily Transcripts on June 27, 2005; June 28, 2005; June 29, 2005;
17 June 30, 2005; July 15,2005; and July 19, 2005 applicable to Exhibits C- 1.
18 12. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's Daily
19 Transcript taken on August 2, 2007 in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles
20 Superior Court (Case No. BC286925).
21 13. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's Daily
22 Transcript on August 7, 2007 in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles
23 Superior Court (Case No. BC286925).f-----~·----I·
24 14. Attached as Exhibit Mis a true and correct copy of the Declarations of Stephen M.
___._2.5. __G1lgg~XO_gnd lQ.s~ph.Pmske in support ofaMQtion for.Reconsideration.filed.the Gagge.ro.y. Yura,
---- ---- --. -- -- --- - -~.- _.- --- -- ------- - -- _. ~ ---- -- - - -- -.--- --- - -------_.-_. _. - --- --- - - - --- ---- -- -- -.-- -
26
27
28
Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC239~10).
-3-
DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO AMEND mDGMENT TO ADD mDMENT DEBTORS

201. c:::
W
.....I
.....I
--
')
1 15. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy this Court's transcript for the October 5,
2 2011 hearing on the KPC's motion to compel further responses to post-judgment special
3 interrogatories in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case
4 No. BC286925).
5 16. Attached as Exhibit 0 are documents obtained from the website ofthe Secretary of State of
6 Nevada. The website provides basic information on corporations or other business entities
7 incorporated in the state. I personally printed true and correct copies ofthe information for Pacific
8 Coast Management on April 3, 2012 by visiting http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch and entering
9 Pacific Coast Management in the search box
10 17. Attached as Exhibit P are documents obtained from the website ofthe Secretary of State of
11 California. The website provides basic information on corporations or other business entities
12 incorporated in the state. I personally printed true and correct copies of information for 511 OFW,
13 LP, Gingerbread Court, LP, Malibu Broadbeach, LP, Marina Glencoe, LP, Blu House, LLC, and
14 Boardwalk Sunset, LLC on April 3, 2012 by visiting following website http://kepler.sos.ca.gov
15 and entering the entity names in the search box.
16 18. Attached as Exhibit Q is Gaggero's responses to KPC Special Interrogatories (Set One).
17 KPC served post-judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) on April 25, 2011. I have reviewed
18 all correspondence and motions relating to post-judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One)..
19 Responses to the discovery were due on June 1, 2011. KPC granted Gaggero's counsel; David
20 Chatfield a 2 week extension to June 14,2011 and another one week extension to June 21,2011.
21 Gaggero served his responses on June 21, 2011. Gaggero did not produce any documents.
22 Gaggero provided evaSIve and frivolous responses. KPC filed a motion to compel further
23 responses on August 9, 2011,which this Court granted on October 5, 20II.t----~-~~~~-I .--~~~-~~~~- ~~
24 19. Attached as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of Gaggero's response to KPC's post-
_.-.2.5.. judW~,1.J.t_R~qJJ~s.tf2:LP[O_dl,lction QfDo_C1U1.1~JJt.s(s.~t Two), Th.ediscoy.~ry_w.a-.S _serYed_oulilllUary
~--~ .-- ---- -._-. - --- ------ - -.------- -- ------ --- ------- --_ .. -~ -._- - - -._-- ----- _. - -- - --_. -------------..------- - -- ----._-- --- -.-.- ------.--- -----
26 31,2012. Gaggero's attomey~ Chatfield, r_eQllested a 30 day e]{tensionbased onGaggero'§ limit~d
27 availability· due to his traveling. Gaggero received an extension to resp_ond to March 20, 2012.
28
~4-
DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT DEBTORS

202. 0..
......1
.....I
-
rx:
I
W
.....I
......1
-
~
..
i~)'
1 Gaggero, through his attorney, provided responses on March 20,2012. Gaggero did not provide
2 any documents.
3 20. Attached as Exhibit S is true and correct copy of excerpts from Joseph Praske's Thlrd
4 Party'DebtorExam taken on June 9, 2009 and the Reporter's Certificate ofthe transcript.
5
6 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April !..IL.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
23
24
25
2012 in Los Angeles CalifoInia.
I
-- --
. ._- -
- - - -- - - --.
26· ..
2-1
28
-5-
DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO .A.11END JUDGMENT TO ADD JODMENT DEBTORS

203. a..
--I
--I
0:::
UJ
--I
--I
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
RANDALL A. MILLER
SCOTT NEWMAN
AUSTA WAKlLY
MILLERLLP
(Bar No. 116036)
(Bar No. 238788)
(Bar No. 257424)
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
Facsimile: 888.749-5812
()
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDIN!
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STEPHEN M. GAGGERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDIN!,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC286925
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Robert L.
Hess, Dept. 24]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD
JUDGMENT DEBTORS;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE; AND DECLARATION OF
AUSTA WAKILY
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
May 29, 2012
8:30 a.m.
Department 24
Honorable Judge Robert Hess
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT DEBTORS

204. r
I
-
---- -------
D...
.....J
.....J
-a::
ill
.....J
.....J
-~
- - - - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18- - -
19
20
~.
21
/)
/
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIRATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Please take notice that on May 29, 2012 at 8:30a.m. at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles,
California 90012 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Defendants and Judgment
Creditors Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini
(KPC) will move this Court to amend the judgment against Stephen M. q-aggero in the amount of
$1,520,943.30, (now approximately $2,000,000 including post judgment costs and interest) to add
Pacific Coast Management, 511 OFWLP, Gingerbread Court LP, Malibu Broad Beach LP,-
Marina Glencoe LP, Biu HouseLLC, Boardwalk Sunset LLC, and Joseph Praske; trustee, ofthe
Giga..'1irJ. Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, :md Aquasante Foundation as judgment debtors. This
motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 on ~e following grounds:
1. The Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation· are Stephen
Gaggero's alter ego and should be added as judgment debtors, through the trustee, Joseph Praske,
pursuant to the alter ego doctrine and/or as the real parties in interest.
2. Pacific Coast Management Corporation, 511 OFW LP, Gingerbread Court LP,
Malibu Broad Beach LP, Marina Glencoe LP, Blu House LLC, and Boardwalk Sunset LLC, are
Stephen Gaggero's alter ego and the real parties in interest.
This motion is based upon this notice of motion and motion, the attached memorandum of
~oin!§and authorities, the accompanying Declaration of Austa Wakily, Request for Judicial- - - - - - - - - - - - -~~ --------;-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - ------- - - - - - - - - - - - -------
Notice, and, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and such additional facts and argument
as may be presented at or before the time ofthe hearing.
22 . Dated:.April1.0, 2012 ._. .:tVIILLERLLJ'
By: ~~W-d~--~~--II~
~ RANDALL A. :MILLER, ESQ.
23
Z4
SCOTT NEWMAN, ESQ.
_ ._25_. .~ ~~ ____~_AUS'IA-WAKILY,BSQ~--~ ~ ___ ~. ~ __. ____ ~
26
27
~ _ ~ ~_~_AttomeysJorDefendants, .KNAPP,_PETERSEN~~ __
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHENM.
HARRIS:ana.ANDRE~JAlW1NI .:
-------------~-r----------------------------------------------------~-----I----
28
-2-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENTDEBTORS

205. (L
-I
-I
0:::
UJ
-I
-I
~
--------------
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
3 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
-------------
19
20
21
22
23
24
25. -,..-
_.. - ---
26
27
28
A. UNDERLYING MALPRACTICE ACTION RESULTING IN JUDGMENT AGAINST
GAGGERO ............................................................................................................................ 3
B. ESTATE PLAN...................................................................................................................... 4
C. POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY EFFORTS ..................................................................... 6
III. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 7
A. TIDSCOURTHASAUTHOruTYTOAMENDTHEJUDGMENTTOADD
1~.
2.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
GAGGERO'S ALTER EGOS AS JUDGMENT DEBTORS................................................ 7
Cou..-rts Have IrJ1erent P3..uthorirj to Prevent Frustration, p.~buse, Or Disregard ofTheir
Process ............................................................................................................................,... 7
Alter Ego Claims are Appropriate for Gaggero's Trusts and Business Entities................. 7
GIGANIN TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND AQUASANTE FOUNDATION ARE
GAGGERO'S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ......................... 8
PACIFIC COAST MANAGEMENT IS GAGGERO'S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST........................................................................................................ 10
GAGGERO'S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS
ARE IDS ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ............................... 11
PRESERVING THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE CORPORATIONS AND
GAGGERO WILL SANCTION A FRAUD AND PRODUCE AN UNJUST RESULT.... 13
REVERSE CORPORATE PIERCING IS APPOPRIATE TO ADD GAGGERO'S
---- -- -GQRFORA-l'IQN,-bIMIT-E:G-LIARILI-'f¥GQMPANIE~, AND-LIW'fED - - ----------------
PARTNERSIDPS ................................................................................................................. 13
1. Pacific CoastManagement Corporation........................................................................... 14
2. Limited Liability Companies and Limited Partnerships................................................... 14
IV. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 15
-1-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

206. 0...
--I
.--1
a:::
W
--I
--I
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Alexander v. Abbey o/the Chimes (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 39, 45.................................................... 7
Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., Inc. (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 825,838-840 ............ 8
Fairfieldv. Superior Court/or Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal. App. 2d 113, 120.................. 7
Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1343 .................................................................. 8
Greenspan v. LADTLLC (2010) 191 Cal.AppAth486, 517 ...................................................... 8, 13
Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300 ....................................................... 13
l.1isikv. D'Arco (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1075 ..................................................................... 7
Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1518 ...................... 14, 15
Taylor v. Newton (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 752, 758-60 .................................................................. 14
Fleet Credit Corp. v. TML Bus Sales, Inc. (9th Cir.1995) 65 F.3d 119, 120 .................................. 14·
In re Schwarzkop/(9th Cir.2010) 626 F.3d 1032, 1037-1040.......................................................... 8
In re Turner, Bkrtcy. (N.D. Cal 2005) 335 B.R. 140, 146 .............................................................. 14
LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis (2000) 116 Nev. 896, 903 ................................................. 14
Statutes
20 Code Civ. Proc. §187 .................................................................................................................... 2, 7
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-II-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
-_.
·r -------. -----.. --------.--. -..-.-.-.-.--- -----.--- -- ..------.--- -- ...----- -- ---..--- - --.--------- .-.-- .-- ..------.. - ..----.-..--- -----.---------- --. --_.--.- --- ----

207. 0...
....J
....J
n::
W
....J
....J
~
1 I. INTRODUCTION
-2 Judgment Debtor Stephen Gaggero, fIfteen (15) years ago, transferred all of his personal
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
assets, worth $35,000,000, into corporations, general partnerships, limited partnership, limited
liability companies, and self-settled trusts as part of an estate plan. Implementing the estate plan
involved two steps. First, Gaggero transferred his assets into a limited liability company or limited
partnership in which he owned completely. Second, he transferred his ownership interest in those
entities to one ofhis trusts or foundation. Gaggero's primary residence, a 3,500 acre ranch, is also
owned by one of these trusts. By 1999 he had absolutely nothing in his personal name.
Consequently, he conducts all personal and business matters through his trusts or business entities.
Gaggero continues to exert full control over all of the assets in the estate as the asset manager
and has absolute authority to command payment ofmoney by the trusts.
With the assistance of his attorneys, David ChatfIeld and Joseph Praske, Gaggero has used
this estate plan to avoid his obligation on a $1,520,943.30 judgment, now over $2,000,000, entered
against him by this Court. Gaggero has not only boldly touted his estate plan impenetrable, but he
and his attorneys have steadfastly refused to respond to post-judgment discovery claiming that the
information relating to his trusts or entities is irrelevant, invades third party privacy rights,
attorney client privilege, and other frivolous objections. When pushed - he simply claims to have
no responsive documents or information, then appeals. When ordered by this Court to provide
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
further responses - Gaggero disregarded it in its entirety. Gaggero's behavior is entirely consistent
with this Court's observations in the underlying trial. This Court, for exari:lple, found Gaggero,
was often argumentative or evasive or deliberately obtuse in his answers. Gaggero was wildly
evasive [w]hen asked about his various trusts, foundations, corporations and other entities
supposedly created as part of his estate plan~ The Court noted similar credibility issues for
Gaggero's attorney, ChatfIeld. This motion seeks to remedy that tack.
__ Jlldgm~ptQr~djJQI:sJl;lftPp,-:p-~t~r~~]l an,(tCJark~'s,_St~mh~l1lS-C!YQa[(ict's, __St~pb~l.l.:fImIi§',-
~~.-.-~ ----- - ._--- - -- --'- ~--- ----
and Andre Jardini's (collectively referred to as KPC) efforts to obtain post-judgment discovery- - - - - - - - --- -- - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - ---- - - ---- - ---- - --
have been frustrated by steady stream of smoke and mirrors, carefully orchestrated by GMgero
-1-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

208. a..
....J
....J
0::
W
.....I
....J
~
1 and his counseL Basic discovery designed to ferret out the structure of Gaggero's assets have
2 been met with frivolous responses and antagonism by Gaggero and his attorney, Chatfield. KPC is
3 further discouraged by the fact that the transfers occurred in 1997- beyond the limitations period
4 for fraudulent conveyance.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ironically, the Court may recall, it was Gaggero who insisted on attorney fees provisions
in all his attorney-client retainer agreements (he has hired and fired dozens of lawyers), including
those with defendant, KPC, whom he - according to the Gaggero script - sued for legal
malpracticefor every matter they ever represented him. Gaggero's modus operandi was to use the
attorney fee provision to whipsaw his former counsel into favorable resolutions after he sued
them, yet when hoisted on his own petard, Gaggero unabashedly asserted·that his assets were
impervious to execution. Such a one-way street cannot stand.
Fortunately, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code Section 187 to address precisely
this situation. Section 187 grants courts the authority to use all necessary means to carry its
jurisdiction into effect, even those not provided for by statute, to compel obedience to its
judgments, orders, and process. Under the plain language of Section 187 and case law interpreting
the statute this Court has broad authority to amend the judgment to add Gaggero's alter egos.
Pursuant to Section 187, KPC seeks to add Gaggero's trusts and foundation as judgment
debtors through Praske, as the trustee. KPC also seeks to pierce seven business entities controlled
19 by Gaggero: one corporation and six limited partnerships and limited liability companies. Pacific
20 Coast Management, a Nevada corporation, is in essence Gaggero's personal bank account, and
21 unmistakably his alter ego. The limited partnerships and limited liability companies were created
22 by Gaggero solely as a vehicle to transfer his ownership interest in properties to his trusts. The
23 entities have no business purpose other than to shield Gaggero's assets, thus, should be
f--~~~--~-
24 disregarded and added as judgment debtors as Gaggero's alter ego. Finally, to the extent that
25 _ClQ91AKG9:gg~r()'s~n!i1i~§.~sj1!4gp:1~~! d~p!01:§ xe.CLuire? t4~ .aIlIlJicCltion Qf rey~rs.e-piercing tllis ! ....
26 Court has authoTItY tinclerSectIon i87 supp()rtedby case law:
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
r····........................-. - ........--.---.- ---.................-............... _.......-...-.....-_....--..... -...-...-.....-..-._.-....._-- - ............_..--...

209. i -- -
!
a..
....J
....J
1 KPC, therefore, respectfully requests that this Court add Gaggero's alter egos and/or the
2 real parties in interest: Pacific Coast Management, Inc., 511 OFW, LP, Gingerbread Court, LP,
3 Malibu BroadBeach, LP, Marina Glencoe, LP, Blu House, LLC, and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC, and
4 Joseph Praske as trustee ofthe Giganin Trust, Arenzano Family Trust, and Aquasante Foundation.
5 This motion also seeks to add any successors to the entities, trusts, or foundation as judgment
6 debtors.
7
8 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
9 A. UNDERLYING MALPRACTICE ACTION RESULTING IN JUDGMENT
AGAINST GAGGERO
10
11 Gaggero retained the law firm ofKnapp, Petersen Clarke to handle a number ofmatters,
12 including five lawsuits that are the basis ofthe underlying judgment. The cases included: Gaggero
13 v. Venice North Beach Coalition (VNC) which involved a malicious prosecution case filed by
14 against a group of homeowners who unsuccessfully opposed one of his real estate developments.
15 The suit was dismissed as a result of an anti-SLAPP motion and VNBC was awarded
16 approximately $100,000 in attorneys' fees (approximately 150,000 at the time Gaggero retained
17 KPC); Gaggero v. Stacey involved a lawsuit filed by Gaggero against the attorney who handled
18 the VNBC matter for legal malpractice. KPC obtained a $350,000 judgment for Gaggero; First
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Federal Bank v. Blanchard (First Federal 1) involved a deficiency judgment against Gaggero
(formerly known as Blanchard); Gaggero v. First Federal Bank (First Federal 2) involved a
lawsuit filed by Gaggero against First Federal Bank for wrongful foreclosure. Gaggero was
awarded $200,000 in damages and $750,000 in attorney fees. Slocumb v. Gaggero involved a
-- -- - - - - - . -- -
lawsuit against Gaggero for attorneys' fees in the amount of about $150,000 for work done on
First Federal 2. Declaration ofAusta Wakily (A.W. Decl.), Ijf2, Exh. A, A-2.
. Q~gg~f~ jn .:Q_eC~1pQ~L ~QQ~,~l~.cl~Ja:w..§:tIiL~gaip.sJ KP.CaUegmgJegal 1I!fllpmGAce. fQ;r: .. __
their-handJJ.llg ·of the -above f1ve-(5) Gases. Gaiiero-v. Knapp:-Petersei-z- Clarke,-atal,--Los
Angeles Superior Court (Case No BC286925). The case wellt to trial in 2007 and this Court ruled
-3-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

210. - - - - -
a..
.....J
.....J
-
c:::
W
.....J
.....J
-
~
1 against Gaggero. (ld., ,-r 2, Exb.. A). The ruling included an award of attorneys' fees in KPC's
2 favor. Gaggero appealed the decision, which was subsequently affIrmed. (Id., ,-r 2, Exb.. A-2).
3 KPC fIled an amended judgment on May 2010 including additional attorneys' fees and costs on
4 appeal. (ld., ,-r 3, Exb.. B). KPC has since been unsuccessful in enforcing the judgment against
5 Gaggero.
6 B. ESTATE PLAN
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Gaggero, in or about 1997, began the creation of an estate plan to protect his substantial
wealth. (Id., ,-r 4, Exb.. Cat 94:10-15, 95:3-9). Gaggero worked with his estate planning attorney,
Praske, to transfer all assets and property he personally owned, including his 3,500 acre personal
residence, to various limited liability companies, general partnerships, limited partnerships, and.
corporations. (ld., ,-r 7, Exb.. F pp. 935-939). Gaggero fIrst transferred all his assets into limited
liability companies and limited partnerships. (Id., ,-r 4, Exb.. C at 96:9-19). Every asset that
Gaggero owned prior to the completion ofhis estate plan was owned 100% by him either by virtue
of his membership interest in the company, shares in the corporations, or direct title to the
property. (Id., ,-r 4, Exh. C at 100:10-14). Gaggero transferred approximately $35,000,000 to
$40,000,000 from his personal portfolio to an entity. (ld., ,-r 4, Exh. C at 104:22-26). Upon
Gaggero's transfer of his assets to the various entities he would transfer his full ownership
interests in those companies to one ofhis trusts. (ld., ,-r 7, Exh. F at 935:23-28, 936:1). At the end
------~--- ~---
19
20
21
22
-
23
24
ofthe day, all of Gaggero's property was held by either a limited partnership or a limited liability
company, which in tum, is owned by one ofhis trusts. (Id., ,-r 7, Exh. F at 937:1-7). As of2005 the
value ofthe assets in the estate has increased substantially. (Id.,,-r 7, Exb.. F at 942:8-10).
Gaggero's estate is comprised of three trusts (two trusts and one foundation), multiple
-- - -- - -- - _. - - - -
partnerships, and multiple corporations. (Id., ,-r 5, Exb.. D at 309:19-21). The three trusts are the
Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id., ,-r 7, Exb.. F at 936:25-28). The
27 personal residence is owned by another one of Gaggero's trusts, either the Arenzano Trust or:------~-l-
28
-4-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

211. a..
--I
--I
-
a:::
W
--I
--I
-
:2:
[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
)
Aquasante Foundation. (Id., 'i[4, Exh. C at 91:10-15). The Arenzano Trust is an off-shore trust
organized under the laws ofAnguilla -known for its strong asset protection laws. (Id., 'i[20, Exh. S
at 69:1-11). The Aqua Sante Foundation is the third trust identified by Praske and Gaggero as
comprising Gaggero's estate. (ld., 'i[7, Exh. F at 936:25-28). All of Gaggero's assets have been
transferred to an entity that is owned by one ofthese three trusts. (Id., 'i[7, Exh. F at 937:1-7). All
of Gaggero's personal and business matters are handled through his alter ego entities. In fact, one
of the entities owned by Gaggero's trusts pays his utility bills, food expenses, dog's veterinary
bills, and provides him with a car. (ld., 'i['i[12, l3, 20, Exh. K at 69:22-28; Exh. L at 47:9-10; Exh.
Sat 80:21-25,81:1-4).
Praske, as the trustee of the trusts, has control over all the entities and assets in the estate
plan. (Id., 'i[5, Exh. D at 3l3: 12-14). Praske is the trustee ofthe trusts or foundation that owns the
shares to the corporations. (Id., 'i[5, Exh. D at 3l3:1-8). He is the trustee, managing member, or
majority membership owner with 100% ownership of all the various entities. (Id., 'i[ 5, Exh. D at
3l3:1-8). Praske's role, however, is limited to advice. (Id., 'i[10, Exh. I at 4028:11-15).
Gaggero has retained control over his wealth as the asset manager of all the assets. (Id., 'i[
5, Exh. D at 314:4-7) (emphasis added). In this capacity, Gaggero is in charge of refinancing,
dealing with tax issues, insurance issues, making decisions to... buy or sell the asset, to improve
the asset, overseeing any improvement to the asset, financing, designing some ultimate disposition
19 of the asset. (Id., 'i[4, Exh. Cat 110:12-19). Gaggero makes determination as to the highest and
20 best use of all the assets. (Id., 'i[ 4, Exh. C at 115:15-20). He also represented the trust in
21 negotiating the purchase of a $1,500,000 ocean front property in Santa Monica. (Id., 'i[4, Exh. Cat
22 110:3-9). According to Praske, Gaggero is the decisionmaker with respect to all the real estate
- - --- - -~- --- --- - -- --- - -- - -- - - - - -
23 held in the estate plan and he looks to him in making those determinations. (Id., 'i['i[8, 10, Exh. G at
24 1002:25-28; Exh. I at 4028:2-19).
27 Trust. (Id., 'i[ 7, Exh. F at 936:25-28). He is in a class of beneficiaries in the Arenzano Trust and
28
-5-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

212. a..
.....I
.....I
c:::
W
.....I
.....I
)
1 Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id, ~ 7, Exh. F pp. 994-995). He is the beneficiary of the Giganin Trust
2 in the sense that it is his personal residence. (Id., ~ 7, Exh. F at 937:24-28). Praske is the trustee of
3 all three trusts. (Id, ~ 7, Exh. F at 995:18-19). Praske was retained by all of the entities that
4 comprised part of Gaggero's estate. (Id, ~ 7, Exh. F at 905:1-2). The trusts own entities created
5 by Gaggero for the sole purpose of owning real property. (Id, ~ 20, Exh. S pp. 40-49, 53-55).
6 Praske is the agent for service of process for all entities associated with Gaggero. (Id, ~~ 16-17,
7 Exh. 0, P). The business addresses ofthe various entities are also identical. (Id, ~~ 16-17, Exh. 0,
8 P). While there are numerous other entities and trusts that are part of Gaggero's estate, KPC, has
9 sufficient evidence to support the alter ego liability for the trusts and entities identified in this
10 motion. KPC will file additional motions to amend this judgment, as necessary, to pierce
11 Gaggero's asset protection plan.
12 C. POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY EFFORTS
13 Because Gaggero transferred all ownership interest in his assets to various entities, trusts,
14 and foundation he refuses to respond to post-judgment discovery asserting that he has no
15 attachable interest. (Id, ~ 18, Exh. Q). Gaggero further asserts that any information related to his
16 corporations, partnerships, trusts or foundation are irrelevant and violate the privacy rights of third
17 parties. (Id, ~~ 18-19, Exh. Q, R).
18 KPC, after numerous appeals and stays in the underlying matter, served post-judgment
19 Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on April 25, 2011.
20 Despite a three week extension, Gaggero did not produce any documents in response to the
21 Requests. (Id, ~ 18). With respect to the special interrogatories, Gaggero provided evasive and
22 frivolous responses. (Id, ~ 18, Exh. Q). KPC filed a motion to compel further responses to post-
23 judgment special interrogatories on August 9, 2011. This Court granted the motion to compel on- - - - - - - 1
24 October 5, 2011 ordering Gaggero to provide further responses without objection and awarded
2S~m;:tQtiOJ:),~_~gam~tGCtgg~IOaJ:l.gJlis...cQUP~~1 in.the_amoW1to:(.$2~7QQ,{Jq'J~_._l~,_E?W.,-.N)..G~gg~tQ_.
26 has ignored the court's order in its entirety.
27
28
-6-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

213. 0...
.....I
.....I
0:::
w
.....I
.....I
1 KPC served Gaggero with Request for Production ofDocuments (Set Two) on January 31,
2 2012. (Id., ~ 19, Exh. R). The responses were due on March 6, 2012. (Id., ~ 19). KPC granted
3 Gaggero and extension to March 20, 2012 to accommodate his travel/vacation schedule. (Id., ~
4 19). Gaggero again failed to produce any documents including only boilerplate and improper
5 objections based on relevance and invasion of privacy. (Id., ~ 19, Exh. R). Further post-judgment
6 discovery propounded to Gaggero will be similarly futile without amendment ofjudgment.
7
8 m. DISCUSSION
9 A. TillS COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT TO ADD
10
11
12
GAGGERO'S ALTER EGOS AS JUDGMENT DEBTORS
1. Courts Have Inherent Authority to Prevent Frustration, Abuse, Or Disregard
of Their Process
13 Every court has the power to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process in an
14 action or proceeding pending before it, and to use all necessary means to carry its jurisdiction
15 into effect, even if those means are not specifically pointed out in statutes. Code Civ. Proc. §187;
16 Fairfield v. Superior Court fa! Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal. App. 2d 113, 120 (emphasis
17 added). In order to see that justice is done, great liberality is encouraged in allowing amendments
18 brought pursuant to Section 187. Misik v. DArco (2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1075. Section
19 187 authorizes a court to amend its judgment to impose liability upon an alter ego who had control
20 ,ofthe litigation, and was therefore represented in it. Alexander v. Abbey ofthe Chimes (1980) 104
21 Cal.App.3d 39, 45. Here, Gaggero clearly has full control of the estate plan and continues to
22 access all its resources as he sees fit. The trusts and entities in Gaggero's estate are his alter egos
23 and shoull be -alcled- as judgment debtors. Thls judgmfmt has little, if any, effect without an
24 amendment to the judgment piercing Gaggero's estate plan.
25
26
27 be the assets of the individual for the purpose_ of satisfying a claim. Greenspan v. LADT LLC
28
-7-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

214. 0..
....J
....J
-
c::
W
....J
. ....J
-
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
-)
(2010) 191 CaLAppAth 486, 517. Although the doctrine is most often applied to corporations, it
also applies to trusts. Id at 520-521; In re SchwarzkopJ(9th Cir.2010) 626 F.3d 1032, 1037-1040.
Because a trust is not a legal entity, the proper procedure to reach trust property is to sue the
trustee in his or her representative capacity. Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 CaLAppAth 1331,
1343. Additionally, equitable. ownership in a trust is sufficient to meet the ownership requirement
for purposes of alter ego liability. Id at 1339. KPC, therefore, seeks to add Joseph Praske, as
trustee ofGaggero's trusts.
Alter ego liability exists when two conditions are met: First, there is such a unity ofinterest
and ownership that the individuality, or separateness, ofthe individual and corporation has ceased;
and, Second, adherence to the fiction ofthe separate existence ofthe corporation would sanction a
fraud or promote injustice. Greenspan, supra 191 Cal.AppAth. at 511. Factors suggesting an alter
ego relationship include, in part: the identical equitable ownership in the two entities; the
treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation as his own; the use of the same office
or business location; the employment of the same employees and/or attorney; the use of a
corporation as a mere shell, instrumentality or conduit for a single venture or the business of an
individual or another corporation; the concealment and misrepresentation of the identity of the
responsible ownership, management and fmancial interest, or concealment of personal business
18 activities; the disregard of legal formalities and the failure to maintain arm's length relationships
19 among related entities; the diversion of assets from a corporation by or to a stockholder or other
20 person or entity, to the detriment of creditors, or the manipulation of assets between entities so as
21 to concentrate the assets in one and the liabilities in another and; commingling of funds and other
22 assets and failure to segregate funds of the separate entities. See Associated Vendors, Inc. v.
23 Oakland Meat Co., Inc. (1962) 210 CaLApp.2d 825, 838-840 (citations omitted). Because not-----~-~--~~-I
24 single factor is determinative a court must evaluate all the circumstances to determine whether to
_ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _0- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • __ _
26 B.GIGANIN.TRIIST, ARENZANQTRUST,ANDAQUASANTEF_QUNDAIIQN
ARE GAGGERO'S ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
27
28
-8-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

215. 0..
....J
....J
0:::
w
....J
....J
(-,),
. );
1 Applying the above factors, there is no doubt that the trusts comprising Gaggero's estate
2 plan are his alter egos. As stated above, the plan took several months to implement and involved
3 two key steps. First, Gaggero transferred all his assets to corporations, limited liability companies,
4 or limited partnerships in which he had 100% ownership interest. (Id., ~ 4, Exh. Cat 100:10-14).
5 Second, Gaggero transferred his ownership interests in the various business entities in one of his
6 three self-settled trusts. (Jd., ~~ 4,7, Exh. C at 100:10-14; Exh. F pp. 936). Gaggero, at the end of
7 the day, concealed all his assets in an entity owned by his trusts. By implementing the estate plan
8 Gaggero is forcing his creditors to penetrate multiple layers of sham entities in order to ultimately
9 pierce his estate plan. All of his personal and investment matters are handled through the sham
10 entities that are owned by his trusts.
11 Gaggero's various trusts, foundation, and business entities are all part of one estate plan
12 (his estate). The trusts and entities in his estate plan constitute a single enterprise and have no
13 separate identity. (Id., ~ 6, Exh. E at 617:8-14). When asked how he would take title to a property,
14 Gaggero stated I could take this asset in my name, transfer it to an entity, a limited liability
15 company, a limited partnership, a general partnership, or a corporation, and then have one of the
16 trusts or the foundation subsume... that entity into the estate plan, just like I did the other
17 properties in 1997 and 1998. (Id., ~ 6, Exh. E at 617:8-14). Gaggero does not distinguish between
18 the different trusts or foundation in the estate plan, nor does he distinguish between the entities in
1----------------------- -~---------- ---------~-- --------~ -- ---------- --- --------~---- - ------ --------------------- --- -- - ------------------- ----
19 the estate plan. Gaggero, in purchasing a property or asset, looks at the liquidity ofthe trust at the
20 time in determining how to acquire the property within his estate. (Jd., ~ 4, Exh. Cat 119:13-23).
21 Finally, all gains on the properties flow through Gaggero's tax returns via the trusts and all other
22 entities. (Id., ~ 10, Exh. I at 4035:4-7).
23 Gaggero also has retained full control over all assets in the trusts as the asset manager. (Id.,
1----------1
24 ~~ 4, 9, Em. C at 120:2-6, 121:22-23; Exh. H pp. 3426). Gaggero testified that he always had
- - . ._-.--- .. -.---- --.--~ -- -- --- - -- .- . - - ._- -- --_.--. -- ._---_..... - --- -.._--.- _. --~----~---.
26_trllst. (Id., '11_ 4~ Exh. C at 120:2-?, 121:22-23). With respect to his ability to!,urchasea
27$1,100,000 ocean front property GaggerQ testified that [a]t all times I commanded the
28
-9-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

216. ,
)
1 resources to purchase this all cash or with a mortgage, and if there happened to be a 1031
2 exchange opportunity available, I would have exchanged it into one of the entities that were
3 owned by my trust. (Id, .~ 9, Exh. H pp. 3426-3427). Again, Gaggero looked at the estate as a
4 whole in determining how to acquire additional property.
5 Gaggero as the asset manager has authority to negotiate on behalf ofthe trust to purchase
6 properties. (Id, ~ 4, Exh. C at 110:3-9). He is in charge of refmancing, dealing with tax issues,
7 insurance issues, making decisions to buy or sell the asset, to improve the asset, overseeing any
8 improvement to the asset, fmancing, designing some ultimate disposition of the asset. (Id, ~ 4,
9 Exh. C at 110:12-19). Gaggero makes all decisions with respect to all the real estate held in the
10 estate plan and Praske follows his recommendations. (Id, ~ 8, Exh. Gat 1002:25..28). Ultimately,
11 all assets in the estate plan are controlled by Gaggero, as the equitable owner and asset manager.
12 (Id, ~ 8, Exh. Gat 1002:16-28, 1003:1-3).
13 Finally, both Gaggero and Praske refer to the trusts, foundation, entities, and its assets as
14 constituting Gaggero's estate plan or Gaggero's personal estate. (Id, ~~ 7, 9, Exh. F at
15 936:25-28; Exh. H at 3426: 5-8). Gaggero refers all assets within the estate plan as his assets or
16 my assets. (Id, ~ 6, Exh. E at 617:3-7). Praske also refers to the trusts as belonging to Gaggero.
17 (Id, ~ 7, Exh. F pp. 936-937). For example, in a declaration Praske stated that he is the trustee of
18 Gaggero's personal estate which has funds well in excess of $1,100,000. (Id, ~ 14, Exh. M).
19 Praske also described the Arenzano Trust, Giganin Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation as the three
20 Trusts that are part of Gaggero's estate. (Id, ~~ 7, 14, Exh. F at 936:24-28; Exh. M). Gaggero
21 should not be permitted to access the funds and resources in his estate plan, which are clearly
22 under his control when it is to his benefit, but hide behind the same estate plan when it is to his
..•
23 detriment. The Giganin Trust, Arenzano Trust, and Aqua Sante Foundation, should therefore be
24 added as judgment debtors via Praske as the trustee.
26
27
28
... I·
C...:eACIFIC.COAST.MANAGEMENT.IS ,GAGGERO~SALTEREGO ANDTHKREAL.. . ... .. -
PAE.TYIN INTEREST
-10-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGl'v1ENT TO ADD JUDGl'v1ENT DEBTORS

217. CL
...J
...J
-
0:::
W
...J
...J
-
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
One of the corporations identified by Gaggero as part of the estate plan is Pacific Coast
Management (PCM). (ld., , 12, Exh. K at 39:17-21). Gaggero uses his alter ego, PCM to write
checks on his behalf so as to avoid retaining any assets in his personal name, including a personal
bank account. (ld, , 13, Exh. L at 47:9-10). Gaggero provides PCM money and PCM writes
check on his behalf. (Id, '13, Exh. L at 47:9-10). Checks were written by PCM. I paid for it. I
give PCM the money. PCM writes the checks. They write checks for me. They pay my utilities.
They pay my credit card, they pay for my dog's vet bills. I mean PCM manages my life. They
are a management company for me personally. (Id, ,12, Exh. Kat 69:22-28(emphasis added)..
P.C.M. only manages my estates, entities, and assets (ld, , 13, Exh. L. at 47:9-10)
(emphasis added).
Although PCM pays for all of Gaggero's personal expenses and manages his life
Gaggero could not answer basic questions·relating the entity. Gaggero did not know whether PCM
had Articles of Incorporation, whether there were officers or directors, if he was a director, and
when it was formed. (Id, , 12, Exh. K pp. 37- 39). PCM's in house counsel, Chatfield, similar
did not know basic information relating to the entities, including the ownership, place of
incorporation, and the entities that retained him as an in-house counsel. (Id, '2, Exh. A pp. 13-
14). PCM, clearly was established by Gaggero as part of the estate plan designed to evade
creditors and has been used as his alter ego. Since PCM is willing to provide Gaggero money and
19 resources to pursue countless lawsuits, PCM should not have a problem paying adverse judgments
20 that arise from those lawsuits. PCM, therefore, should be added as a judgment debtor.
21
D. GAGGERO'S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITEDPARTNERSHIPS
22 ARE IDS ALTER EGO AND THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
23 Gaggero's limited liability companies and limited partnerships were created for the solec-------~I
24 purpose of taking legal title to his real property. As discussed above, this was his first step in
26:H()use, LLC,}30ar~wa1k S1lllset,_LLC, Malibu Broad Beach, LP, I'v1arina Glencoe, LP,- 511 OF~, _..
27 LP, and Gingerbread Court~ LP. (Id, IjIIj[ 4, 10,20, Exh. C, I, St
28
-11-
. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

218. a..
....J
....J
0:::
w
....J
....J
1 Blu House, LLC and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC was created on May 23, 1997. (Id., ~ 17,
2 Exh. P). Blu House, LLC's business purpose was ownership of property located at 523 Ocean
3 Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., ~~ 4,20, Exh. C at 104:16-21; Exh. S at 45:4-24). Boardwalk
4 Sunset, LLC's business purpose was ownership of property located at 601 Ocean Front Walk,
5 Venice, California. (Id., ~~ 4, 20, Exh. C at 104:16-21; Exh. S at 47:6-25, 47:1-6). Gaggero was
6 the owner ofproperties located at 523 and 601 Ocean Front walk, Venice, California. (Id., ~ 4,20,
7 Exh. C at 96:9-19; Exh. S at 45:4-24). Praske is the agent for service of process for both
8 companies. (Id., ~ 17, Exh. P). Both companies have as their address 1473F South Victoria Ave,
9 Ste., 201. (Id. ~ 17, Exh. P). Blue House, LLC and Boardwalk Sunset, LLC are two ofthe entities
10 created as part of Gaggero's estate plan for the sole purpose of moving his property out creditors
11 reach. The entities, thus, should be disregarded and added as judgment debtors. (ld., ~ 4, Exh. C at
12 96: 9-19, 104:16-21).
13 Less than one year after establishing the above companies, Gaggero established Malibu
14 Broad Beach, LP and Marina Glencoe, LP. These limited partnerships were created on February 5,
15 1998 and have Praske listed as the agent for service of process. (ld., ~ 17, Exh. P). Malibu
16 Broadbeach, LP and Marina Glencoe, were established for the purpose the ownership of property
17 previously owned personally by Gaggero. (Id., ~~ 4, 10,20, Exh. Cat 104:16-21; Exh. I pp. 4031-
18 4032; Exh. Sat 53:3-25). Malibu Broadbeach, LP is associated with ownership of a house owned
19 by Gaggero in Malibu, on Broadbeach. (ld., ~~ 4, 10, Exh. C at 96:14; Exh. I pp. 4031-4032).
20 Additionally, Malibu Broadbreach, LP is associated with the Aqua Sante Foundation. (Id., ~~ 4,8,
21 Exh. Cat 96:14; Exh. G pp. 1003-1005). Marina Glencoe, LP's business purpose was ownership
22 of property Gaggero owned in Marina del Rey on Glencoe. (ld., ~ 20, Exh. S at 54:15-20, 55:7-
- - - - -- -
23 16). Both entities were created by Gaggero as a means of shielding personal assets from creditors.
I~-~~·~~~I
r
t
24 The entities should be added as judgment debtors as Gaggero's alter ego.
25 .. _... _.. _Q!le IIlgI!fu;@t~rL G~gg~:ro_~:reat~~.~() m.9re)pn~4 p~~:rs!Ii.ps·.Illes~ are ~11 Q:fW,1P
26 -anclGingerbreacCCoUrt, I,p~Both were cr~atecron Mardi 12, 1998~-(Id:, ~ f'Y, EXh.]». Both have
27 as the agent for service of process Praske. (Id., ~ 17, Exh. P). Both were established for the
28
-12-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND ruDGMENT TO ADD mDGMENT DEBTORS

219. D-
--I
--I
0:::
W
--I
--I
~
(~
)
1 purpose of owning property. (Id., ,-r 20, Exh. S pp. 40-44). 511 OFW, LP had as its business
2 purpose the ownership of 51 1 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., -U-U 4, 20, Exh. Cat 96:9-
3 19; Exh. S at40:22-25, 41:1-2). Gingerbread Court, LP had as its business purpose the ownership
4 of 517 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. (Id., ,-r 20, Exh. S at 43:11-17, 44:2-11). Gaggero
5 owned both 511 and 517 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California and transferred those assets to
6 these limited partnerships. (Id., -U-U 4, 20, Exh. C at 96:9-19, 103:2-5; Exh. S pp. 41-44). These
7 entities are Gaggero's alter ego and created for the sole purpose of shielding personal assets from
8 creditors. OFW, LP and Gingerbread Court, LP should be added as judgment debtors as Gaggero's
9 alter ego.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. PRESERVING THE SEPARATE EXISTENCE OF THE CORPORATIONS
AND GAGGERO WILL SANCTION A FRAUD AND PRODUCE AN UNJUST
RESULT
The second requirement for application ofthe alter ego doctrine is fmding that the facts are
such that adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would sanction a
fraud or promote injustice. Greenspan, supra 191 Cal.App.4th. at 511. The test for this
requirement is that ifthe acts are treated as those ofthe corporation alone, it will produce an unjust
or inequitable result. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300. In this case
allowing Gaggero to avoid his obligation through the use of his estate plan, set up to shield his
personal assets from creditors, will result in an injustice to KPC and other creditors. Gaggero
created the estate plan 15 years ago foreclosing claims for fraudulent conveyance. Additionally,
piercing Gaggero's estate plan is likely to deter his continued disregard ofthis Court's orders and
other court orders.
F. REVERSE CORPORATE PIERCING IS APPOPRIATE TO ADD GAGGERO'S
CORPORATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, AND LIMITED
PARTNERSHIPS
.. corporaTIOn'S assets tosatlsf)ia sliareli()lder's pers()na1 delJt- it is fully jUstified and Withfu This
Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of Its process and supported by-CaIiforma case law.
-13-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

220. fl.
--I
--I
-
~
W
--I
--I
-~
/)
1 1. Pacific Coast Management Corporation
2 Pacific Coast Management isa Nevada corporation. (Id, ~ 19, Exh. R). Nevada law
3 recognizes reverse corporate piercing as an appropriate avenue to impose liability on a judgment
4 debtor's alter ego. The application of the doctrine is especially appropriate when the judgment
5 debtor uses an entity to hide assets or secretly conduct business as part of an attempt to avoid his
6 pre-existing liability. LFC Marketing Group, Inc. v. Loomis (2000) 116 Nev. 896, 903. As
7 discussed in detail above Pacific Coast Management, as an entity that manages Gaggero's life, is
8 clearly subject to alter ego liability. Because it is a Nevada corporation, and Nevada recognizes
9 reverse corporate piercing, Pacific Coast Management can properly be added as a judgment
10 debtor.!
11 2. Limited Liability Companies and Limited Partnerships
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Under California law an entity or series of entities created with no business purpose and
simply as a means of shielding personal assets from creditor is viewed as the alter ego of the
individual debtor and will be disregarded to prevent injustice. In re Turner, Bkrtcy. (N.D. Cal
2005) 335 B.R. 140, 146. California also recognizes the application of reverse-piercing to impose
alter ego liability against a corporation for a judgment incurred by its sole shareholder. Taylor v.
Newton (1953) 117 CaLApp.2d 752, 758-60; See e.g. Fleet Credit Corp. v. TML Bus Sales, Inc.
(9th Cir.1995) 65 F.3d 119, 120 (it is beyond cavil that an inequitable result would follow were
19 the Court to permit the judgment debtor to shield himself with corporate form); But see Postal
20 Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 CaLApp.4th 1510, 1518 (court refused to apply
21 reverse piercing where judgment creditors sought to use corporate assets to collect on a former
22 shareholder's personal debt).
23 California more recently addressed reverse-piercing in Postal Instant Press, Inc. supra,
1 - - - - - - - - 1
24 162 CaLAppAth at 1518. The judgment creditors in Postal Instant Press sought to use a
I.. 25 ..«oI]o[ation'~ .ass()§ !o.~ti§fy. t)lperS.911J.~1JtofaJQ=er~hre.lt!l!er,Id.,Ille ,oJl!1; r.e~t9 .....-
I~:~:~~--I------~__H'p .d:ertiItguffeM isalsoFoP-eri:rrtl:ri:s-C1~C..
28
-14-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO A1vIEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS

221. 0..
-I
-I
-a::
ill
-I
-I
-~
1 apply reverse piercing because (1) the corporate form 'was .not being ririsused; (2) innocent
2 shareholders of the corporation would be adversely affected by a decision that would require a
3 corporation to pay for the debts'of an individual shareholder, and (3) the judgment creditors had
4 sufficient h?gal remedies to pursue without the necessity of reverse piercing. Id. at 1522-1523.
5 Postal Instant Press does not address the situation, as is here, where an individual uses a
6 corporation or other entity as an alter ego to shelter personal assets rather than the other way
7 around. Postal Instant Press is inapposite.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Assuming, however, that Postal Instant Press applies to Gaggero's business entities, KPC
meets the standards to justify its application. Postal Instant Press recognized that there may be
circumstances in which reverse piercing is acceptable. Id. at 1524. To apply reverse piercing ~C
must show that innocent creditors would be adequately protected ·and that there are inadequate
legal remedies. Id. Here, there are no innocent shareholders. The trusts; foundation, and entities
are part of Gaggero's estate plan and are merely his alter ego. He established the entities to
shelter his wealth and continues to have full access and control over his assets. (Id., , 4, Exh. C at
120:2-6, 121:22-23). Second, because tht;: transfers occurred in 1997 KPC cannot pursue claims
for fraudulent transfer. Thus, to the extent this case involves the application of reverse corporate
piercing, it is appropriate and within this ·Court's authority.
18 IV. CONCLUSION
-~-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~-----------~--------------- - - -
For the foregoing reasons, judgffientcredItors KPC:-respe-ctfully- requeSt-thIs-CoUltfo-- - -~-19
20
21
amend thejudgmentto add Gaggero's alter egos and/or the real parties in interest to the judgment.
22
Date.d: April 10, 2012
23 -
24
25
28
M1LLERLLP
By: z:t;:tA WPk~j
RANDALL A. MILLER, EWAUSTA WAKILY,ESQ. .
---.AttGme-ys-iGr-Defendants,KbIAP-P-,-PETERSEN.- -.-- -- -.--
---CLARKE,.S1EF-HEN.RAYGARCIA,-STEPHEN-M.-- -.
BARRISaIlc1.).4,Nl':REIAMINI
-15-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND TIIDGMENT TO ADD TIIDGMENTDEBTORS

222. 0..
--I
--I
-
0::
W
--I
--I
-
~
RANDALL A. MILLER
1 SCOTT NEWMAN
AUSTA WAKILY
2 MILLERLLP
(Bar No. 116036)
(Bar No. 238788)
(Bar No. 257424)
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
3 Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
Telephone: 800.720.2126
4 Facsimile: 888.749-5812
5 Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
6 M. HARRIS andANDREJARDINI
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11 STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, CASE NO.: BC286925
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff,
v.
KNAPP, PETERSEN CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI,
Defendants.
[Assigned for all purposes to Judge Robert L.
Hess, Dept. 24]
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDGMENT
DEBTORS
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:
May 29,2012
8:30 a.m.
Department 24
Honorable Judge Robert Hess
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT
DEBTORS
- ----- ------- - - - ------ ---- -- - -- ---- -- - -- - --- -- ---------------- ----- -- -- ---- - - ----- -- - - -- ------- --- ---- - ---- -- --- ----- --- ------

223. CL
....J
....J
0:::
w
....J
....J
1 Pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 452(d) and (h), judgment creditors Knapp,
2 Petersen and Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini (collectively referred
3 to as KPC), respectfully ask this Court to take judicial notice ofthe following records:
4 1. All pleadings, flIes, trial transcripts, and any other evidence filed with the Court of Appeal
5 in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, (2010), California Court of Appeal, Second
6 Appellate District, Division Eight, (Appeal Case No. B207567).
7 • Attached as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Appellate
8 Court's Decision affirming this Court's ruling in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen
9 Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC286925).
10 2. All pleadings, files, trial transcripts, and any other evidence filed or in connection with the
11 underlying action, Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court,
12 (Case No. BC286925).
13 • Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Statement of Decision issued
14 by this Court in Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles
15 Superior Court (Case No. BC286925).
16 • Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy ofthe Amended Judgment filed in
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court
(Case No. BC286925).
• Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of excerpts and Reporter's
Certificate from the Reporter's Daily Transcript taken on August 2, 2007 in the
Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case
No. BC286925).
- --- -~-- -- -- -- - - - - _._-
• Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of excerpts and the Reporter's
Certificate from the Reporter's Daily Transcript on August 7,2007 in the Gaggero
Y·_Kr!gpPLr(;t~~!i(}t!: __J:}Cl(ke,~t_f!!,_1_~_)~_AP:g~I~~_~uQ~Jj.Qr~QllJ1_(Qll~~_No.
BC286925).
-2-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT
DEBTORS

224. 0..
....I
....I
0:::
W
....I
....I
1 • Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy this Court's transcript for the
2 October 5, 2011 hearing on the KPC's motion to compel further responses to post-
3 judgment special interrogatories in the present case Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen
4 Clarke, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC286925).
5 • Attached as Exhibit S is true and correct copy of excerpts from Joseph Praske's
6 Third Party Debtor Exam taken on June 9,2009 and the Reporter's Certificate of
7 the transcript.
8 3. All pleadings, files, trial transcripts, and any other evidence in connection with Gaggero v.
9 Yura, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC239810).
10 • Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy ofthe Declarations of Stephen M.
11 Gaggero and Joseph Praske in support of a Motion for Reconsideration filed the
12 Gaggero v. Yura, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC239810).
13 4. All pleadings, files, trial transcripts, and any other evidence filed with the Court of Appeal
14 from the appeal in Gaggero v. Yura (2008), California Court ofAppeal, Second Appellate District,
15 Division Five, (Appeal Case No. B203780).
16 5. Attached as Exhibits C-I are true and correct copies of excerpts from the Reporters
17 Transcript on Appeal filed in Gaggero v. Yura (2008), California Court of Appeal, Second
18 Appellate District, Division Five (Appeal Case No. B203780). Exhibit J is a true and correct copy
f--~---------~----- ~- --~--~ ~---- ~ ---~--~------ ~~ ~---~- --~----- ~ ~ - - - --------
19 ofthe Reporter's Certificate for the Transcripts on Appeal.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
•
Attached as Exhibits C is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Daily Transcript of Stephen Gaggero's Direct Exanlination on June 27, 2005 from
the appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
BC239810).
Attached as Exhibits D is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
__ J2aj!y I rl:!!1:1)Crjpt9J S!~h~p-O:i:!gg~ro's)~i!~()t~~~!pi--!li:!ti?l1?_n I~~~~,~Q9~_gom
theapp_€lllo( Ga~iero v. Yura, et aI, Los .AilgelesSuperiorCourt-(CaseNo. -
BC239810).
-3-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT
DEBTORS

225. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CL 12......I
......I
13
-
0::: 14
W
......I 15
......I
- 16
~
17
18
• Attached as Exhibits E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Daily Transcript of Stephen Gaggero's Direct Examination on June 29, 2005 from
the appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
BC239810).
• Attached as Exhibits F is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Daily Transcript of Joseph Praske Direct Examination on June 30, 2005 from the
appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
BC239810).
• Attached as Exhibits G is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Daily Transcript of Joseph Praske Cross Examination on June 30, 2005 from the
appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
BC239810).
• Attached as Exhibits H is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Daily Transcript of Stephen Gaggero's Re-Direct Examination on July 15, 2005
from the appeal of Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
•
BC239810).
Attached as Exhibits I is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reporter's
Daily Transcript of Stephen Gaggero's Re-Direct Examination on July 15, 2005
- - - - - - - ----------------~---- - - - - - -------~---------------------~-------------- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------
19
20
21
22
•
from the appeal of the Gaggero v. Yura, et aI, Los Angeles Superior Court (Case
No. BC239810).
Attached as Exhibit J is a true and copy of the Reporter's Certificate on Appeal
relating to the excerpts in Exhibits C-I above.
23 6. All documents publicly available on the Secretary of State of Nevada website
/ - - - - - - - - 1
24 http://nvsos:gov/sosentitysearch relating to Pacific Coast Management and related entities.
__ _ZS __ .Att~.Qh.~(Lc!~LExhi1JiLO_~e_.dQQ1W1.~l].tSj2bj:flin~_cLfrQ1Jl_th:;_w~hsit~ of th~S~9I~t::P:Y _QfSt~t~ _of
-. _. _.. _.. -- ----.-.----~ ---.- - --- - -- ~-- ._-- ---- ~.- .. _- - -- -_. -~- ..._-_.-. - _. --- --. --. -- - -- _. ---- _. - -- - ----- --- - --------
26 Nevada.
27
28
-- - --- -- ---- ----
-4-
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD JUDMENT
DEBTORS

226. '.
a..
...J
...J
-
0:::
W
...J
...J
-
~
',)
1 7. All documents publicly available on the Secretary of State of California website
2 http://kepler.sos.ca.govrelatingto 511 OFW, LP, Gingerbread Court, LP, Malibu Broadbeach, LP,
3 Marina Glencoe, LP, Blu House, LLC, Boardwalk Sunset, LLC, and related entities. Attached as
4 Exhibit P are documents obtained from the website ofthe Secretary of State ofCalifornia.
,5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Dated: Aprill0, 2012
..
, ..
MJLLERLLP
.. By: -;F:--;-_A_~~==-'A~·.L;';L=-..:;-r-;:;-_.~:MII=....,-;:.fJ.=ER,~~=CS1t=-.-'-I--~---­
AUSTA WAKILY, ESQ.
.-. _.....
Attorneys for Defendants, KNAPP, PETERSEN
CLARKE,.STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN M.
HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~-----~--- - - ~----- -----------~------------ ---------.---------------------.:..-:-~---~-~-------------- - - - - - - - ------------~~--
f'
I
19
20
21
22
23
24
. ...25 ........
2-7-
28
-5-
REQUEST FORTIJDICIAL NOTICEill SUPPORT OF MOTION TO .A.11END JUDGJvfENT TO ADD JUD:MENT
DEBTORS

227. a..
....J
....J
'0::
w
...J.
...J
.~
,_RANDALLA_MILLER--(Bar~No.116036)
-1 SCOTT NEWMAN (Bar No, 238788)
AUSTA WAKILY (Har No. 257424)
2 MILLERLLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150
3 Los Angeles, California 90071-2201
Telephone:800~720:2126.
4 Facsimile: 888.749·5812
5 Attonlt{Ys forDefendants KNAPP,PETERSEN
CLARKE, STEPHEN RAY GARCIA, STEPHEN
6M. HARRIS and ANDRE JARDINI
7
'8
'9
10
SUPERJOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
comITYOFTOSANGELES
J1 STEPHENM. GAGGERO,
12
:13
Plaintiff.,
14 KNAPP. PETERSEN CLARKE,
STEPHEN RAY GARCIASTEPHEN M;
15 .' .
16
17
1:8
HARRlSand'ANDREJA:RDINI,
.D'efendanfs.
CA,S:e, NQ.: BC286925
[Assigned for al1:putposesto JudgeRobertL.
, Hess,.Dept.24]· '. .
IP~ERGRANTING}{PC's
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO
ADD JUDGMENT DEBTORS
:Date:
Time:
.Dept,,':
. ,Judge:
May 29, 2012
8:30a.m.
Departrnenf24
Honorable Judge Roberilless
f---~ - -~--- ~-- - -~------ - - - - - - -
19
20
Having considered Defendants and JudgmentCreditClrs Knapp, PetersenandCl:mxe,
21
Stephen Ray Garcia,StephenHarris, and Andre lardini (KPC) motion to amend the judgment to
22
add judgment .debtors pursuant to the Code Civil Procedw-e Se.otion 187, and the papers and .
pleadings submitted in support of and in.opposition, and good calise appearing, the Court hereby
-:-23 - ---- --
I----~~~----=--:--+
24
,grants KPC's motion. Pacific Coast Managernent, 511 OFW LP, QIIlg~Lbr_e.ad_Cmut.LE,..Malib~ __~~
.25
Broad Beach LP,Marina Glencoe LP,Blu House LLC~aIld Boardwalk Sunset LLC.are the
__~1~~[l:g~g~rQ~s.~lt~L~[.:and .arS2--her~hY--'cl:ldde.d-,as...:.ju4gment-debtors.-l'he-Giganin:rrust,-- 1' _
__ 26_ _________ ..._____ _ _ .__. _.______ _________ __ _____ __ ___ ________.. _________ ..... ________.. _____. _
. Arenzano.F~ily Trust,~(tAg!l_asGtnte ,F'{)un'Qi:l.tipn P,!~ S!~2h~!! -9agg~9'~ali:~r.§Zpq, Jps~p1i
-1:1
28
[pROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGKPC'S MOTION TO AMEND JUGMENT

228. r
I
,-
a..
.....J
.....J
.~
0::
LU
.....J
...J
.~
1 Praske .in hlscapacity asthetmstee .the Giganin Trust7 ArenzanoFamily Trust, and Aquasante
2' Foundation 'is here~yadded;asajudgrnent debtor.
3 IT IS SO.oRDERED.•
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ 23
24
25
26.·
27
28
Dated:
HonQrableJudge Robert Hess
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGKPC'S MOTION TO AMEND JUGMENT
~2-
~.- - - _. -- -- -- -- -- _. --- - ---- - -- ---- ._- -- ------- _.- --_. --

229. ~----
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
-------~----------
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action. My business address is Miller LLP, 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2150, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-2201. On May 31, 2012, I served the within documents:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF AUSTA WAKILY
D
D
D
D
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set
forth below.
by causing to be personally served to the person(s) at the addressees) set forth below
on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by causing such document to be transmitted by electronic mail to the office ofthe
addressees as set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by causing such document(s) to be sent overnight via Federal Express; I enclosed
such document(s) in an envelope/package provided by Federal Express addressed to
the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below and I placed the envelope/package
for collection at a drop box provided by Federal Express.
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice ofcollection and processing correspondence
for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same
.-day~with-postage-thereon-fuU.y-prepaid-in-the-ordinaf¥-course-of-business.I-am-awarethat-on-------- .-. ---
motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is
true and correct.
Executed on May 31,2012, at Los Angeles, California.-- -- - - -- -- - - -
Joseph Dirkx V
-19-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
. . .

230. a..
--.J
--.J
0:::
W
--.J
--.J
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
David Blake Chatfield, Esq.
WESTLAKE LAW GROUP
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
David Esquibias, Esq.
Tracy Kitzman, Esq.
Law Offices ofDavid Esquibias
2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
Westlake Village, CA 91361
SERVICE LIST
Attorney Judgment Debtor, STEPHENM.
GAGGERO
Ph. (805) 267-1220
Fax: (805) 267-1211
Email: davidblakec@hotmail.com
Attorneys/or Judgment Debtors, PACIFIC
COAST MANAGEMENT, 511 OFWLP,
GINGERBREAD COURT LP, MALIBU
BROAD BEACHLP, MARINA GLENCOE
LP,BLUHOUSELLC, BOARDWALK
SUNSETLLC, AND JOSEPH PRASKEAS
THE TRUSTEE OF THE GIGANIN
TRUST, ARENZANO TRUST, AND
AQUASANTE FOUNDATION
Ph. (805) 267-1141
Fax: (805) 267-1140
Email: dae@californiatrustattorney.com
thk@californiatrustattorney.com
-20-
MOTION TO COMPEL POST JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
+------------- - --------- ----