Motion To Compel COLV To Respond To Request For Second Set of Documents

1
2
3
George Sharp
3525 Del Mar Heights Road, #620
San Diego, CA 92130
(310) 498-4455
(619) 446-6717 fax
4
In Propria Persona
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION
8
9
GEORGE A. SHARP,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
STOCKTIPS.COM, AMERADA CORP.,
)
LALUNA SERVICES, INC., TELUPAY
)
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ECRYPT
)
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ALKAME
)
)
HOLDINGS, INC., WELL POWER, INC.,
)
TIGER OIL AND ENERGY, INC.,
)
COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., )
EMPIRE STOCK TRANSFER, INC.,
)
QUICKSILVER STOCK TRANSFER, INC., )
)
ROBERT BANDFIELD, AWEBER
)
SYSTEMS, INC. ADRIAN HERMAN
)
THOMAS, HAROLD GEWERTER and
)
DOES 8 through 500, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )
)
Case No. 37-2015-0008210-CU-NP-CTL

(Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Timothy
Taylor)
PLAINTIFF GEORGE SHARPS
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, SET TWO FROM
DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED
SERVICES; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATION OF GEORGE SHARP
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Date: August 5, 2016

Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept: C-72:
24
25
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
26
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on August 5, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
27
counsel may be heard in Department 724 of the above-entitled court located at 330 W.
28
Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, Plaintiff George Sharp (Plaintiff) will move the
-1MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO
Court for an order compelling further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two,
Propounded to Defendant COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter RPDs),
Requests Nos. 2 through 16 as set forth in the separate Statement of RPDs and Responses in
Dispute. Plaintiff further moves the Court for an order that Defendant and its counsel, Robert
Huston, pay the sum of $60 as the reasonable costs incurred by Plaintiff in connection with the
filing of this motion to compel further responses.
This motion is made on the grounds that the discovery sought is relevant to the
subject matter of this action. Defendants refusal to respond to the discovery requests at issue
herein is without substantial justification and in bad faith. The motion is based on this notice, the
10
following memorandum of points and authorities and declaration of George Sharp and the
11
attached exhibits, the separate statements filed concurrently herewith, the papers and records on
12
file with the court herein, and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented at
13
the time of hearing.
14
15
Dated: May 24, 2016
16
17
By.
18
19
______________________________
George Sharp
In Propria Persona
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1.
3
4
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff served a round of document discovery requests on Defendant, to which
Defendant made identical blanket objections to each request.

Upon receipt of the Defendants responses, Plaintiff immediately attempted to meet and
5
6
confer to resolve this issue informally. Defendant did not respond to the Meet and Confer effort.
No agreement has been reached and no supplemental responses have been provided.
Defendants failure to properly respond to discovery requests was done in bad faith and is
sanctionable conduct. Defendant and its counsels actions are flouting the discovery process
10
and the integrity of the judicial system in general. Defendant should be compelled to provide
11
further responses (and documents) and sanctioned for the necessity of this motion.
12
13
2.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS
14
This action arises out of Plaintiffs Complaint for violation of Business and Professions
15
Code 17529.5 based on Defendants participation to defraud the public through a spam email
16
pump and dump scheme. The Plaintiff contends that this Defendant participated in the scheme to
17
defraud by providing cheap stock to all of the Defendants in exchange for little or no value and
18
for the divesture by the Defendants at over inflated prices.
19
On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff served its second set of Requests for Production. On
20
April 12, 2016, Defendant served its blanket objections in the form of responses to the RPDs.
21
Not a single document was produced. Defendant claimed to have no documents responsive to
22
Requests 6 and 7, but issues the same objection to Request 2 through 5 and 8 through 15; to whit:
23
Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that this request for
24
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the
25
scope and issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the
26
transmission of unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant,
27
immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
28
evidence. Responding Party declines the request.
On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff emailed a request to Meet and Confer to Defendants
1
2
counsel. (Decl. Sharp 4; Exhibit C April 12, 2016 Request to Meet and Confer) The
courtesy of a response was not received.
On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff initiated a second attempt to Meet and Confer with
Defendants Counsel. (Decl. Sharp 6; Exhibit D April 12, 2016 Request to Meet and
Confer).
On May 24, 2016, Defendants Counsel provided a glib response to the Plaintiffs second
7
8
Meet and Confer attempt . (Decl. Sharp 7; Exhibit E April 12, 2016 Request to Meet And
Confer), but did not provide any assurances that documents would be forthcoming.
10
11
Because defense counsel has failed to provide sufficient responses or to produce the
requested documents, this motion to compel further responses was necessary.
12
13
14
3.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Because Defendant has failed to provide sufficient responses to Plaintiffs discovery
15
requests and is withholding documents, and instead provided baseless blanket objections, this
16
Motion should be granted.
17
18
A.
19
Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 states, in part:
20
any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
21
to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made
22
in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated
23
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff Has a Right to Discovery from Defendant
24
In Fuss v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeals stated, in part, as follows:
25
The civil discovery statutes are intended to accomplish the following results (1) to give
26
greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth and in checking and preventing perjury;
27
(2) to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent and sham claims
28
and defenses; (3) to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which
otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty; (4) to educate the parties in advance
of trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses, thereby encouraging settlement; (5) to
expedite litigation; (6) to safeguard against a surprise; (7) to prevent delay; (8) to simplify and
narrow the issues; and (9) to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. 273 Cal.App.2d,
807, 815-16 (1969) (citing Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct., 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376).
Californias discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for
fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other sides
evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure. Glenfed Dev.
Corp. v. Super. Ct., 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 (1997). The purpose of pretrial discovery is to
10
obtain all of the facts relative to a claim or defense. Hernandez v. Super. Ct., 112 Cal.App.4th
11
285, 301 (2003). For discovery purposes, information sought is relevant to the subject matter
12
if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial or facilitating
13
settlement thereof. Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2001).
14
Plaintiffs discovery efforts have been thwarted by Defendant as a result of its bad faith
15
responses and refusal to provide further responses, despite Plaintiffs meet and confer effort. As
16
set forth below, Defendant has failed to make a good faith effort to respond to the requests, and
17
good cause exists to justify an order compelling the discovery sought.
18
Defendant Has Failed to Sufficiently Respond to Plaintiffs RPDs
19
B.
20
The party to whom a demand for documents is directed must respond separately to each
21
item in the demand by one of the following: (a) a statement that the party will comply by the date
22
set for inspection with the particular demand for inspection; (b) a statement that the party lacks
23
the ability to comply with the particular demand; or (c) an objection to all or part of the demand.
24
Code Civ. Proc. 2031.210(a).
25
An agreement to comply must state that the production and inspection demanded will be
26
allowed (in whole or in part) and that the documents or things in the responding partys
27
possession, custody, or control will be produced. Code Civ. Proc. 2031.220. In addition,
28
compliance is satisfied by producing the documents either as they are kept in the usual course
of business or sorted and labeled to correspond with the categories in the document demand. Id.
at 2031.280(a). An inability to comply shall state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry
has been made in an effort to locate the item demanded, as well as the reason the party is unable
to comply (e.g., the document never existed, has been lost or stolen, was inadvertently destroyed,
or is not in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party). Id. at 2031.230. With
respect to objections, the objection must identify with particularity the specific document or
evidence to which the objection is made. Code Civ. Proc. 2031.240(b). Objections constitute
implicit refusals to produce documents. Standon Co., Inc. v. Super. Ct., 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901
(1990).
10
With respect to Defendants responses to the RPDs, Defendant refused to produce
11
documents in response to RPD No. 2 through 5 and 8 through 16 and represented it has no non-
12
privileged responsive documents in response to RPD Nos. 6 and 7.
13
14
15
These responses and the refusal to produce documents are insufficient and require an
order compelling further responses and documents.
Moreover, none of Defendants written responses to the RPDs at issue comply with the
16
requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, as discussed in more detail in the concurrently filed
17
Statement. Thus, further written responses withdrawing the objection and agreeing to comply
18
with the RPDs must be provided.
19
20
C.
21
Warranted
22
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 defines discovery misuse as follows:
The Imposition of Sanctions against Defendant and Its Counsel Is
23
24
25
26
Misuses of the discovery processes include, but are not limited to the
following: . . .
(c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes
27
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden
28
expense.
(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.
(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to
discovery.
(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.
5
6
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 states, in pertinent part:
To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular
discovery method or any other provision of this title, the Court, after notice to any
affected party, person or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose
10
the following sanctions against any one engaging in conduct that is a misuse of
11
the discovery process:
12
(a) The Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that (1)
13
engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that
14
conduct, or both, pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred
15
by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Emphasis added.)
16
17
Moreover, Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300(d) requires a court to impose a monetary sanction
18
against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel
19
further response to a discovery request unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
20
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction
21
unjust.
22
In this case, Defendants responses to the RPDs at issue were made in bad faith when it
23
issued blanket objections and did not produce a single document in response to 15 requests.
24
The discovery propounded on Defendant were authorized methods of discovery, and its
25
and its counsels actions in failing to provide proper responses constitute a misuse of the
26
discovery process, as do the failures to substantively meet and confer. As a result of
27
Defendants action, Plaintiff has been forced to file the instant motion. Based on Defendants
28
bad faith actions, sanctions in the amount of $60 should be imposed against Defendant and its
counsel.
3
4
5
4.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff George Sharp respectfully requests that the Court
order Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. to provide complete substantive responses to
the RPDs 2 through 15 at issue in this Motion. Plaintiff further requests that the Court impose
sanctions against Defendant and its counsel, Robert Huston, in the amount of $60.
9
10
11
Dated: May 24, 2016
12
13
14
By.
15
______________________________
George Sharp
In Propria Persona
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF GEORGE SHARP
I, George Sharp, declare as follows:
1.
I am over 18 years of age and am the Plaintiff in this case. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called as a witness would truthfully and competently
testify to the following.
2.
On March 25, 2016, I served Request for Production of Documents, Set Two on
the Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of these discovery requests.
3.
On April 12, 2016, I received by email a series of objections from Defendants
10
Counsel which were to be considered as responses to my Request for Production of Documents,
11
Set Two. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of these discovery responses.
12
4.
On April 12, 2016, I sent a Meet and Confer request to Defendants Counsel,
13
Robert Huston, regarding responses to the document requests. Attached as Exhibit C is a true
14
copy of this Meet and Confer letter.
15
5.
I have not received any response to my initial effort to Meet and Confer.
16
6.
On May 23, 2016, I sent a second Meet and Confer request to Defendants
17
Counsel, Robert Huston, regarding responses to the document requests. Attached as Exhibit D
18
is a true copy of this Meet and Confer letter.
19
7.
On May 24, 2016, I received a response to my second Meet and Confer letter
20
from Defendants Counsel, Robert Huston. Attached as Exhibit E is a true copy of this Meet
21
and Confer letter.
22
8.
I have advanced $60 as a filing fee for this motion.
23
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
25
foregoing is true and correct. This declaration was executed on May 24, 2016 in San Diego,
26
California.
27
28
____________________________
George Sharp
PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP. 1013A, CG 002015.5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
I, the undersigned, reside in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the
age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3525 Del
Mar Heights Road, Suite 620, San Diego, California 92130. My email address is
George@George-Sharp.com.
On May 24, 2016, at approximately 5:30 p.m., I served true copies of the foregoing
documents described as PLAINTIFF GEORGE SHARPS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
10
OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO FROM DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED
11
SERVICES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
12
GEORGE SHARP IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action,
13
addressed as follows:
14
Kenneth Stone
15
THE STONE LAW GROUP
16
Karl@KRInternetLaw.com
17
18
Robert Huston
19
Bob_Huston@Yahoo.com
20
21
BY EMAIL: The documents were scanned and uploaded to the One Legal internet
22
website with the instruction to forward the documents to the interested parties. I am "readily
23
familiar" with the practice of uploading to One Legal for email forwarding.
24
25
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed May 24, 2016.
26
27
____________________
28
George Sharp
EXHIBIT A
George Sharp
San Diego, CA 92130
(310) 498-4455
(619) 446-6717 fax
In Propria Persona
5
6
7

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
GEORGE SHARP,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
)
)
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ECRYPT
)
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ALKAME
)
)
COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., )
)
and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
)
Case No.: 37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL

Taylor)
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT
COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES,
INC., SET TWO
Trial Date:
none
20
21
22
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
Plaintiff George Sharp
23
RESPONDING PARTY:
Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
24
SET NUMBER:
Two
25
TO DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. AND ITS
26
ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
27
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031, plaintiff George Sharp
28
hereby requests that defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., hereinafter COASTAL,
-1_____________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., SET TWO
produce the following documents for copying and inspection at 3525 Del Mar Heights Road,
Suite 620, at 10:00 a.m. on April 29, 2016
3
4
DEFINITIONS
1.
YOU or YOUR means Defendant COASTAL INTEGRATED
SERVICES, INC., its employees, agents, attorneys, accountants, transfer agents, officers,
directors, affiliates, successors, assigns, partners, representatives, any person or entity acting on
its behalf, at his request or with his authorization.
2.
PERSON or PERSONS mean any natural person, association,
partnership, corporation, organization, business, trust, joint venture, receiver, estate, syndicate or
10
any other entity or combination acting as a unit or acting as a form of legal entity, including the
11
parties to this suit and their members, officers, directors, partners, agents, contractors,
12
subcontractors, employees, representatives and affiliates.
13
5.
REGARDING, RELATING TO or RELATE TO means
14
mentioning, discussing, summarizing, describing, regarding, referring to, relating to, evidencing,
15
depicting, embodying, constituting or reporting.
16
6.
COMMUNICATION means any meeting, conversation, discussion,
17
correspondence, message or other occurrence where thoughts, opinions or data are transmitted
18
between two or more PERSONS.
19
7.
The terms DOCUMENT and DOCUMENTS are used in their
20
broadest possible sense and mean, without limitation, any kind of written, printed, typed,
21
photostatic, photographed, recorded or otherwise reproduced communication or representation,
22
whether comprised of letters, words, numbers, pictures, sounds, syllables or any combination
23
thereof, regardless of whether the same is an original, a copy, a reproduction, a facsimile or draft,
24
and regardless of the source or author thereof. This definition includes copies or duplicates of
25
DOCUMENTS contemporaneously or subsequently created that have any non-conforming notes
26
or other markings. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the terms DOCUMENT
27
and DOCUMENTS include, but are not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, notes,
28
records, letters, envelopes, telegrams, messages, studies, analyses, contracts, agreements,

-2_____________________________________________________________________________
working papers, summaries, statistical statements, financial statements or work papers, accounts,
invoices, receipts, payment records, analytical records, reports and/or summaries of
investigations, trade letters, press releases, comparisons, books, calendars, diaries, articles,
magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, bulletins, notices, drawings,
diagrams, instructions, notes or minutes of meetings or other communications of any type,
including inter- and intra-office communications, faxed materials (including fax cover sheets),
questionnaires, surveys, charts, graphs, photographs, phonograph recordings, electronic mail,
film, tapes, disks, diskettes, data cells, tape back-ups, drums, print-outs, all other data
compilations from which information can be obtained (translated, if necessary, by YOU into
10
usable form), and any preliminary versions, drafts or revisions of any of the foregoing, whether
11
used or not, and any writings as defined by Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
12
8.
If any DOCUMENT is withheld under a claim of privilege, to assist the
13
Court and the parties hereto in determining the validity of the claim of privilege, you are asked to
14
furnish a list (Privilege Log) signed by the person supervising the response to this request for
15
production of DOCUMENTS, which identifies each DOCUMENT for which the privilege is
16
claimed, together with the following information regarding said document:
17
a)
the date of the DOCUMENT;
18
b)
the identity of the PERSON who signed said DOCUMENT or on whose
19
behalf it was sent or issued, including said PERSONS last known
20
business and home addresses and telephone numbers;
21
c)
the identity of the PERSON to whom said DOCUMENT was directed,
22
including said PERSONS last known business and home addresses and
23
telephone numbers;
24
d)
the nature and substance of said DOCUMENT set forth with sufficient
25
particularity to enable the Court and the parties hereto to identify the
26
DOCUMENT;
27
28
e)
the identity of each PERSON who has custody, control or possession of

the original DOCUMENT and/or copy thereof;
-3_____________________________________________________________________________
f)
the number of pages in the DOCUMENT;
g)
the basis upon which any privilege is claimed;
h)
whether or not any non-privileged matter is included within the document;
4
5
6
and
i)
the number of the document request to which such DOCUMENT relates

or corresponds.
7
8
9
10
11
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
All documents relating to the formation of the corporation currently known as Coastal
Integrated Services, Inc, its predecessors, affiliates and subsidiaries.
12
13
All documents relating to the assignments and resignations of any officers and directors
14
of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. or its predecessor company(s) since May 2, 2009.
15
16
All documents relating to general meetings of the shareholders of Coastal Integrated
17
Services, Inc. and its predecessors, including minutes of those meetings, since May 2, 2009.
18
19
All minutes of meetings of the directors of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. and its
20
predecessors since May 2, 2009.
21
22
All written communications, including letters, emails and contracts regarding investor
23
relations programs on behalf of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
24
25
All written communications, including letters, emails and contracts regarding the
26
marketing of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. common stock.
27
28
-4_____________________________________________________________________________
All documentation referencing the transfer of ownership of common stock, preferred
stock, stock options, and warrants in Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
All documentation referencing the issuance of common stock, preferred stock, stock
options, and warrants in Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
All written communications, including letters, emails and contracts between Coastal
Integrated Services, Inc. or its predecessors and its transfer agents.
10
11
All documentation referring to contracts or letters of intent or business agreements
12
between Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., or its predecessors and any other entity.
13
14
All press releases issued on behalf of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc and its
15
predecessors.
16
17
All SEC filings on behalf of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc and its predecessors.
18
19
All disclosures and/or filings to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA),
20
OTC Markets or other market facilitators or regulators.
21
22
All documentation referencing financing of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., or its
23
predecessors, including but not limited to equity financing, notes and debentures (convertible or
24
not).
25
26
All contracts entered into by Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. or its predecessors.
27
28
-5_____________________________________________________________________________
Dated: March 25, 2016
2
3
4
By.
______________________________
George Sharp
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6_____________________________________________________________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP. 1013A, CG 002015.5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I, the undersigned, reside in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the
age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3525 Del
Mar Heights Road, Suite 620, San Diego, California 92130. My email address is
George@George-Sharp.com.
On March 25, 2016, at approximately 8:45 a.m., I served true copies of the foregoing
documents described as REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY
DEFENDANT COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., SET TWO on the interested
parties in this action, addressed as follows:
11
12
13
14
Kenneth Stone
THE STONE LAW GROUP
Karl@KRInternetLaw.com
15
16
17
Robert Huston
Bob_Huston@Yahoo.com
18
19
20
21
22
23
BY EMAIL: The documents were scanned and uploaded to the One Legal internet
website with the instruction to forward the documents to the interested parties. I am "readily
familiar" with the practice of uploading to One Legal for email forwarding.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed March 25, 2016.
24
25
26
27
____________________
George Sharp
28
-7_____________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT B
Robert J. Huston III, SB # 45366

10 Jetty Drive
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Tel: (949) 230-0259
E-mail: bob_huston@yahoo.com
Attorney for Defendant COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.
1
2
5
6
7
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL JUDICIAL DIVISION
10
11
GEORGE A. SHARP
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
vs.
INTERNATIONAL, INC.ALKAME
TIGER OIL AND ENERGY, INC.,and
DOES 1 through 500, inclusive;
17
Defendants.
18
__________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.37-2015-00008210-CU-NP-CTL
Taylor)
Department C-72
COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES,
INC.S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
GEORGE SHARPS REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
TWO
Trial Date:
None
19
20
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff George A. Sharp
21
RESPONDING PARTY:
Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc.
22
SET NUMBER:
One
23
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24
Defendant Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. hereby responds to Plaintiff George A.
25
Sharps Form Interrogatories, Set One as follows:
26
27
28
1
DEFENDANT COASTALS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is
subject to all appropriate objections, including competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety
and admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any response set forth herein if the
question were asked of, or any response were made by, a witness present and testifying
in court. All such objections are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
Responding Party has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this
action and has not yet completed its discovery in this action. Responding Party has not
yet consulted all intended expert witnesses and has not yet completed its preparation for
trial. Consequently, the following responses are given without prejudice to the plaintiff's
10
right to produce, at time of trial, subsequently discovered evidence relating to the proof of
11
presently known material facts and to produce all evidence whenever discovered, relating
12
to the proof of subsequently discovered material facts.
13
This preliminary statement is, by reference hereto, incorporated into each of the
14
responses herein.
15
Response to Request for Production No. 2:
16
17
production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the scope and
18
issues of this lawsuit in that the documents sought are unrelated to the transmission of
19
unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
20
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
21
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that this request for
22
production of documents is unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents that
23
are publicly available on the Internet. Responding to this request would be oppressive,
24
unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden of responding to such
25
requests is substantially the same or less for the Plaintiff as for the Responding Party.
26
Responding Party declines the request.
27
28
2
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party declines the
19
request.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
request.
27
28
3
Responding Party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry as to the
whereabouts of the documents, but is unable to comply with the Request because
Responding Party does not believe that the documents ever existed, and are not in its
possession, custody or control.
Responding Party has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry as to the
whereabouts of the documents, but is unable to comply with the Request because
Responding Party does not believe that the documents ever existed, and are not in its
10
possession, custody or control.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
request.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
request.
25
26
27
28
4
request.
10
11
request.
12
Responding Party further objects to this request on the basis that it is overly broad
13
and thus places an undue burden on this Def endant to respond.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
request.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
request.
10
11
12
13
14
15
request.
16
17
18
To the extent that this request requires production of Responding Partys filings with
19
OTC Markets or the Securities and Exchange Commission, Responding Party further
20
objects to this request on the basis that this request for production of documents is unduly
21
burdensome in that it seeks documents that are publicly available on the Internet.
22
Responding to this request would be oppressive, unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily
23
expensive, and the burden of responding to such requests is substantially the same or less
24
for the Plaintiff as for the Responding Party.
25
26
27
28
6
VERIFICATION BY PARTY
(C.C.P. 2015.5)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
I, John Newman am the president of Coastal Integrated Services, Inc., a defendant
in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof, and
I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are
therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters which I believe it to
be true.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 12 th day of April, 2016, at Thousand Palms, California.
11
12
_____________________________________
JOHN NEWMAN
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
EXHIBIT C
George Sharp
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
George Sharp <george@george-sharp.com>

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:11 PM
'Robert Huston'
RE: COLV Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set 2
Mr. Huston:
This email shall be construed as an attempt to meet and confer on your response to my Request for Production, Set Two. Your responses contain blanket
objections intended to obfuscate documents and deny my right to discovery. You have not produced a single document.
Furthermore, you continue to be lax in your response to the first set of Requests for Production and have not even provided the courtesy of my previous Meet
and Confer emails.
This is my final attempt to obtain the responsive documents before I file a Motion to Compel and seek sanctions.
Respectfully,
George Sharp
310-498-4455
From: Robert Huston [mailto:bob_huston@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:52 PM
To: George Sharp; Kenneth Stone, Esq.
Subject: COLV Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set 2
Attached.
Robert J. Huston III
Attorney at Law
"We must reject the idea that every time that a law is broken society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept
that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan
1
EXHIBIT D
GEORGE A. SHARP
San Diego, CA 92130
310-498-4455
Fax: 619-446-6717
Email: george@clippercp.com
Re: Sharp v StockTips - SD Sup Court Case. No. 37-2015-00008210

ATTTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER
Mr. Huston:
This is email is written in a second attempt to Meet and Confer with respect to your
blanket objections to the Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.
It appears that your client wishes to assert boilerplate objections in violation of the spirit
of the Discovery Act. Indeed, one court held such boilerplate objections sanctionable.
Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (Aamazing Technologies Corp.), 51 Cal. App.
4th 1513, 1516 (1997).
With respect to your repeated objections based on scope and issues of lawsuit, I refer
you to Code of Civil Procedure 2017(a) [CCP 2017.010] which clearly states: any
party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made
in that action . . .
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2017.010,
Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party
may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject
matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that
action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . . . [Emphasis Added].
Discovery is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a
party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof.
Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western
Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013. Further, the relevancy to the subject
matter is applied liberally. Any doubt is resolved in favor of permitting discovery.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790. Further, this is
never a proper objection for the refusal to answer the interrogatory. Coy v. Superior
Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason for
not answering written interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of
case could not be used to deny discovery).
The basic premise of discovery is that the discovery statutes are construed broadly, so as
to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. Greyhound Corp., at 377-378. The
Supreme Court in Greyhound Corp., found that the basic purpose of discovery is to take
the game element out of trial preparation by enabling parties to obtain the evidence
necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute beforehand. Id., at 376.
The basic purpose of discovery is to take the game element out of trial preparation by
enabling parties to obtain the evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute
beforehand. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376; Emerson
Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107.
Scope and issues of lawsuit, i.e. relevancy, is not a valid objection. Discovery is relevant
to the subject matter of the litigation if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87
Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013. Further, the relevancy to the subject matter is applied liberally.
Any doubt is resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v.
Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790. Further, this is never a proper objection for the
refusal to provide discovery responses. See Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa
County (1962) 58 Cal 2d 210 (Objection interposed as reason for not answering written
interrogatories that they were irrelevant and immaterial to issues of case could not be
used to deny discovery). Further, the requested documents are directly relevant to this
litigation. The course and scope of the dealing between the parties is key in interpreting
the contract and the relationship between the parties. The propounded discovery is
necessary to this case in that it establishes who were the potential beneficiaries of the
spam email pump and dump scheme, as well as those in control of the company when it
willingly participated in the scheme, including potential alter-egos. The discovery will
also aid in establishing potential witnesses.
With respect to your repeated assertion that certain documents are available on the
internet, as you know, these documents may not be admissible as they are not certified
and receiving certified copies would be an undue burden and expense on me, the
Plaintiff. Instead of providing a straightforward response to this interrogatory as required
by the Code, you improperly refer the propounding party to the internet. This is contrary
to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 2030.220; See also Deyo v. Kilbourne, 84 Cal.App.3d 771,
783-784 (1978) (it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my
pleading, or See the financial statement.).Your client, as a corporation is bound to
keep corporate documents and should have access to authentic documents. Should it be a
burden to copy these documents, I am prepared to accept verified electronic versions.
As for your assertion that certain requests are burdensome, the true test of burdensome
and harassing is whether the amount of work required to respond to the request is so
great, and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it defeats the ends of
justice to require responses. See Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
(Rolfe), 263 Cal. App. 2d 12, 21 (1968) (As the court said in Greyhound Corp. v.
Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 383-384, . . . a trial court In the exercise of its discretion
the court should weigh the relative importance of the information sought against the
hardship which its production might entail.). All discovery imposes some burden, but
[t]he objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in
injustice. West Pico Furniture, Co. v. Superior Court (Pacific Finance Loans), 56 Cal. 2d
407, 418 (1961). The party objecting must present evidence showing the quantum of
work required to respond to the discovery request. West Pico, 56 Cal. 2d at 417. You do
not even attempt to make such a showing. The mere fact that the response may be
expensive and burdensome did not justify a refusal to responds to the discovery. See
Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 45.
Further, an objection on the grounds of burden was not valid unless the burden results in
injustice. See Pantzalas v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1969) 272 Cal App 2d
499.
This is my final attempt to get a commitment from you on providing me with complete
and appropriate responses to my document requests. If I do not hear from you by the end
of business tomorrow with assurances that documents are forthcoming, I will file a
Motion to Compel and seek sanctions.
Respectfully,
George A. Sharp
310-498-4455
EXHIBIT E
George Sharp
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Robert Huston <bob_huston@yahoo.com>

Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:08 PM
George Sharp
Kenneth Stone
Re: Sharp v StockTips - Your Client: Coastal Integrated Services, Inc. MEET AND CONFER ATTEMPT NUMBER TWO
Mr. Sharp:
Thank you for the recitation of hornbook California discovery law. Given the state of the pleadings when my client's discovery responses were
prepared (my client's name not mentioned and no specific facts alleged re my client's purported conduct) the responses were entirely appropriate.
Now that you have at long last amended your pleading to directly name my client and to allege a small quantum of fact concerning its alleged
statutory violations, I will review the previous responses in that light and will give you a written conclusion by Monday, which may or may not
include some modified responses.
Robert J. Huston III
Attorney at Law
"We must reject the idea that every time that a law is broken society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept
that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Ronald Reagan
On Monday, May 23, 2016 3:04 PM, George Sharp <george@george-sharp.com> wrote:
Please see attached

Motion To Compel COLV To Respond To Request For Second Set of Documents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Compel COLV To Respond To Request For Second Set of Documents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Case No. 37-2015-0008210-CU-NP-CTL

Date: August 5, 2016

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

-1MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

Propounded to Defendant COASTAL INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter RPDs),

filing of this motion to compel further responses.

the time of hearing.

Dated: May 24, 2016

-2MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Defendant made identical blanket objections to each request.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS

for the divesture by the Defendants at over inflated prices.

production of documents seeks the discovery of information which is beyond the

transmission of unsolicited commercial emails, and therefore irrelevant,

immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Responding Party declines the request.

-3MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

courtesy of a response was not received.

Motion should be granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 states, in part:

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff Has a Right to Discovery from Defendant

In Fuss v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeals stated, in part, as follows:

-4MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

Californias discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for

settlement thereof. Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2001).

good cause exists to justify an order compelling the discovery sought.

Code Civ. Proc. 2031.210(a).

-5MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

With respect to Defendants responses to the RPDs, Defendant refused to produce

privileged responsive documents in response to RPD Nos. 6 and 7.

with the RPDs must be provided.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 defines discovery misuse as follows:

The Imposition of Sanctions against Defendant and Its Counsel Is

unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden

-6MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.

(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to

(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 states, in pertinent part:

To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular

the discovery process:

by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Emphasis added.)

discovery process, as do the failures to substantively meet and confer. As a result of

-7MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

Dated: May 24, 2016

-8MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES, SET TWO

DECLARATION OF GEORGE SHARP

I, George Sharp, declare as follows:

testify to the following.

copy of these discovery requests.

On April 12, 2016, I received by email a series of objections from Defendants

Counsel which were to be considered as responses to my Request for Production of Documents,

copy of this Meet and Confer letter.

is a true copy of this Meet and Confer letter.

and Confer letter.

I have advanced $60 as a filing fee for this motion.

PROOF OF SERVICE - CCP. 1013A, CG 002015.5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

documents described as PLAINTIFF GEORGE SHARPS NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION